Zoning Board of Appeals

MINUTES CITY OF TAUNTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS February 8, 2018 at 6:00 pm. (held at Maxham School, 141 Oak St, Taunton, Ma.) Members Present: Dennis Ackerman, Steven Vieira, Wayne Berube, Michael Staples, George Moniz and Sara Arbour. Meeting opens at 6:00 PM. Bill Egan present at: 6:47 PM Wayne made motion to approve minutes of December 21, 2017 and January 11, 2018. seconded by George. Case # 3118 - Request for 6-month extension – expires 3-21-18 Motion made and seconded to grant 6-month extension. Vote: Ackerman, Berube,Vieira, Arbour, Moniz...Yes 6-month extension granted. Case #3417 Housing Solutions Church Green LLC 68 Church Green A Variance from Section 440 -704 of the Zoning Ordinance for the development of a inclusionary residential development having 55 parking spaces for 40 units (instead of 80 parking spaces) Letter requesting a continuance. Motion made and seconded to grant one last continuance. Vote: Ackerman, Berube, Vieira, Arbour, Moniz.............Yes Petition continued Case # 3432 Ghazal 98 Margaret Rd. A Variance from Section 440-702 © & 440 attachment # 3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an Agricultural Use less than the required 300 feet from the nearest residential structure on an adjacent lot and to allow the existing structure to remain with a Zero foot side setback (instead of the 25 feet) Letter requesting a continuance and waiving the time frame on which to act on this proposal. Motion made and seconded to grant continuance. Vote: Ackerman, Berube,Viera, Arbour, Moniz..Yes Petition continued. 1 Cont’d. Case # 3423 Garcia 64 Floral St. A Variance from Section 440 attachment #3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the division of one lot into two lots with Lot 3 having 12,780 sq. ft. of lot area (instead of 15,000 sq. ft.) For the Petitioner: Atty. Kathryn Sullivan, Sullivan & Correira, 123 Broadway, Taunton, Ma. Manuel Garcia, Jr., 56 Cherry St., Taunton, Ma. In favor: David Chaves representing his wife, Donna Chaves, who owns 63 Floral St, Taunton, Ma. Jason Callahan, 57 Cherry St., Taunton, Ma. Opposed: Daniel Barbour, 78 Floral St., Taunton, Ma and representing 83 Floral St. owned by his family. Michael Silvia, 65 Floral St., Taunton, Ma. Patricia Thomas, 59 Cherry St., Taunton, Ma. Mark Terra, 65 Cherry St., Taunton, Ma. Sean Boyle, 59 Floral St., Taunton, Ma. Donna & Linda Sirois, 72 Floral St., Taunton, Ma. Petition signed by abutters opposed. Atty. Sullivan stated they continued last month to address concerns they heard from abutters and the Board. They submitted new plans showing re-configuration of the parking area. The previous plans had parking in front and they moved the driveway on the side. It’s a nicer greener image and they squared off the lots but did not change the lot size. They re-configured the lots because one of the neighbors (Barbour) pointed out it’s ice cream cone shape. They also eliminate the entrance off the corner. They propose to raise the current tile business building and replace with residential use. Mr. Garcia spoke with some neighbors and submitted petition of abutters in favor. She stated that 26 out of the 47 properties are actually smaller or equal size that their proposal. They listed a few addresses with multifamilies. 52 Floral Street - 3 family , 28 Winter St. – 3 family, 14 Winter St. – 3 family. Their two lots are 12,780 sq. ft and 15,000 sq. ft. Atty. Sullivan stated is a large undertaking for Mr. Garcia. It would not be feasible for a 2 family on each lot. He lives in the neighborhood and his daughter might live in one of the houses. Currently his view is of pavement and a granite business. His business is continuing to grow and he has re-located it to Winthrop Street., the Fenway Building. He did however; want to re-locate his office here and his wife’s beauty salon but he had opposition from the abutters so he withdrew that request. Steve asked if 33 properties they submitted are on abutters list. Steve stated they did great job re-configuring the lot and moving the driveways. He asked if they would be sold and he said he would be selling as units. Manny Garcia stated he has lived there since 1982 and there is a mix of people. Public input: David Chaves, representing his wife, Donna who owns 63 Floral St., stated Mr. Garcia is a good businessman and he thinks removing the commercial use and replacing with residential is a good thing for the neighborhood. Jason Callahan, 57 Cherry St., stated he remembers previous proposal for 2 a showroom and the expansion of the commercial use. Chairman Ackerman stated yes they submitted application of the expansion of the site but had opposition so it was withdrawn. Opposed: Michael Silvia, 65 Floral St. said he lives directly across the street and he submits petition signed by 23 abutters opposed. He stated the last time they were told to come back with 3 duplexes and move the driveway. He asked what’s the hardship? He stated it’s a case of the landowner’s desire to maximize his finances, which is not a hardship. He referenced the zoning ordinance. Opposed: Andrew Terra representing his parents, who reside at 65 Cherry Street. He stated the majority of the houses are single family and the multifamily pre-date zoning. He stated 9 out of the 35 properties are considered 2 or more units, 17 out of the 35 are less than the proposed lot 2. He questioned the shape factor? Steve pointed out the proposal is consistent to what is there. Opposed: Patricia Thomas, 59 Cherry Street, She hopes this Board will make the correct decision and she’s glad the petitioner’s business is booming but that’s not a reason to grant variance. She asks the Board to look at the zoning rules and not grant the relief. She went on to say how do we know the houses will be maintained? She went on to say about the neighborhood and some of the houses are dilapidated and overgrown trees. She stated the proposal is not about beautifying the neighborhood. Chairman Ackerman asked if she just referred to her neighborhood as a slum? She urged the Board to make the right decision and she questioned the integrity of the Board and if they had an underlying reason for approving things. Wayne was offended by her comments and there was an exchange of words as Mr. Thomas left meeting. Steve stated he didn’t hear anyone say there were going to approve anything because the applicant is nice guy and is appalled they would think that. Chairman Ackerman stated there has been a lot of opposition and he stated they listen to both sides and they know everyone is passionate about their neighborhood. Wayne reminded everyone that he created a legal lot by having a Form A approved by the Planning Board and now they have right to come before the ZBA. He stated he doesn’t even know the applicant and the Board must make a determination on whether or not it’s a reasonable request. Steve re-iterated that everyone has a “RIGHT” to come before the ZBA. George stated he realized the neighbors are passionate but the petitioner is making an investment and putting houses instead of a business. He has received phone calls and people said they were ok with a duplex and now they want nothing. Dan Barbour, 78 Floral Street stated no one is questioning the integrity of the Board. He stated he speaks for the majority of the neighbors and they don’t want 3 duplexes. Dan stated he was never contacted by the petitioner’s attorney. He stated the Chaves property was re-built. Dan stated the business has never really bothered him. What bothers him is the pie shaped lots they were proposing. He would be fine with 2 duplexes and one single. Chairman Ackerman asked Dan if it were denied they could put 2 duplexes with 6 bedrooms each and now they are here in front of us so we can place restrictions. Dan stated you can’t control it after its sold. He did ask if they dig up road for any construction they re-pave curb to curb. Donna Sirois, 72 Floral Street, stated they talked to her husband (81 years old) about what they were proposing. She is aware they have no say on what goes in on Lot 1 because it’s a conforming lot. Opposed: Linda Sirois, 72 Floral St. stated she has no issues with Mr. Garcia, it’s not personal. But her concerns are safety, there has been accidents right in front of her house. Atty. Sullivan stated the petition signed in opposition was based on the first proposal and different plans so it’s not relevant. Atty. 3 Sullivan stated she met with Mr. & Mrs. Terra and went over the new plans and she pointed the lot complies with the shape factor. She points out the hardship is the shape of the lots and the fact that it’s a pre-existing non-conforming commercial use and now they want to put a conforming use in. She stated the petitioner is not maximizing his land he’s just making it feasible to do it. He has tried to address the neighbor’s concerns and changed plans and withdrew request for triplex. Chairman Ackerman stated they can put restrictions for number of bedrooms. They stated a single family dwelling is not feasible? Atty. Sullivan said due to mortgages purposes a single family won’t work. Wayne stated the shape of the lot is triangular and he thinks a small single family dwelling would be better. Motion made and seconded to grant with the following conditions: 1. Approval based on new plans dated 11-27-17 revised on 1-2-18 showing Lot 2 having 12,780 square feet and Lot 3 having 15,000 square feet. 2. Lot 2 restricted to single family dwelling only. Vote: Ackerman, Moniz, Berube, Vieira, Staples......Yes Petition Granted Case # 3426 Woodby 1150 Middleboro Ave. For: A Variance from Section 440 Attachment #3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a rear setback of 2 feet (instead of 30 feet) for an existing 19.6 x 10’ shed. For the Petitioner: Michael & Heather Woodby, 1150 Middleboro Avenue, E. Taunton, Ma. In favor: Letter from William & Susan Malloch-Taylor, 1104 Middleboro Ave., E. Taunton, Ma. Letter from Marsha Rounds, 1155 Middleboro Ave., E. Taunton, Ma. Letter from Kenneth Enos, 1160 Middleboro Ave., E. Taunton, Ma. Opposed: Peter Conlon , 204 Bournehurst Dr., Plymouth, Ma. Mike stated they continued from last month so the Board members could go out and view the property. Mike stated the proposed location is the logical place for shed. He can possibly move a little towards the pond but not that much without going into the pond. He said he could move it to have a 10 foot setback. Wayne asked why can’t be move it more and Michael answers the septic system and leaching field and the sloping restricts where it can go. They suggested moving it too close to the existing dog kennel and he said he would want access to kennel and he wants it on flat land. Opposed: Peter Conlon, owns abutting vacant property in the rear. He says he owns ¾ of the pond and has a 50 foot ROW to his property in back. He said the existing shed is 10 x 20 and he’s still in the process of building it. He says he they have no hardship and he’s against it. It was asked if he was near the deeded right of way and it was answered no. George stated they walked the property and it does slop off and it restricts to where it can go. Chairman Ackerman read letter dept. letters from Conservation Commission, City 4 Planner and B.O.H. into the record. Wayne stated that the petitioner is a contractor and his testimony from last month is that he went on the website to get information. Wayne stated he should be more aware of the rules and check with the zoning department. It’s called accountability. Mr. Woodby stated he went on the building department website and since the shed was under 200 square feet a building permit is not needed. Mr. Woodby stated it wasn’t intentional. He stated the person who spoke in opposition lives in Plymouth and has landlocked property in back of ours. He stated the shed would be too close to trees and no residences and he has letters from neighbors in favor of location of shed. Motion made and second to grant with the following condition: 1. Shed to have a minimum 10 foot rear setback. Vote: Ackerman, Berube, Vieira, Arbour, Moniz....Yes. Petition Granted. Case # 3427 Thornley 4 Nelton Ave A Special Permit from Section 440-710 of the Zoning Ordinance for the renewal of an Accessory Dwelling Unit. For: A Special Permit from Section 440-710 of the Zoning Ordinance for the Renewal of an Accessory welling Unit, For the Petitioner: Katie Paquette, 671 Norton Ave., Taunton, Ma. Phyllis Haggerty, c/o 4 Nelton Ave., Taunton, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: None Katie states they are here tonight to renew the in-law for Eva Thornley. Chairman Ackerman asked if they are still living there and she answers yes. No one in favor or opposed. Chairman Ackerman read dept. letters from the City Planner, Board of Health and Conservation Commission. Motion made and seconded to grant as presented. Vote: Ackerman, Berube, Vieira, Arbour, Moniz .......... Yes Petition Granted Case # 3428 Binda 4 Williams Ave. A Special Permit from Section 440-#1 and a Variance from Section 440-602 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow two dwellings on one lot. For: A Special Permit from Section 440 Attachment #1 and a Variance from Section 440-602 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow two dwellings on one lot resulting in a 3 Family Use. For the Petitioner: Michael Binda, P. O. Box 435, East Taunton, Ma. 5 In favor: Petition signed by 10 abutters & residents in favor. Opposed: Kerry Hollywood, 17 Williams Avenue, Taunton, Ma. Mike states he is requesting to convert the outbuilding into a living unit for his sister & him to live. He will be adding a small addition to it and he will be meeting all setback requirements. Mike said this will be his primary residence. George asked if it will have city water & sewer and Mike answers yes. Mike asked if he would be using the existing slab and Mike said he will add a 10’ x 20’ addition to it. Mike submits petition signed by residents in favor. Mike stated it will be a 2 bedroom, kitchenette and bathroom, living room. George stated he just needs to adjust parking to avoid stacking and there is plenty of room. Opposed: Kerry Hollywood, 17 Williams Avenue stated she lives diagonally across and she says it floods. The street is also very narrow and there is a lot of bottlenecking. She asked where is the hardship? Chairman Ackerman stated he would have to go to the Conservation for a NOI filing. Letters from the City Planner, B.O.H and Conservation were read into the record. Mike stated he agrees it’s tough driving because of the narrow street. He will address the parking and the hardship is that he and his sister are currently residing in a one-bedroom condo and they need a bigger place. Motion made and seconded to grant with the following conditions: 1. Adjust parking to provide 6 spaces without stacking. 2. Restricted to 2 bedrooms. Vote: Ackerman, Berube, Arbour, Moniz, Staples .......... Yes Petition Granted Case # 3429 Braga 160 E. Water St. A Variance from Section 440-#3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow 24’ x 40’ garage having a front yard setback of 10 feet (instead of 25 feet) and side setback of 8 feet (instead of 15 feet) For the Petitioner: Mark Braga, 160 E. Water St. Taunton, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: None Mark stated he’s looking to build a garage for his motor home. Right now he’ s paying for storage. Sara asked if he could move it and Mark answers he doesn’t want to block access to his garage. No one in favor or opposed. Chairman Ackerman read dept. letters from the City Planner, Board of Health and Conservation Commission. Motion made and seconded to grant as presented. Vote: Ackerman, Berube, Vieira, Arbour, Moniz .......... Yes Petition Granted 6 Case # 3430 Mota Herbert St. 106-169 A Variance from Section 440-#3 of the Zoning Ordinance for a front yard setback of 5 feet (instead of 25 feet) on premises situated on Map 106 Lot 169, Herbert St. For: A Variance from Section 440 Attachment #3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a single family dwelling having a 5 foot front setback (instead of 25 feet) For the Petitioner: Karen Patneaude, P.E., Earth Services Corp., 198 Crane Ave .So. Taunton, Ma. Nelson Mota, 65 Garden St., E. Taunton, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: None Karen stated this lot was approved in 2009 by the ZBA and approve by the Planning Board. They recently found out there is ledge and boulders and the proposed location is the only place it can go. Karen stated Bartlett Street is a paper street and has wetlands located on it so it’s unlikely it can be constructed. She stated the road might be petitioned to be discontinued. Wayne asked if there is City sewer and water? Karen answers City Water and septic system. She stated there are huge stones its unbelievable. Chairman Ackerman asked if they could possible move the driveway away from the lot in front (Pontes)? Karen said that’s a common driveway between the two lots and they can’t move it due to the sloping of the property. Chairman Ackerman asked if they are still living there and she answers yes. Kenneth Pontes, 40 Herbert St., spoke in favor of proposal. He has no problem with it. Chairman Ackerman read dept. letters from the City Planner, Board of Health and Conservation Commission. Motion made and seconded to grant as presented. Vote: Ackerman, Berube, Vieira, Arbour, Moniz .......... Yes Petition Granted Case # 3431 Big Red Properties LLC 980 Rocky Woods St. For: A Variance from Section 440 Attachment #2 and 440-501/502 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the use of 2.23 acres of a 48.4 acre parcel of land for parking and outdoor storage area in a Rural Residential District and Highway Business District . For the Petitioner: Atty. John Zajac, 490 Winthrop St. Taunton, Ma. Brian Dunn, MLB Land Development & Permitting Corp., 770 Broadway, Ste. 6, Raynham, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: Joyce Wilkins, 1095 Rocky Wood St., Taunton, Ma. Joseph Wakefield, 940 Rocky Woods St., Taunton, Ma. Dianne Gallego, Rocky Woods St. Taunton, Ma. Erica Koch, 1080 Rocky Woods St., Taunton, Ma. 7 Atty. Zajac stated Gil Lopes and Joe Tutsch could not be here due to a prior commitment but they would want to meet with the abutters who have concerns so they would be asking for a continuance. The Board would like to hear from the abutters who are here tonight. Atty. Zajac stated this property is 980 Rocky Woods Street and has frontage on Winthrop Street. They will be using the access from Winthrop Street. They have a 48.4 acre parcel but only proposing to use 2.23 acres for parking and outdoor storage. Bill asked if they are using for dry storage? Atty. Zajac answers yes just storage of vehicles and there will be no repairs. It was asked if it would be 24 hours operation and Atty. Zajac answers it’s not expected. George stated they would be entering and exiting from Winthrop Street so there will be no traffic off Rocky Woods Street and Atty. Zajac answered that is correct. He stated there are trees all around the perimeter of the parcel and they will need to go to Conservation about wetland replication. Steve stated they are here for a “use” variance. He states he has some concerns with the nature of the use. Atty. Zajac stated there are wetlands so they cannot develop for residential. It was noted the houses are about 600 feet way. Opposed: Joyce Wilkins, 1095 Rocky Woods Street stated she is worried about contamination of her well with the storage of vehicles. They bought the property in2016 and they had to know it has wetlands on it. She stated they have other places where they can park vehicles without bothering the priority habitat. She referenced the other business on Berkley Street of which Lopes owns and neighbors aren’t happy with the increase in noise, dust, etc. She stated there has been an increase in rats in the neighborhood since they have been accepting trash at the recycling business. Eirca Koch, 1080 Rocky Woods St. stated she’ s night shift worker and her sleep the noise is disturbing her sleep. She thanked the Board the chance to speak. Opposed: Diane Gallego, Rocky Woods St. stated they knew there were wetlands on property when they bought it. She knew Lopes was there when she bought her property and didn’t say anything even though it’s noisy and now smelly. The Board stated they will continue to allow the applicant to meet with neighbors and keep public input open. Motion made and seconded to continue until next month. Atty. Zajac waives the time frame on which to act on this proposal. Motion made and seconded to grant continuance. Vote: Berube, Vieira, Arbour, Moniz, Ackerman.....Yes Petition continued. Meeting adjourned at 8:50 PM. 8 9 Case # 3423 Garcia 64 Floral St. A Variance from Section 440 attachment #3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the division of one lot into two lots with Lot 3 having 12,780 sq. ft. of lot area (instead of 15,000 sq. ft.) Letter requesting a continuance. Motion made and seconded to Grant continuance. Vote: Ackerman, Arbour, Moniz, Vieira, Berube....Yes Petition Continued Case # 3426 Woodby 1150 Middleboro Ave. Meeting held on Jan. 11, 2018 For: A Variance from Section 440 Attachment #3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a rear setback of 2 feet (instead of 30 feet) for an existing 19.6 x 10’ shed. For the Petitioner: Michael & Heather Woodby, 1150 Middleboro Avenue, E. Taunton, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: None Mr. Woodby sated he put up shed without a building permit because it was under 200 square feet. He went on-line to see if a building permit was needed and it wasn’t. The location is the only logical place because there is a pond and a tremendous slope in the property. He stated he doesn’t have any neighbors who would be affected by this.. There is a landlocked unbuildable piece of property in the rear of which the owners lives out of town. He stated 2 neighbors are in favor. They went to Conservation Commission and received approval. Wayne asked if he thought to call the planning & zoning office to inquire about the rules. Mr. Woodby stated no, he’s a builder not a contractor and he admitted he made a mistake. Chairman Ackerman stated looking at the plans the shed could be moved on the side of the existing driveway. Mr. Woodby stated he really doesn’t want to put his shed in the front yard and the whole sideway slopes. Chairman Ackerman stated the plans don’t indicate any sloping. There was some discussion about the slope and Chairman Ackerman stated he hadn’t had a chance to go out and view property. He suggests a continuance so the Board can see if there is a slope. Sara asked why would be require them to come back if no one is here opposing and they have shown there is a slope and this is the only logical space for a shed. Chairman Ackerman said the Board can ask for certain things, in his opinion, he would like to go out and view property. Mr. Woodby stated he would be ok with continuing to allow Board to go out and look. Steve asked if the plans submitted accurately show what is out there. They asked when the shed was built and Mrs. 10 Woodby answers they stated in May and stopped in July after being told to be the Building Department. They asked if they got a cease and desist order and she said no but was told to get zoning approval. Motion made and seconded to continue to February 8, 2018 Vote: Ackerman, Berube, Vieira, Arbour, Moniz .......... Yes Petition continued. 11