Zoning Board of Appeals

CITY OF TAUNTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 8, 2018 at 6:00 PM (Meeting held at Maxham School, 141 Oak St., Taunton, Ma) Members Present: Chairman Ackerman, Berube, Arbour, Staples, Vieira, Moniz, and Egan. Meeting called to order at 6:02 PM Chairman Ackerman explained the process of which the ZBA conducts its meetings. They listen to the petitioner/Attorney, then opposition or in favor and then back to the petitioner. They do not go back and forth. Wayne made motion to approve the October 18, 2018 minutes, seconded by Steve. All in favor. Case # 3414 – 8 Wilson Street – Requesting a 6 month extension – Motion made and seconded to grant 6-month extension Vote: Arbour, Berube, Ackerman, Vieira, Moniz....Yes 6-month extension granted. Cont’d. Case # 3460 Woodward Worcester St., 27-159 For: A Variance from Section 440-602 (A) (C) and 440-Attchment #1 of the Zoning Ordinance to the creation of 2 buildable lots. Lot 1 having 75 feet of frontage (instead of 150’) and 71.02 feet of lot width (instead of 100’) and Lot 2 having 75 feet of frontage (instead of150’) and 64.87 feet of lot width (instead of 100’) and a shape factor of 42.7 (instead of 35) for the construction of a single family dwelling on each lot on premises situated on the northerly side of Worcester Street, known as Parcel I.D. 27-159. For the Petitioner: Atty. Thomas Gay, Jr., Gay & Gay, P.C. P. O. Box 988, Taunton, Ma. In favor: Adam Woodward, 8 Eddy St., Norton, Ma. David Chaves, 186 Ashleigh Terr. Owns property across the street Opposed: Todd Castro, 325 Worcester St., Taunton, Ma. Bruce Lach, 130 Wintergreen Lane, Taunton, Ma. Stephen & Linda Lamb, 140 Wintergreen Lane, Taunton, Ma. Atty. Gay submitted map showing the distances from abutting houses. He stated the Castro property would be 165 feet away from proposed new house. The map shows the tree line and shows 135 feet between Lamb and Lot 2. Atty. Gay stated they would be willing to do a common driveway then split it. Atty. Gay stated they did attempt to purchase land from McDonald that connect to 130 Wintergreen but was unsuccessful. That triangular shape lot doesn’t serve any but his client or 130 Wintergreen. Their offer 1 was well above market rate but was unsuccessful. Atty. Gay stated these proposed lots are larger than the rest in the neighborhood. He is willing to work with the Board and place some buffer restrictions. He stated he can move forward with only one lot but they don’t want to go that route. Bill asked how they would do a shared driveway and it was answered along lots 1 and 2. In favor: Dave Chaves, 186 Ashleigh Terrace owns property across the street and he’s in favor or proposal. Opposed: Dan McCarthy, 135 Wintergreen Lane, is opposed to 2 lots. He asked how can they ask for a waiver of the zoning rules. Wayne explained to that is what the Zoning Board does is vote on whether or not a variance should be granted. Todd Castro, 325 Worcester St. stated he’s opposed to 2 lots. He stated this is a classic example of a pork chop lot. If they are approved he asks the Board to consider fencing. It was stated it it’s only one lot they cannot put any restrictions on it. If was asked if Todd has city water and he answered well water. Steven Lamb, 140 Wintergreen Lane he prefers one lot only. They are trying to stuff 2 houses in and it’s going to bring their property values down. Bruce Lach, 130 Wintergreen Lane states he’s in favor of one house lot. He stated they are only doing this for profit. He didn’t think they had enough frontage for one lot? He also stated he didn’t appreciate at the last meeting being threatened by the applicant with clear cutting the land and possibly doing a chapter 40B housing development. Atty. Gay understands their concerns and he re-iterated that both these lots are bigger than all the abutter’s lots who spoke in opposition. He stated the Board has the jurisdiction of placing some conditions on buffer zones if they approve. If there is only one lot the Board can’t impose any conditions for the neighbors. He stated they are willing to work with Mr. Castro with buffers. Atty. Gay stated the property is landlocked and there is a substantial hardship in that this was not part of the subdivision. He stated they are 2 separate lot and they are combining a rear portion from Berthlette to add to the lot. He stated the Board could approve and place conditions to satisfy the abutters. He addressed at the end of the last meeting his client announced his options but he does not want to do that. Chairman Ackerman reminded all a Chapter 40B project requires consultant fees and could be costly. Adam Woodward apologized for his behavior last meeting. He is just trying to help his father who went through a divorce, broke his ankle and is getting older. He wants to help his father financially. He has lives here all his life and has property that goes into Norton on Eddy Street. He stated he was caught off guard last month and he didn’t mean it. George asked if they would be selling both house lots? Adam answers yes. Chairman Ackerman asked if they had a buyer and Adam answers no. Wayne stated given all the evidence he feels it’s appropriate for one house lot. He stated it’s narrow and shape comes into play and approval would be approving 2 non-conforming lots. Sara thanked Mr. Woodward for publically apologizing for his behavior last meeting. Motion made and seconded to Grant as presented Vote: Arbour, Moniz, Berube, Vieira, Ackerman.........No Petition Denied 2 Case # 3477 Alpert 395 Norton Ave. For A Special Permit & Variance from Section 440-710 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow an Accessory Dwelling Unit and allow it to be over the maximum 850 sq. ft. (proposed 1105 sq. ft.) and over the 30% habitable floor area of the building. For the Petitioner: David Alpert, 395 Norton Ave., Taunton, Ma. In Favor: None Opposition: None Mr. Alpert stated he wants to create living space for his parents to live. Wayne asked if they would be living in the existing footprint? Mr. Alpert answers in the basement all they need to do is add a kitchen. The house is only 10 years old. The living unit will have 1 bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, living room. No one appearing in opposition or in favor. Motion to Grant as Presented: Ackerman Berube, Moniz, Arbour, Vieira ………………Yes Petition Granted: Case #3418Remand - Neighborhood of Affordable Housing Inc. (NOAH) - 1,15- 31Main St. A Special Permit from 440 Attachment #1 of the Zoning Ordinance for a mixed use development consisting of 38 residential units with commercial use on first floor on premises situated at 1, 15-31 Main Street, Taunton, Ma. This is a Remand Public Hearing – pursuant to Trial Court of Massachusetts The Superior Court - specifically to review, modify and/or clarify condition #1, 2, 5, 8 and 9 of the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals in Case #3418. For the Petitioner: Atty. David Gay, P. O. Box 988, Taunton, Ma. Maura Camosse Tsongas, Director of Real Estate Dev. In favor: None Opposed: Atty. Joseph deMello, representing Krijo Realty Trust, 69-71 Main St. Taunton, Ma. Chairman Ackerman informed everyone this is a Remand case from Superior Court and they can only speak about specific things like conditions 1,2,5,8 and 9. Chairman Ackerman stated he met with Atty. Gay and came to a compromise and Atty. Gay dealt with the City Solicitor. Conditions #1 says 36 residential units and they want 38 units, Condition #2 relative to play/recreation area on 2nd & 3rd floors . According to the State this would require a daycare license of which they don’t have. Regarding fencing, remove the word fenced in so it will be easier for plowing. #8 relative to Occupancy permit. Just change to “No final occupancy permit” . #9 relative to Management Company, change to “the applicant will also have a management company on site at least two days during every week”. There are no changes to the other conditions. Atty. Gay feels this project is a great benefit which will cost approximately 15 million dollars. They need to get approval by the State by February. George asked how big are the units? 3 Atty. Gay answers about 500 – 600 square feet similar to the one they toured in Middleboro, Ma. Chairman Ackerman agrees it makes sense to remove fencing around the parking lot. Chairman Ackerman read letters from the Conservation Commission, B.O.H. and BID into the record. Opposed: Atty. Joseph deMello, 71 Main St., representing Crijo Properties, 69-71 Main St.. He has been in the City since 1986. He stated the petitioner originally wanted 39 units, the Board approved 36 units with 2 levels and put restriction on providing space for children to gather. He wondered how many bedrooms will be in the additional 2 units? He stated the site is already dense and to add another 2 units results in more humans and more parking. He has no objection to the removal of the fencing around the parking area. He didn’t think there was any compromise with the petitioner. He feels 36 is less than 38 but still feels it’s dense . He didn’t think 2 units will make or break the project. It was noted they are trying to put more landscaping in. Atty. deMello states providing the assembly area for children to gather doesn’t justify 2 more units. Atty. Gay stated the 2 additional units will be 1 bedroom and the reason they appealed is because they need to have 38 units to make the project work. George stated at the last meeting it was indicated they were pressed for a vote because of the deadline and they the case gets appealed. George states that was disconcerning to him and he feels like he was misled. Maura Camosse Tsongas, Director of Real Estate Development answered that they couldn’t get the funding because of the condition relative to the play area for children which under the State requires them to have a daycare license. She stated a lot of time and money has been spent on this project and it wasn’t a lie at the last meeting they tried to get funding. Bill was confused about the license they need? It was clarified the State interprets the “play area” or common assembly area” as a day care under their guidelines which requires a license of which they don’t have. Wayne stated he’s not prepared to vote tonight. He suggests taking it under advisement. Motion made and seconded to take under advisement: Vote: Berube, Moniz, Vieira, Ackerman...... Yes Arbour................................................................No Taken under advisement. OTHER BUSINESS: Case #3454 – School Street – Map 48, Parcel 34, Change in size of house (4 feet bigger) Board needs to determine if it’s a minor or major change. The applicant wishes to withdraw his request. No action taken. Meeting adjourned at 7:11 PM 4 5