Zoning Board of Appeals

MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 17, 2022 at 6:00 PM at 15 Summer St- City Hall Members Present: Dennis Ackerman, Wayne Berube, Steve Vieira, Seth Turner, George Moniz and John Joyce. Meeting opens at 6:05 PM Chairman Ackerman explains the ZBA process. They hear presentation from petitioner, hear opposition and in favor and then go back to petitioner to answer any questions. They do not go back and forth. Case # 3688 Binda 49 Plain St.(lot 92-184, Lot 92-196) For: A Special Permit from Section 440 Attachment #1 and a Variance from Section 440- 602, 440-704 and Section 440 Attachment #3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow 13 residential units on a lot having 39,486.94 sq. ft. of lot area & dry area (instead of 43,560 sq. ft. for each) 90 feet of frontage & lot width (instead of 100 feet for each) with 17 parking spaces (instead of the req’d. 26 spaces) on premises situated at 49 Plain St. a.k.a. property I.D. 92-184 and Property I.D. 92-196 For the Petitioner: Atty. Brianna Correira, 123 Broadway, Taunton, Ma. Northcounty Group, 4 Court St., Taunton, Ma. Mike Binda, 4A Williams St, Taunton, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: William Hausen, 53 Plain St., Taunton, Ma Mariano Pimental, 51 Plain St., Taunton, Ma. Atty. Correira stated the petitioner is proposal for elderly housing and wishes to add another building in back of the existing 3 family dwelling, which results in 13 units on this parcel. They will be combining the 2 lots. Atty. Correira stated they lot is skinny in front and widens at you go towards the rears. The rear parcel is landlocked. The shape and 26 foot elevation creates a hardship. The neighborhood consists of mixed uses such as single family, 2 family and 3 family houses. Under the ordinance they would be allowed to put 16.3 units but they are only proposing 13 units. They are preserving green space and have met with neighbors and have listened to their concerns. They can provide the required parking but after the neighborhood meeting the neighbors would rather see less parking. They have provided new plans showing 22 parking spaces, moved the proposed building to the rear and moved the dumpster near the dwelling. They will provide lighting that does not illuminate or interfere with any abutting properties. There has been some unruly behavior on this lot and having it occupied will eliminate that. The new building will be for elderly housing and the 3 family had tenants 1 and they will remain. They are planning on working with CCBC and this type of housing is needed. John showed the new plans showing all the required parking (26 spaces) but this type of housing doesn’t need that much parking as many residents will use the shuttle. John J. asked what shuttle and it was answered that CCBC provides a van/shuttle for elderly to schedule rides. The plan they would like to have approved is the plan showing 22 parking spaces, pushed building further back, moved dumpster closer to building and added fence and lighting. John explained the type of lighting they would be using, George Washington lamps and low lights. John J. stated they would not get a truck in there to empty the dumpster. The frontage is 22 feet wide and with the way it’s laid out there is not enough room for anyone to maneuver around. John also pointed out the lighting is not conducive to elderly housing. John thinks it’s too much in a small area. Chairman Ackerman suggests putting 3 more lights along the driveway to light it up more. He also suggests eliminate a parking space to have more room for the dumpster. It was asked where the snow would go? John D. answers where the greenspace is. Steve stated for the health and safety and the well being of the residents living there he cannot vote for this. He doesn’t thinks it’s a good layout. John stated there is no hardship that correlates to adding 10 units. Atty. Correira re-iterated they were not exceeding the density. Wayne also stated there is no hardship relating to the shape and topography of the lot. He noted the lot was in its current condition when it was purchased in July 2022. Wayne thought the project is over kill and there is no hardship in his opinion. Public Input: Mariano Pimental, 51 Plain St, stated they did meet with the petitioner and stated his concern was the boundary line behind his property. The cemetery wall and he brought his concern to Attorney Correira and it was stated once the plan is approved then it will be properly surveyed and staked. He didn’t think that made sense. He did say they did address his conerns with parking and lighting. Chairman Ackerman stated he tends to agree with Mr. Pimental and would want that question resolved before they vote on this. He would like documentation on the boundary line. Wayne asked if they surveyed the property and John D. stated they did a lot of surveying but plans only shows the proposed corners. Wayne stated he’s not in agreement with the hardship . claimed. William Husin, 53 Plain St. stated he appreciated they modified the plans but wants to make sure the lighting doesn’t interfere with abutters. Steve asked if there was anything in land court relative the boundary issues that was brought up earlier and it was answered no. Chairman Ackerman suggests continuing to resolve boundary (survey) and Steve stated in his opinion there is no reason to continue, no hardship, no turnaround for emergency vehicles, and he thinks the proposal doesn’t’ fit in with the neighborhood. Unless they re-configure it in a major way. Atty. Correira requested to withdraw petition. Motion to allow withdrawal wasn’t entertained. Dept. comments from City Planner, Water, Conservation Commission, Fire, and B.O.H. were read into the record. Motion made and seconded to grant as presented: Vote: Ackerman, Turner ….Yes Vieira, Berube, Joyce…NO Petition Denied 2 Case # 3690 Dooley 242 School St. & 47-256 & 47-227 For: A Variance from Section 440 Attachment .#3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the re-configuration of 3 lots into 2 buildable lots with both lots having 7,500 sq. ft. of lot area & dry area (instead of 10,000 sq. ft. lot area and 8,000 dry area ) for the construction of a 2 family dwelling Lot 2.) on premises situated at 242 School St.( 47-225 and prop. I.D. 47-226 and 47-227) Taunton, Ma. For the Petitioner: Atty. Dan deAbreau, 174 Dean St., Unit B , Taunton, Ma. Colby Dooley, 242 School St., Taunton, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: None Atty. deAbreau stated petitioner bought house lot and then bough other lot from city auction. The existing hose is a 2 family and they wish to re-configure the 3 lots into two buildable lots. One will have the existing 2 family and other lot will have duplex. The property is located in an established neighborhood consisting of smaller lots. The addition of a duplex on the new lot will remain in harmony with the neighborhood. The petitioner plans on moving into one side of the duplex. Chairman Ackerman asked if it had city water & sewer and it was answered yes. Dept. comments from City Planner, Water, Conservation Commission and B.O.H. were read into the record. Public Input: No one in favor or against. John asked if they bought lot from city abutter’s auction program. Mr. Dooley answers he bought it through public auction. George asked if they were going to use the paper road as driveway It was answered No. Motion made and seconded to grant as presented: Vote: Ackerman, Berube, Moniz, .Vieira, Turner ….Yes Petition Granted Case # 3695 Rose 40 Wales St. For: A special Permit from Section 440-503 of the Zoning Ordinance to amend case # 3563 and allow the construction of a 5’ x 16.67’ covered front porch with front yard setback of 9.3’ (instead of 25’) and a side yard setback of 9.4’ (instead of 15’) on premises situated at 40 Wales St., Taunton, Ma. For the Petitioner: NorthCounty Group, 4 Court St., Taunton, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: None John stated they were here 2 years ago to expand the first floor of the house. They received approval for a small stoop with stairs, they now want to have a covered porch. They would like to extend the front to a covered porch to make it look nice. It will be more in line with the rest of the neighborhood. George states he knows of the property and it will be compatible with the neighborhood and has no issues with it. Public Input: 3 no one in favor or opposed. Dept. comments from City Planner, Water, Conservation Commission and B.O.H. were read into the record. Motion made and seconded to grant as presented: Vote: Ackerman, Berube, Moniz, .Vieira, Turner ….Yes Petition Granted Case # 3696 DaSilva Prop. I.D. 46-289, 46-290, 46-283, 46-284 (paper streets Saco, Somer and Springfield St.) For: A Variance from Section 440-602 & Section 440 attachment #3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a single family dwelling on a lot having 0 feet of frontage & lot width (instead of 75 feet) on premises situated on the westerly side of Eldridge St, known as Prop. I.D. 46-289, 46-290, 46-283, 46-284 (paper streets Saco, Somer and Springfield St.) Taunton, Ma. For the Petitioner: Atty. Alan Medeiros, 4 Court St., Taunton, Ma. Victor DaSilva, 115 Eldridge St., Taunton, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: None Chairman Ackerman checked with the City Engineer about putting driveway over Saco Street and he asked if they had right to it? Atty. Medeiros answers they have a 20 foot easement on 115 Eldridge St. to get to the property in back. Chairman Ackerman stated he was talking about putting a driveway on a section of Saco Street? Atty. Medeiros stated it’s an unconstructed paper street and he thinks each person that owns property around it has the right to use it. His client owns land all around it so he doesn’t anticipate any issues. Dept. comments from City Planner, Water, Conservation Commission, Fire, and B.O.H. were read into the record. Atty. Medeiros relative to the City Engineer’s in regards to doing a roadway improvements plan for Springfield Street. It would be too costly to do that for one house lot. He stated the petitioner has approval to build a garage on this lot but never did. They will be tying into city water and sewer through Eldridge Street. Petitioner built his house in 2011 and now wished to downsize. He would like to build a single level single family house. He talked to neighbors and no one is here opposing. He has people approach him to sell lot for a duplex but he wanted to keep it for he & his wife to live. It was asked if he had any issue with it being restricted to a single family and he said he’s fine with that. Wayne asked about the 20 foot wide easement? Atty. Medeiros stated his recorded on the deed in Book 27998, page 220. He will supply the office with a copy. Public Input: No one in favor or opposed. Motion made and seconded to grant as presented with the following condition: 1. Restricted to single family dwelling. 2. Provide a copy of the 20 foot wide easement prior to a building permit. 4 Vote: Ackerman, Berube, Moniz, Vieira, Turner ….Yes Petition Granted Case # 3697 Nedell Willis Pond Rd. 45-1 – Norton Ave. For: A Variance from Section 440 attachment #3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a single family house on Lot 1 having 32,324 sq. ft. of dry area (instead of 43,560 sq. ft.) For the Petitioner: Atty. Edmund Brennan, 174 Dean St., Unit B, Taunton, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: None Atty. Brennan states the parcel is 17 acres and there are extensive wetlands on the property. The only variance they need is for dry area. The shape & soils create a hardship to the land. Many lots in the area were developed under the old SRD requirements having smaller lot sizes. Atty. Brennan states he’s understands there is a roadway improvement plans approved for Wills Pond Rd. It was asked if there is water and it was answered yes but don’t think there is sewer. Dept. comments from City Planner, Water, Conservation Commission and B.O.H. were read into the record. Public Input: No one in favor or against. Motion made and seconded to grant as presented: Vote: Ackerman, Berube, Moniz, .Vieira, Turner ….Yes Petition Granted The Board members congratulated Denise on her 25 years working for the Board. Meeting adjourned at 7:21 PM OTHER BUSINESS: 5