Zoning Board of Appeals

MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 25, 2023 at 6:00 PM at 15 Summer St- City Hall Members Present: Dennis Ackerman, Steve Vieira, John Joyce, George Moniz, John (Jake) Doherty, and Seth Turner. Meeting opens at 6:02 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. Steve made motion to accept minutes of 12-28-23 seconded by George. All in favor. Election of Officers – Chairman and Clerk George nominated Dennis Ackerman for Chairman, Seconded by Steve. Steve made motion to close nominations, seconded by George. Vote: Doherty, Moniz, Vieira, Joyce, Turner, Turner…….Yes Dennis abstains from voting. Dennis Ackerman was elected Chairman, George nominates Steve Vieira for Clerk, seconded by Jake. George made motion to close nominations, seconded by Jake Vote: Ackerman, Doherty, Joyce, Turner, Moniz, Turner……Yes Steve Vieira abstains from vote Steve Vieira was elected Clerk Case # 3752 GTE Taunton Realty, LLC 295 Broadway For: A Variance from Section 440-702 and Section 440 attachment #3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a maximum of 85% lot coverage in a Highway Business District (instead of 80% max.) and the elimination of Rear and North side landscaping buffer, and a reduction of front landscaping buffer from 10 feet to 1.8’ Letter requesting a 2 month continuance. Steve made motion to grant continuance to March meeting and inform them to move forward in March or they can withdraw, seconded by Jake Vote: Ackerman, Moniz, Doherty, Vieira, Joyce,…….Yes Petition continued to March 28th 1 Case # 3753 Albert Tucan TRS 295R Broadway For: A Variance from Section 440-702 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the elimination of the south side yard and rear yard landscaping buffer requirement Letter requesting a 2 month continuance. Steve made motion to grant continuance to March meeting and inform them to move forward in March or they can withdraw, seconded by Jake Vote: Ackerman, Moniz, Doherty, Vieira, Joyce,…….Yes Petition continued to March 28th Case # 3759 Dauphinais 120R Berkley St. For: A Special Permit from Section 440-503 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming building & use by allowing the installation of 2 above ground fuel storage tanks (one 1,000 gallon tank for gasoline & one 9,950 gallon tank for diesel) for the company vehicles and fleet use. For the Petitioner: Mark Smith, P.E., CMG Environmental Services, 67 Hall Rd., Sturbridge, Ma. Chris Dauphinais, Dauphinais Concrete Inc., 120R Berkley S. Taunton, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: Cathy & Peter Rodrigues, 152 Berkley St, Taunton, Ma. Albert LaFreniere, 8R Beacon St, Taunton, Ma. Lisa DeSilva, 188 Berkley St., Taunton, Ma. Virginia Workman, 180 Berkley St., Taunton, Ma. Rita Shearstone, 166 Berkley St., Taunton, Ma. Charles Farrell, 44 Pratt St., Taunton, Ma. Scott Rolfe, 29 Pratt St., Taunton, Ma. James, Sheila & Beverly Quinter, 135 Berkley St., Taunton, Ma. James O’Brien, 0 Jerome St., Taunton, Ma. ZBA Member George Moniz recused. Chris states they took over concrete business in September 2023 and the property consists of 19 acres with a crushing plant on the entire east side of property. They are proposing to add 9,950 gallon tank for diesel and 1,000 gallon for gasoline. They are here for a special permit for an expansion of a pre-existing use. The tanks will be 200 feet away from all property lines at the closest point. It won’t be visible, no noise and odor. The tanks will only be for the company vehicles already on the property. The site has a license to hold up to 20,000 gallon and they are under that. Chis states this will be a betterment to the property as they currently have a fuel truck come to site. They get fuel from single wall truck. The new tanks will comply with all regs. and will be safer than what former owner has been using. When he purchased the site there was an old truck with fuel on site which didn’t looks that safe. This proposal would be a much safer with the double walled tans. All must be permitted by Fire Dept. 2 Chairman Ackerman asked what type of tank is being proposed? Chris answers it will be a UL 2085 tank, fire rated, double walled tank, which is essentially a tank within a tank, concrete insulation. It will be balistic and fire tested and have a 10 year warranty top of the line tanks. All piping and plumbing will be per the fire code. There will be concrete blocks to act as buffer. They will have spill containment area which captures in small manhole. There will be a high level alarm that will be off alerting of leak. Chairman Ackerman was concerned with the loud alarm going off in a residential area. He asked if they looked at any alternative? Chris said yes wet fuel but that means an offsite company comes in and we are relying on those employees who are not trained. Chairman Ackerman stated that is incorrect, the drivers are trained. He was concerned with the way it’ proposed now is your employees will be dispensing gas and are they trained? Chairman Ackerman stated he knows of 4 diesel companies that could provide diesel. He stated OSHA keeps track of them. Chairman Ackerman has major concerns that this will be in the heart of a residential neighborhood. He stated you have 2 choices, either have your drivers put gas in your vehicles or have a company with expertise come in and do it. He referenced Dennis Burke in the industrial park. Steve asked about fire suppression and a vehicle movement plan? Mark stated they will have an alarm mounted on the outside of building and there will be a storage room with electrical controls. It was asked if they needed the State Fire Marshall’s approval. Mark stated they don’t require a permit from State Fire Marshall. John asked about the fuel area and where the fuel residue goes? Chris answers they have a concrete pad with ripples which absorbs any residue. The size of the tanker that delivers will be that of a home delivery truck. It was asked if they will have multiply deliveries? It was noted truck will probably come filled and this stop will be one of the deliveries of the day. There will be no tractor trailer truck delivering. John asked about the existing license you have? Chris said they were informed by Capt. Bastis they have a valid permit for 20,000 gallons. John asked why have gas and he can see why diesel? Chris answers they have few service trucks that use regular gasoline. John suggest eliminate gas tank and only have diesel. John asked if he reached out to neighbors? Chris stated he is more than happy to work with them. Chris stated he’s aware of the issues the neighbors have with the site and the previous owners. John thought it would had been in your best interest to reach out to the neighbors knowing they had concerns with the existing businesses and now to add this. Chris stated the prior owners have neglected the site and he cleaned up the site. He knows his business is a early morning business. He had similiar issue in Bellingham and they had to notify police 24 hours in advance along with building inspector. He takes pride in his business and he wants to be a good neighbor. John stated he had the opportunity to meet neighbors and he’s aware this site historically has had issues. John stated he should have engaged with neighbors. Chris stated he’s aware the neighbors have concerns but it’s with the other business on site. They have issues with the rock crushing business of which he does not run. It’s dirty and loud and they are going to try and make some changes. Steve stated he looked up on the Mass DOT website that above storage tanks must be inspected by the State Fire Marshall Office. Mark stated that he’s under the understanding they do not need to be inspected by State Fire Marshall because it’s under the size limit so the local fire dept. has jurisdiction. Jake asked if there was any oil/water separator? Mark stated no but they have a SPCCM plan which diverts any drainage to a specific area. Chairman Ackerman asked if the 3 tanks will be on a foundation and it was answered on a concrete pad. Chairman Ackerman asked if they have leak does an alarm go off? Mark answers yes they have a monitoring system and it will notify owner. There is always someone on site during fueling. It was asked how old are the trucks and it was answered they have some 2007 truck and up to 2018 trucks. They also have diesel truck and tow truck. Steve would like to see a 3rd party notified in case of leak. John asked if all trucks on site are registered? It was answers just the front end loaders. So if there is no inspections how do you know vehicles/equipment is safe. Chris answers he has in-house mechanic who maintains the equipment/vehicles. John asked if granted will they be selling gas? Chris answers no just for their vehicles, not even the other company on site. Chairman Ackerman read dept. comments from City Planner, Fire, Engineer, B.O.H., Conservation Commission and Water Dept. Public Input: Cathy Rodriguez, 152 Berkley St. so owns 158 Berkley St. She has been very nervous since she received the notice of this meeting. She stated this business is located in a thickly settled residential neighborhood with a lot of elderly and disabled residents. They are very vulnerable and are afraid. The proposed tanks will be 20 feet away from her house and she states the property is not secure. She stated they can go home at night but we live there and are concerned about a gas spill. Albert LaFreniere, 8R Beacon St. He took a walk around the fence line and saw 2 tanks. Lisa DeSilva, 188 Berkley St. She asked about the two 250 gallon tank and asked if they have temp. permission will those go away if this is approved? She asked if the rock crushing business be using fuel too? Chairman Ackerman stated they answered no. the only ones who will use these gas from tanks are the concrete business ow they have on-site delivery. All she wants is her yard to be safe. She thinks it’s a hinderance and dangerous. Beverly, Sheila & James Quinter, 135 Berkley St.. opposed. James O’Brien, 0 Jerome St. lives ¼ mile from site and is opposed. He stated Amaros gas station had sill and he is worried. He pointed out the fact that they are asking for just the required for a permit/inspection. They have dangerous materials on site and it’s not safe to live there. It’s a major environmental issue. He suggests the Board ask for Environmental Site Assessment, 21E, and then they will know what is on site. Until all this is done he asks Board to deny. He commented on the 2 tanks that Lopes had and they were 10,000 each and in ground. They have been there for about 41 years according to DEP. It shows they were removed in 2017 but’s it’s still on assessor’s information? He points out they are non-compliance with DEP and in July 2023 there was big dust issue and were given 60 days to fix. Chairman Ackerman pointed out there are no conservation issues according to the Conservation commissions’ letter. Steve states his point is well taken and he understands the neighbor’s frustration. Chairman Ackerman stated he’s in favor of on-site fueling. Peter Rodriguez, 152 Berkley St. stated he’s 10 feet away and is concerned. He sees what is going on. He can smell the odor from trucks and hears the trucks idling at 3:30AM. He has pictures of it. They have a 24 hour a day business with over 100 trucks. Rita Shearstone, 166 Berkley St. agree with Cathy & Lisa. She wants to know what is behind her house it looks like an uncovered tank? Charles Farrell, 44 Pratt St. stated this originally McCabe Sand & Gravel and no concrete business. They sold McCabe Sand & Gravel and the vast majority of the houses were fine. No wall gravel is depleted and not it’s a processing plant. The material comes in and they process it which results in dust which goes into the homes. The City is lax is measuring the noise, dust etc. This will only make it bigger and what is the limit? He 4 agrees with all comments his neighbors had made before him. He’s assuming the tanks will comply with code regs. Scott Rolf, 29 Pratt St. agrees with a lot of the previous abutters who spoke. The issues are from the previous people and prior to this new owner. New owner should have met with neighbors. He pointed out the plans didn’t have the required minimum dry area, abutters and topography, etc. He wondered why the plans were even accepted? Chairman Ackerman pointed out that these plans were submitted and accepted by the City Planner. He and the City Planner have the authority to waive certain things on plans. Mr. Rolfe mentioned the pond and it has remained in the same configuration for 9 years. He presented pics of pond and wetlands. He stated the 2 tanks proposed will be safer than the old dilapidated truck that held gas. Chairman Ackerman stated that above ground tanks are a lot safer than underground. Virginia Workman, 180 Berkley St. agrees with what Cathy Rodriguez said. The non-conforming rock crushing company is incredibly loud and shakes her house. Her light bulbs come unscrewed and her neighbor’s ceiling has fallen down. She wants to ensure the safety of the neighborhood and adding gas tanks contributes to the decay of our neighborhood. Chairman Ackerman stated if the applicant contacted him he would have told him he needed better plans. Chairman Ackerman stated we had a good presentation on another gas station and that is what should have been done here. Chairman Ackerman stated the plans are insufficient, no safety plan presented, pictures of tanks, and it was a major mistake to reach out to neighbors. Mark stated the location of the tanks are on page 3 of plans. He can attested the tanks have been removed property and there was a 21E done in 2013 and 2016. The 3rd tank is an underground tank to draw water. He responded to the DEP noncompliance has to do with noise, dust from the crushing business. The concrete company is in full compliance with strict guidelines as of 9-18-23. They are up to date with the State for air quality compliance. John asked if people can walk into the site and is there any security? Chris answers the entire site is fenced in and they have just re-surveyed the whole property. They will be looking at gate at night. All buildings have alarms and there is always a representative on site that locks up gas pumps. He explained the process of anyone who use the fuel pump, they need key fob with access code. John asked what is the benefit to him to have gas tanks on site? The biggest benefit is trucks come back and different times of the day and they can fuel up. If depending on offsite tanker truck you have to give access to our garage and have an employee there. Their Douglas site they wanted wet fueling and they turn us down. There is a financial & logistical benefit too. Chris stated they are open to having a neighborhood meeting. Chris stated he can actually have a 10,000 gallon fuel truck but he would rather have own tanks. His proposal is a much safer because it’s monitored vs. a old gas truck on site. He has cleaned up the site with 60 yards of junk and they have the street sweeper once a week He runs a professional business. Jake asked if they said they could have the 10,000 fuel truck on site? Yes they can but the owner doesn’t want to do that. They would rather have the 2 tanks on concrete pad near building 1. Mark stated he would be more than happy to submit plans showing pond, drainage, abutters and topography. They can provide a complete list of equipment and details about grading. Steve stated he intends to vote tonight on this. Motion made to Grant as presented with the following conditions: 5  1. Elimination of the gas tank – diesel tank allowed only. 2. Notification to Fire Dept., owner, 3rd party of any spills 3. Pumps shall be locked and only authorized personnel shall have access. 4. No selling of fuel – fuel is to be used for concrete batch plant vehicles ONLY. 5. Electronic keypad access 6. Provide fuel vehicle moving plan. Vote: Doherty, Turner, Joyce, …….…Yes Ackerman, Vieira…………….…No Moniz recused Petition Denied Documents used as part of the hearing were: Dept. comments from City Planner, Conservation Commission, Engineer, Fire Dept., Water Dept., and B.O.H. Plans submitted by CMG Engineers. Case # 3763 Cabral 210 Weir St. For: A Variance from Section 440-706 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a total of 104.6 sq. ft. of façade signage (instead of the allowed 38 sq. ft.) for Dunkin Donuts building on premises at 2089 & 2101 Bay St. and property I.D. 14-108 & 14-109, Taunton, Ma. Owner of premises is Northwood Crossing Station, LLC For the Petitioner: Atty. Edmund Brennan, 174 Dean St., Taunton, Ma. Arthur Cabral, 104 Forge River Business Park, Raynham, Ma. Alex Silvia, 197 Hart St., Taunton, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: None Atty. Brennan stated they are here tonight for a takeout restaurant without the drive up window. They went to the P.B for a repetitive petition after getting denied from this Board a few months ago. They have eliminated the drive-up window to address the safety concerns the Board had. The bakery has been in existence since 1983 and in 2019 they had fire and it was closed for more than 24 months so they lost the grandfathering. The drive-up window was approved in the late 1990 by court after zba denial. They listened to the Board’s concerns and have since taken out the drive-up window. They have 13 parking spaces and they have 2 apartments on second floor which have always been there. They feel they addressed the safety issues and finds the board can grant this proposal. Alex Silvia, 197 Hart St. stated she will be one of people running restaurant. She will do whatever the Board wants. They have huge clientele and has been working for someone else for 9 years. They will have buffet, take out and catering. They will not have any seats. Chairman Ackerman read letters from City Planner, Water, Fire, Engineer, B.O.H and Conservation Commission into the record. Chairman Ackerman stated he likes the change and he would recommend 2 conditions. 1. Board up drive-up window and place 32” jersey barriers in drive-thru to block traffic. Arthur Cabral stated no one will come to the drive-up window if it’s block/closed. Discussion took place as 6 to whether block up window or remove it. Discussion went back and forth about the blocking drive-thru with jersey barriers or possible bollards. The intent is to block drive-thru so no one drives around building because it very tight. Steve asked hours of operation: the last proposal was 8 to 9 and she would like 8 – 11 if the board would consider that. Public Input: no one in favor or opposed. Atty. Brennan asked where they would like them to block drive-thru off. It was suggested where the 10’5 bench point is. It’s very tight and they would not want anyone going around the building. Motion made to Grant as presented with the following conditions: 1. Block or remove the drive-up window. 2. Place ballards along the 10.5’wide bench point in the drive-thru lane to prevent any vehicular access. 3. Hours of Operation: 8 AM – 11 PM 7 days a week Vote: Ackerman, Doherty, Vieira, Joyce, Moniz …….…Yes Petition Granted Documents used as part of the hearing were: Dept. comments from City Planner, Conservation Commission, Engineer, Fire Dept., Water Dept., and B.O.H. Plans submitted by John DeLano and Associates, Inc. George Moniz excused. Case # 3764 American Outside Advertising, LLC 2101 Bay St. 14-108 & 14,-14 And 14-109 For: A Variance from Section 440-706 and Section 440 Attachment #3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a 1,344 sq. ft. (672 sq. ft. per side) free-standing illuminated sign (instead of the allowed 0 feet and max. 200 sq. ft.) with a height of 100 feet (instead of max. 40 feet) which utilizes up to 100% of the allowed square footage for the sign as a changeable sign face (instead of 50% maximum) with a refresh rate of 10 seconds (instead of 20 seconds) and no limitation on hours of illumination, and more than one free-standing sign on a lot For the Petitioner: Atty. Daniel deAbreu, 174 Dean St., Taunton, Ma. Steven Ross, American Outside Advertising, LLC In favor: None Opposed: None Chairman Ackerman read dept. comments from the City Planner, Conservation Commission, Engineer, Water Dept., and B.O.H. into the record. Atty. deAbreu stated they are here to request a free-standing digital billiard at 2101 Bay St. to the rear of tractor or supply store along Rte. 495. The lot is in the business district and what they are proposing is a typical billiard sign. It will be 134’ x 48’ double sided with and will be 7 used for typical highway sign. The stated regulations allow 10 second re-fresh but the City requires 20 seconds. They also need relief because it’s another free-standing sign on this site. This site is considered “consolidated lots” in the B.J’s plaza. Atty. deAbreu stated they have done lighting studies and the increase in illumination is below .3 industry standard. The lighting will not be dispersed in any problematic way. The area will be see an almost undetectable increase in light. They are also subject to State rules and guidelines. His client is willing to donate 6 hours per month for free advertising for the City as well as Amber Alerts. Steve Ross, American Outside Lighting stated they are willing to donate more time if he has time for city local events. The hardship is the topography and the location near the highway. The elevation of the land and it needs to be visible from the highway. John agrees about the topography being a hardship but does not see a hardship for quicker refresher rate? Atty. deAbreu stated a free-standing sign is allowed but without variance they can only have 30 feet and it won’t visible from highway. Atty. deAbreu stated the changeable face is that of a typical billboard. John stated he has concerns about having a quicker refresh rate. If missed someone on driving on highway bill be number necking to see it which is a safety issue. Steve asked what is the State refresher rate and Atty. deAbeu answers anything less than 20 seconds. Atty. deAbreu stated they conducted safety study and the results were very well. John asked if they submitted that and it was answered no. Atty. deAbreu state there conducted safety study on billboards at Rte. 495 Metheun, Rte.193 Medford, I93 Stoneham . Jake Doherty suggested they just change the zoning ordinance instead of coming here? Atty. deAbreu stated we are allowed to come here for ask for variance. A zoning change would require a public hearing with Planning Board and Municipal Council. Jake thought it would horrendous to have big flashy sign along highway. He says you are seeing less and less of the old fashioned billboards. Atty. deAbreu stated the ZBA has the authority to give variance if they feels its appropriate. Seth stated he didn’t have an issue with but asked what the typical size is and it was answered it’s what they are requesting. It was asked if Mr. Ross owned the property and it was stated no he is the applicant but the owner signed application. Chairman Ackerman stated there are a lot of benefits from having this sign and allowing amber alerts. This is the 3rd billboard in 6 months. There will be one on County St. and one in the industrial park. He thinks the zoning ordinance needs updating to give you better direction to get up to day with today’s technology. Steve stated he’s has issue with request. There is no hardship and it’s not tied to any business. It’s for separate company who wants to put sign up at the cost of the highway. John thinks it’s a distraction. The highway is for driving, not for advertising. He would recommend restricting hours on weekends. Atty. deAbreu it can be used by the businesses in the industrial park. Steve respects each community has their own ordinance but he thinks it’s too much. Chairman Ackerman suggests changing the zoning ordinance to have them allowed by right. It was suggested keeping it at 20 seconds and not waiving that. Public Input: No one in favor or opposed. Atty. deAbreu requested to withdraw petition without prejudice. Motion made and seconded to allow withdrawal without prejudice. Vote: Turner, Ackerman, Joyce, Vieira, Doherty..…Yes Petition withdrawn without prejudice 8 Documents used as part of the hearing were: Dept. comments from City Planner, Conservation Commission, Engineer, Water Dept., and B.O.H. Plans submitted by Holden Eng. and Survey. Meeting adjourned at 9:12 PM 9