Zoning Board of Appeals

MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS February 22, 2024 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 6:07 PM Chairman Ackerman had a moment of silence for Manuel Spencer, Jr. who served on the Planning Board and a retired Police Detective. 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 January 25, 2024 seconded by Jake. All in favor. Cont’d Case # 3761 Ferreira 308-312 Middleboro Ave. (prop. I. D. 95-153, 95-169 & 95-168) A Variance from Section 440 Attachment #3 for a lot having 6,920 S.F. instead of the required 60.000 s. f. and a dry lot area of 6,920 S.F. instead of the minimum dry lot area of 43,560 S.F. Lot frontage of 48.72 FT. instead of the required 150 FT. Lot width of 48.72 FT. instead of the minimum 100 Ft., a rear setback of 5.9 feet instead of 25 feet, A lot having 4,705 S.F. instead of the required 60.000 s.f. and a dry lot area of 4,705 S.F. instead of the minimum dry lot area of 43,560 S.F. Lot frontage of 75.28 FT. instead of the required 150 FT. Lot width of 75.28 FT. instead of the minimum 100 Ft. A side yard setback of 13.3 Ft. instead of the required 25 FT, a rear setback of 13.7 ft. instead of the required 30 Ft., structure lot coverage of 30.8% exceeding maximum lot structure coverage of 20%, A parking variance is requested for the property with the existing duplex having 2 spaces instead of the required 4 spaces. A parking easement is proposed. A special permit from Attachment #1 to allow a single family dwelling in an Industrial District. Letter requesting to withdraw petition without prejudice. Motion made and seconded to allow petition to be withdrawn without prejudice. Vote: Ackerman, Vieira, Moniz, Joyce, Doherty……Yes Petition withdrawn without prejudice. Case # 3769 Binda 49 Plain St. a/k/a lot 92-184 & lot 92-196 A Variance from Section 440-602 and Section 440- 603 (Section 440 Attachment #3) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the re-division of one lot into two lots with Lot A being a 1 conforming lot with an existing multi-family dwelling and Lot B having 15 feet of frontage & lot width (instead of 75 feet for each) and a shape factor of 36 (instead of 35 or less) Atty. Brianna Correira request a continuance to resolve fire dept. comment. Motion made and seconded to continue to April 25th meeting, Time frame on which to act on the proposal is waived will follow up with letter. Vote: Vieira, Ackerman, Joyce, Doherty, Moniz….Yes Petition continued to April 25, 2024 Case # 3770 Live and Learn Ventures, LLC 43R Chandler Ave. A Variance from Section 440 Attachment #3 and a Special Permit from Section 440 Attachment #1 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of 2 family dwelling in a Business District and a front yard setback of 10.6’ (instead of 25’) Chairman Ackerman stated the required LLC paperwork was not submitted and he will vote no on this case. A continuance was requested and the time frame to act on this proposal waived and will follow up with letter. Vote: Ackerman, Vieira, Doherty, Moniz, Joyce…Yes Petition continued to April 25, 2024 Case #3772 Fremont Street Realty LLC 94 Fremont St. (45-165 & 45-166) For: A Variance from Section 440 -502 Attachment #2 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow automobile sales in conjunction with the pre-existing legal non-conforming auto repair use and existing dwelling in the Rural Residential District . For the Petitioner: Atty. Brianna Correira, 123 Broadway, Taunton, Ma. Edward Ferreira, Fremont Street LLC, 135 Washington St., Taunton, Ma. Aziz Tires In favor: Kara Civale, 20 Kings Ct., Taunton, Ma. Opposed: letter from Jennifer Elsinger, 179 Fremont St., Taunton, Ma. Irene Parker, 91 Fremont St., Taunton, Ma. Atty. Correira stated they are here tonight for a use variance for auto sales in conjunction with the existing house and auto repair shop. The garage was built 80 years ago and the zoning determination says the use is a legal non-conforming auto repair business. On 11-20-22 the new owner made several improvements to the site, brought garage up to code and made it a safer place. Aziz Tires has a well known business and recently re- located to this location and wants to add auto sales. They have 2.5 acres and they have plan showing 27 display spaces and the parking will be paved and striped. They will be under the maximum lot coverage (22% instead of 40%) and the existing buildings are to remain. They are not asking for any dimensional variances. Atty. Correira states this will fit well in the neighborhood. The parking areas can be used for auto repair. There is 2 currently no Site Plan Review on file. There will be no public service impact. There are other commercial uses in the area. Atty. Correira stated her office send letters to all abutters and had a few stop by and ask questions. Aziz also reached out to some abutters. Chairman Ackerman stated the proposal is for a lot of vehicles parked on site. Dept. comments were read into the record from B.O.H., Water, Fire, Engineer, City Planner, and Conservation Commission. Letter from Jen Elsinger, 179 Fremont St. opposed Atty. Correira stated that Ms. Elsinger is ½ mile away and they are not proposing a junk yard so there should be no noise. Atty. Correira reference a court case that has that traffic is not generated by this type of business. Steve asked what are the current hours of operation? Aziz answers Monday – Friday 8 AM – 5PM , Saturday 8AM – 3 PM closed Sunday. They are proposing an office inside. George grew up in the neighborhood and he knows Aziz has a very reputable business. He doesn’t have any issues with 27 spaces and he doesn’t think there will be any noise. Steve stated a business has always been there and he spent summers at Arthur’s Junkyard Jake asked if it would be just Aziz selling vehicles and it was answered yes. He wants to do it right, get license, go to auction and sell vehicles. Mr. Ferreira stated that he brought up the site to code. It was noted they would need a Site Plan Review with the Planning Board. Public Input: Irene Parker, 91 Fremont St. stated she has lived across the street for 46 years. She has seen a lot of changes since they moved in. No one approached her about this proposal. She received the public hearing notice in mail. Resendes Automotive was there at least 10 years and he was a small quiet family business. He cared a lot about the neighborhood. The trees served as buffer and he had single digit cars and only had 1 person who worked there. Prior to that she never saw a business there. Her daughter & son –in –law live down road and they said it was more like a farm before. She states Aziz is a fine man and he keeps it clean. But there is more traffic now, cars pulling in and out, and she can hear banging because the trees are gone. Chairman Ackerman inform her the existing auto repair use is going to stay and they can’t do anything about that. Jake stated she was giving her testimony and the Chairman interrupted her. Chairman Ackerman wanted to clarify the existing auto repair use is a grandfathered use. She reminded the Board this is in the Rural Residential District and it’s not the proper place to put this business. In her opinion it’s not a good fit. She stated with the increased traffic and now the whole appearance has changed, it’s not a good fit for the neighborhood. She stated Aziz isn’t always going to be there and then what happens? He is asking to put another business in there. She asks the Board to maintain the character of the neighborhood. Steve stated the existing auto repair use is going to stay. Ms. Parker re-iterates the use is not the proper fit for the neighborhood. She referenced a few businesses in the area, David Cabral, small business, David Smith has small low key business, Advanced Trailer Co is set way back and has large fence for buffer, Arthur’s Auto Junkyard has been there for a very long time. She stated this is another business added to the existing business. In favor: Kara Civale, 20 Kings Court, - runs a non-profit and just recently awarded Aziz a community award. He is a positive impact in the City and very professional, helps everyone, and has a proven track record and he is fair. Atty. Correira wanted to clarify they have a grandfathered use and can park cars anywhere because there is no limit. Jake clarified the legal non-conforming use is grandfathered for the scope that is there now. They can’t expand it without getting approval. Atty. Correira wanted to clarify her statement was aimed towards there is no assigned number of 3 vehicles and she wanted to say he can park them anywhere. She knows he can’t have 400 cars there. She points out the neighborhood is not completely residential.. She points out again about a court case that showed this type of business did not generate more traffic. John asked if that case was based sales alone or sales with auto repair? Atty. Correira didn’t know. John stated this is a new business going in and it will expand the pre-existing non-conforming use. The existing business is reverent. Atty. Correira stated they have no control over the existing use. Steve stated if approved, they will need a SPR with P.B. and at that time they will look at whole site and put condition, restrictions. Right now there is no SPR and after, if approved, it will have one and incorporate everything. Steve thinks the number of vehicles ae absorbent. He wants to reduce the number of vehicles. Maybe have 10-12 on display. It was asked if he wanted a sign and they said they have sign, they could add “sales” to it. John asked Aziz why didn’t he speak to Ms. Parker who lives across the street. Aziz says he talks to her all the time and if she had any concerns she would have told him. John admits that he is very well liked in the City and is a good person but ultimately this is in a Rural Residential District. He recites the description of Rural Residential in the zoning ordinance. It was asked what happens if Aziz leaves is the business still allowed to be there? The variance goes with the land but the Class II goes with the applicant. Jake states this is a new business going in, it’s a auto dealership. The plans shows 10 storage spaces, 27 display spaces, 8 customer for a total of 45 vehicles. Jake asked if Aziz owns the property and he answers no, he leases and Mr. Ferreira owns. Chairman Ackerman stated he would like a compromise, maybe 9 vehicles. The benefit is that the ZBA can place conditions. John asked what is the hardship? Chairman Ackerman stated it’s a use variance and they need a hardship. Mr. Ferreira stated the place was a mess and they had 6 dumpsters and they cleaned up the site. Jake stated yes it’s cleaned up and trees cleared so now you can see that there is a business there. Before the trees kind of hid the business. He states there is no control now and after if approved the City will have more control. George remembers an older business who used to work on mail trucks. He has no issues with the number of vehicles. They can put shrubs near street. He stated Waterman has a junkyard. The Board went back and forth on reducing the number of vehicles. Some prospective conditions were no more than 10 display in front, remove 7 display in front, and a row of 10 left side of street. No further expansion of the garage. It was suggested leaving the trees and shrubs up to P.B during the Site Plan Review process. Mr. Ferreira stated he has a lot of land in back and doesn’t think it’s fair the Board hold him hostage on what he can do. He stated he improved the site. John stated that is your interpretation it may not be the neighbors who will live next to this business. After some more discussion about reducing the number of vehicles it Steve suggested continuing to April meeting and have a new place submitted. Atty. Correira agreed and asked why continue to April and not March? Steve said he thinks there will be some members absent next month. Atty. Correira requests a continuance and waives the time frame on which to act on this proposal. She will forward letter extending the time frame. Motion made and seconded to continue to April 25, 2024 and acknowledges the time frame on which to act on this proposal has been extended. 4 Vote: Doherty, Ackerman, Joyce, Vieira, Moniz,…….…Yes Petition continued to April 25, 2024 Case #3766 TRA Realty, LLC 94 Winthrop St. For: A Special Permit from Section 440-503 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the extension of a pre-existing non-conforming use by allowing the entire building for a Retail Use with gasoline filling station by eliminating the existing automobile repair/service use in an Urban Residential District with 4 parking spaces (instead of 5 spaces) For the Petitioner: Atty. Dan deAbreu, 174 Dean St.. Taunton, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: Chairman Ackerman read Dept. comments from City Planner, Conservation Commission, Engineer, Fire Dept., Water Dept., and B.O.H. Atty. Dan deAbreu was invited into the enclosure. He is requesting a Special Permit to expand a non-conforming use. They want to get rid of the auto repair and have all retail with gasoline filling station. There is a newly renovated building and parking lot will be striped and marked. It was noted they need to go the P.B. for Site Plan Review. Chairman Ackerman asked about the City Engineer’s comments relative to the 2 on street parking spaces. Atty. deAbreu stated they are on plan and can be addressed at the Site Plan Review process. They will comply with BOH for dumpster rules. Hours of operation are: Monday – Saturday 5 AM – 11 PM, Sunday 6AM – 10 PM . There will be no change in the layout of the building. They will just expand the retail use by eliminating the auto repair. There are 3 gas pumps. Steve says this is pretty straight forward and he thinks it’s a major improvement. George says it will be a gas station with retail and it was answered yes. George thought it was a congested in the early morning around 5:30 AM. Chairman Ackerman states there is a need for a convenience store. Jake asked if they would be taking out car lifts and it was answered yes. Public Input: No one in favor or opposed. Motion made to Grant as presented: Vote: Vieira, Doherty, Moniz, Ackerman,..…….…Yes Joyce………………………………………..No 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 Lala Associates Eng. 5 Case #3768 Almeida Marvel St. Map 91, lots 170 & 192 For: A Variance from Section 440 Attachment # 3 & 440-602 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a 2 family home on a lot having 60 feet of frontage & lot width ((instead of 75 feet of frontage & lot width) in an Urban Residential District. For the Petitioner: Atty. Alan Medeiros, 4 Winthrop St., Taunton, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: None Atty. Medeiros stated the proposal is for a duplex house on a 4.5 acre lot with a 60 foot access. Chairman Ackerman read letters from the Dept. comments from City Planner, Conservation Commission, Engineer, Fire Dept., Water Dept., and B.O.H. George asked if they are proposing 2 family and Atty. Medeiros answers yes for the petitioner daughter & future son-in-law. They will have water and sewer. The parcel is unique in that it has a large lot area but limited frontage. Public Input: No one in favor or opposed. Motion made to Grant as presented: Vote: Vieira, Doherty, Moniz, Ackerman, Joyce, …….…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 SFG Associates Case #3765 Rego 31 Park St For: A Special Permit from Section 440 Attachment #1 and Variance from Section 440 Attachment#3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a 5 unit residential townhouse building on a lot having 16,768 sq. ft. of lot area & dry area (instead of 43,560 sq. ft. lot area and dry area) For the Petitioner: John DeSousa, 4 Winthrop St., Taunton, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: None Chairman Ackerman read Dept. comments from City Planner, Conservation Commission, Engineer, Fire Dept., Water Dept., and B.O.H. John DeSousa, NorthCounty Group was invited into the enclosure. He states the existing house is a single family dwelling about 4-5 feet from the front property line. They are proposing 5 units and per the zoning regulations they can do 6 units per acre. There will be egress in the front and back and there is a patio in back. He lot is big enough and they are not asking for any variance for building setbacks. They have shown 10 parking spaces. They have enough room to add a few more parking spaces. This is an Urban Residential Project and there is ledge on back side of garage so they need to push building back. Chairman Ackerman stated he 6 voting no on this, you can have 3 units by right. Steve agrees and asked if they have any test holes for ledge? John answers no. John asked is there are any 5 families in the neighborhood and John D answers no. George says the street is congested. He asked how many bedrooms? John answers 4 units will hav32 bedrooms, 1 unit having 3 bedrooms. John states that is a substantial coverage of the lot with the building and Parking. Public Input: No one in favor or opposed. Motion made to Grant as presented: Vote: Vieira, Doherty, Moniz, Ackerman, Joyce, …….…NO 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 NorthCounty Group Chairman Ackerman excused at 7:48 PM Steve stated the petitioner has the option of moving forward tonight with 4 members present or request a continuance. John Garanito chose to hear the case tonight with 4 members present. Case #3771 Garanito Tremont St. 41-92 now 134 Round St. For: A Variance from Section 440-603 (Section 440-attachment #3) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a rear setback of 29.6 feet (instead of 30 feet ) for the existing single family house. For the Petitioner: John Garanito, Hawthorne Development, Inc., 174 Dean St. Unit C, Taunton, Ma. Michael & Miranda Robichaud, 134 Round St, Taunton, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: None John explains the house is all built and during the process of obtaining the certificate of occupancy the As-Built plan showed the rear setback at 29.6 instead of 30 feet. The way the lot line is on an angle they were unaware it was considered a rear setback. They thought it was a side setback. He has a P&S with Mr & Mrs. Robichaud and they are waiting to move in. John states the house is already built and John G. answers yes. Dept. comments from City Planner, Conservation Commission, Engineer, Fire Dept., Water Dept., and B.O.H. Eng. & Cons. Public Input: No one in favor or opposed. Motion made to Grant as presented: Vote: Vieira, Moniz, Doherty, Joyce, ……….…Yes Petition granted 7 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 Northeast Eng. & Cons. Case # 3767 KJ Management, LLC 1472 Somerset Ave. Parcel I.D. 125-1 & 125-50 For: A Special Permit from Section 440 Attachment # 1 and Variance from Section 440 Attachment #3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the conversion of the existing single family to a 2 family dwelling in the Suburban Residential District on a lot having 75 feet of frontage & lot width (instead of 125’ frontage & 100’ lot width) Steve stated the petitioner has the option of moving forward tonight with 4 members present or request a continuance. John DeSousa called his client and they chose to request a continuance. Motion made and seconded to continue to March 28th meeting. Vote: Vieira, Moniz, Joyce, Doherty…..…Yes Petition continued to March 28, 2024 Meeting adjourned at 7:57 PM 8