Zoning Board of Appeals

MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS March 28, 2024 at 6:00 PM at 15 Summer St- City Hall Members Present: Dennis Ackerman, Steve Vieira, John Joyce, George Moniz, Craig Faria and Seth Turner. Meeting opens at 6:01PM 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 2-22-24, seconded by George. All in favor. Cont’d. 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’. Requesting to withdraw without prejudice Steve made motion, seconded by Craig to allow petition to be withdrawn Vote: Ackerman, Vieira, Faria, Moniz, Joyce….Yes Petition withdrawn Cont’d. Case # 3753 Albert Tucan TRS 295R Broadway For: A Variance from Section 440-702 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the elimination of the south side yard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. Requesting to withdraw without prejudice Steve made motion, seconded by Craig to allow petition to be withdrawn Vote: Ackerman, Vieira, Faria, Moniz, Joyce….Yes Petition withdrawn Case # 3770 – 43R Chandler Ave. – requesting waiver of continuance fee. Chairman Ackerman explains they were unaware of the submittal requirement of the LLC documents and he recommends waving the continuance fee. Steve made motion to waive the continuance fee, seconded by John. Vote: Ackerman, Faria, Vieira, Moniz, Joyce…Yes 1 Case #3767 KJ Management LLC 1472 Somerset Ave. (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 For the Petitioner: John DeSousa, NorthCounty Group, 4 Court St., Taunton, Ma. In favor: Petition in favor signed by 11 abutters in favor. Opposed: None Chairman Ackerman read dept. comments from City Planner, Conservation Commission, Engineer, Fire Dept., Water Dept., and B.O.H. into the record. He presented petition signed by 11 abutters in favor. The proposal is to convert the existing single family into a 2 family dwelling. The building will remain in the same footprint. The 2 family will be an up and down style 2 family. They have a little over an acre of land with 75 feet of frontage. The lot is an oddball shape with a half arrow shape which is unique. The only change will be the roof line pitch they will extend the walls. The surrounding properties are 2 family, 3 family, 5 family and this will fit in nicely. They also has Frates Ice Cream down the street. The applicant has gone through the neighborhood and submitted petition signed by neighbors in favor. The existing workshop building will be removed. George asked how many bedrooms and John answered 2 bedrooms. George has no issues with the proposal. John agree that stretch of Somerset Avenue are multi-families and he likes this will be the old style 2 family, over /under. Steve asked about the workshop building and they said it would be removed. Public Input: no one in opposition. Petition submitted in favor. Chairman Ackerman agrees it’s fits in nice and he supports it. He stated the voters from last election have voiced their concerns with duplexes. Motion made to Grant with the following condition: 1. Remove existing workshop building as presented at meeting. Vote: Vieira, Faria, 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 NorthCounty Group 2 Case #3456Amendment Waterman 250 Lakeview Ave. 25-72 & 25-73) For: A Variance from Section 440 Attachment #3 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the amendment of previously approved variance and allow a side setback of 8.3’ to 251 Lakeview Ave. lot 25-74 (instead of 15’) and an increase in home footprint to 31.5’ x 43.4’. For the Petitioner: Peter Waterman, 250 Lakeview Ave., Taunton, Ma. In favor: None Opposed: Richard Oliveira, 233 Lakeview Ave., Taunton, Ma. William Sherman, 251 Lakeview Ave., Taunton, Ma. Craig DeMoura, One Sabattia Lane, Taunton, Ma. Chairman Ackerman read dept. comments from City Planner, Conservation Commission, Engineer, Fire Dept., Water Dept., and B.O.H. into the record. Mr. Waterman explains how he’s back for another variance. He received zoning approval a few years ago to take old house down and straighten house on lot. They built most of house and realized the approved setbacks were not met. Chairman Ackerman asked how much of a difference and Mr. Waterman answers about 6-7 inches difference. Chairman Ackerman stated he received a few calls on this case and even a video of water coming from this property going onto neighbor property. Mr. Waterman said that is untrue. Chairman Ackerman stated he doesn’t like an arrogant homeowner who is not nice to his neighbors. Steve asked the last time you were here you were going to build a garage with apartment above to live while house is being built. Has that been done? Mr. Waterman answers no. Steve asked him where he is living and Mr. Waterman answers in the house. Steve stated you’re living there without occupancy? Mr. Waterman says no not in the house. Steve asked him where he is living again. Mr. Waterman says sometimes in his car, sometimes at his ex-wife’s house and he’s on call at hospital so sometimes there. George stated he said he lived in house and John also points out that is what he said. Mr. Waterman stated he goes to house to work and no one is living in house. Steve said he’s not excited about people who received relief coming here again. Mr. Waterman stated the foundation was inspected by the town and he continued working. There is huge gap in when the contractor works. Mr. Waterman stated Mr. Sherman asked him to re-direct the water and he did. He’s doesn’t know about water going other property. Public Input: Richard Oliveira, 233 Lakeview Ave. stated he lives 3 houses down and he’s aware he has right to build on his lot but this has been going on for 5 years. Mr. Waterman put an illegal addition on then abandoned the house and then went before ZBA to rebuild. Now he’s here again. There have been a number of contractors throughout this process and there is constant flow back and forth. There is water from the street and he asked if the well has been inspected? He stated he sees women and men coming and going to the house. He believes there are renters living in house with the number of vehicles there. He stated Mr. Waterman is living is house not the camper and whenever there is an inspection they move the cars to the Sue’s yard. He doesn’t think everything is above board. He states 3 Mr. Waterman shows respect to neighbors when he has to. He has dug up the backyard and had the Conservation Agent come out because he’s 15 foot from lake. He is frustrated by the process and he asks they replace the fence that has fallen. He has spent over $400,000 for house and you would imagine he would fix the fence. He wondered about the propane tank because it’s within a few feet of the water which is fastened to concrete slab. He has lived there for 25 years and Mr. Waterman has not been the best neighbor. He stated Mr. Waterman rented a bobcat and it’s very dangerous so he can take tree down. Opposed: William Sherman 251 Lakeview Ave stated Mr. Waterman has been a thorn in his side. He built so close to the lake and with the rain water he did approach Mr. Waterman and he laughed in his face. He says he has the video of water running onto his property. He has witnessed 4 years of this and prior to this filing for this meeting he has been living there. Chairman Ackerman asked Mr. Sherman if he’s 100% sure that he has been living on property? Mr. Sherman stated the majority of the time he has been living there. But for last few weeks because he filed to come here he has not been living in house. Mr. Sherman showed the board the video of water running onto his property. Chairman Ackerman stated he would like a full engineer’s report showing water is staying on Waterman property and a proposal for putting fence back. Up. Mr. Waterman wanted to ask Mr. Sherman about his fence. Chairman Ackerman reminded Mr. Waterman that he is here for a variance and they can ask for anything, like putting his fence back up. Mr. Waterman said he would be happy to replace fence. John noticed Mr. Sherman wants to replace the fence when all the construction is done. Mr. Sherman stated his parents replaced the fence about 8 years ago and stopped where Mr. Waterman’s house is. He will replace it when Mr. Waterman’s house is finally done because he has broken other pieces of his stuff. Chairman Ackerman stated he won’t vote on this unless he gets reports he wants to do what’s right. George agrees let the neighbors deal with the fence issue. George pointed out the back stairs is close to the water. Mr. Waterman stated he was told by Mr. Pirozzi to slope away from house. Mr. Waterman stated he dug too much in back of his house for flood gates and now need to fill it in. Conservation Commission Agent came out and inspected. Mr. Waterman states he works a lot and the kids help with but the kids stay at their mom’s in Abington. It was asked if the well had ever been approved? Mr. Waterman asked what does that have to do it anything? Chairman Ackerman suggests continuing and requests report that well is approved, propane tanks legal, and report from engineer about water runoff. Steve stated this Board as required this before but each case is different. John points out the neighbor wants control on fence. Opposed: Craig DeMoura, 1 Sabattia Lane. Stated he has lived there for 43 years and he has witnessed a lot of construction over the years. They tore house down because they went beyond what the permit was for. He too thinks there are people living there and points out they had a Christmas tree in house. He’s way to close to the water’s edge and there will be lots of issues. Steve drove by today. It was asked if sewer is on street and it was answered yes. Steve made motion, seconded by Craig, to continue to April 25th meeting with the following things requested from the owner: 1. Provide certification that well is in compliance or proof the lot is serviced by city water. 2. Provide certification the propane tank is in compliance. 4 3. Provide report from certified engineer showing water flow is not draining off site. 4. Provide certification and plans showing what the previous footprint of house was Vote: Vieira, Faria, Moniz, Ackerman, Joyce, …….…Yes Petition continued to April 25, 2024 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 John made motion to refer to the Zoning Enforcement Officer to see if there is anyone living in the house prior to cert of occupancy and if there are any zoning or building violations. Seconded by Seconded by George all in favor. Meeting adjourned at 6:56 PM 5