Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Mixed Use Winthrop topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Taunton ZBA continues debate over Winthrop Street restaurant and six upstairs units
Summary
The Zoning Board of Appeals continued a contested special‑permit application for a family restaurant and six 1‑bedroom apartments at 381 Winthrop St., citing missing square‑footage and parking detail and a legal dispute over whether unit counts fall to the planning board. The hearing was continued to January after a 4–1 vote to allow more information and coordination with city staff.
Attorney Brianna Carrara told the Zoning Board of Appeals on Dec. 19 that her client seeks a special permit under section 4‑45‑0‑3 to extend a preexisting nonconforming building at 381 Winthrop St. to create a family restaurant with a 3‑season deck and six one‑bedroom units above. She said the filing meets required rear‑yard setbacks, parking requirements and that the planning board has signaled support in a letter the board provided to the ZBA.
Carried through an architect's presentation by engineer Evan Watson, petitioners described a stepped building that would extend roughly 900 square feet into the front setback area and produce what the applicant characterized as a visually improved, mixed‑use gateway to Taunton. Carrara told the board the law department and city planner had advised that the ZBA’s role is limited to whether the expansion of the building is “substantially more detrimental” to the neighborhood than the current structure, citing Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 48 §6 and the text of the local ordinance.
Several board members said the number of residential units and the density they create are germane to determining whether the proposed expansion is significantly more detrimental. Board member questions focused on parking calculations, total square footage, and whether the ZBA could lawfully place a condition limiting the number of units. Carrara and the board referenced an alternative plan that would avoid the need for zoning relief by pushing the addition behind the current setback line.
Jay Patekis, executive director of the Office of Economic and Community Development, urged approval, calling the existing building a form of blight and characterizing the project as “a catalyst for economic development” that would add low‑impact one‑bedroom units while supporting local jobs.
After extended exchange between petitioners, the board and staff about missing technical details and the separate purview of the planning board over use and unit counts, the petitioner offered to return with revised materials. The board voted 4–1 to continue the hearing to the January meeting and to waive the continuance fee; the board requested clearer square‑footage numbers, a parking breakdown tied to the ordinance, and any written confirmation from the law department or city planner the board wished to rely on at the next hearing.
The continuation preserves the applicant's ability to pursue the preferred, front‑setback design while giving the ZBA time to receive written clarifications and a more complete site plan. The planning board letter and conservation‑department comments will remain part of the administrative record.
