1.16.2025 Zoning Board of Appeals

Pereira chairman of the zoning board of appeals for the city of Fall River it is 6: p.m. on January 16th 2025 happy New Year everyone we are meeting at the one we are meeting at one government center in the first floor hearing room personent to Mass General Law chapter 30A section 20 subsection F I hereby notify all persons in attendance that this meeting is being recorded by Fall River government TV Mr

Craig Salvador recording both video and audio version of the meeting if anyone here Des desires to make an audio video or combination recording of this meeting please notify me now and I will make a public announcement of your intention they're hearing none uh our recording secretary this evening is Patty Agia sitting to my direct right also pregnant uh present this evening I got a pregnant daughter I I

don't know it's the wolf Moon it it is yeah that's what I keep blaming it on this week that's how we stting that's how we're stting the year also present this evening our permanent members uh James Caulkins our uh Clerk and Mr Dan deir uh as well as uh alternate members Mr Eric Kelly and U Miss Alexis elamo um also with us this evening C to the city to the far my far left is uh Mr

Dan agar director of engineering and planning Patty have all petitions to be considered been properly advertised and all interested parties notified in accordance with the rules and regulations of the zba and Mass General law for chapter 4A as amended yes I thereby declare the January 16th 2025 regularly scheduled meeting of the zoning board of appeals of the city of Fall River open for such business as sh

count before it I remind all persons presenting before the board including petitioners abutters anyone in support or anyone opposed to the petition that your presentation be limited to 3 minutes questions and responses must be directed through the chair the board's rules and regulations of direct the board to specifically look for information which supports the petitioner's claim as such the

petitioner should identify and factually support the basis for the petition I hereby advise the petitioner and all interested parties that this is the zoning board of appeals the board's Authority exists personent to Massachusetts General law 4A and is limited in scope and deals with the use of land as regulated by chapter 86 of the ordinances of the city of Fall River additional permits licenses reviews and

or approvals may be required for the specific development which is the subject of the petition before the board this evening the action taken by this board has a real and Lasting effect on the title to your real estate I urge all petitioners to seek competent legal uh councel before filing your petition and after the decision of the board has been made a copy of the ordinance is

available in the city clerk's office or from the planning department I remind everyone that the building inspector is the zoning enforcement Authority and you are here this evening because the building inspector has determined that your proposed action is contrary to the city of fall River's zoning ordinances the city Charter section 9-18 mandates that all multiple member uh bodies develop and adopt rules or

policies for public comment we have adopted such a policy which in short provides for citizen input on zoning board specific matters at the end of the meeting if you wish to participate there's a signup sheet on the table outside the door I disclose that an official copy of the Fall River zoning ordinance is available at the city click's office and one should not rely only on the online zoning

ordinance let's start a new year let's start a new year with an old petition petition number uh 01 under old business uh T real real estate LLC see care of Attorney Peter a solino 102 Mis Street uh map C8 lot 14 the applicant seeks a variance to divide the existing parcel into three lots leaving the existing dwelling on lot one and constructing a two family dwelling on each of lots two

and three applicant seeks relief from 86 attachment one of the Fall River zoning ordinance by way of variance uh as to lot area affecting Lots two and three um briay yard setback affecting lot two and lot coverage affecting lot one the property is located in an R4 two family zoning District uh this uh is being heard after being tabled at our December 19th meeting good evening for

the record my name is Peter selino I'm Council to tetrol real estate the owner of the property um as the board will remember this is the third time this matter has come before you um there has been significant neighborhood input at the prior meetings I believe that this plan is sensitive to the input we received I believe that at the last meeting uh there was a discussion relative to a desire for single families

as opposed to one two family and one single family So the plan before you would leave the existing two family dwelling on what is labeled as lot one uh erecting a single family dwelling on lot two and one on lot three uh the rear yard waiver requested would be uh sort of top of the plan there's a 10-ft setback from the proposed two stall garage and the rear yard in the district

is supposed to be 20 ft um in addition as Mr chairman read the waivers would include uh the loot coverage requirement as well so I think the plan is substantially better it's responsive to concerns we've heard in the last couple of meetings and we'd be happy to answer any questions the board may have and when I say we I mean Mr tomman or myself okay very good I appreciate the time

that you've put in with the neighbors that means a great deal so thank you for that uh are there any other questions from the board at this point we've had a lot on this one from planning no I I have nothing to add just understand and I think attorney selino stated it but it it should be clear what the specific relief is there is no relief with regards to Frontage

total lot area uh front yard set back backs side yard setbacks so the relief is strictly limited to lot coverage and that one rear yard setback uh for partial number two the only concern that I would have is that and we did discuss this a little bit and I'm pretty sure there is ample space already but it should be shown somewhere or there should be a requirement that there are four off street parking spaces at 102

Mison which I'm pretty pretty sure they could show the 4 9 by1 18 spaces and meet that requirement probably just on the existing asphalt that's there yeah that would be my only concern one other note is that I know there was a concern regarding parking on Mison street so know on the revised plan that there are no new proposed driveways uh coming out onto Mis the two new proposed driveways would come off of the

eclipse street so any on street parking currently available on would be preserved okay very good yeah good points I mean the parking spaces should be detailed but um to that then uh is there anyone here this evening that wishes to speak in favor of the petition anyone to speak in opposition they're hearing none it comes to the board I'll make a motion to approve with the uh condition of the fall off street

parking on lot one a

second okay I'm sorry just wanted to read something we have a motion and a second any discussion on the motion they hearing none on the motion Eric yes Dan yes Jim yes Alexis yes and chairman Pera yes thank you third times a charm man it's a new year thing is this the point where I say no D Jitsu on to new business item number one thank you I just want to say thank you

andate thank you and we appreciate your diligence as neighbors you've come out now three times on this and I'm I'm glad that I'm glad they stepped up hous on our street at 16 which is dresses around the corner proper I'm out of those 16 eight of are wiow so we look out for one another and you know it's a little different than every other Street maybe we've got a lot

of St and we appreciate that you knew that thank you guys very much have a great night guys now this is two one fames right yes yes yes I Wasing too I thank you new business item number one kimbery J Smith personal representative of the estate of Ronald Shad uh care of attorney Mark Levan this is 7 duth street map e16 lot 31 the applicant is requesting a variance to divide the existing lot into two Parcels

parcel one containing the existing single family dwelling with 5,275 square fet waving area front lot coverage uh Frontage lot coverage uh and and and maintaining the existing front yard and existing side yard on the west side of the dwelling parcel two for a proposed single family dwelling containing 5,289 Square ft waving area and Frontage ordinance 86- 35 table of Dimensions the

property is located in an R8 s sing Le family zoning District Council Mr chairman members of the board for the record attorney Mark L 138 Rock Street fora Massachusetts and I wish you a happy New Year all and hopefully this is a nice start for everyone uh I'm here tonight with the person representative Kim Smith who happens to be a a niece of the um the estate of uh Ronald schard uh Mr schard uh

uh owns this property was actually kimbery would be the third generation of the Schwin family that had ownership in this area the original House lot as I trace it back had been acquired back in July of 1959 um and there was a house built and there was a separate owner that owned the property to the west of the house uh that parcel was acquired by the schard family not Ronald at the time in 19 uh

64 uh at the time these Lots uh were created they were by the um Benjamin Manchester a it was a subdivision plan and each of these plans had each of these Lots had been 2500 square ft that's all the Lots were back then once zoning came into place this was a general area where there were 5,000 ft requirements the house was built and as you can see where it's located on the

property it's on a little further toward off center toward the west of the property on the the original 5,000 foot lot more or less and later on the schard family acquired from a different owner the parel which we're asking for now to divide out and create a separate house um unfortunately due to merger these that single family lot when the zoning changed to R8 merged into this property

uh the property that lot itself has never been utilized as a shed back there and that'll be taken down at some point when it oh it's already taken down but it it it's basically in a neighborhood that has single family homes and two family homes on quite the character of this neighborhood they're all kind of the same size as the lots that were proposed what I'm asking for is actually to just wave the frontage

and area requirement of the new lot and it will meet whoever builds the house will use that footprint in that pel too to create a house it may not be the full pel but it'll meet all the setback Sidelines and and lock coverage the existing house will still have its two F two parking spaces in the front where the driveway is and will maintain itself without changing anything in that

property itself uh had these Deeds been split up into different type of ownership they wouldn't have merged uh and again my guess would have been that they did this at one point to acquire some extra land thinking it was an investment because they really never used that property it just sits there as vacant land um the neighbors have very similar sign houses and if you see in the neighborhood it's

I would say probably 50% of the neighbors are all schad family they all kind of use the this is a compound for the family they all acquired these properties from other people to live near each other um I believe that this is not going to affect the use and occupancy of this neighborhood it's more or less in Conformity what the use of the properties are and what the intent

is not to leave some land that is not used I think the locational house is a reason also why the hardship exists by having a structure not centered but off to Center so that it doesn't have the useful use or need the unation of the rest of the land and that's about it thank you okay is is just curious the the division line here is it substantially the same line of the original lot pretty much

okay yeah they eventually Ronald got this from his mother and at that point took the two Apostles that they got separately and put them on one deed okay but again it wouldn't have mattered because it was owned and after 64 when they acquired that vacant land and even though it was in one name then eventually got to both the zoning changed from General to R8 that caused the merger okay right very

good questions from the board comments questions get your chance guys comments from planning no I think I think it's I think it's a good petition I actually I would like to commend the the engineer who did the plan because it's an excellent plan um very descriptive the only concerns that I would have is with regards to the lot coverage on parcel One MH I would like to see some mitigation uh for storm

water runoff uh for that lot to to compensate for the increase in lot coverage nothing crazy but um maybe have house number seven go through the site plan review process solely for U stor water mitigation prior to the conveyance of partial 2 parcel 2 the home will be constructed in accordance with all the other zoning requirements once it's created so no issue with that that would go through

through site plan review anyway so no I have nothing to add beyond that yeah theel the seven building lot it's 10% over than what the normal requirements are so probably they can do something where the driveway comes off all they do is grab one roof leader and put it into a little under chamber and call it a day something like that fair enough thank you okay all right uh general public anybody

here to uh wish to speak in behalf of the petition and support is there anyone here wishing to speak in opposition to the petition very good they're hearing none turn to the board I would suggest that if we do have a motion to approve that we take into consideration or incorporate the the two items that uh Dan has brought up from the planning standpoint chairman I move approval of the variant uh condition

upon that the building could be built on lot two shall be in full compliance with all zoning requirements and and that no convenience of the property should take place prior to site plan review uh with the mitigation of uh drainage on one we have a second on that second second from Dan any discussion on the motion they hearing none on the motion Eric yes Dan yes Jim yes Alexis yes and chairman

yes best luck with it is there a family member that's going to pick this up I don't think so maybe the first that doesn't have in that neighborhood you never know have a great night thank you thank you item number two 194 Belmont Street realy trust David Magna trustee uh care of attorney David Magna 194 bnot street is the subject property map0 04 lot 41 the applicant seeks a variance to convert the existing single

family home into a two- family dwelling uh waving lot area front yard setback along with the lot coverage and use this property is located in an S single family zoning District Mr chairman evening um excuse my appearance tonight I uh just flew in on a plane it was two and a half hours late didn't have a chance to go home and get changed so I apologize for that I don't usually come into dress like

this um but uh my name is attorney David Magna uh my office is at uh 227 River Road Westport Massachusetts um I'm also here with Owen Donley who is in involved in the trust uh that we created because it was a Family Trust um it's been this property you know as as you you can see by the petitioners and the family for quite a few years um but uh so we're here to uh try and convert

this property into a single family uh into a two dwelling uh house it's it's owned a single family the property within the area over there uh this this house is a three-story approximately 4,000 square foot Victorian house uh it's been in the same family for over 65 years uh it's been very difficult for the family to maintain it as a single family being as large as it is and you

know and being in area that's surrounded by multifamilies and to be the single family it's kind of fallen in disrepair uh the existing house was always used as a two family but strictly by uh members of the family has two kitchens uh has two separate you know uh areas that you know one family would live in one part of the house and the other part the other family live in the

other part of the house but it technically was never a two family uh it's got seven bedrooms the most of the houses in the area are single family homes uh at one point were single family homes they've all been slowly converted into multifamilies uh even the houses to the left and to the right of this property are three family houses this is a single family um this house is a single family

and all the houses that have been converted over the years a roll of similar land size as this particular property and they've all become multifamilies um in fact on Belmont Street between the block of Belmont Street there are 12 houses and 10 of the 12 houses are multif family so it's over 80% of that particular street is multif family even though it's a single family District uh most of those houses would

not meet the requirements today of of of the zoning uh to be to be a MTI um so as with the other homes in the area uh our request is because of the size the shape and this of this lot uh it doesn't meet the zoning requirements as to land size setbacks and we're adding four parking spaces and when we add that the four parking spaces we also are going going to need the uh the lot

coverage uh variants as well and that's strictly be by adding the uh you know the four you know the four uh parking spaces um and again if if it's granted it's going to be very similar to every other house in the neighborhood uh it's not going to affect the the neighborhood adversely it's not going to affect the community adversely and we're here to answer any questions you may have um a

couple sure um so this is a variance you just kind of glossed over what would you consider the hardship for this particular piece of product I think the hardship as I said I think the size and the shape of this of this property it can't be can't conform to what the rest of the neighborhood is which is all multif family um and you know even even being the single family is difficult at

this point um but again you know I I think it's going to be very similar to everything in the neighborhood but it doesn't happen have that size it doesn't have the shape uh and you know to to exist as a multif family house and we you know obviously we're sensitive to the fact that you know what we're Victorian single family homes are are unwieldy and that's already shown itself in the neighborhood with a lot of

changes regardless of the fact that it is a single family neighborhood we're not clearly showing the parking spaces on this plan um look down are you looking at the top left plan Corner no I'm down on the bottom so if you look at what's up on the on the screen they'll show a proposed curb opening yep then two parking spaces straight away and then two parking spaces to the right for the total of

four yeah when we brought the petition in that was one of the things I think you know the the city planner requested that uh we have off street parking for at least 4 Vehicles which we did I mean it it parking is is pretty pretty easy on that street normally except when the hospital's really busy because it's only a block away from the hospital um but we're going to provide that that off

street parking for those those two units questions from the board are you going to break this as as first and second floor is that the intention it is and there's there's actually a third floor to it too so it's going to be first and partial second and partial second partial third because it's that's how it would it actually break the right way yeah do you have a bedroom count seven bedrooms um so it's

probably going to be broken down into a uh when when it's all converted over probably a three and a two

Dan from planning please so I just want to call to everyone's attention that this property was before the zoning board of appeals previously in 2017 it was denied uh the request for Relief allow asking for the conversion to a three family um and at that time it was determined that there was not sufficient evidence presented for meeting the definition of a hardship again this is a

new petition they are able to come back before the zoning Board of s um do you know what the total square footage will be of one of like say the second unit like yeah the second unit is probably going to be about, 15500 squ ft and the other one's going to be about it's going to be the 2500t the reason I ask is that in two weeks mhm you'll be able to

create a 900t unit by right in two weeks with the accessory dwelling unit bylaw that the the governor has put in place um so that that kind of I I think the board should consider that where you know is the need for a relief may be minimized um solely by dealing with the square footage aspect of it after the creation of a by accessory dwelling unit so that but that would be a single accessory

dwelling a single accessory dwelling yes so you could one different ways to approach it if you want to limit or minimize what happens here you could Grant the relief with the condition that no additional units are created period because if in two weeks you could potentially come back and request multiple accessory dwelling units regulation hasn't been finalized yet got it you're in that process now so but in

a matter of short time you'll at least be able to get one and right now the draft regulation is 900 square feet or 50% of the the living space whichever is smaller if it was 50% the living space whichever is bigger then you'd be perfect right um so I don't know you should consider what the new regulation is that may be coming in uh so the need to Grant relief may be needed or not not needed

I don't know which way to advise you to go with is that something you would consider um yeah oh yeah not not allowing any more units after the two yes because again the the total intention is to create the two and basically follow what it's always been it's just never been legally done that way and um but you know right it's always been used as a two family always but but strictly for the family

so that would yeah definitely accepting of that you can see what the the audience has to to hear but the actual granting of relief here overall May limit the potential density so might be a better thing for the neighborhood but let's see what the what the neighbors have to say y go from there okay let's uh anyone else on the board question that's a good point Dan um I don't think you want to come back and

limit yourself to a 900t unit though as a second one do you no okay be honest is there anyone here in the uh audience that wishes to speak uh in support of this uh petition is there anyone here wishing to speak in opposition a lot of folks somebody in that I know happy birth so there's two edges to this sword and and the granting of relief there's nothing to say that the

applicant has to act on the belief either once once a new regulation comes in if they determine that to be more beneficial and they can move in that direction um but without knowing what's in that that's for you to decide right sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't so well and I do like the idea of in the petition if we petition to or if we move

to uh to approve that it is capped at the two units so that makes sense and we've got an Ascent from from Council I don't believe you're an attorney you look at an attorney I know I the slob like I I just I I did not have enough time to go home and get changed and I feel like I I used I think Joe has three more coats in his car yeah I know

I was thinking I used to go to Maine to do uh to do uh to be to sit on that side of the table for uh for items yeah you usually take your code off and put a hat on when it be like absolutely do not wear a tie um aside from that um which to the board anyone wish to act or put a motion on the floor Mr chman I move approval of it uh

it's something that will give them the option to act or not act on the change when it comes in place in febrary do you want to condition the cap of no more than oh yeah one additional with no no further uh expansion of the variance or additional units can be created no additional units right just so to in a building you're good with that do we have a second on that motion a

second second by Dan any discussion on the motion they hearing none on the motion uh Alexis yes Jim yes Dan yes Eric yes chairman perie yes thank you so much on to item number three Don Andre and Jody cab attorney Dan megas uh vacant lot Atlantic Boulevard map A7 requesting in variance to construct a single family home waving lot area and side uh yard setbacks along with lot coverage the property is located in an

R8 single family zoning district with flood has it restricting uh in a be Zone good evening again again attorney David Magna 227 River Road West Point Massachusetts represent the petitioner um I have Dawn Andre with me uh Jody's here as well but uh she's in the back but uh but Dawn is one of the owners of the property um the request tonight this is an R8 district and um they're looking

to build a single family home on the land and waving the area the frontage the width and the side yard requirements um this property is a posle of land uh that's about approximately 58 100 sare ft um and it's located on Atlantic Boulevard which is in the south end of Far River um this land has been in the family since 1919 so um it's been over 100 years that the family has owned this property at

one point they owned the house next door and came before this board um and this board granted a variance to construct a house there but at the time um after and by the way I have to disclose that too um in 1919 it's my grandparents that had this property so we're related um in this process and my uncle who went for the variance it was granted and the the plan was to build a house on

that APLE for his son but at that point within the year he he got ill and they never did that and they moved in and they took over the house and nothing was ever built so the variance expired um at one point there was a house located on this on this particular pel but it was destroyed in one of the Hurricanes uh back in the day um again that variance that that I spoke of was

granted in 1993 and the board approved it um uh his as I said when his son took over the property and didn't build on it he eventually just recently transferred it to his daughters who Jody and and D um this area is predominantly single family um it's all the Lots in this area are very similar to this particular lot size-wise um it was part of the area at one time called Sandy

Beach um and they were started out with cottages for the most part and eventually those Cottages were expanded and they were renovated and so you know it's it was kind of a beachy community at the time and still kind of a unique Community down there um most of the properties again wouldn't meet all the zoning requirements today to build uh this this lot is stands by itself it's

uh um so as far as the on the variance of this the reason that uh we're coming in because of the size of the lot the shape of the lot um it doesn't meet the zoning requirements and it's unusable at all um unless a variance is granted order to build this house and uh so it it truly does have a have a um you know the it meets the requirements

of the reason why we're here for a variance is for the hardship um and again if if this is granted it's going to be very similar to all the other houses in the neighborhood uh all the other Lots in the neighborhood and um yeah and it's not going to really affect the neighborhood adversely at all so any questions well we we do have an unusual situation in that and Dan probably has more details

on it I know he does but a prior decision was appealed it was okay so a court Superior Court ruled on this and set limitations on that that parcel of land this body does not have the authority to overstep the Superior Court when they when the Superior Court acted on it um and they gave the VAR and they well the variance was given by the board um the neighbors appealed it because they were concerned about height

restrictions and you they they didn't want it to block their view M and um okay what ended up happening too is that um my my uncle actually ended up putting up uh two big poles and he put He put sheets across to kind of you know show the neighbors that see I can do this to blocky view but uh so I had to go down there and tell them take them

down a great way Influence People yeah no I know I know he was he was 80 90 years older the time if this if if what is before us this evening is different than what the court what the court approved it is it is I mean what the court did when you know when you know in Superior Court they allowed it I they they found that the board you know what they granted was

uh correct and what they did is it was negotiated with the neighbors that they limit the height of the of the building and that's what was granted and that's that was that was what the superior cour what year was that that was 1996 I think yeah it was 1996 and the court case was probably 6 months later and again it was negotiated out between the at that time you didn't if there was

a condition you couldn't live with you didn't want to appeal the the judicial decision no because uh we agreed but that it was fine right so you have to live with it now okay so stand said that they didn't act on the variance right that's incorrect so the variance contained the subdivision of the parcel and the construction of the new parcel that original decision was granted in 1993 correct through the appellant

process the the Supreme Court rendered a decision in 96 that which remanded it back to the zoning board of appeals which the conditions of both were the same that you could not have a structure in excess of 18 ft in height correct and that was a decision of the Court M followed up with the final rendering of the decision the property owner at that time in agreeance with the agreement and

and the Court's opinion moved forward with the variants subdivided the piece of land and sold the dwelling at 56 thus acting upon the Varian okay so you are stuck with those conditions unless you go back to court and have them eliminated so you're saying there's no need to even be here today well no I've got that's my opinion but I'm not an attorney but that's how I see it so I

did present it to the uh building inspector you know and we did talk about it um You didn't tell us that it went to court in your presentation now so I'm curious to see what you had presented to him at that time as well so you have two options One MH we can continue on and I think we should continue on to hear what the the neigh have to say um but you may

want to contemplate two things one you may want to withdraw without prejudice or request that or the other option is to ask the board to continue on and vote um but but before that happens um I think the bo I think the board might I think the board is saying they they're uncomfortable voting because they don't feel they you have the uh because it's already been adjudicated they they don't

have a problem voting they have a problem granting correct two different things so in other words right so you're saying what we're doing here is we're changing the request that was in before that changing theis the that the original decision stands and was acted upon so we don't really NE neily have to be here as long as we abide by that particular decision right if you could the variance is still good okay and if

you can abide by the requirements of that judgment and the previous variance variance is good forever because you acted upon it so acting upon it by subdividing and conveying the parcel sometimes it works in your favor sometimes it hurts so whatever side of the coin you're looking at it here it could be one of the other um but why don't we listen and see what there's a lot of people I think that came out to

talk about this let's um turn to the audience anyone wishing to speak in U support okay of this petition anyone wishing to speak in opposition Matthew ask off County Street in Somerset I represent uh Butters mostly to the east Mary Halliday Lisa Quintel Nicole bazaro Dorothy sear and Rory Veria um Mr AIA is correct on the on the history of this I I hate to admit it because that admits my age but my

prior office actually represented the abuts um at the zoning board of appeals hearing and at the U and at the litigation in the superior court I do have a petition to present with to you Mr chairman with over 50 50 signatures in opposition I also made packets for all the members of the board and Mr and Mr Magna um enclosing photographs of my client's perspective of the uh of the land but including the zoning decision

from 1993 and the um the judicial determination in 1996 I just point out briefly and and you're aware of this with regard to the variance itself it's a much greater variance request than was agreed upon in the plan we are in that ra8 district with lot area of 8,000 square ft um there this lot is 5800 Square ft and I would submit to the board that they created their own hardship Mr Magna

indicated this property has been in this family for um over a hundred years they're the ones that came the family came in and they divided this lot and created this undersized lot um before the board in 1993 the applicants that are before you today it was conveyed to them and their family members I believe it was conveyed to them for a dollar in 2022 now just by way to to elaborate on

what Mr agie I told you early in 1993 the application came before the board um the petition sought to to divide the lot into two lots waving require waving the uh area Frontage width and side yard um and again there was a restriction placed on the board there was a lot of um a lot of opposition to this there was some people in support of it at the time but the condition specific to the zoning

board's um hearing was 18 feet height above the mean grade of the overall posle that was the limitation um the abut is appeal that decision now I've given you a copy of the actual court agreement that was reached now this was extensive litigation it didn't go on for 6 months it went on for 3 years um the decision was rented in 1996 with uh with three with actually Four conditions the first condition is

it's constructed in accordance with the variance granted that included the 18t height Max there were additional negotiated conditions put on this particular lot and and of note is the is the northern boundary could not be expanded whatso ever and it had to be cre this had to be built in accordance with the plan and there would be no additions on the tindel street side which was which was the northern

boundary and the white the parties waved any right to appeal now what we have here the change if you look as part of that judgment it's been recorded in the registry of deeds there's a plan the Judgment references the plan it's attached to the second document in the package I gave you and the the agreement previously was that the rear yard was going to be 26.5 ft now the proposed

plan is 10.7 Ft that puts the property in the back door of the sear property um which is immediately to the east of this particular property the the side yard at the time on tendle was 29.3 ft now the request is 8.01 clearly in violation of the intent of that original zoning variance and agreement by threefold fourfold almost the front yard is 22 ft it's in compliance with zoning the loot coverage

back then was also in compliance with zoning it was 1196 Square ft which was less than 25% this new proposal they requiring a waiver for the area also now these abas have the um the right to uh you know some finality on this if you look at the plan that's been submitted by by the applicants there is a uh the velocity zone is noted on that plan and

that's one of the key fact in in this uh in this request the velocity Zone Cuts right through the middle of the plan and you see the line what theyve what the um what the applicant has in effect done is cut a 5,800 foot lot in half so now they're looking to build on a 2900 sqt lot outside of the Velocity Zone to take it out of the height requirements of 20

ft above mean high tide in the velocity zone so that's what they trying they're trying to circumvent the agreement reached 32 years ago and and with the height restrictions now the height restrictions are critical you can see from the photographs in the um that I've submitted to you that if this house is built in accordance with the submitted plan it would clearly block all of the

ocean view of all of the abuts that um that I represent tonight and certainly others in the area with regards to the butter to the immediate North M Bizarro herar when the board divided this before it gave set it gave side yard requirements so the existing house that was divided cut off in 1993 the garage is right on the lot line this house is going to be about 6 feet from that

garage if you if allowed this if this petition is allowed there's also concern that's been raised to me tonight by my clients on uh Tindle Street very narrow Street uh my client tells me that at one point they needed a rescue up there there were cause parked on the side of that street that caused uh that caused a rescue the inability um to get there I would suggest to you that there's

there's been no hardship o owing to the shape Topography of soil conditions in the land any hardship was created by the petitioners himself and lastly I I would just say that as the board knows you're required to give the most di Minimus relief that you can that you can afford as a zoning board to provide relief if in fact you find a hardship in this particular case I suggest there's no

hardship but quite frankly um there was an agreement 32 years ago and that agreement gave you the DI Minimus relief that was available at the time so this this hot this H hardship request is way above and beyond that and it really it really should be denied I I would be opposed to um allowing withdrawal at this point um my clients again they've been fight some of them for 30 years I

know Mr Beria was involved in the original he was a plaintiff in the original um litigation some of the people are New U but they bought their property with the intent with the understanding nothing was going to be built there and these these are things that are record tile I would request that you deny the petition um at at this point in time as opposed to continuing it um or allowing them to withdraw thank

you I appreciate your input and you know the way the way you've packaged this up for us thank you very much Mr chairman I obviously at this particular point with the discussion that we had uh it would make sense for us for uh to request at least to withdraw this petition the bo would accept it you have that right right I think we want I think we'd like to do that and it'll give us

you know then we we'll go back and we'll look at the uh the decision and if and you know hopefully make that work yeah I mean the the relief you're looking for here even if there there wasn't another uh decision that was ratified by the court years ago I I I'd be pretty hard pressed yeah understood that velocity Zone makes makes a huge difference it's going to be it's going to be a huge

different it's going to be up to the engineering what they can potentially do with this based on the old decision okay so that's our request you have you the right thank you just double check there's no I'd still like to hear from sorry the public here they they have they have that right anyone else wishing to speak uh in opposition to the U we and we haven't we haven't voted the withdrawal yet either

so um so don't leave no no even even though you're two and a half hours late and not wearing a tie I know I know I'm just giving everybody the opportunity to sit if they want it to that's all anyone else wish to be heard in opposition yes please you can do it from there we we can hear you from there okay so uh I'm Lisa Quintel um this is my mother i s she was

one of the original uh as well um so we own the property um her and my aunt is elderly and it's a huge concern with blocking that Tindle street because it's a dead end there's no other access there there's no way um to get there in case there is an emergency so I'm very concerned that if there's trucks or anything in that road will'll never get through um honestly is because when they

were even Paving the streets there was a couple of times that I had to call down and say hey you need to move because we have you know the ambulance coming in and so forth so that's one of my huge concerns with that the other concern is that they're going to uh build that house right directly in front of my water VI so it will devalue my property so it will cause a hardship for me so

when I go to sell my house someday I won't have a water view I'll have to say oh well you can look over the house in front of us that was just built there in whatever 2027 um so I am totally opposed to building any kind of house in that in that area and you know it's in the the flood zone if they have to if if that's something you know that's a concern

because it shouldn't be built there as well okay very good thank you so much yeah anyone else yes hi hi I'd like to just mention that just your name and address please oh I'm sorry Mary H 36 Moody Street okay um the all the all of Atlantic Boulevard and all the side streets have all been repaved they look fantastic the city did a great job all water lines were replaced the roads were repaved at an

expense of the taxpayers um if that house is put on that lot that's all on tendle street and maybe Atlantic Boulevard it would I'm assuming it would have to be dug up again which I think is a very valid position not a zoning board not a Zing that's not it's not an us situation I am when you deal with them with the request first yeah why don't we can we have a

uh we have a request to withraw to make a motion to grant that request withdraw without prejudice I'm assuming correct okay without prejudice if there's no motion we have to we have to act that's cumbersome from a legal standpoint yeah someone has to make a motion either to Y Grant the request or deny question I for purposes of vote I will move that we uh Grant the request to withdraw withdraw without prejudice

do we have a second on

that second Motion in a second to allow the withdrawal without prejudice of uh the petition on the motion uh Eric no Dan yes Jim yes Alexis no and chairman prair yes um that does not pass so now someone has to make a motion on the petition on the petition itself can we have a motion on the petition please motion to deny motion to deny do we have a second I'll second it second from Alexis uh

discussion okay on the motion to deny Alexis yes Jim yes Dan yes Eric yes and chairman cair yes okay thank you thank you w for coming out thank you thank you thank you thank you Jeff you get to follow that item number four Manuel Aruda care of Jeffrey tman zero Tilson Street c04 Lot 24 the applicant requests that a variant that the variance granted by the board on December 23rd

2023 be extended for a period of 6 months to allow additional time necessary to complete the site plan review process and obtain a building permit good evening for the record Jeff Coleman from Northeast engineers and consultants and I thought they were all here for this application but apparently not um yeah we're simply here to request an extension for 6 months um the uh the petitioner um owns a

landscape company um as after the petition got approved last January I believe or December whatever it was um they couldn't really they they were trying to decide on the building that they wanted to build on the other sides of the building they were going back and forth and then that rolled into the uh the the landscape season they got tied up um so it never really uh materialized

so they're at that point now where um and there were some other concerns that they had regarding um CU this is very similar to a petition that the boy had granted um over on Veil Street around the corner um where from pekham Street Garage where they were building a stand alone garage and there was some uh concerns there with the plumbing code whether or not a bathroom had to be put

in place floor drains all that stuff so that's some something that we're also factoring in on this one um so they're still kind of up in the air um but they are you know they know that times aren't outed they got to make a decision on which way to proceed so we're simply here to request that this uh this decision be extended for 6 months to allow him time to uh finalize their

plans and get a site plan filed thank you Jeff questions guys if not no one's left to ask if they want to uh oppose Mr chairman I move approval of the uh request to extend for six months very good do we have a second second motion and second on the motion Alexis yes Jim yes Dan Eric and chairman Prairie yes thank you next item on the agenda is election of officers I would

entertain a motion pleas chairman I move that we postpone the election of offic there and extended term of the chairman and vice chairman for till the February meeting very good do we have a second on the motion Eric yes danan yes Jim yes Lexus yes myself yes uh citizen input n um I might say something approval of minutes move no move acceptance of the minutes and W the reading thereof Motion in second on the motion

Eric yes Dan yes Jim yes Alexis yes myself yes and that gets us to the end guys motion to adjourn before 7:00 by 2 minutes I love it motion to adj my text yes Z second tomor on the motion all oo all in favor opposed Good Guys good meeting