10.19.2023 Zoning Board of Appeals

good evening I am Joseph Pereira chairman of the zoning board of appeals for the city of Fall River it is 6 pm on Thursday October 19th 2023 we are meeting at one government center in the first floor hearing room persuant to Mass General Law chapter 30A section 20 subsection F I hereby notify all persons in attendance that this meeting is being recorded with both video and audio devices Fall River

government TV Mr Alex Melo uh recording both video and audio versions if anyone desires to make an audio video or combination recording thereof please notify me and I shall make uh a public announcement of your intention they're hearing none our recording secretary this evening is Nina Krueger sitting to my immediate right present this evening our permanent members James Caulkins Dan

deir Ricky sahadi and Alternate member Eric Kelly also with us this evening is director of uh engineering and planning Mr Dan agar sitting to my far left and our assistant planner uh Chris pereno sitting to my far right Nina uh have all petitions to be considered here Pro been properly advertised and all parties notified in accordance with the rules and regulations of the zba and

Mass General Law chapter 4A as amended yes I declare the October 2023 regular scheduled meeting of the zoning board of appeals of the city of Fall River open for such business as shall come before it I remind all persons presenting before the board including the petitioners a Butters anyone in support or anyone opposed to the petition that your presentations should be limited to three minutes questions and responses

must be directed through the chair the board's rules and regulations 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 this for the petition I hereby advise the petitioners and all interested persons that this is the zoning board of appeals the board's Authority exists personent to

Massachusetts General Law chapter 4A and is limited in scope and deals with the use of land as 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 and or use which is the subject of the petition before the board this evening clerks in the building planning engineering and Licensing departments

are competent in the discharge of their Duty as clerks they are however not lawyers and not competent to give legal advice the action taken by this board has a real and Lasting effect upon the title to your real estate I urge all petitioners to seek competent legal counsel before filing your petition and after a decision of the board has been made for example there was a city or orance

25-11 section 10-1 requiring site plan reviews a copy of the ordinance is available at the city clerk's office or from the planning department I remind everyone that the building inspector is the code 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 Rivers zoning ordinances the city Charter -9 uh section 9-18

requires that all multiple member bodies develop and adopt rules or policies for public comment we have adopted such a policy which in short provides for Citizens input on zoning board specific matters at the end of the meeting I'll note that who anyone who wishes to speak during that time there is a signup sheet on the table outside the door to the room I declare that an official copy of

the city of Fall River zoning ordinance is a available at the city clerk's office and that one cannot rely on the online zoning ordinance is this thing giving a great deal of feedback Alex can you adjust that thank you I have a hard enough time hearing myself once it could be ConEd as art could be by the way those chords must have had something to do with a piece of art they

are not a piece of art okay we'll try this again let us begin with uh old business item number 01 Jeffrey Diogo care of Attorney Peter acelino 103 Street map n-6 lot 34 the applicant seeks a variance to construct a mixed use building on the property located property location containing an art studio on the first floor and an apartment on the second floor abandoning on-site parking requirements

um mandated by the previous decision of the zba the applicant seeks an additional special permit under Section 886-4455 to reduce the number of on on street parking Spa off street parking spaces required this property is located in a BL local business zoning district and an aod Arts overlay district and an HD1 Housing Development overlay District this petition was previously uh tabled

on September 21st 2023 zoning board of appeals meeting by at the request of the applicant good evening good evening thank you for the record my name is Peter selino I'm a lawyer here in PA River my office is at 550 Locust Street as the board remembers this petition relating to 103d Street uh was here in September I did move to table it and the board graciously granted that request

the purpose of the request to table was to address some of the concerns that were raised by the board um during the September meeting so just a brief recap here uh Mr dieago has granted a variance he uh went through site plan review he received a building permit he built the building the building currently is in disrepair and right across the street from this building um his brother passed

away in June and ultimately he' liked to see the project through uh they were co-owners of the building and so that was the reason for the filing um the main uh objections or opposition as I perceived it from the board were the lack of parking as it was shown on the original uh variants as well as the size of the building differing from what was uh originally presented at the zva meeting in

2017 um so I can report to the board as follows in an effort to address those concerns with respect to the parking my client has uh reached an agreement with the city of Fall River through which he was able to lease two parking spaces in the City Garage uh just to our South I've submitted and I believe it's in the board's packet an invoice that indicates he has paid in full through the end of

this year he was advised by The Parking Clerk that he cannot pay for next year meaning 2024 um I guess for City or budgetary reasons so if this were approved uh my client would certainly stipulate to the fact that he would need need to maintain his lease for the two parking spaces in the city garage and I've also submitted to Nina an invoice for next year uh which would be do in January indicating

that it's $1,080 for the year for the two parking spaces uh relative to the concerns surrounding the building my client is pretty passionate about the fact that he did receive a building permit and the building is there and the foundation was inspected and all the various phases were inspected but he also understands the realities of the situation that he's in and he want wants to be deferential to the board's

Authority and as a result we submitted a new plan uh to Nina indicating that he would be willing if the board is inclined to remove a portion of the building at the rear which equates across two floors to approximately 375 square feet of building space um this removal I think serves to address the board's concern about the enlargement of the building and the differing size of the building as it was presented at the

zoning board then the planning board and through the building permit in terms of dollars and cents it should be noted that by doing that uh he would be losing uh obviously money as a result of having to take it down and then he would also be losing bedrooms um that were intended to be used for the residential use on the second floor so it is possible um he would do it if he had to and we've

submitted this plan and an effort to be responsive to the board's uh concerns and with that I'm happy to take any questions from the board my client can certainly answer questions and then I look forward to Mr Macy's presentation in opposition okay very good so as as we recall from uh from last month that area that's been hashed out which is potentially to be taken down or thank you for that offer is pretty much

where the parking spaces were going to be and that was the section of the building that extended beyond that which had been originally permitted that is correct okay um and also um in an effort to answer or respond to that I had uh Mr tomman do an overlay of the proposed building versus what was there uh what was raised and the building that was raised in 2009 did extend further back um and I'm happy to

provide that if the board wants to see that as well I I get it but that's not what was permitted so understood I just giving point of reference no I appreciate that um and that was that extra space was probably given up four parking spaces at the time so any questions from the board at this point comment from Eng offers that we had also asked that on this new plan that they showed the footprint of the

building that was permitted through the Varan so you'll see that on theine um when you look at the setbacks what's actually out there now is just marginally larger setback to the north is reduced by a foot three feet was the setback at the time the building actually came in at two and the building the souly property line was 2.4 and it's actually 2.2 so they did add that to the plan and does

not does not create much more thank you any other questions from the board at this point I would turn to General Public is there anyone here to speak in favor of this petition anyone to speak in opposition to the petition Mr chairman members of the board name is Joseph Ma I'm an attorney with an office at 209 Bedford Street in Fall River in association with auur Frank here tonight representing Mr

Anthony cero who I think for is familiar with he has substantial properties in the city and particularly substantial properties in this area um we very much oppose this new request and I'll be as direct and succinct as I can what this board is looking at is zoning jiujitsu and by that I mean turning things upside down and inside out the petitioner came before this board some time ago made a presentation and got

what he asked for what he asked for was a building which he got with the accoutrements and he represented he would get parking based on that the board granted his request then and this is really the rub then he lost his parking commitment so he went ahead and built what he wanted to build in excess of what he had given given permission to build and in violation of the parking requirement which he just ignored and

built the building right over now he comes before the board and says oh I couldn't do what I originally was given permission to do so I violated that permission I went ahead and built something I'll call it illegal but certainly a violation of his permission and now I want you to give me permission to build something else it doesn't make sense it's not legal you can't create your own hardship

and I'll leave it to the board to decide um credibility and policy and if this is really something the board wants to tolerate but the fact is he's not entitled to what he's asking for and when he got what he asked for he violated that permission so that's the jiujitsu and I think um you can't call somebody out on strikes and wrestling but I ask you to uh deny this

petition Mr shair every month we seem to do jiujitsu and kung fu fighting in this room so no stranger to it yes if I may reply so first of all uh again my client built what is out there with a building permit so I would assert to you that it is not illegal that certain departments within the city permitted what he built um we're not here to ask to build something illegal it's already there we

know um I guess if we want to use wrestling and physicality analogies that we are not in a position to leverage that's why I've instructed my client to be deferential to the board and to consider an alternative plan and parking to address the concerns because in a wrestling match when you're about to get pinned you have to slide to your hip and get the leverage and that's the only

choice we have here so there's no magic there's no jiujitsu and not withstanding the abutters opposition I think that we've done the best we could in the circumstance that we are in right now there's only a limited number of options one is to come up with a solution um it was built under a building permit which means the building inspector had to be had to have been out there at least one time and if the

building inspector did not realize the thing was being built outside of the parameters of the of the permitted uh building uh shame on the city of Fall River um so we either tear it down build what was uh or come back and and try to build what was originally permitted leave it there and let the city tear it down or um or come up to some type of solution anybody else to speak in

opposition then I have to turn could I just add one thing sure um since I did please just identify yourself for the record yes Jeff from Northeast engineering Consultants um the the building the full scope of the building that you see there the footprint including the hash out area was shown on a site plan that went through site plan review with the city of fall and that plan was subsequently

used uh in the building permit application packet so the building was not expanded after the building perit was issued it was the petitioner was upfront and I I think part of the confusion was the way the decision was WR uh written wa and it mentions waving all dimensional requirements so I don't think the petitioner realized he was doing anything wrong at that point he felt he had the ability to do it

submitted plans to show what he wanted to do and got approval at the city level who cyclin review and the building thank you for that input yeah I'll also point out that a number of developers in this city especially those who have been developing downtown have come up with alternative parking besides their own property it's been pretty common and um some extremely fine projects have

gone forward having to do that uh I would turn to the board at this point in time last chance for questions if there are any if there are not I would accept a motion to either uh approve with conditions or deny uh make a motion to accept as long as he maintains the pocket Le and that would be with that extension area in the back left intact Y no you said with the area being

removed as presented as presented as presented so your T motion will accept as presented with the caveat of maintain in the pocket okay but as presented was with the option of removing that back section of the building well it says on the plan to be removed so it is with the removal of the back section of the building as indicated in the hashed area on the plans yep okay do we have a second on

that motion I'll second you down that was me and so that's for the variant and then we won't need the special permit anymore because the parking will be offsite right well no we still have to you have to have it special permit allows you to utilize other parking other than on-site parking so you still have to act on the special permit par okay all right on no other comment on

the variance then um Eric heli yes Jim ckins yes Dana yes Ricky Sahar yes and chairman per yes then there is the matter of the special permit um regarding parking uh to be waved um if it uh if we are to allow it it should be way by virtue of or maintaining the parking uh at an off-site location could get sticky down the line trying to prove that yeah that's why I

was wondering how that gets monitored down the road would happened if it was not the building department would have to monitor it if it became a problem and then what happens to the variance it become deployed I mean they're not going to tell people to leave I would believe yeah but it's just like every every other scenario where an applicant provides X number of spaces here x number spaces on another lot you know we

we often have applicants different applicants laying claim to the same spots in uh in parking facilities so true at the time of relief um they're providing you with security of those two spaces along with the installation of the new space on the street as well Mr chairman yes um is it within the perview of this board to require within this motion um that receipts be submitted when the payment is made for

2024 that the receipt be submitted to this board that in fact the payment was made for the two least parking places I think if it's well I think you're asking the chairman so the chairman will speak in that well I I think it is reasonable I mean just as just as when we separate properties were yeah you can you can require that no occupancy permit be granted until the security of parking

for 20124 has been submitted it not come to the board to be submitted with the with the at the time of of an occupancy permit right so it wouldn't come to us it would go to the zonian enforcement Authority so we can require that in the motion is that correct yes yeah okay it's reasonable okay what's our wishes kids is this a single V or is this B parking

one I know you love bated no I don't want to bate anything Mr chairman I move that we Grant Pro this special permit uh on the condition that uh receipts for the continued parking for the year 2014 I mean 24 be uh submitted prior to the insurances of uh occupancy permits okay second second by Rie sahti any discussion on the motion uh Ricky STI yes Dan deir yes Jim ckins yes Eric Kelly yes chairman Pereira

yes thank you all thank you new business item number one hqv homes LLC care of attorney Mark L1 92 Ballard Street excuse me map s13 lot 22 the applicant seeks a special permit firstent to section 86- 425 of the city of fall Riva zoning ordinance to extend the non-conforming structure as well as a variance for the increase of lot coverage the property is located in a g General zoning District good evening

good evening for the record again attorney marel L Flor offic is at 138 Rock Street fora Massachusetts the petitioner um purchased the property and desires to add an addition to the rear of that property to the north of the property of where it exists to add two bedrooms and a bathroom um the interior of the property is such that they're extremely small bedrooms and a half basically a

half bath in the units and my client wants to put a full bath in in two bedrooms um it's not a use problem but we we lack area and at the same time my client will keep the same uh Dimension to the east side which is 2.4 ft from the boundary so we can just extend the building straight out and just add onto the building uh he meets the rear yard and the West yard

Sidelines but he lacks the ability to place an addition anywhere else in in order to give access the the landing on the rear of the property is so that it would meet the emergency code to have access from each unit to get outside because it's required by law and right now it doesn't have that required access uh but again it's an older building and no one ever bothered updating it so

while they're spending money to update it they just wanted to add this basically it's 12T to the back of the property uh the current house um it just doesn't it lacks any other way you can put the bedrooms on the property in a full bath there um unfortunately that's the best he's got so we need a special permit to allow the continue of the same non-conforming uh sideline on the East

and to wave the um area the density requirements for the uh building to sit on the ground lock coverage do we need a special permit if the if the non-conformity already exists well because we're extending because we're extending it by 12 ft so yeah that's the odd part about the whole thing I was hoping it' just be a special permit for all of it but lock coverage is not one

of the things you can get a speci could have been a special permit I don't know what the existing lock coverage is but you you were already in exence yeah but I read it you read it I read that well twice and I said okay I need a varat I can't get away with a special permit for the lock coverage I can get away with it for the side yard I know it's odd but

it's I read the language and I said I don't think I can do it so I'm not going to ask you to give me a special permit for something that I'm not comfortable that I could get normally with lock coverage um looking at notes from planning department you do indicate that it's current no it's required is 25% we don't know what's there now we're saying existing is 51.7% right and the proposed coverage will go up to

66.2 how many units are in this building currently three and would this be an additional unit oh no no it's just being added to the they're adding two bedrooms to each floor okay yeah that's all they're doing from what I'm told they're extremely small and there really isn't an adequate bath at all and that so they're going to reconfig the entire each floor and add two bedrooms to

it okay and have a real bath no no no additional kitchens no additional kitens thank you okay okay and the the setback to the West Remains the Same yes okay that's within the required and the rear yard still meets the requirement it just these two yeah I mean we've got existing non-conformity on two sides and and on lot coverage at this point right all right questions from the board comments from engineering nope

is there anybody here to speak in favor of the petition anyone to speak in opposition okay I turn to the board again last chance for any questions and if there are none questions and comments i' entertain a motion on this this has been under Redevelopment for quite some time hasn't it I don't know my client purchased it I know he said there had been a fire with a prior owner but but

again I don't know the detail my client took title in April okay Mr chairman I move that we Grant the variance accordance with the specification submitted I'll second is that end again yes thank you it's the chair I can I suppose I should augment that provided that no additional uh units created right now you're just doing the variance the variance is on my coverage okay no tense so we have a motion and a

second uh motion by Jim ckins variance uh second by Dan deir um discussion hearing none uh on the motion Eric Kelly yes uh Jim ckins yes Danier yes Ricky sahad yes chairman per yes and Mr chairman I I guess this one isn't this is bated y i i find that the uh requested special permit is not substantially more detrimental to the area have a motion on the floor that the special permit requested is not

substantially more detrimental to the area do we have a second I second second um on the motion yes Dana yes Jim ckins yes Eric Kelly yes chairman Prairie yes and Mr chairman I move that we Grant the special permit uh conditional and no additional divisions or uh units be created through the expansion motion to Grant uh with the condition that no additional dwelling units be created do we have a second

second second by Dan deir on the motion Ricky sahti yes Dan deir yes Jim ckins Eric Kelly chairman Prairie yes thank you very much have a good evening good to see you nice see you guys yeah I only had one tonight I don't see if for Thanksgiving have a very you as well item number two Summit View LLC uh Mr chairman attorney colen he's at at a hearing in Somerset oh so if you

want to put that one off until he gets in be appreciated no problem item number three Beverly Pereira not related um 350 Rochester Street map r04 lot 90 the applicant seeks a special permit to reduce the required setbacks between detached garage and an existing dwelling in a single family zoning District good evening good evening I'm Beverly prer of 350 Rochester Street and this is my husband

Keith um we presented last year this time um with off uh attorney Lan to give us what we needed for the addition of the garage and somehow the setback that we need the special permit for now um was not taken into account so we're requesting for the 5T instead of the 6 ft um and then we'll need an extension for the existing garage because we weren't able to start because we needed

to go through this we went through site plan review and it was only through the site plan review that they realized that it was actually 5T in the plans and not six but the original plans had it we didn't change anything from the original plans and you should have a copy of the original plans from last year when we did the variants um and that's how that was found and we're also requesting because if we

had gone through an attorney expecting everything to be taken care of um and it wasn't so we were asking for a waiver for the special permit because we thought everything would have been addressed last year fining fee the fining fee the fining Fe we'll consider that okay if this is a request help me if this is a request to change to vary a dimension entirely new this is an entirely new

special permit no I understand that y but why is it a special permit rather than a variance if there's a setback situation the garage garage is the setback from a building to the garage is required to be six feet but by special permit all of those garage things can be waved by special permit have to read that so the use of dealing with the garage Edition itself that was all granted fine the dimension

between the two structures was not provided and then when we asked for that to be provided at site plan review it was determined that it was only 5 ft and that was not discussed all granted at the time of the original release okay just cleaning up dotting eyes and Crossing fees yep okay very good we do have the two separate items we'll we'll handle these um questions from the board

comments um some of you will recall this one that you're taking the old you taking the garage down put a new garage up um there was something else that was going on but I guess that was the bulk of why you're here last time it's just on the garage issue right correct okay all right and that and that Dimension was just minion separate it has to be you can't we can't extend a

variance for more than six two separate items let is De with three item four is the extension yeah okay again questions from the board anybody here to speak in uh favor of this uh petition anybody here to speak in opposition they're hearing none I'll consider a um a motion from the board on the special permit um allowing a setback of 5 feet between uh a separated garage and uh and the

dwelling Mr chairman it seems to me that there was a reasonable Miss understanding here and so I would make a motion that we approve the special permit is is this bifurcated is let's cover it yeah yeah second so well we need motion okay so I would make the motion that this is not this request is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood have a second on that second second by Dan deir on the motion

Ricky STI yes Dan deir yes Jim ckins Eric Kelly yes chairman Prairie yes and then the motion itself the motion to uh to Grant the special permit very good second second second by Dan deir on the motion Ricky Sahar yes Dan deir yes Jim Caulkins Eric Kelly yes chairman perea yes and the filing to wave the filing fee which I think is most reasonable motion to wave the filing motion to wave the filing Fe second Rick

sah um on the motion Eric Kelly yes Jim ckins Dan deir yes Ricky sah yes and chairman per yes get that right out of the way thank you and don't move item number four Beverly Pereira 350 Rochester Street map r04 lot 90 the applicant puts forth uh a motion to extend time for Rel release uh for a previously granted decision dated November 17th 2022 the applicant wishes to extend the variance period for a

period of 6 months commencing on November 17 2023 under Mass General law section 4A a variance can be extended for a single uh six-month period if um the subject of the uh the variance has not been acted upon within one year so it's completely reasonable just need a motion or actually hold hang on anybody here to speak in favor of this petition anybody to speak in opposition they're hearing none if

there's no questions from the board we can move for a motion motion to approve second motion to approve by Dan deer second by Jim ckins on the motion Eric Kelly yes Jim ckins yes Dan de yes Ricky sah yes and chairman Prairie yes thank you so much thank you you got a bunch of stuff going on there don't I walk my dogs by there all the time and it's been electricians and yeah we took the garage

down ourselves last weekend I still have um your check you can either come in tomorrow and pick it up or whenever and pick it up or I can shred it um you can just shred it that's fine okay great thank you good luck with the proog thank you right thank you item number five another name for me to Massacre zad and uh Nisa Nali NASA one too far off um zero

Florence Street wish my address was Zero something Street zero Florence Street M R16 lot 80 the applicant seeks a variance to divide the property into two lots leaving an existing single family home on one lot and building a new single family home on the Zero Florence Street lot um per a submitted plan in an S single family zoning District good evening members of the zoning board

of appeals my name is Christopher zangar I'm an attorney with offices at 4236 North Main Street in Fall River I'm here representing the nalas in their request for a variance there's a little bit of history on zero Florence and I think you already have it in your packet but in 1987 this very board granted the the request that we're asking for and the relief that we're asking for this

evening separating the lots and make them Standalone buildable lots that was granted it was recorded and we have copies if you don't have it in your packet and in that decision was set forth the hardship reasons which are the same as they are today and in fact the proposed lot to be created is lot 80 tax assessor lot 80 on Florence Street and that lot is presently vacant it's just

wooded there's nothing on it the lot has which is 1,98 Ft more than the minimum required for lot size so we need 12,000 Square ft we have more than enough on the new lot the applicant is seeking to construct a single family dwelling on that lot there is Town Water Town sewer uh that they will connect to so it has utilities the proposed structure will be less than the 25% of loot coverage

allowed in fact the applicant is proposing 19% so there's plenty of room it's under the uh cap of 25 by 6% there is no setback relief required in any way um lot 80 the lot we're talking about was the subject again of that 1987 Fall River uh zoning board of appeals subdivision and the hardship the applicant uh would repeat and actually incorporate by reference the the in that decision that was recorded the same

hardship so the board found that we would agree that that is the same now also the kind of the the rub here is that when if what we're asking for is granted and you create the second lot the the lot that is has the single family dwelling already that's already built that lot is just under 10,000 square ft and it's existed that way every every one thought is a standalone lot except that it came in common

ownership with this the Stapleton trust now I would say also that the hardship that's created would be this that that lot would be of no use um also behind that lot is the high school so it's not as if there's going to be traffic going in and out to get anywhere it's a dead end road so it would be a single family residence generating a certain amount of traffic not much it's

residential in a residential zone so it's not detrimental to the character of the neighborhood I do have the applicant here uh I also have the Builder if you're if you're interested in finding out more about the house uh it'll be about a 24 excuse me 23 Square uh 2300 squ foot house uh and we'll certainly field any questions you have I thought this took an extension of Florence Street but I just realized it

doesn't so when I drove down there the other day I was in the right spot after all yeah there's just enough asphalt that doesn't need any further extension correct so the new lot will have roughly 10,000 square ft the new lot will have just over 13,000 okay the existing lot will have just under 10 so the planning board board heard was it the same issue in 1987 yes and it was just was it recorded it

was we if I have copies if the board would like to see them so this exists as far as registry Deeds is concerned the anr plan was was recorded at the registry or just the variance decision just the variance decision that's yes just a variance decision different boards different boards different approvals y I okay all right members of the board questions planning and Engineering comment it's pretty straightforward yep

I mean there's other prayer meetings to take place site plan review cons all that stuff glad to see something happening down there too and that's City that city property that this buts to correct I think doesn't matter I just I I I'm not sure some of the Chestnut Street right Chestnut Street which is a street not constructed and then I believe as represented that's the high school to the

Y plan matters not it's just one of those Curiosities that whenever you look at it on Google Earth and it's just block a trees and in the middle of a very crowded residential neighborhood all right very good uh anybody here to speak in favor of this petition anyone to speak in opposition to this petition they're hearing none I turn to the board any questions you might have if not I'll accept a motion I move the

approval of the a variance or the granting of the variance as presented in the detailed plans I'll second okay motion and second discussion on the motion they're hearing none Eric Kelly yes Jim ckins yes Dana yes and Ricky sah yes and chairman Prairie yes thank you very much members of the board thank you item number six uh Anna kakaro care of Attorney Peter acelino 240 Highland Avenue map M24 Lot

24 the applicant seeks a variance for use and setbacks to construct two residential apartments in the existing Carriage House the applicant also seeks a special permit to 886-4455 of the city of Fall River zoning ordinance to reduce the parking requirements in an S single family zoning District the applicant also needs a special permit to increase the lot coverage good evening members of the

board for the record my name is Peter shelino I'm a lawyer in Fall River uh with me is Anna kjaro she owns the property located at 240 Highland Avenue the property currently houses uh four dwelling units and has a carriage house on the southwest corner of the property um we've submitted as Mr chair just read into the record an application for variance and special permit uh the variance relates to the use of the

property more specifically this is an S zoning District as I indicated there is an existing four family there the carriage house uh which is existing is obviously hugging the property line to the West to the South my client's objective is to make that uh usable space if you will but maintaining the exterior character and historical nature of the building so no external uh Renovations or alterations are proposed

uh in the instant petition but rather The Proposal is to convert the internal space of the carriage house uh into two one-bedroom apartments um additionally the proposal includes enlarging the existing parking area at a point that would provide one space per unit so there are six units total uh with the proposal and there would be six off street parking spaces um it should also be noted that

the existing structure houses three one-bedroom apartments and one uh multiple bedroom multifloor apartment which my client resides in with her child um so from the makeup of the the site currently uh we have uh existing three uh one-bedroom apartment apartment and again my client resides in one uh and then the two new units would be one bedrooms as well uh one bedroom as well uh in terms of the hardship component of

the petition as it relates to the variants I would submit to the board that certainly the lot is an odd shape uh given the angular nature of Highland Avenue and the front property line that certainly prevents further parking which if Highland Avenue didn't run at the angle that it runs at uh there would be more of a 90° angle Le in the front of my client's property and I'd submit to

you there could be more parking place there um so I would submit to you that that is a hardship certainly the existence of the existing Carriage House in its location um is a hardship uh my client jokingly said it's the house of the squirrels uh there are squirrels and various rodents that live in there um and certainly improving that structure with some apartments would be a nice

touch and if if you could get them to pay rent you wouldn't have to spend money on attorney seleno that's true that's true uh so ultimately um the I think those are the hardships in terms of the special permit component I don't think that the proposal is detrimental to either the neighborhood or the site um as the board well knows I think this property is directly across from the

hospital uh my client is a physician um and she envisions and encounters situations all the time with traveling nurses looking for apartments near the hospital um generally taking the train and Andor having one car mostly single people so she thinks the concept would be well um suited to the location across the street from the hospital um and my final comment would be really that this

is an interesting neighborhood composed of a variety of different uses as the board knows um I know it's certainly an S zoning District but my law office is in the same s zoning District um and of course we have a hospital we have various properties she AB buts the Little Theater y um the H the house across the street which was owned by the Housing Authority was recently sold to

the hospital and then to the north you had Dr Cody's office and several businesses so it's a mixed use neighborhood I think the proposal is reasonable um and I would be happy to entertain any questions from the board relative to the proposal curious on on the parking now you've got we get four units your commute is terrible every day um how many uh so there's no problem parking what four cars five cars that

exist now I have only because I know it's not lined off or anything so no I have one um car per unit um there single people who live here um in a bigger apartment I'm only one person you know kids are small so one car and there no problem okay questions from the board so if I understand Mr chairman there are two special permits required that is lot coverage and um the

parking reduction in addition to the varant that's correct and I I'm glad you brought that up the lock coverage right now is 54 and the proposal I'm sorry it's 53 and the proposal is 57 so we're asking for 4% more than what's existing so we're asking for variance as to use because it is a single family District but it's already a non-conforming use so wouldn't it be a permit to expand the existing

non-conforming use because it's a different structure I variance is probably the more appropriate because you have to deal with this structure the being a dwelling that does not meet the building set it's a garage y it's a carrage yeah it was a it was an apartment for horses Once Upon a Time Has free levels for basement is not livable but it has a full basement and you know it's

a great Foundation yeah that would make a great Legal Office Laing a doctor that's a lot of jokes on one all right questions other questions anybody here uh has the existing Carriage House got utilities gone is there electrical going in there electrical yes nothing else no water no no water no no the horsemen was living there 100 and something years ago and they didn't need a toilet although he was leaving

upstairs well I mean you know as far as the connections you're going to have to yeah probably tear up that driveway anyway or what's there now so that's that's for them to work out they've got a good engineer anything from uh planning and Engineering uh the only concern that I would have is that no further the subdivision once it gets done so what that means is you can't put a line right here and okay y good

reasonable somewhere down the line yeah okay anybody uh to speak in favor of the petition anybody to speak in opposition you hearing none I turn to the board with any last questions you might have contemplate how you want to move on this so we have variant as to use and converting the uh Mr chairman I move that we Grant the variance for use of the uh carriage house as a residential unit two residential two

apartments res with no f with no further subdivision is that correct with no further subdivision yeah we can put that in any of these pieces okay get it out of the way I have a second on that second second by Dan de okay any further discussion any discussion on the motion they hearing none Ricky sahti yes Dan deir yes Jim ckins yes Eric Kelly yes chairman Prairie yes and on the matter of the special permit

which uh pertains to parking and lock up a coverage issue stand we need that to be divided we don't need a divided for the parking right no it bated parking will not be bated but the uh lck coverage would be so we could do both of them we can Mr chairman I find that the uh proposed request for uh a special permit would not be more detrimental to the area either as effects s coverage or uh

parking number have a second on that please second second by Ricky sah on the motion Ricky sahti yes Dan dear yes Jim ckins Eric keelly yes chairman Prairie yes and Mr chairman I move that we Grant the special permit and that is in regard to coverage has relates to L coverage and parking requ Park so the parking requirement is one parking space per unit will be provided off street parking that's getting to be a thing

isn't it do we have a second on the motion second second by Ricky sah on the motion Ricky sahti yes Danier yes Jim ckins Eric Kelly yes Joe Pereira yes thank you best of luck we appreciate it thank you stop by the sheriff's office so you can evict the squirrels and other Ro item number seven I'm still not seeing our oh he was in Somerset tonight it's going to be a long night in

the somerset tonight it was early uh matter I that's going to be a beast um item number seven fattima Rodriguez uh 452 South Street South Main Street ah um map one- I-8 Lot 4 the applicant seeks a variance to convert the existing commercial structure into two residential units and a CBD Commercial Business zoning District we have a letter is it here come on for there it is oh table well I think it's going to be more

than the table you know um yeah that'd be easier oh look at this this one yeah that's it we have a letter dated October 19 202 3 to uh Miss Nina Krueger and the planning department Dear Miss Krueger it was a pleasure speaking to you this morning and thank you for accepting this letter as our formal request to table the application for 452 South Main Street scheduled to be heard this evening um in

uh we will instead table this application to be heard at the November hearing and we'll deliver the final piece of information on Monday October 23rd could you please let me know if there are any changes to be applied uh yada yada um I cannot Christopher valisa of H Federal Hill Group LLC Architects I already informed him of the tabling fee he said that um they would have that in on one day okay that's very

good that's the missing item they're talking about the taing fee I love it well we're going to be getting revised yes y y i yeah I understand we have a uh a motion on the uh request a table motion vember motion to approve okay motion to approve tabling uh the matter until the November meeting second please second second by Eric Kelly on the motion Eric Kelly yes Jim ckins yes Danier yes Ricky sah yes and chairman

Prairie yes okay that's November 16th November 16th did I say 15th no you just said November no the whole month item number eight Kevin Olivera 334 Veil street map e01 lot 50 the applicant seeks a variance to divide the property into two separate Lots leaving the five family dwelling on one um lot of the the existing commercial building which be which will be converted to residential use on the other lot waving

all requirements in the B1 local business zoning District good evening good evening for the record Jeff Tolman from Northeast engineers and Consultants uh here with Kevin Aliva the owner and petitioner uh for this application before the board um I'm sure this may look familiar uh to most if not all of you uh as this application has been uh for this board uh was before the board back in April of 2000 no I'm sorry

October of 2022 uh a year ago at that time we had um we had come in with a proposal to subdivide the uh the property into the two lots similar to you know in a similar manner to what's shown here uh but that proposal was we were going to maintain the commercial use of the uh the commercial structure located on the south side of the the property um this the commercial use has been in existence since

1987 uh in some form of fashion um back in 1987 there was a variance that was granted for this property um to convert what I believe to have been a a garage into a commercial uh space which I believe was a pet grooming business um in and coincidentally enough at that time they were also given permission to divide the property um they acted on converting the structure to a commercial

uh unit but they never followed through with the anr plan the subsequent a out plan to actually divide the property um which I do you know see quite often that happens when people think they get a variance they think it's divided and then they only find out years later that it's not actually the case uh so anyways moving forward we were here a year ago uh with that proposal at that time um

the commercial space had been used within in the past 12 months uh the previous owner of the property operated a home improvement business out of that that space um but at the time of the purchase by Mr alera uh the space was vacant and if I remember correctly at that meeting the M the major concern of the board at that time was uh the uncertainty of what was going to happen with that commercial

space uh what it was going to be used for uh so that that petition um ended up getting denied and and I believe it was for that particular reason uh so in April of 2023 we went to the planning board uh with a slightly different proposal uh eliminating the commercial component on this property and and proposing to convert the commercial uh structure into a one residential unit uh the planning

board um reviewed it and sort U basically voted and said that the uh we had made specific and material changes at that point which allowed us to come back before this board with uh this presentation so basically uh what we're looking to do at this time uh again it's just we're looking to take that existing commercial building conver uh convert it to a single residential apartment uh

whether it be a studio um I'm not sure um but it it would maintain the footprint that you're seeing here and we would be providing two off street parking spots at the rear uh of the dwelling for that residential use um there are two spots two parking spots on the property now uh one of them would be removed in order to get the driveway back to provide the parking uh for the second lot uh but

part of this as part of this proposal we would be installing 30 linear feet of curving on um on Veil street that would provide additional at least one possibly two additional on on Street uh parking spots uh for the neighborhood uh so even though we are losing the one on site we are providing the two additional behind and possibly two additional on the street um with that you know I'd be

happy to answer any questions that the board might have okay so the separation of lots as shown here had been previously approved I don't know if it was in this exact fashion but it was approved to be divided into two lots with the commercial bilding being one lot and the in the residence being on a separate

lot

substanti driveway with there substantially the same point is an our plan wasn't Rec recorded uh here we are all right comments from uh planning no I nothing I I would be concerned about the number of bedrooms in the unit but you normally ask those things concerned in what way are excuse me concerned in what way just the number of bedrooms that might be in the unit I mean if it's a five-bedroom unit how

many parking spaces would that require so you're not sure that Jeff how many um we don't have any plans as of yet for the layout of the building if it maintains its current um height um I I would say it would just be maximum probably one maybe two um I don't foresee this ever being any more than three uh whether or not somebody comes along and wants to add an additional

story to it um we'd certainly be comfortable if the board felt it the need to restrict it to a certain number of bedrooms um amenable to that you're not asking for Rel to Right add a flaw to it no no we're just asking to convert it to a residential use the way that is so if you want it to go up they would most likely have to come back right and with the lot separated

you'll now have two parking spaces in the back where is where's any that same area is that accommodating parking for some other residents of the five family the commercial building no well oh oh the so basically you see where it's the number one on the yeah the off Street Parking Spot there's one basically directly to the south of that those are the two off street parking spots that

are on the property now and there's a fence yeah you can see the fence um that ties the the building one right but Pi up two on the street yeah yep okay w okay is there anybody any other questions from the board so the parking located there were there's two parking spaces for the existing five where you see the number one yeah there's a single off street parking parking space that comes directly in off the

street and then the other one where it says relocate where just reads relocated stairs there's a parking space there so it is on what's now what would be in a second line yeah we would need to lose that in order to get the driveway int access to two additional parking spots to the rear but there is there is a 30 foot curb cut on the street that we would be eliminating in and installing Granite

curving to provide additional on street parking what are you thinking look at the other plan Jim you're looking at U the plan that's up there has more detail than what you're looking at I don't know which plan you're looking at Mr chairman if I may also I represent Mr Oliver and I just have one comment so I apologize Mr just the one other thing that when we were doing this plan myself

and Mr tomman and trying to see what was best for the for the city we we would like to note that we believe we're making this less dental use to the neighbor because quite honestly other than the subdivision we still would have a commercial use use there and God knows what that would do for the neighborhood in terms of actual traffic so we felt as though this particular use and the

configuration that we put forth before this board tonight would be a less detrimental use to the neighborhood especially when we do then take out the crib cut and add additional parking so that's one of the things that did go into why we made this decision to present this before the board thank you Mr chairman thank you and the petitioner just uh did mention to me he would have no problem capping at at a as a

two-bedroom residential unit no more than two bedrooms and then to your concern um so the to be converted means be converted as the building sits now corre if they wanted to build up they would have to come back yeah okay fine I don't know what height the building is now but they would low but I mean as sh no they're showing no construction activity other than the conversion of the Interior as the

buildings and you're are you're comfortable with yes yeah the building is not that large 23 by 43 or something like that size of it okay all right anybody here to speak in uh favor of this uh in support of this petition anyone to speak in opposition any other comments from the board all right we have pieces I love pieces so we are seeking a variance to divide the property into two separate Lots

five family on one the single current commercial building on the second um we're waving um our requirements in the BL local business zoning District at that point Mr chairman wait one quick question no it's it's in the BL utilities are already separate or yeah utilities will have to be separated Etc okay I'm thinking crazy because it's not in the commercial Zone we don't need to change the use of the

building what do we of which building of the commercial building well it it's allowed but it's not allowed on that size piece of land so yes you would have to you're allowing the conversion of that that building so it's all tangled in the same yeah especially where the use of that garage was granted by a variant so you can only change it by a variance by variance yeah sorry j my

interrupt sorry I was just gonna move it the variance be granted in accordance with the specifications separation of utilities and yeah and sidew back to site plan you want to stipulate also maximum of two bedrooms that yeah maximum two bedrooms in the current commercial building to be converted anything else have motion have a second second motion and second on the motion Ricky sah yes Dana yes Jim

Caulkins yes Eric Kelly yes chairman per yes thank you all right moving on item number nine Fall River Deacon is home 309 French Street uh map M24 lot 16 the applicant requests a special permit person to section 86- 425 of the city of Fall River zoning ordinance to allow the extension of the non-conforming structure and allow a 5% increase in lot coverage uh above the existing 40% that

the site has the applicant intends to construct an 800t addition in the southwest corner of the existing dwelling property is located in a an S single family zoning District evening good evening for the record Jeff Tolman from Northeast engineers and consultants and here with me tonight is Hill theonis the vice president of operations for the Flor Deacon's home um quite simply what

we're looking to do here is we have a uh a a non-conforming structure based on existing setbacks uh to the structure on a uh conforming lot located in the S District um this lot's been used in its current manner um since I believe at least 1970 um if not before um what the Deon home is looking to do is they need additional space and I can let uh Miss monis speak to that but they're looking

to simply put an 800t addition off the back uh off the uh southwest corner of the building um the addition itself would comply with the setback requirements the side setback requirements and rear setback requirements in that area um and it would uh the addition would cause a slight increase 5% increase in the the lot coverage on the property uh the existing lot coverage is 40% now uh it

would bring the lot coverage up to 45% uh so we do need relief uh uh we ask for a special permit on the lot coverage as well in addition to the expansion of the uh the non-conformance structure would you like to explain yes thank you good evening everyone thank you um so the space we're not increasing occupancy the purpose is to increase not to increase but to continue our Clinical Services um we're just doing more

Clinical Services with the Adolescent that we serve at this time but it won't be increasing Staffing the Staffing already currently exists as well as the occupancy of the youth we're not increasing bed beds it's going to be two clinical rooms which will be used for training space and uh specific therapeutic services for the current and any future youth that come to the program okay very good thank you for that

welcome questions from the board so the youth that will be serviced in the clinic are current residents it will not be out patient services no they they're we currently provide those Services thank you we currently provide the services we're just running out of space we've added a therapeutic dog we want to do more clinical different kinds of treatment trying to look at the impact on the neighborhood correct no they

won't be um out it's not going to be outpatient services from uh planning engineering standpoint nothing any other questions anybody here to speak in support of the petition anyone to speak in opposition to hearing none I'll accept uh I'll accept a motion for the board Mr chairman I find that this will not be substantially more deal to the area okay have a second on that second second

danare on the motion uh Eric Kelly yes Jim ckins yes D yes Ricky sah yes chairman Prairie yes and on the special PR Mr chair I mity grant special per submitt second okay and that is increasing lot coverage uh from the existing 40% by by 5% uh for the construction of the 800 foot addition um have a second Ricky on the motion Ricky sahti yes danda Pier yes Jim ckins yes Eric Kelly yes chairman Prairie

yes thank you thank you good luck a great work thank

you all right item number 10 SEO Street LLC 11 seavo street map l 09 lot 73 the applicant seeks a variance to divide the existing 12,000 ft parcel into two lots leaving the existing single family dwelling on one lot they construct a new single family dwelling on the second lot waving all requirements in the single family s zoning District good evening good evening Mr chairman uh members of

the board for the record my name is attorney Gregory brilliant and I have a law office at 111 Oak grve Avenue here in the city of fora Massachusetts I'm here representing saal Street LLC and its principles Mr and Mrs Paul Ferraro who are to my right as the chairman uh rightfully said uh we are requesting this petition is to subdivide the property at 111 SVO Street into two lots leaving the existing single family

on one lot and creating a second lot and we proposed to build a 22x 50t um home on the second lot um if the if the board is aware this particular lot is is uh 22 by 34 22 by 34 maximum dep I apologize I went from the 25 to the 25 um 22 by 34 so I apologize the the configuration of the lot lends itself that the current house is way

over to the Northerly side of the lot okay and leaves and leaves a portion of the property basically of no use whatsoever okay um and that's why we're going to our petition is to create a new lot which is 52x 100 feet ironically enough and the board may or may not know this directly across the street is a general residence District which had which if this lot that we're creating

was on the other side of the street it would be a legal lot okay so because it's on this side and somehow pill it in between the general residence District across the street and the general residence District that's up the hill and the church it's stuck in the single family residence district and that's why we have to come before you tonight I I want to make very very clear that what

we're trying to do we are going to meet all of the side yard requirements the rear yard requirements and the front yard requirements on a newly created Lots so we're meeting all of those requirements so as not to to jeopardize the neighborhood um I I would like to point out as I just stated um we have a situation here where if had he had been on the other side of the the street he

could actually build the house Mr chairman if I may I I apologize Madam CL I didn't get this before the meeting the these are just some pictures this is all within the block Kelly these are all within the block these are all these are all um lots that are $5,000 or less a couple of them were pursuant to subdivisions that had already been granted one as recently as 2021 on London Street so I point that

only because we're not going to go into this neighborhood and completely change the the the the nature of the neighborhood and the character of the neighborhood this is actually um consistent with the neighborhood probably more consistent than a larger home being built in that area um I I I know this is not the situation where it would be an in-law apartment um but it's an accessory use and I say this because

of the situation is this Mr Mrs Ferraro's mother elderly mother live at 111 seavoy Street the reason why they want to build this house is because they want their their niece Mrs Ferraro's granddaughter to come into Fall River in order to take care of her okay that obviously she she wants to buy it at some point in time she doesn't have the funds to buy it right now they're going

to build a house the niece is going to move in and part of the deal is for them for her the niece to take care of the grandmother so I know it's not what what's anticipated with um accessory use because I know Mr agar and this board in the city are working on a potential accessory use ordinance which I think is a good thing for the city um but this is

the kind of concept that we're going to use um here here is a a rendering and the feraros took obviously a lot of time it's a very small house and she's young she's going to take care of her grandmother and yet have a nice place to live we're going to offer off street parking for both um two off street parking minimum for both properties so we will not be creating any problem

whatsoever on the street it's a tight Street and most I actually most I was surprised cuz I went there yesterday and today and there's a lot of parking on the street we will not have that problem whatsoever um it's a very well-maintained piece of property at 111 we believe the new construction will be likewise very very clean neat um and and I think a credit to the neighborhood um

uh Mr tomman who did the plans and is worked uh tirelessly on this um project as well as here to answer any questions as well as the feraros who sit in the audience okay what's the what's the LC parel L excuse me there's a notation on here is a dash line on the plans called the LC parcel line so basically the the pel itself is a combination of two uh two parles there's a registered land parel

and an unregistered land pel registered land being land quad um so the in this is still well lot 72 the original lot 72 I want to say I believe this currently goes by lot 73 but lot 72 was a registered land uh POS located to the South with lot 73 being the unregistered land located to the north um when the house number 111 was originally constructed it was on a separate posle lot

73 um at some point along the the way uh there was an addition and you can see it from the image there was an addition put on the the right side or South side of that dwelling that slightly went over um that line which is not uncommon when you see these scenario like this where there' be two land CT Lots in common ownership or unregistered registered land in common ownership to go over that

interior line uh it's really not a concern of the building department at the time but you know they went over I want to say the house is over by like 2 feet um but you know when you look at the the legality of it and we have done some research on this um it's still not entirely clear but it's in question whether or not L CT lots are subject to

the merge of Statute so this has been merged in because of its it's in common ownership by the assessor's office but if it's act it's unclear if it's actually been merged um we're we're doing some additional research on that that that's something that we've looked into um but in going over this project W with the petitioner and with Mr brilliant uh we feel this kind of stands on its own even if there was no

registered land and unregistered land involved here what we have proposing um but that is you know that is a factor and that is something to consider with this application that you know there are technically two lots because a registered land has its own certificate it's not like it's just taking a deed and putting the two lots on a deed it's something entirely different and it will

maintain that status uh unless it is removed from Land Court Mr chairman if I may and and Mr Tom is exactly right we wanted to be totally transparent CU we're not quite sure whether or not the merger principle is in effect here but rather to come in and make that argument and further compound it we didn't want to make that argument because we wanted to be crystal clear and transparent as to what we

wanted to do um there is some question as to whether landt and non-land CT land merges um but having no definitive uh legal backup for that right now we choose not to make that argument in order again to be as transparent as possible so this board knows exactly what we're doing and exactly what our intent is here yeah and it it it would seem as if you you still

have a road to to travel here with this with this lot dealing with Lan court and finding out you know what you may or may not be able to do um if this variance is if this variance is granted we may take it out of lanau well the Lots would have merged by the non-conformity of building over the over the property line right so they would have merged for that purpose anyway regardless of whether it was

registered or unregistered true so the lots have merged there's there's no discussion about that they still have to take it out of out of land Court we may only because it right now easier it makes things easier that's probably what we're going to do right because we'd be dividing this land Court lot right dividing land Court Lots is land Court's business understood the anr process still gets done here

correct so I'm not even all I'm saying is don't consider they still have to that's basically what I was trying to say we still divide the property yes you that's within our pervie yes um you're not be registered in in you know Berlin Maine it doesn't matter it's um you are correct Mr Mr PR very much so and that's why we didn't want to complicate it with it very good question but we don't want

to complicate the land Court non Linker yeah it's not complicated at all uh and since we since we don't have inlaw Apartments I think I actually prefer this as a route um that's me question from the board comments from the board I don't get presentations like this when we do like 400 years trust me if Mr Mr fr had his way you'd probably have a presentation even larger what did you do you're retired

now oh no what what do you do I'm just curious I'm a flooring contractor flooring contract just curious I didn't know I didn't know if you were an IIT um questions none we are in a single family we have a lot that is conforming by area with creating two non-conforming lots by dividing this um that's just something to keep in mind that we are creating two non-conforming lots as a result of uh if if by giving

by giving this permission um Mr chairman one other thing just that we don't have th to read all over again although the the petition is to wave all zoning requirements it's to be approved in accordance with the submitted plan right so they can't come back and build something that's not shown on this plan y there's already house plans drawn up for that particular house uh as you see

a level of detail that's on rendering this one show the bill we we obviously Ascent to that we don't anticipate any uh variance from what you see no I the only thing that and and uh Mr yag points it out I get I get nervous when we use language like you know waving all zonian requirements because that's that's saying dimensional use Etc so by saying we're waving all the zoning requirements you can put a gas station

there so yes it's bad use of bad use of of words we never use the word variance enough in this in this city um that's that's another battle to be fought another day it's not your battle is there anyone to speak uh in support of this petition anyone to speak in opposition they're hearing none um cleaning up that piece of language um and entertain a motion from the board or if there are any last

questions let's do them now we Mr chairman I move that we Grant the Varian according to the specification submitted in the pl just that one question is it bipoc is this bipoc no it's a variance so it's straight to the variance do we have a second on that second second on Eric Kelly and on the motion Eric Kelly yes Jim Caulkins yes Dan deir yes Ricky sah yes chairman perer yes thank you members of the board

appreciate it all right where am I Mr chairman we can take the extension next and then if umen doesn't make it attorney SEL will be oh excellent I thought I was filling in on you are too don't move and and the you don't have this one you have the beautiful thing is they're both charging them I love the smile item number 11 Brian deera uh 1174 and 1204 Pleasant Street

map K13 Lots 43 45 and 70 the applicant puts forth a motion to extend time for relief from a previously granted decision dated November 17th 2022 the applicant wishes to extend the variance relief for a period of 6 months commencing on November 17th 2023 and stated earlier the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under 40a allows the extension of a variance by a six-month period if uh the variance has not been

acted upon in a one-year period hello hello your name for the record please my name is Letta Vieira I'm Brian's wife okay just tell me what happened and why you have I can help sure um so the variance was granted took a while for site plan review to get completed um some legality with regards to easements and this had like a cross parking agreement okay part of the relief for

one building and the new building to be constructed um there so there site plan review was finally done conditional approval was getting the easement document uh finalized okay and that's still in the process the wheels of progress It's been backward very backward that's okay questions from the board pretty clean s a motion to extend now anybody in favor anybody in opposition they're

hearing none we'll accept a motion motion to Grant second motion to Grant seconded to Grant an extension of 6 months to the variance uh issued in November of 20122 uh on the motion Ricky Sahar yes Dan deir yes Jim ckins Eric Kelly yes and chairman carer yes good luck with the project thank you thank you for com have a good night okay look at this this is going to be a good one we got two attorneys

involved I love it some of you LLC you guys can all come everybody just two of us to fill Town Shoes K of attorney Thomas P curen portraying the role of Thomas P goren tonight is Peter acelino um Summit Street map b02 Lot 21 the applicant seeks a variance to allow the construction of six duplex townhouse dwellings 12 units total in an R4 2 family zoning District as well as another variance to increase the maximum

lock coverage from 30% to 60% good evening so Peter selino filling in for Tom Tom is tied up in Somerset zba with a home occupation that's taken like an hour and 15 minutes um so I agreed that I would step in and uh come from the bullpen do some Jiu-Jitsu with Mr Tolman over here that's the new okay so for the proposal The Proposal is uh to develop the lot shown as

b221 into U uh six um duplex style units 12 total units uh from a historical perspective the board should be aware that this site adjoins the former Atlantis Charter School um and to steal a line from Mark Levan the montauri school when I went there um and ultimately I did I did not and ultimately um when the um former owner Casa LLC permitted this site the school was permitted for apartments um

the site that is in front of you this evening uh was going to be a little bit larger and the proposal included more duplex units ultimately the school was changed to a daycare type use needed some land as a result of that uh the parcel that's in front of you uh was diminished and ultimately the relief sought is to reduce the number of units um consistent in ratio and scope with what was previously approved but taking

into account that there's less land here okay and they did tear down that other building that was going to be Apartments Green Monster the green yeah the green monster exactly that's gone yeah yeah yeah the um and just to elaborate a little bit the initial proposal was for the eight duplex uh style buildings um this one obviously for the six and as you can see on the plane here that possible

b222 um was the parel that was cut out of the original piece that was granted to baren and conveyed over to the school property uh for the intent is to make it part of the playground use they're going to move the playground from the old uh Charter School up in that location and they uh have a driveway that goes around for drop off purposes so they needed to expand uh for the school use and so that

that's why this project has been downsized that playground was there originally right mistaken on this going it's going up one terrist level y but I can tell the board that in 1985 it was there did you just skin your knees I did all right well it's less dense than it was before so any questions from the board at this point comment J Jujitsu moves so the parking is you're going to provide two

spaces you include each inside each a one stall garage right and then it' be parking two room for two Spa uh spaces out in the driveway in front of so three spaces each three spaces total okay and that's each unit one garage space and then two spaces in front of the garage I I don't usually count on the garage space cuz they usually fill it up with stuff where you can't

but that no that's all all these parking spaces it doesn't mean people have to use them right right all these parking spaces are fine unless you drive an F250 so all right anybody in the audience to speak in favor of the petition anyone to speak in opposition I don't have opposition I would just like to know where could you just identify yourself and address pleas yes I live on 541 directly across from

the jungle playground that it is right now okay um what is the the name so I just wondered um I'm sorry what what's your name ma'am Nancy Copan okay thank you go ahead so where I just wanted to know uh where the traffic's going to be coming out of these town houses um is it going to be coming out right in front of my house or CU we already we have the Early

Learning Center there now um which is um is much nicer than when the Atlantic CH school was there um because the whole street was full of cars um but still that you know they're parking on both sides of summit already uh Summit is a wide Street thankfully and uh so now we're going to have all these people coming in and out of these town houses um and a lot of these parents uh

they urn on the street and um they park in front of driveways and you know do all those common things that the school when they pick up their children do so um I was just wondering you know how the traffic's going to be when and whereabouts um they're going to put an outlet for all these cars to be coming out well the cars for the tow hous is you're at number 541 correct yes okay so

yes the the the driveway opening for the townhous is is shown is directly across the street from from your house is a 22t wide uh driveway as to the parking situation again each one of these units has um three three parking spaces assigned to it a garage and and two parking SP it's a small driveway in the in the front of the property so I can't imagine especially if you lived in one

of the back units why you want to park on on copel Street on Summit Street rather um and you know when we talk about things like you know the school uh I used to live adjacent to a school and same thing people would be you know Motoring in front of my driveway and that's that's a police matter yeah it seems like that's a bigger problem in my opinion then this will be because

they've actually you know done exactly what they're supposed to do for parking and a little bit more so it's it's you know it's sound in that excuse me they could move that so it's like that directly or move it down a little or the problem is that these units are facing each other they'd have to re I'll let I'll let the the design engineer speak to that but in order to

do that they'd have to yeah resign the whole thing it does have to be centered and and I would like to add that that driveway that was shown on that plan is in this same exact location as was shown on the previous plan that was approved in 2021 uh the three units on the on the west side are in the exact same location uh previous the previous uh approval had a

horseshoe style driveway y so in the middle were two units and then there were three more where you see lot 22 on map B B2 that's where the additional three units were um so we eliminated you know half or most of that horseshoe we just have the one driveway coming out exactly where we had it before and the um you know three houses that were like originally on 22 have been pushed to the

uh to the West anding on the driveway Mrs copelan we were you living here in in 2021 when the other approval was given I came to the last U meeting pardon I came to the last meeting about the school with all the apartments and everything they were going to put in and everything and yeah it's you know it's sad in a way because um this we're we're living in Suburbia about there down

south end of the city it's not like downtown River um and um you know I all these things make money I know like today that's the big thing you know making the money that's really important but um this is a nice little neighborhood and you know and this looks much better than what was proposed earlier um indeed um because I didn't know I'd have a three condo in my backyard at that

point I don't think that we didn't know about that um I never got notification on that so my backyard right next to my backyard on the left was a landlock piece of property that somebody is now put um I guess they're condos and there's three of them which I think he's only supposed to have two but he's got three but that's another story and he's also making a nice driveway for himself

it's a right of way and he turned it into a huge driveway I don't know who owns that property yeah supposed to be but this one's pretty wide I can actually speak to that as I permitted that and it was permitted for a three family okay that's style yeah it was a Triplex I thought you can only have two lines it's but maybe I'm wrong yes which you can be I mean that's

yeah and that was given relief zoning relief is that the long driveway that's that's just two doors down from the Copeland's property correct okay yeah I believe it's on the other side of 551 yeah it doesn't show on here just on I think if you look at the plan granted it's less units than what was approved before yeah but specifically to the location of the driveway what that driveway does

although the vehicles for the six units will use that driveway no one can park across the street in front of your house because of that driveway so that's that's a benefit so if you're backing out of your driveway I know it's not like You' got to deal with somebody across the street as you're backing out so that would be nice that may not answer all of your questions but there

is a benefit to the driveway being there whereas if they shift a driveway you're going to have cars in front of your house now instead of the driveway the driveway is shortterm morning night cars may be parked there all the time yeah so that's that's at least one positive that I can see out of having the driveway there yeah I feel like a sandwich where I'm living now where I mean I used to

have all woods around my house so you know it's uh the noise level Everything's changed FR um but anyway so this well going back to this and the school um you know the nice little school at the top of the street that we have now so is that going to stay is that going to keep adding on grades to it like the child of school did or is it going to just stay the way

it is no idea no idea I mean and it doesn't fall under our purview in any way shape or form so is it daycare currently or is no it's far over a school department it is Department oh right that's strictly exemp it'sing exemp yeah okay and that's going to stay as a school it's not going to go into apartments no it would have to come back here again and it's I'm pretty sure it's

going to stay at school forever okay good it's been a very popular building I mean it's yeah it looks very nice it didn't look nice job they've done a lot to it so that is that is nice and you know the the traffic you get dropping on picking up kids that's never not as bad as the child's school but that's short it's a short period of time I believe that was

originally proof of 40 units too I'm not mistaken so that was 40 units and then it was the 16 wall yeah know it is subs and most of the residences there have one piece of property and one home not 40 residences on one piece of property so you know that's that's the important thing whether it was approved before or not it's still mostly well now it's now it's city of Fall River and it's it's serving

as a school so I think prob pretty nice let's hope the school doesn't want to buy that piece and then put another school in front of the so no we appreciate you come in and though we we hear your concern I just want to and I hope that you know the explanation helps I mean it is two less buildings over there with this with this particular that makes a big difference thank you okay anyone else

there be no one else uh questions from the board we say how many bedrooms are in these they all twos two or three I I don't that's a good question I'm not exactly sure I don't have the application is it the same building as the other as some of the others yeah I don't know how many bedrooms we have to go back to the prior decision no I think a decision I'm saying that

there are some these units are being built I think in the city somewhere now all the same design yeah I think I don't see anything in the filing regarding that the app responds attorney cin would probably be happy to have a friendly word right now in the middle of the hearing Tommy just lost $47.50 by not being here but I'm going to teach him jiujitsu I just love when you brought up

the condominium that the the city planner and the chairman of the board looking at each other like I have no idea what we're talking about well that was down a while ago

yeah might be past his bedtime but he's usually pretty good at getting back right away I'm getting a response from Tom here it's got those bubbles oh three three three bedroom units they're all threes yes well then we need the three parking spaces right well it's still would be two right no no it's still still two two per resal unit yeah we have the extra one yeah we're good here our garage is here right correct

okay does this have to go back to site plan yes yes it never went through site plan it never went to site plan okay the school pulled the plug on that great all right no more questions chairman I move granting of the variant as submitted say plan review uh yeah yes second Motion in second so that's a variance to allow construction of six duplex tow houses uh in the r42 family zoning

District um there actually a second variance to increase uh maximum Lot C coverage from the 30 low to 60% we have a second on the motion I'm going to give you the last second the last word Ricky sahti yes Dan de yes uh Jim ckins yes Eric Kelly yes and chairman PR yes thank you thank you you you rock coming in from the bullpen thank you no problem couple pitches all right where am I fee

schedule uh the fee schedule oh so let me give you the The Rundown um as you know when we changed the fee schedule we discussed at the last meeting no one had anticipated having 400 unit apartment coming for us so um the last ones the last two that we dealt with each one of them were required to submit over $40,000 worth of review fees which is a bit Yeah out there um so I had wanted to

come back and ask you to make or recommend our vote to make a modification to that um for what you have there now which is you know you get to a certain point because once you get to a point you've collected enough money well and then once we exceed you know the increased fee we would then be dropping back down to the $50 per additional unit like was previous the the state statute that

covers what what can be charged for certain things too especially when you get to a building perit but yeah so as as you see proposed here we would continue with the new fee of $100 per unit up to 50 units because most of the projects are usually around 50 or less and then anything beyond 50 units would then be calculated at the $50 per unit which is what the old fee was across the

board and that's strictly on variance that's strictly on no it's it's on special permits should be on special permits and and Varian all I have to do is just just just un unit count for each one sometimes it's unit count by variance sometimes it's unit account by special firment Y and do you think that an alternative method might be to just put a cap on the maximum amount well it it could be but I do

think this is more appropriate well because I mean sometimes you do need to get the additional fee it depends what you would want to put the cap at yeah you know if if you're if you're looking at 100 units times 50 you know or $100 per that's 5,000 right um if you're now going to go to 2,000 unit building we we may need to spend some money on Consultants so there has to be

some provision that carries through per unit so the the standard at the state level that somebody could appeal to if they feel the the fees are too high is that the fee charged for a process should be consistent with the effort that needs to be put forth by the community in order to investigate that or in the case of a building permit monitor that building permit Etc so if you walk in there there have been uses

such as telecommunication Towers where you know years ago people were trying to come up with crazy you know pay by how many feet the tow is going to be how many you know feet of line are going to be on the towers so you'd have these exorbitant fees that made absolutely no sense they got shot down very quickly and you know it's the same type of thing we're not trying to we're not trying to to discourage

people from applying for large buildings we're just trying to make it feir for them yeah you know so I mean suddenly you you steering down a barrel of $100,000 in fees just to get through the process um you know that that it can make a big difference in and whether or not you're going to build a project or how well you going to landscape the project or if you're going to put in

tennis courts or or or now so and again this can be you you can go to $100 per unit up to 20 units if you choose I mean that that's variable this was just my suggestion you you can make any recommendation um I I think the 50 is fine unless somebody else wants to wants to to roll it back but it's $5,000 for for a 50 unit building I don't think that's so

bad and then 50 above that it's what was in place already y I never expected us to approve over 800 units in the single night I well we have we have some others that are that are pending coming soon yeah soon On's already been filed Mr chairman I move approval of the fee schedule as submitted a second second okay no further discussion on it I love it on the motion Ricky sah danar yes Jim

ckins Eric Kelly yes and chairman Prairie yes yay there was a discussion citizen input we do have a citizen's input I do have letter oh come on this letter was um nailed on the day of um oh meeting okay I'm sorry that was not CJ Ferry RN phn uh follow R Zoning Board of peers parking waivers it has come to my attention that the zoning board of appeals Eva has on their agenda request

for a waiver in parking requirements for several proposed developments one of those developments has a request of 205 units which would require 410 parking spaces and does not include that request for a warehouse or office space on the same property which would require more parking the zba has regularly worked diligently to destroy neighborhoods by granting these parking variances it's jiujitsu which I do not

believe is any authority of the zba as it is an ordinance and not a zoning requirement with all the development going on in the city which is beneficial so we are told the destruction um in on I just lost it um the destruction in neighborhoods by adding more vehicles to the city streets um ID lacking and undue burden on neighborhoods in the city has the zba considered how difficult it will be to

park during a parking ban during a parking band the number of parking spaces on the streets are cut in half which places undue burden on City residents the addition of five 100 250 or 400 more cars on the streets is an unfair and undue burden on the neighborhoods uh these continuous waivers are resulting in the destruction of neighborhoods which have long been the backbone of Citizen activity and

representation I would ask that the zba no longer grants waivers for developers when it comes to parking as a developer should have considered this prior to designing their developments to maximize profits and destroy the fabric of Fall River uh you are contributing to the destruction of the city of Fall River respectfully CJ Ferry nothing else we said an input nope that is all approval of

minutes motion to approve wave the reading motion to wave the reading motion to read and approve and approve second second on the motion Rick sahti yes D yes Jim ckins yes excuse me Eric Kelly yes and chairman Prairie yes Mr chairman before we adjourn yes um just one quick thing through the chair to Dan um this is not within your perview Dan but do you have any additional information you can provide this board

on the article that appeared in the H news this week concerning the denial of the waiver the denial of the variance on the um mansion on Highland Avenue which supposedly now is being violated it is in violation yeah so I mean building inspector is aware of it and that's with the legal process okay yes so there's nothing further to add than what appeared in the newspaper I didn't read

it okay I don't read the heral news basically um yeah what it said is what um The Herald News had a copy of um the the advertisement on uh verbo verbo okay yeah and um I guess um Glen haway is being very very uh diligent at the same time being very measured in in his response um but I guess that well as reported in the newspaper yeah well I mean it had Direct quotes from him in

the newspaper um it could be could one quote out of an hour conversation um so I'm just I mean there's nothing this board can do Point well we have we have a number of new zoning petitions that we're working on that will be presenting and for a discussion here in law Apartments short-term rentals there are a number of things that if we're going to make some modifications of zoning we would like to

make a few so start thinking of things that you've you know encountered over the years that you see a way to resolve or to make a change but I'm not so much thinking of that I'm just thinking of this particular circumstance for you no out of you are not the zoning enforcement officer you are the zoning your work is done and to that other issue I we voted last month uh to for me

to draft a letter to planning department that will get kicked up the line uh to May's attention City council's attention Etc we're we're running with in some cases with one I'm tie behind their back yeah okay we have a tower in here okay and if we're going to go through the effort to make changes in this book then they should be comprehensive y exactly it needs a lot of work how how many

times was that attorney back in here on that same Tower ridiculous amount of times you know why because we don't have a we don't have a a telecommunication how many how many times did did Chairman Assad at the meeting with State you know zone change in zoning is the appropriate way to get what you need not seeking relief so let let's try and be maybe a little bit more proactive and doing that kind of

stuff thank you all right Mo motion to adjourn second second by Dan depar all in favor I Alex thank you so much