10.20.2022 Zoning Board of Appeals

good evening I'm David Assad the chairman of the zoning board of appeals for the city of Fall River this is the zoning board of appeals for the city of Fall River it is 6 p.m on Thursday October 20th 2022.

we are meeting at one government center in the first floor hearing room pursuant to Massachusetts General Law chapter 38 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 Craig Salvador is recording both the video and audio version if anyone desires to make an audio video

a combination recording thereof please notify me now and I'll shall make a public announcement of your intention seeing and hearing none will continue our recording secretary this evening is Nina Kruger the lady to my immediate right present this evening are permanent members John Frank James cawkin Dan duper Vice chair Joe Pereira an alternate member John Sylvia also present this evening is Dan aggia

director of engineering and planning for the city of Fall River the gentleman to the fall left Nina have all persons uh have all petitions to be considered been properly advertised in all interested parties notified in accordance with the rules and regulations of the zoning board of appeals and Massachusetts General Law chapter 48 is amended yes I declare the October 20th 2022 regularly scheduled meeting of the

zoning board of appeals of the city of Fall River opened for such business as shall regularly come before it I remind all persons presenting before the board including the petitioners of Butters anyone in support or anyone opposed to the petition that your presentation should be limited to three minutes questions and responses must be directed through the chairman the board's rules and regulations direct

the board to specifically look for information which supports the petitioner's claim and such the petitioner should identify and factually support the basis for the petition I again advise the petitioners in all interested persons that this board is the Zoning Board of Appeals this board's Authority exists pursuant to Massachusetts General Law chapter 48 and is limited in scope and deals with the

use of land as regulated by chapter 86 of the ordinances of the city of Fall River additional permits licenses reviews and or approvals may be required for the specific development and or use which is the subject of the petition before the zoning board this evening the clerks in the building planning engineering water and Licensing departments are competent in the discharge of their duties as Clerks they

are however not lawyers and are 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 petitions and after the decision of a board has been made for example there is a city ordinance 2015-11 section 10 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 zoning enforcement officer is the zoning enforcement Authority and you are here this evening because the building inspector has determined that your proposed action is contrary to the city of fall River's zoning ordinances the city Charter section 9-18 mandates

that all multiple member bodies develop and adopt rules or policy for public comment we have adopted such a policy which ensure provides for citizen input on zoning board specific matters at the end of this meeting there's a sign up sheet I believe on the back table out there if anybody wants to sign up I disclose that an official copy of the floor of a zoning ordinance is available at the city clerk's office one

cannot rely on the online zoning ordinance um are there any questions before we begin we'll start with agenda item number zero one Abbott and Farnham LLC care of attorney Thomas P kilarden uh 100 Weaver Street map T3 lot 15. the applicant seeks a variance slash special permit to demolish the existing structure and construct a 160 foot tall 346 unit multi-family dwelling in a CMD commercial Mill District waving front

side and rear yard setbacks and Building height along with parking requirements my unders good evening attorney call Lauren would you identify yourself for the record apparently good evening Mr chairman members of the board for the record attorney Thomas killaran at 350 North Main Street Fall River Massachusetts representing the petitioner Abbott and Farnam I so in the package I know we received

communication from you but rather than me reading it why don't you tell us what you want to do certainly thank you Mr chairman I know I appeared before you at the last Hearing in at least one of the previous hearing requesting a continuance or tabling of this matter until the board's further Hearing in this case we're asking for a continuance until the board's December hearing I know we appeared before you

last time and the chairman certainly uh asked on several occasions if we needed additional time be Beyond this meeting at that point I was only authorized to table the matter to this meeting the applicant does not own the property they're under agreement to purchase it there were certain performance deadlines in that purchase and sale agreement that prevented the applicant at that time

from extending it Beyond tonight's meeting the applicant is currently working with a state agency unfortunately I'm not able to disclose which state agency that is at this point we did ask for permission to disclose to this board they advise that they would actually they would send the matter to their legal department to see if we could disclose um which state agency this is unfortunately we have not received the

response back from them so I'm not able to disclose that at this time but we're actively working with the state agency that may become involved if this project is allowed to go forward that would certainly impact the dynamic of the project and certainly aspects of it such as parking requirements and potential traffic impacts given the fact that we are still awaiting to see if this state

agency will become involved in the project we're asking for the board's Indulgence once again to table this matter until they further hearing again we're not asking for the November hearing we're asking for the December hearing with the hope that within these next two months we will certainly know if we have a response back and hopefully an affirmative response back from the state agency

that'll impact the presentation that we certainly make to this board so again our request tonight is to table this matter until the December hearing of the zoning board I'm going to ask the question again I don't know what the board's going to do and we were kind of emphatic at the last hearing about the October 20th meeting if that was the time that you needed so you're looking for the December 15th

meeting I see that some of the lots of people from the neighborhood that were here last time are here again this evening um is December 15th a realistic date or does it needs to get kicked off to January because I I don't again I can't speak for the rest of the board I just I was trying to be very emphatic if you needed more time at that last meeting because I didn't want the people coming

back and forth but tell me what the best information you have so the board knows whether or not the December 15th has a high probability of success so the if you need to go to January ask us for January I fully understand that I have been assured because after our last hearing I did notify my client about the board's position or some of the feedback that we received so when we were discussing it

discussing a tabling of this meeting I impressed upon them that I did not want to continue it simply to November it was agreed that we should have the information that we need in time for that December hearing so it's a December hearing that I'd be asking for Mr chairman okay so I know that lots of the neighborhood people are here um the I know that I think it's attorney Mark Levin who wrote a letter in

opposition to it and I'm not going to read and I don't want to take any evidence on it until the board decides whether or not yes we're going to granted or not going to granted but I want everybody out there to know that we've received you're all here I think in opposition uh to what was going on the board has to make the determination Mr colorn is saying that his client

needs more time to put some of the or his presentation together um so that's what we're that's what the board has to consider whether or not it's a granted or say go forward this evening or uh see what the board does on the emotion and then from there you can decide whether or not to go forward or ask to withdraw uh so it was I know that lots of you yeah Joan let you speak in a

minute I just want to so get your thoughts together let's have Joe uh Vice chair ask whatever questions he has on us so for for clarification for the edification of the folks who have been there um and thank you for coming out and caring to come out um where would you deny the request to to continue yes that would not carry the same weight as a denial of the application therefore no recourse would be given to

the applicant no if we deny the application if we deny the continuance until December attorney colorn has the option of either making another request to withdraw without prejudice which we have to act on or we say no go forward tonight and we make a determination based on what's before is and what presentation attorney Corona wants to do the withdrawal without prejudice again no no

if go ahead I'm taking that one step so if we deny it we would draw or he decides to withdraw without prejudice then before the board has to allow him to withdraw without prejudice which would allow him on behalf of his client to reapply that's correct we notice always these good people and start all over again and start all over again correct which probably wouldn't make December anyway

that's probably I don't think so procedurally I don't think that would happen and and I just wanted that procedure read in so that everybody's clear on it so it's on the record so these great folks they're involved in a neighborhood who have come out several times now um you know are aware of no procedurally that's what's going to happen if we say no go forward do whatever withdraw it he refiles they're

coming back in with so the continuity is there it gives them more opportunity to talk to an attorney colorn and his client or maybe not but I mean that's what this board has to decide this evening it's simple motion step one continue it to December 15th yes or no if we say no then attorney call Lauren has to make those other determinations withdraw don't withdraw go forward like the board decide so

anything else any other board member any question on that motion maybe I had one point thank you one of the other issues that is creating somewhat of a problem in terms of what our overall presentation would be is through the fact that Weaver Street is closed so one of the things we were hoping to provide to this board was a traffic study and uh Jeff Tallman who's the design engineer

on the plan uh could maybe speak to this a little bit more clearly if the board wants some more input but as I understand it the fact that Weaver Street disclose prevents a full-blown traffic study from being completed at this time we have been actively searching to see if we can get any older data for that area to present to this board to address issue of traffic as we anticipate that that's something that

the board is going to ask about so we've kind of been put into a little bit of a tough position where we actually haven't been able to complete a traffic study because of the project that's going on down in that area okay did you all hear that we've restricted okay so that's a consideration so I know that lots of you are out I I see Mr Cavallo here I think that's the

gentleman from one of the neighborhood associations no you're not preservation Society okay um so I'll let you all speak if you want to get but I don't want to take any evidence but this this limited issue of continuing to December 15th um to power it back with Joe has said yes it's very important that the neighborhood people come out and be here because it's happening in your neighborhood

you have a right to be understand what's going on give us your input but listening to attorney caloran he doesn't have all the information there's still processing things uh and yes it's an inconvenience but he's paying the requisite fee to keep it going forward so if anybody would like to address the board I'll be happy to entertain yes Joe yes please I'm not in the neighborhood 400 Columbia Street so uh

as far as Weaver Street being closed what assurances does anybody have that by January or before that that's even going to be cleared up that's that's my first issue secondly uh as Euro that's not my fault I think it's the gentleman behind you uh Mass general laws chapter 4 a section 10. the second issue is no substantial detriment to the public good that's your responsibility that's one of

those but that's an issue now when you start talking about 48 section 10 that's when we get to the merits of that we haven't even taken any evidence we're not I'm not we haven't taken one thing of evidence this is strictly procedural on whether or not we can stop the hearing I understood Mr chairman okay however given that yes it's against the the public goods and it's to the detriment to have it be continued again

okay I understand your argument I think before it does uh but so if we deny it so let's just talk about it procedurally if we say no and if attorney calorin says I want to withdraw it I want to come back stop the process all over again versus keeping it going he's got the money he has paid the requisite fees for this project we haven't taken any evidence the status

quo continues until we have a hearing on it so if we say get I don't know for the Warriors that I'm out there you really don't want it to fall you don't want to say you lose because you didn't do it you lose because you couldn't present the evidence you'd rather have the board listen to the evidence have a complete airing of it and make a determination based on the evidence that you've heard and I think

that's what the board should do versus he needs more time he thinks he needs to get a traffic study he needs to get something done you'd rather have all the facts together to make an informed decision and not just say sorry your time period's up get out of here that you were just discussing if we take this let's say three months down the road if if the board were to decide not

to allow uh the item to be tabled would not allow the applicant to withdraw and force them to go forward tonight a denial of the application without taking in the information that was somewhat requested at the initial meeting would probably not look well on the city side if the project went to an appeal so I did it I wasn't even going down that right but that that would be my but that's what applicant is offering the

ability to come up with additional information for the board to look at if you were to go forward this evening and just deny the project and it would I am sure the applicant and a project of this side I can hear arbitrary and capricious being thrown around because you have to deny for specific reasons so if if you ask tonight well what is the traffic situation going to be then the applicant has the ability to go

and get that information and bring it back to you so I wouldn't want to put us in a corner and this has happened in past practice not with this board but others in the city where they have just outright denied projects goes to an appeal the applicants win and the city is now withdrawn from even dealing with the project as a whole so you're taking your power Away by theoretically not allowing this to be

tabled and getting all the information that that you can again this cannot go on forever asking for the items to be tabled but just keep that in mind with with how you want to proceed today I I don't know what Assurance attorney colon can give you because you really can't it's based upon the information given to him but just keep that in that and just see have you any knowledge of Weaver Street status

I I do not I am not a traffic engineer Oh I thought you were doing this no but a design engineer for the for the record that's Jeff Tallman yes for the record Jeff fallman Northeast engineers and Consultants um no but I've been talking to Traffic Engineers and there's really nothing that can be done unless we can get some hands on some data that's available but I don't think you want old data no no no

because I know attorney call Lawrence said we're trying to get older dad but it's kind of worthless well we can do an assessment based on you can you can you can do you can do lots of things and I don't want to take evidence but we don't I don't it's an issue that needs to be addressed yes because you can get older data and extrapolated with the improved or the expansion of what's happened out

on this Weaver Street area like staff for instance that has a great impact on the future that's what I'm thinking and you can't get a number on that until Weaver Street bridge is open you can estimate it based upon you know the square footage of the building and the use of the building and then swap that on top of the existing use but it would be good to they need to at least submit something

is there a way and it's too late for tonight obviously but that we have to be notified by I don't know what day you go to publication on uh about I send it in about three weeks three weeks that we did so that'll be the end of novice to continue prior to the date of publication of that so we can avoid having people come in yeah that's that's fine if we could if that's a possibility you

probably didn't know three weeks ago I certainly didn't I would have had it in ahead of time if you table to a date certain still has to be advertised just giving notice so if I think what Jim is saying is in the event there's some other exingency that comes up during the course between now and December 15th if attorney calora knows that and he's going to ask for another continuance as

notice to the notice to the neighborhood to the people that are here that it's going to take it again because we've got some other issue but I mean any of the any of the about us can call my office and and we can give an update of have we received I actually contacted attorney coron last week and I said if you are going to submit something we need it a week in advance so that we're not

reviewing it the day before okay so similar to this we would we would require that any revised information come in a week before so if anybody would have called a week before the next table meetings I have no issue with that you've got a calendar the board wanted to make that a condition of the tabling that if we need another one that'd be submitted at least a week in advance of

the hearing I have no issue with that okay good oh did we get a letter a week before when when did what did yesterday this one in particular Mr chairman I believe was delivered on Monday this was delivered on Monday but this is one week before was not in place where where proposing talking about right now but there hasn't been a past practice most normally if you applicants can bring a revised plan to

this meeting so I don't think that's we're making it up as we're going along with that one day no no I'm being honest we don't have a written policy because it doesn't come up that often the conversation the conversation with Mr aguiar was a week in advance I kind of like it a little bit longer than that but a week gives me enough time over the weekend to look at something before it's a meeting

yes so if I might then yeah you can ask because at the last time we were here you took a motion actually from me I think it was for the board to act on whether to Grant a continuance or to we were doing that again this evening okay okay just wanted to be clear no we're not doing nothing's happened yet we're just trying to set the groundwork and make sure everyone who's here has an

opportunity to hear what's going on and if they want to address the board before we get to attorney Co Lawrence request to table it to December 15th all right is there anyone else that would like to be heard yes sir yes Collins I just think parties for us and and for for them too because he still don't know um if it's going to be if he's gonna get everything that he needs to do the

presentation in 30 days I think it's fair for both of us not for us to keep coming in every month and not for him to come back in here when he still don't have all the uh the documents that he needs to present I think will be a good idea for both of us just to be with the night today so you could get everything together and when he said when he thinks

that he has everything together his project gets back on the agenda and we got another fight and we come here instead of coming so I think would be fair for both of us for them to get enough time and get all the information they need to to present and fair for us so we don't have to come here or even been waiting for for a ladder that maybe will come and maybe you will not come in

a week but we're setting the date if we go forward attorney call Lauren has given us a date of December 50. the other stuff the other conversations are just in the event there are these contingencies that don't happen but we can't just put it off until we say let's put it on in February so everyone will leave here this evening knowing if it's granted December 15th is the date that's

when we're going to have the hearing he'll have his information if he doesn't have his information and he wants to do something the suggestion from Mr aguiar is probably good let everybody know a week ahead of time that you're filing another motion why not and then it can get disseminated to the everyone there so Mr aguiar's number is 508-324-2561 uh you can call that office and they can tell you whether or not

attorney call Lauren has uh sent anything in before the December meeting and attorney call Lauren's office telephone number is 508-675-9100 so feel free to make those two phone calls uh to follow no no you're giggling but I mean you really need to have some way of talking to figure out what's going on um if I may again good um if you do call and we tell you that attorney Lauren has not submitted new information

I would still come to the meeting oh no I was at that meeting the board May force him to go forward with the petition that's here and of course we want to hear what you all have to say no absolutely come to the meeting unless somebody come to the meeting and hear that it's not going to happen in person don't rely on a telephone call but call to find out the status because

somebody in that office whether it's Mr agya or whether it's Ms gruger somebody will know what the status of that is and you can call attorney call Lauren director because we want your argument to be based upon what will be presented at that meeting if it's a revised petition you need to have the ability to review the revised petition not at the night of the meeting if you need to create your

argument or voice your concern about the plan that's been submitted we want to make sure that you have time to to prepare your thoughts for that as well you know I'm thinking with December it's the holiday season as well and I understand people coming back and forth it is frustrating and then you lose interest in it would it be better to push this out to February then come back February March because you don't have

the traffic uh study you're not going to get that in the next six to eight weeks and then that way these folks aren't coming back I don't know whether attorney caloran has the authority to go off that far okay all right it just I I'm looking at what the people no I know it's frustrating coming back and forth I can't cut December off the calendar we're all going to be working doing

things that month I understand that that's an issue but I I pretty much given I've given attorney colore and here's a blank piece of paper tell me what day you can call I gave him that the last time you're just looking at realistically it started in like July right sales agreement that was why he said the October so so as I understand that the the December date was based upon two

things they anticipate having a response back from that state agency by then into due to Performance deadlines in the purchase and sale agreement so that takes care of that so okay that's it okay so if I might no I think we're done Joe that's it only a procedure it's not even about this project okay we'll go ahead and that should come in a public comment yeah it really really should be but God ask the

question no because I want to get I want to get what is it it's about uh if there's something in the general laws about a year waiting period no foreign okay so December 15th Tommy yes please Mr yes wait wait yes sir hi Alexander Silva 263 Pine Street um I guess I'm just wondering that if the information is still so evolving and as of yet unnamed State partner but potentially pivotal State partner has

only just been contacted somebody had the opportunity to reach out I guess I'm just wondering why this plan was submitted before the zoning board to begin with it seems like we're months and four multiple months and four continuances on and uh the applicant still doesn't know uh anything new about the the plan seems to be more reactionary than anything which I don't think is the appropriate rate

appropriate way to plan something harder thank you thank you okay members of the board chairman yeah that lead grants the request to postpone or capable of the uh meeting until the 15th of December table decide until December 15th meeting 2022. second oh second by John Frank any discussion on the motion hearing none John Frank yes Jim corkins yes Dan De Pere yes Joe Pereira chairman

Assad yes okay we'll see you December 15th thank you very much thank you thank you all for coming out this evening thank you for your room give me a call tomorrow ask me that question I'll give you a question thank you it's a little bit longer than just a yes thank you okay agenda item zero two Tetra real estate LLC care of Attorney Peter a celino 761 Highland Avenue map m19 30. the

applicant seeks a variance to convert the existing nursing home structure into nine residential units in an S single-family zoning District waving the use and lot coverage requirements the applicant also seeks a special permit to reduce parking requirements uh currently no external changes will be done to the existing footprint since we have coffee to the camera oh you got it but then you

are so welcome I'm gonna refer to the pictures okay so Mr chairman we're gonna try to keep this in three minutes because the bylaws

Locust Street Fall River Council to the applicant this matter before you was tabled from the 9 15 meeting at the 9 15 meeting we certainly had feedback from the neighborhood and I would characterize the feedback as being concerned about traffic on Hanover Street entry to and from Hanover Street through the rear driveway which currently exists as well as view corridors from both of Stanley and Hanover Street

so we've submitted a revised plan to the board the substance of the revisions are to cut off the access from Hanover Street such that no vehicles will Traverse in or out of the site from Hanover Street the pictures that I've presented show a gate which is on the site plan as well that would be on your rear view plan the premise of the gate is to lock that off so there is no traffic to and from

the rear of the site or the east of the site through Hanover Street Additionally the revised site plan serves to reconfigure the parking and driveway on the site such that we can now contain 18 cars on site which obviates the need for any waivers relative to parking Additionally the front side of the building or the Highland Avenue side of the building has a half Circle Drive we're proposing to terminate the

Northerly portion of that drive so that cars would enter to and from a newer wider 20-foot aisle at the south side of the property from Highland Avenue and you'll see on the plan there are five spaces along the southerly property line there are 13 spaces in the rear with respect to view there was certainly conversation relative to viewing the structure and our viewing a parking lot

and concerns relative to that so the proposal before you includes the planting of 17 6 foot aborvitae those would be on the rear as depicted in the photos running from the gate Northerly to the southwesterly corner of Hanover and Stanley Street as well as along the easterly property line along Stanley Street and as is shown in the pictures there is an existing retaining wall That's contemplated to stay and so

that wall measures at approximately three feet from the sidewalk with a six foot tree on top of it I'd submit to you that these Arborvitae grow approximately a foot per year so we're hoping that the revisions to the plan are satisfactory to the concerns of the neighborhood both to keep the traffic limited on the Hanover Street side as well as to screen the view of the parking that is now all

on site and obviating the need for waivers surrounding the parking with that I'm happy to take any questions obviously Jeff Tallman is our engineer he's here Mr tetral is here so we're certainly willing to hear any questions the board has for us on the revisions so I'm trying to think that young that young lady was concerned about people on Hanover Street entering exiting parking

correct that now you've I think you've eliminated or you addressed that issue correct we now have the entrance and exit on a 20-foot way uh on Highland Avenue and the only thing to the west of that is the park that is correct so that won't be any impact the abrovise as your site plan review will deal with any white infiltration because if it's going to be right lit they can take care of that there

the requirement for a special permit for the waiver or parking with nine units with two parking spaces per unit is eliminated uh the only issue now is the use of the property and the single family residential district as I understand it that's how I do it two nine residential units correct okay that's I just wanted to make sure I understood what the proposal was okay so members of the board that's what has

been presented the changes that have been made um left to the variance on the use um on this particular issue and I guess the hardship being the structure itself attorney celino absolutely yes yeah so the content of my petition doesn't change relative to the hardship the waivers are reduced because I'm not asking for parking any longer um but really yeah the structure is the hardship it's there it's located where

it's located it's empty and it's decaying those are all facts good all right members of the board questions as far as parking good what are we talking about Ray and the gray area uh there there are 13 spaces in the rear do you see that Dan seven five and one seven five and one and then along the southerly property line on the new wider 20-foot entry there are five along the side there

and we felt like from a site design perspective having one entry one exit on the Highland Avenue side makes it much more manageable as well in the existing garage you've got it on the plan is going to be raised it would happen no I got it but you've got it I want to make sure that that's going correct and the same thing with the asphalt driveway to be removed on the

other half of the northern part of that engine that is correct is that going to be replaced with Greenery uh grass or um I don't think grass yes yes is the gate in the back gonna be to access a dumpster or something like that is that what's going to be back there um I don't even think you had a dumpster though did you no it's really just there's a curb cut there the concern was

well voiced people coming in and out of there yeah I mean there's an existing dumpster pad there now it says on the plan yeah so I just want to make sure that no you don't have no the trash trucks backing in and out of that and then no so so what you do as I understand it is you say that that no no in entrance or egress from as a

condition that's it so it can't be used everything will come through Highland Avenue purposes to get an emergency access to property emergency I I understand and we tried to do a tasteful looking gate you know not a chain link fence or something yeah Joe will there be a dumpster on site yeah we haven't decided Well do you need one generally generally we do yeah okay so Jeff Tallman what do you think about

that yeah it could be like a smaller size dumpster maybe a rollout dumpster that could be placed in the back and then mold out into the parking area at the time of pickup okay you know the congratulations back for it if if there is it would be shown on the site plan then certainly that would be screened as well so somewhere up against the near the valley yeah I think it'd

have to be right there yeah the Ada accessible pocket spot which is pocket the one with the one on it yeah let me ask Dan aggiel the question to our Insight plan review would be if there is going to be a dumpster and a dumpster pad with the shading or the uh of that dumpster be something that the site plan review Community we could but I I would ask that the board make that

if they choose to move the project a condition of approval that um a screen trash receptacle is shown yeah to whatever size because you could choose either a dumpster or you could change six regular bins plastic bins and then you would screen those differently so that you know an appropriate screened uh trash receptacle is provided you know through site plan and screening associated with everything

you know I almost look at the end of the parking Bay or maybe even shift the parking space around so that we can no I'm just I'm just trying to think because I don't want the concerns that the neighbors raised last time I want to try addressing them because I don't they live there well we're also just looking at one potential issue of why the bushes seem to be stopping halfway through the parking lot is there

a way to add a few more to get it right down to the walkway um what is that the north side the Stanley Street side to extend those the plantings up to the existing walkway here it's probably another six trees yeah yeah um my clients agreeable to that yeah that's not good so let me ask the question that's not going to interfere with any light or air to the I don't think to the

units that are facing north no I don't think so it doesn't go all the way to it's not good I think yeah Mr Frankston there's a walkway that comes out of the retaining wall where it says existing concrete walkway So when you say extend it John you're not talking all the way down you're just up to that up to that yeah okay so screen the entire park yeah okay all right makes sense okay okay

anything else members of the board yeah go ahead in the back yes for emergency vehicles yeah I think you could have a purpose for it but the cons well you were here last time the concern is pedestrians in and out that live there so I mean the curb Cuts there already that's concerned if you didn't really have a purpose for him to have you said possibly any objections put a trip back in and getting putting another

I mean it's the apparatus yes yeah yeah um it does serve a purpose there were a couple of large trees out toward the front if there was ever a lodge limb that fell that blocked the driveway they could use that temporarily until you know that was cleaned up something to that effect all right so the rear entrance on Hanover Street is going to be gated correct we're not we're not getting rid of the curb cut is

that that's the proposal yeah and on our plan we've noted that the gate is to be kept locked for official use only so if it's an emergency vehicle uh somebody's gonna have the key got it during the crib cut process for widening the existing curb cut because that does go to the city council yes they may require that in order to widen that existing to 20 that all others be closed

so you can make whatever condition that you would like but there are other boards and ages yeah no I mean that's part of my initial there may be somebody else that's going to add that condition especially for the widening of the curb cut in front but it didn't but if you wanted to make that a condition to get rid of uh that curve cut and put the curbing back in

and create a new uh off street parking space for the people on Hanover Street you can certainly do that okay I mean one of the things that stands out to me and it's more of a practical matter and probably a planning matter is that those five parallel parking spaces along South Side I'm just thinking of traffic flow without that back gate we're closing off that back entrance it's kind of an odd thing getting in and

out of those parking spaces it's the out that seems to be the problem how somebody's just going to turn around and go back out the front they would have to pull into the rear parking area and there is a little turnout to the South it's a 17-point turn you could buy a small car a small car it would be fine the way they didn't slow down okay 24 foot aisle is bigger than what's

required and the other thing I'd just like to point out on the plan I am showing that you know not not that we can claim them to be honest but there are there's a room for 10 parking spots on Stanley Street on the north side of this property the sufficient room from Highland Avenue to Hanover to park 10 Vehicles there and you know I'm familiar with the area I lived in the area for a

while every time I drive by there uh be hot pressed if you see any more than one vehicle locked in that location so yeah got it but I really want to try or at least I think the board wants to try keeping as much parking on site oh absolutely yes which is which drove this design I got it so I understand it was receptive it was a receptive revision to the uh the neighborhood

so let's see is there anyone else members of the board any other questions before I ask if there's anyone in favor or opposed well we'll come back is there anyone in favor of this petition is there anyone opposed to this petition yes ma'am so okay I see lots of hands this is what we're gonna do I'll stop back there I'll work across and we'll end up in front sir good evening at the producer said hello

at 781 handled which is across the street from the back side of property I appreciate the the alterations that you made to the original plan as far as the concerns for parking and everything else my main concern is you know you start you want to make nine Apartments in its residential neighborhood it just it's going to start to change the tempo of the neighborhood I think we all live

there because it's because the type of neighborhood that it is now you start you uh you know jamming all kinds of people into the structure and I understand it's uh the business aspect of it that you want more Apartments because it's more Revenue I understand that but you know this is this is I think we all move there because of the type of neighborhood there it is so now when you start making these small

changes and you'll be you know if you were to allow something like this it changes the very Dynamic of neighborhood and I think that's probably the main issue that we all had the appearance of it great I mean it's like and like I said I think we all appreciate the the uh the efforts that were made to make it more palatable to the neighborhood but it's it's the the issue itself of what's going to be done

thank you sir yes ma'am hi Amy versus 781 Hanover I spoke last time um I also appreciate the changes um I appreciate that they're going to be gated gating off the back driveway however I have um maybe I'm just not a trusting person but to say that it's just not going to be used I I don't know if I necessarily believe that um perhaps it could be something a little more permanent put to block it

off like like you were talking about putting the curve back or something like that also my concern is the number of Apartments the noise the people the visitors parking everywhere the you know the dumpster that attracts rodents and all of those kind of things and obviously I second what my husband said but those are my concerns thank you man that roll on this side okay yes sir I'm just thinking about I

need to identify yourself already I live on Hanover Street my name's Lawrence Bessette I live across the street from this one I think during the winter when there's snow that parking lot they're gonna have to put all that snow on hand on this street because they're not going to put it on hot I mean Highland Abby you know what I'm sorry they'll probably have to put all the snow on Highland Avenue

the people aren't going to park in their parking lot they're going to park on Hanover Street right where we live everybody is going to park right there they're not going to park in that little tiny pocket that's just my opinion but when it snows that parking lot is going to be useless thank you Madam hi Mary Colombo just want to go on the record as being opposed I think it's taking away from

the character of the neighborhood and the hardship is going to be on all of us and our property values are going to drop okay thank you yes sir no wait that gentleman behind you yes sir good evening my name I'm the board director of uh Buddhist temple at 7 45 Highland Avenue I believe that it can ruled in our working School thank you oh good thank you

we're going to work in a systematic fashion yes 57 Stanley I'm directly across from this parking lot my question is snow removal if it's such a small lot with 18 spots how are you plowing are they going in out of that gate in the back and where is the snow going how are those cars going to be notified to move when it's being filed why do we need the game why can't we put

everybody's and put another parking spot to ensure give us some reassurance that there isn't going to be people in and out of that entrance if it's only 18 cars on that small little lot where is all that snow going okay and the wall on Stanley Street is falling apart it's flowing apart it's Decay so is that going to be repaired so let me say this this is the zoning board

of appeals we deal with land use issues Mr tetral attorney celino those are things for the infrastructure they're going to have to deal with your issue about the entrance on Hanover Street I think Mr duper has addressed it he may raise it if there's a motion to the grant it may not be an issue if it's a motion to deny but it's something that's been identified with talking about it

and we've got your opinion on it exactly do they have plans for the snow removal I have it we do it here I'll ask attorney celino if they have a plan for snow removal we don't and what's Happening Here is the goal post keeps moving I don't know so I think that we made a plan that was responsive to the requests and there was no talk about the snow and clearly now there's talk about snow so

um I think snow Mr aguiar is at a site plan function that's considered um I don't necessarily think that's appropriate and relative to the wall falling down frankly nothing's going to happen here if this gets denied so it will eventually fall down I mean this proposal is to breathe life into this site and without that it's not going to get fixed through a site plan review I can guarantee you that the wall will be

repaired no no so let's see right but those that's how things will get addressed uh but and I agree with attorney celino though those things are beyond the scope of this boy this is strictly a use issue can they or can't they we can put conditions on to try to address some of your concerns and I think Mr dupare has raised one issue about the Hanover Street that's responsive to I think what he was

anticipating you all saying so let's see let's see where the board votes on it but yes it's site plan review an Insight plan review those issues will be raised if an issue about snow removal or the extension of and I'm trying to think what else that we talked about but if there's any oh somebody mentioned the dumpster the dumpster being um in a sheltered area so you can't see it well the new neighbors be notified of

the site plan review I'll defer I'll defer to Mr aguion the answer to that is no that's not that's not it's not a problem it's not a public hearing constricted public information it's public information within the department heads of people that are on the site plan review committee but it doesn't meet like this board with a definitive date time place you can always call Mr Aggie out to find

out what's happening yep I also just want to make a comment about his statement about the parking on stem industry I have pictures on my phone when the tempo has Services there is no copying on Hanover Stanley or Highland Avenue so I just want to make that for you yes during the day business hours people are working this open popping absolutely but during the weekends and after hours that is not the case

okay thank you Madam three times aesthetic value that he has put into this work but um after the meeting we had the last time we did discuss probably um discussing the fact that maybe not having the nine apartments and listening the back to a lesser amount of departments that I was just wondering with Mr celino that had been talked about at all it has but it doesn't work for an economics perspective for my

clients so the options presentation the presentation this evening is for nine right so really we're at a point here where there's going to be a vote and if the vote is unfavorable his only other options really are to do nothing or to put it no that doesn't work though because of the amount of money that has to go into it to convert this and fix the site so then we're thinking okay well a

non-profit would not be that's the only issue other than a non-profit's not subject to zoning so perhaps we get some other use that is not residential units that's a non-profit that wouldn't require notice to this board and maybe he can lease it to whomever that user would be those are the options as we see them thank you yes ma'am hi Nancy Ward 20 Stanley Street um I agree with my neighbors um just for

my um you know a Tranquility standpoint in terms of what the neighborhood is all about I have a question um are there anything from the zoning standpoint about Green Space um it doesn't seem like there's much discussion about you know the park is green and you know we all moved there because of that you know element um but there's a lot of emissions issues there's a lot of you know plumbing and

all that that needs to happen if you're going to retrofit this you know this particular facility so I I know that your land use and best use I get that but not necessarily best use but okay but I I wasn't here at the last meeting and I apologize but um I'm struggling with that element of it for Fall River because the beautification of Fall River is happening now and it looks great and

to just you know remember people kind of densify if you will um you know a space like the historic side of it it seems to look like a waste it seems like we're just crowding um you know usage for for Pure economic profit and that's just my comment so I don't know how the green Factor fits in to Fall River but I would I would suggest that maybe somehow it's looked

out that that may be addressed to the site plan review okay the presentation as I understand the petition and I understand what their uh what the petitioner is proposing right is the building exists in working within the four walls of the building um sight as it exists is going to be improved by way of some adverbities and but as far as a deployment and I'll defer to Dan I don't think well there's

nothing there's nothing there's a lot coverage issue but not necessarily a greeny issue right it doesn't have to be green it could be crushed don't be considered not lock coverage but the original coverage component to the relief which is already non-conforming so they're only expanding the existing non-conformity for lock coverage expenses so that would only be a special permit but no hardship needed and

through site plan review we can require different types of stormwater management standards to offset that increase of impervious area and new Landscaping of course and all of the Arborvitae so you theoretically could end up with a Greener parcel than what you have now talking density yeah parking density yeah that has nothing to do with green the buildings the building no fair enough

that was one question I had when was the last time this house was residential I worked when I was 15 I worked there in the kitchen I have no idea residential yeah and it was an 18 bet 18 29 29 bed yeah 12 12 staff at all times no no but so that's what it is and it went out of business I was just asking I didn't know when the last time I don't

know but I mean but nothing other than other than internally the structure itself is remaining intact right and being preserved and being preserved yeah is there a way of doing something with the front to make it more green um you know to because I know it's not a requirement in the city and it's been one of my pet peeves that you know we don't require people to uh beautify some

of the properties so would there be an opportunity to put something toward the front plant a couple trees there it looks like that's what's happening with the driveway being removed right that's going to be yeah that would be landscaped it may be a walkway coming from at the bottom of the stairs driveway is being removed that's going to be gone correct just you know South Coast Plaza they

kind of you know we don't have requirements here but they went and they did a pretty good job planting all those trees and they're going to eventually be bigger and I that's probably what you're getting at that's been a pet peeve of mine for like the past 20 years here that you know we're not asking of that I know Dan's trying to do that and he's doing a good job but I just want to say

that's a point we'll take and maybe they can do something toward the front oh yes man one more time go ahead um in response the people who lived in the nursing home never came outside never made noise and did not have cars so you know it's kind of it's kind of like that you can't really compare it's like apples thank you okay everybody's had their opportunity to speak members of the board you've heard

the presentation so I get a motion to Grant do I get a motion to deny do we have some conditions you want to add if there's going to be a motion to Grant yep one more question so they're gonna drive with the wash and driveway they're gonna part of it is going to be included in that 20 foot wide I think they're getting rid of the group yeah that's right well again

we can make that a condition yeah there's no no objection to that right yeah no no we can make the condition but they also wait let me just keep on going they also need to go before the city council to get permission to make the driveway cut or extend for the 20 foot wide right so yeah I don't know I can't speak for the city council but we can make a condition that the northern One

Beat yeah back in the same thing with yours on Hanover Street that the curbing goes back in okay thank you all right so that's what we've got we've heard the presentation we've heard those in favor those opposed uh motion to Grant motion to deny motion to Grant with conditions

I'm gonna make a motion a grant with the conditions of adding the abrovise as stated on the plan with the addition of five to six more whatever that comes out to to come to the edge of that walkway there to get it up so past the drive to pass the uh parking lot pass the parking lot up to the existing concrete wall as the uh the Horseshoe driveway in the

front to be removed lawn Green Space up front curbing curbing reinstalled on the Northern driveway no I'm leaving that alone that's going to be up to site plan whether they do oh I'm sorry Northern driveway Northern driveway now you're talking about Hanover Street uh Hanover Street the gate locked gate only to be used for that's do you want to add on that Hanover Street that the curbing has to be read

no no you don't want it your motion doesn't happen my motion doesn't have that site plan if they choose to close out the city choses to close that I okay that's why I asked the question about a dumpster if it's just for administrative I don't have a problem with that um the dumpster being screened for dumpster uh well it's like playing review deal with that yeah there is no dumpster pad

on the site that works there now is being removed correct in the middle of the driveway correct yes so the dumpster would be close to the building I'm imagining on the hashed area just in garage to be raised is shown on the planet as the plan States okay that's your motion that's my motion okay we have the second on John Frank's motion a second second Jim Hawkins any discussion on the motion to interpear

no okay Joe Pereira no okay so no discussion on the motion John Frank yes Jim corkins yes Dan De Pere no Joe Pereira yes Joe pereiri yes chairman Assad yes so the vote is four to one in favor of the nine units uh the conditions of John Frank's motion um site plan review and that petition is granted with those conditions thank you members of the board thank you thank you all for coming out thank you

agenda item number you ready agenda item number one Clear Channel outdoor LLC care of attorney Dennis Lyden 186 Plymouth Avenue map M11 lot 14. the applicant seeks a special permit pursuant to Massachusetts General lawyer chapter 48 section 9 and section 86 425 of the city of Fall River zoning ornaments to construct a 70-foot tall double-sided 14 foot by 48 foot digital LED message board

the existing 14 foot by 48 Message Board located at 25 feet from the proposed board's location is to be removed good evening good evening chairman Assad members of the board attorney Dennis Lyden 89 Jules Street Fall River representing Clear Channel and outdoor LLC I'm joined by Mr Yano omara 89 Maple Street Stoneham Mass representative Clear Channel as well as Mr Chris ockman another representative Clear Channel for

any technical questions so we are seeking so it does implicate 186 Plymouth Ave it's a existing off-site Highway style billboard sign which is standard 14 by 48 14 foot high by 1440 by excuse me 48 foot wide the face it is tamden facing both east and west on 195 visible East and West traveling on 195.

and we're seeking as to move it 25 feet to the Northeast from its present position the same footprint it's a monopole so it'll be the same footprint currently it's 50 feet in height I want to increase it to 70 feet and of course converted to a digital display I'll note Fall River there are currently two digital display Highway sides billboards one is at 160 Hotwell Street facing Interstate 195 and the other one

is at 5 37 quickashan Street facing Interstate 195 both on the south side of 195. have you gotten permission already from The Outdoor Advertising board no we would go from here we go to the Outdoor Advertising board all right so you read you're familiar with our ordinance that requires that you have that before you go before we can grant permission um you're doing it as a special permit and you're citing

um 86 uh that was 86 425 but you got to walk me through it because I don't know how you're doing it as a special permit and not a variance because you're demolishing the existing one you're moving at 25 feet in a New Direction and I make the for myself I don't know as I read uh the requirements of 86.25 we're really not expanding the existing you're going to a whole new site even

though it's only 25 feet it's a non-conforming structure and it's other than a single family uh with the zoning board can grant May Grant a special permit to reconstruct extend alter a change a non-conforming structure but the structures going away so you're really putting a new structure 25 feet away and if you keep on reading 86 425 I think it says you may need a variance but I want I just want the

education of how we get to the special permit on this particular issue it seems minor we're moving at 25 feet uh we're going up 20 feet higher but I think our ordinance and I think you also run into the issue at least for me um when you go to our electronic somebody can jump in and tell me that I'm wrong when you go to 86 451 subsection e electronic signs um

it doesn't give us it tells us what the size of it can be in the Medical District and it can't be more than 24 square feet correct so this thing I've got four feet by 48 feet 14 feet by 48 feet which is 600 and what 672 squares so I just I just need you to walk no I understood that's why I'm I'm implicating 86 425 because it would it would be in harmony

with the existing use it wouldn't have any inverse adverse impact on the on the um Apostle it's on and there's no there's no ordinance per se prohibiting the sign it's been there since 1988 I believe oh that one the current size pre-existing non-conforming it's there right well how did it get there is it non-conforming or did it get a permit I I don't I didn't independent research didn't get me there it's there seven

years have passed whatever it's there it's the it's the deconstruction it's a removal and moving the 25 feet that I can't get my head around I guess Mr chairman I guess reconstruction extension alteration or change because it's not on that pole it's not on that site it's moving 25 feet away and they're erecting a new one and I think when you get to 86 425 B that talks about um in any manner as to increase in

existing non-conformity or create a new non-conformity shall require a variance so that's I'm just asking I I no I honestly the input is not it's not a new use right so it's almost like we're just replicating what's there not trying to you know not the use that I'm really it's the structure right but if we look at the legal standard for variance that's typically there's there's an existing prohibition

for something that's not currently in use okay so under so under Section 10 we talk about shape topography soil condition we're talking in 40 and 86 425 it says section B the Reconstruction extension or structural change of a non-conforming structure that structure that you have is disappearing and a new structure is going up um would that cover you alterations to provide for a substantially different

purpose or for the same purpose in a substantially different manner or to a substantially greater extent it's a different Manner and a different extent yeah I mean with that I mean once once the once the thing goes down I know yeah I bet it's a different manner in a different extent I I just wondered if that would I don't know if that's why that's why I'm asking well that's why that's why I'm asking to get

the education goes right yeah I I've got I'm putting a new use up there I mean a new structure says I'm gonna extend the current structure 20 feet higher and I'm going to put electronic signs there then I think my yeah the problem is your reconstruction yes which would happen on that same pole wow not in the same area but in a different area yeah it just says reconstructed it doesn't mean in the

exact same location I don't know well I'm relying I'm not I'm not going to be 86 425b Mr chairman I'm just trying to stay on anyway I got it but I'm asking you because I couldn't get my head around right what listen special permit taking it your way it absolutely Works yep no problem let's see what we're going to do but when you talk about removing it and putting a new one 25 feet away

I I think for me I run into the problem of it's a new structure it's not reconstruction it's not the same I'm not expanding the the pole that's there up by 20 feet getting rid of the static ones and putting the electronic ones there I think all of that may fit into it it's the deconstruction and reconstruction in a different location that I'm having difficult that I am I can't speak for the rest of the board

that I'm having at the time to you that we're not in the sign organs yeah but no no but we're getting there I'm getting back to that but I mean just in terms of the electronics which talks about uh is there and also in the Medical District the size of it which I think would require may require a variance can I interject because this sign right now is

if it's going to be lit it's going to go right on to the quickest hand rail trail that we just built so it is changing the area of that you know if it's lit so that's what I would be concerned I'm on that trail three days a week but I think a lot of people it is changing if you're lighting a sign onto like a nature drill I just want to throw that out because

people knew that it was near there that's a that's a very real consideration about especially when you get to the electronic sign part of our ordinance uh but I just wanted to get my head around how we got to the special permit part of it um and I was looking for the explanation because I couldn't get there couldn't be reconstructed in place where the existing sign is so the landlord did ask if we could move

it to towards the middle of the property so he could store more stuff at a long longer term in the corner where it currently is okay in into the into the 25 foot offset to the river so that may be that may be difficult and I mean my concern is that it's actually overhanging the existing sewer region which through site plan review I don't know if you'll get past the sewer department but that

um although the poll is not being constructed in the easement the overhang is so I can almost guarantee you that the Department of Community utilities which handle the sewer system will not allow this overpaying to happen so if you could potentially move it to reconstruct it in place I think that would check a lot of boxes for a lot of people but the board can only act on almost being productive good

so that was my that that was me I was trying to get my head around before for this meeting there are four other members or five other members that may have some input we heard Johnson put about the um about the lighting yeah Joe you had some comments that you unless you want me to get to that part of the ordinance 86 451e let me ask this I mean I mean was was the possible

extension of the existing monopole ever looked at or did you go directly to this to move it back to the in terms of the property owners bushes I'm just I'm looking at it from a structural standpoint which doesn't fall under our purview but the reality is were that too was that example was your indestructural analysis it was tossed back and forth but we decided to go towards the middle as the landlord

I'm just asking because it were an option but it is a possibility okay but under 86 451e electronic signs which I think this is an outside sign displaying or device that changes its message or copy at intervals by program by programmable electronic digital or mechanical process all by remote control electronic signs shall be allowed in neighborhood shopping districts Beyond local business

districts BL mix use business districts MBD commercial Mill districts CMD Central Business districts CBD and Waterfront and Transit oriented development districts wtod so it's in the Medical District and it doesn't come into the purview of e under our ordinance then if you go to E3 that's where I'm going next yeah E3 in a specific case the zoning board of appeals May after public hearing Grant a

special permit for an electronic sign in an industrial park district Medical District MD apartment District A2 or multiple family residence District M provided that the maximum surface area shall not constitute more than 24 square feet the electronic sign in replacing an existing sign and the board finds that the location set back in design of such use will not be detrimental to the area

by reason of lighting appearance or impact on neighborhood neighboring uses so and I get there and then I might it just falls apart for me again because now instead of having 24 square feet my mathematics 14 by 48 gets me 672 square feet well that's why I go back to for 451 yeah section 451.

no I got it under the special privilege saying this is where we're going with it but that's again there's four other members they can figure it out or but that's I have I have difficulty I don't think that it falls into the four um before 25 uh section but that's just me good members of the board ask some more questions if you want getting getting past 451 E3 prescription you can do a special permit put those

require I understand what the sign has been there in use there is a sign right not the sign has been there a sign is there right now you want to put up a brand new sign that's electronic it's a completely different thing I'm gonna I'm gonna tear down this this three family house and put in the garage it the same thing so it's it's not the sign the sign is going to get torn down

so it's not it's it's just not the same the same one that's the problem same use by changing it to an electronic we still have to live within the four corners of 451.

well no you could special permit would apply to that as well on the 425.

reconstruct extend alter a change a non-conforming structure well listen that's that's for this boy to decide whether or not it is or it isn't Jim corkins thinks that I don't know I can't really speak but his original question was you're moving it you're doing you're reconstructing he may read it in a different fashion I look at it I think like you Joe that if you're reconstructing something you're

doing it within the footprint or where it is I'm going to go up 20 feet I'm going to go up on the existing pole 20 feet I'm going to change the existing static to electronics I think all of that could be an argument but what's being proposed before is this moving at 25 feet I'm creating a new 70 foot tall uh pole and I'm putting two new electronic uh faces on it that exceed in

the MD District that's correct and I question whether or not we have the authority to do that under a special permit but that's why it's important to show up at the meetings and give you a presentation to educators this similar to the same question we had and I can't remember the exact that we asked for a legal opinion on our right to vary something it was with the parking

where it did not allow for it but then the legal department gave us these if we met we could change anything that's the purpose of the board we have the authority but what's presented before before okay but we do have the authority to waive but when you have these Express prohibitions in the ordinance the question becomes is the board exceeding its Authority that's does it so that's

that's what that's the model where I was coming from and I am only you would be Mr chairman you'd be you'd be exceeding your Authority and issue special permit for this I think it is my opinion that the special permit Provisions that exist that you've referred to um aren't applicable to what your particular project is um I think what the tearing down relocating 25 feet is something that doesn't fall into

86 425 and I also think that the failure to have the Outdoor Advertising board approval even though I think we have in the past um said we would Grant something subject to the The Outdoor Advertising board approving what you want to do but I think procedurally just on the special permit of what your petition is if there's four other members you're looking at the chairman saying hey I

know you've got a problem uh but that's just me and that's why I keep on looking to the other board members for their input um stated my part of the case at this point yeah okay we can let's yes sir we could withdraw it you commit you can ask you can certainly make that motion at this point in time or you could table it or you could take a look

yeah it is you don't you don't lose the the fee or the time you have to pay a tabling fee well okay no wait a minute whoever the gentleman in the back is get it straight whether he wants you to withdraw or whether or not he wants you at a table all right and see if the boy's going to grant that for me okay

so yes so your your request is to withdraw the petition correct okay Grant permission to withdraw they vote without prejudice that was the second withdrawal without prejudice yes okay discussion on the motion John Frank yes Jim carkins yes Dan duper yes Joe Pereira yes chairman Assad yes thank you thank you thank you foreign

agenda item number two are you ready for number two Catahoula Development LLC care of attorney Mark 11 Danforth Street map oh 14 lot 43 the applicant puts forth a motion to extend time for relief for a previously granted decision dated November 18 2021 the applicant wishes to extend this variance relief for a period of six months commencing on November 18 2022.

attorney 11 is traveling will you identify yourself for the record I'm not attorney 11 Frank Mark County 31 sample Village Road Attleboro Massachusetts I am a partner Catahoula development and we are the owner and the developer of the aforementioned property Mr chairman I'm here this evening to respect respectfully ask for a six-month extension to our variants which will expire next month

uh unfortunately we could not meet the deadline because uh well the the property had some engineering issues that we underestimated but they are uh they are pretty much all set with that said I did receive a an approval uh site plan approval letter from Mr aguiar's office and we are diligently uh trying to complete several uh outstanding uh items of uh of completion that he requested

thank you and mine with previous policy on Mobley Grant I'm going to ask Dan a question though because I don't I don't know when I when I was look I didn't realize that you had done some work you've acted on the variants have they he had full building permits no review has to be completed first yeah so a site plan review was just completed they actually had a file for this before the

14th of last month okay they may actually have a building permit before November 18th but this is just in case I got it because I was listening that some work was done and I'm thinking if they've already acted on it they've there's I don't believe the zoning enforcement officer considers site plan review as acting on it okay I disagree but that's I can believe that's his assertion no no that's his the only work

that's completed we have uh cleared the lot and and just engineering that is it okay but and again you did the site print but you haven't pulled the building permit yet no so okay we're waiting on Mr Agra so approval well I didn't realize he had that no there was a condition of approval about curb Cuts conditions I'm sorry is there anyone here in favor of this petition is there anyone here

opposed to this petition members of the board any questions on this particular six-month extension no Jim clawkins he wanted to make your motion I I don't know six month extension six months expansion date granted okay so we have Jim Caulkins motion for his six-month second by John Frank any discussion on the motion hearing not danger Pierre yes Joe Pereira yes John Frank yes Jim corkins chairman aside yes

six-month extensions granted thank you sir thank you Mr chairman board members may I make a remark on the last yes uh and I know that you've got one of those signs I have I have an LED and some other Billboards uh uh D.O.T outside board advertising they won't talk to you until uh I know that and we said and what we've said and what we've said is we can grant it

conditionally until they do it oh I said but the ordinance as written and I just I just wanted to make sure that D.O.T was involved with it that they weren't just doing something but they especially the change in the location no I understand that but they won't talk to us until you guys give us that that was our work around thank you so much thank you agenda item number three Tetrault real estate uh LLC

care of Attorney Peter a celino 246 Beatty Street map L10 9. the applicant seeks a variance to divide the current lot into two lots leaving the existing three family dwelling on one lot and constructing a two-family dwelling on a new lot the applicant wishes to wave a lot area lot coverage inside setbacks in an M multi-family zoning District as shown on the submitted site plan the applicant

also requests a variance and or a special permit for relief from parking requirements for the existing three family dwelling good evening for record purposes Peter celino 550 Locust Street Fall River for the applicant petitioner Tetrault real estate LLC who owns the property with me is Aaron tetral the manager of the LLC um this site as chairman Assad just indicated is located at the corner of BD

and Eddie streets it's in an M District so one of the things to me that's interesting about this project is the sixth family is allowed by right um so we're proposing the three family plus the construction of a two-family duplex style uh dwelling here so unit count wise we're okay the lot itself is somewhat unique for the Neighborhood Mr Tallman's our engineer he's here as well on the project and it's almost double

the size of most of the Lots in the neighborhood so I was going to tell Mr tolma he really should have had the square footage of the other Lots around there for us but that's okay okay well Mr Tallman knows it for the record right all right so on uh what is proposed to be lot two we have there's a five stall garage there and if you look at the site

either on Google Maps or in person it's a lot of impervious material a lot of existing asphalt so the proposal here is to divide into two lots to construct a two family on lot two leave the existing three family in its current location on lot one uh and create four off-street parking spaces for a lot too so to summarize the waivers they are as follows on lot one uh the required area would be eight

thousand feet because we have an existing three family and the proposal is five thousand one twenty one the side setback would be required to be 15 and we are at five lock coverage is 25 we're at 70 percent and the parking requirement would be six and we have three in the rear driveway at the north side of the property and with respect to Lot 2 um 6500 would be required we're at 6040.

the setbacks are exactly the same issue they should be 50 and they're five in The Proposal the lot coverage is uh supposed to be 25 and we're at 50 and finally uh the parking doesn't require a waiver on Lot 2 because if we have two apartments we'll have four spaces and we adequately address the parking there so that's the details of the site the project and the waiver I cite it as the

hardship the existing structure and sort of this shape of the lot with these you know to the West we have this big paved parking lot and the existing garage yeah right on the right on the uh North boundary line um and so ultimately The Proposal is to what we believe make a better use of this uh site by creating the dwelling with the off street parking spaces but other than

as it exists right now the three family dwelling with the square footage Frontage the structure itself doesn't meet but area you comply you meet the threat District correct you have a conforming lot in those respects yes so we're taking is conforming lot and turning it into two non-conforming lots yes what number two I understand the long basis May in fact be a perfectly conforming lot for the M District

but it's the lot number one that's becoming more non-conforming correct okay I just wanted to make sure I understood what we were doing okay members of the board that's the proposal we've got these lots of waivers that are required to make this work if you think that they've met the burden because it's a variance have they met shape topography soil condition hardship that affect this particular property to

Grant a variance and whether or not it's in the public good if we think we have then maybe we should make a motion to Grant if we think they haven't met the burden then it should be a denial just to check the side setback on the suddenly that that isn't given I don't think but I don't think that's 15 speed no I'm not one or the existing hey I'm just saying that that is probably a

non-conforming issue yeah no yeah oh okay the lot itself is a conforming lot the the use the structure makes it non-conforming and then Lot number two as they carve it off may be a conforming lot but Lot number one get becomes more non-conforming yeah okay more yeah number two will not be conforming as to area it by by a small amount correct that's right 406. correct no so I take that back and it's not conforming

it's not conformed in the side yards and the side yards don't work yes including even just discussing the walk itself yeah

all right is there anyone here in favor of this petition is there anyone here opposed to this petition any other detailed questions from the board oh okay

can I get a motion to Grant motion to deny have they met the burden of the variants until we think that this is too much of an overburden for the area around a lot if we do then motion to deny if we think it's a good project motion to Grant with the waivers then I should probably ask you do you have any input on this okay

the surrounding light whether we'd be setting a president or in in the area and it doesn't look like any other of the Lots would be well I know but what's but it gives people impetus to want to do it yeah I can see l104 I can see l103 like yeah but I mean this particular lot has this three family it's got an existing five-star garage it's being used um whether the garage is big but it was

at one point in time being used as a whole lot um weren't they renting out those spaces whether they were rental or not but it was all part of the free family and it was a part of the three family where they're using three family we're knocking it down either way yeah either way well no no if this gets approved okay yeah

I don't know where I'm standing on this right now it's crowded that's okay so if you don't know where you stand I make a motion to deny the most okay Joe Pereira a motion to deny do we have a second motion to deny any discussion on the motion hearing none John Frank no no Jim corkins no Dan duper yeah Joe Pereira yes chairman Assad yes so three to two vote the motion to deny uh

so let's see what happens to that I think we had a misconfidence for the record but no I'm not in favor of it the motionless yeah do you agree with the motion to deny no no okay okay all right so you said Jim corkins yeah three to two so this particular petition does not pass not the requisite votes to get a variance thank you thank you uh citizen input anybody sign up out there

okay having none uh approval of the minutes from the September 15 2022 meeting in the minutes and acceptance of the minutes second by Joe Pereira any discussion on the motion hearing none Joe Pereira John Frank vacation this week John Frank yes sure Jim Hawkins jamming aside yes can I get a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn motion to adjust second any discussion hearing none John Frank

yes yeah Jim corkins James repair Joe Pereira chairman Assad yes the zoning board of appeals for October 20th 2022 is hereby close thank you all