11.17.2022 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's 6 pm on Thursday November 17 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 Four 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 shall make a public announcement of your intention our recording secretary this evening is Nina Kruger the lady to my immediate right

present this evening our permanent members John Frank James cawkin Dan duper Vice chair Joe Pereira an alternate member John Silvia is the gentleman to the far right um and he's in attendance this evening also present is the director of engineering for the city of Fall River an acting director of planning danegia is that the correct title something like that in the description okay Nina have all petitions

been considered to be considered from properly advertised in all interested parties notified in accordance with the rules and regulations of the zoning board of appeals in Massachusetts General Law chapter 48 is amended yes I declared the November 17 2022 regularly scheduled meeting of the zoning board of appeals of the city of Fall River open for such business as shall regularly come before it I remind

all persons presenting before the board including the petitioners or 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 petitionist claim as such the petitioner

should identify and factually support the basis for the petition I again advise that petition is an all-interested persons that this board is the Zoning Board of Appeals 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 quirks 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 petitionists to see competent legal counsel before filing your petitions and afterward decision of the board has been made for example there is a city ordinance 2015-11 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 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 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 in short provides for citizen input on

zoning board specific matters at the end of this meeting 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 are there any questions before we begin we'll start with agenda item number one Viera Auto Group Inc 1174 and 1204 Pleasant Street map k-13 Lots 43 45 and 70. the applicant seeks a variance to

construct a triple tenant retail establishment in a BL local business zoning District waving front side and rear setbacks along with parking and loading requirements good evening we'll identify yourself for the record and tell us what you'd like to do please yes uh good evening for the record Steve giosa with civil and environmental Consultants representing the petitioner this evening petitioner is also here

um and this is a request for Viera Auto for a piece of property located on the north east side of Pleasant Street in a local business zoning District the property itself has one existing building so on the exhibit I put up there which is the variance plan the lightly shaded building which is adjacent to quickashan street is an existing two-story mixed-use building the remainder of the site now is uh

parking lot and gravel there was a second building close to Harrison Street on the east side of the subject property and that building was torn down about a year ago it was in poor structural conditions there were a leaking roof and they made an evaluation that salvaging the existing building was really not a feasible option so um this petition is for the construction of a new building the docker shaded structure you

see on the exhibit uh would be a 2400 square foot uh mixed use commercial facility the size of the building really limits what we can put here so they're relatively small commercial tenant or tenants that would be located in this building and we listed uh potential for three tenants it likely may end up being only two but they would have to be small low intensity uses on the property

the proposed Redevelopment would create 16 off-street parking spaces so we think when you look at the zoning District that's a pretty good amount of off street parking compared to any of the other commercial uses in the immediate vicinity and we think that's a net benefit and beneficial element of the project to the neighborhood and we're also going to eliminate some impervious cover so from a drainage and

runoff standpoint we'll actually be reducing some of the runoff directed either off-site or into on-site Drainage Systems which would be subject to site plan review as the chairman indicated is is a requirement of projects of this type um from a zoning standpoint we believe that we have a uniquely shaped parcel of land which creates some hardships for the applicant you you have a wedge-shaped parcel with streets on

three sides that is fairly unique in terms of um how it constrains the ability to get a beneficial economic beneficial use of the property so we think that that is a very unique condition that doesn't necessarily affect the majority of the Lots within the zoning District um the relief requested is setbacks for the building um the existing or the prior building on the property was right up on the street

line uh the proposed building would be 1.3 feet from the street line on Harrison Street would also be from a side yard setback 4.2 feet which would be the north boundary line and then 2.4 feet from the interior line that separates this building from the other building that's depicted on the plan and they would have shared parking so the parking would be utilized by both parties and prior to

the initiation of the construction there would be a legal agreement between the two parties memorializing the ability to share that parking space so the setbacks are needed to have relief in this case we are providing uh pretty good on-site parking for a site in this district and there is a parking garage within a you know relatively close proximity uh parking a municipal parking lot within a reasonable

proximity to this site that would also be available for patrons of this particular facility so we don't believe this would be detrimental to the zoning District we think it is actually similar in nature and character and scope and scale to other properties within the district and we don't believe it would derogate from the intent of the zoning ordinance uh the intent is to promote similar uses

setbacks when you look at the other structures located within the district they're all very close to the street lines property lines so we're not requesting relief that is inconsistent with the neighborhood and so we believe that that provides a um a basis for the board to consider this application uh this evening creating a beneficial use on this property will also help the local

employment provide some opportunities for local employment and we think again that is a net benefit to the local business district that this site is located in so with that well we are providing pedestrian access also to the adjacent public ways you'll see there are sidewalks along the face of both buildings leading along the parking facility that gets us a little separation and Public Safety between the

vehicles in the parking lot and entrance points to the building and also a direct connection for pedestrian foot traffic to the users of this facility directly from the public way so with that I'd be happy to answer any questions so 1174 is remaining that's a separate that's a separate piece of property yes owned by someone other than and I'm going to ask uh if Brian Vieira is here you know all right so can you spell

Vieira for me because on the application oh was this submit could be my eyes are going okay so the read first page was resubmitted because I was losing my mind trying to find Vieira as it appeared originally and I said I know okay so it's changed and it's done properly okay so that's the um so it's just because of the proximity that 1174 is involved in this petition that's correct they're going to share their

parking facility it's going to be a shared parking facility correct the building the proposed building the 2400 square foot building is there any way of getting I know you've designed it any way of getting more setback from that rear from k-13 uh 42 and 107 Harrison Street I understand I understand being 1.3 but that distance in the rear yeah if it can be brought forth yeah we're right now we're showing at 4.2 feet I

yeah I think we listen on a bad day if I had lunch I couldn't fit 4.2 feet between I I can sympathize directly um no I think we can shave a little bit more off um not off the building but move the building a little bit closer to Pleasant Street and by a little bit I'm thinking we could probably get to a five to five and a half foot setback and not compromise The Pedestrian movement on

the front of the building so that would be an acceptable recommendation I'm just asking just because I know that tightness it's it's it's close um it's similar to what was there before but it is a close proximity to that line yes okay so we could live with a five foot separation if the board were inclined fun okay anyone else members of the board good yeah are you considering Harrison to be the front of the building

because you're you're asking but there's two lots here this this is the boundary line of the lava the building would be so Harrison technically is the front of where the new building would be and we would look at this as a side yard and this is a rear yard it's a little convoluted because we do have the joint use with the other property which you know really the primary front yard is is

Pleasant Street are those lots going to be combined no they'll remain for joint parking not not talking about the existing building but we have a separation we have separate Lots on the property to be developed are they all under the same Vieira Auto ownership is there a reason they won't be combined because if they're not going to be combined then you have more setback issues they're they're not

going to be they're going to be they're going to be combined we're going to get some explanation go ahead so we have two separate properties one that contains 1174 and then one that contains the new lot yeah the era Auto Group is the owner of the vacant parcel where the proposed building is you'll see there is a separate applicant an owner listed on this application which is Mario and

Maria de Luz silver so this variance will cover both properties and we required that they file it that way so that way this this decision is memorialized with both properties in both Deeds because they are you know contingent upon each other what what the owner did about a year ago previously there were two separate Parcels that Vieira owned and that's the anr plan that I've added into your package just a

smaller plan yep two non-conforming Parcels that had a four foot Gap in between them that was owned by 1174.

gotcha so to minimize the amount of relief being requested the the two parties the deluxes and the Viera Auto Group entered into this anr agreement to create a conveyance and a to create a conforming parcel of land so it was one less section of relief that they needed to request from you so they're here today on a couple excuse me conforming parcel of land for the district with just the setback just

a setback when the two parties dealt with each other as there was not a formal parking lot and as you'll see on the a r plan Vieira Auto Group actually owned Frontage Along on their other parcel of President Street and the overall scheme of things in both parties working together they were able to create a much better condition to come before you and minimize the amount of relief that was being requested

um so everyone gets in a new parking lot including 1174 with access and again a building very similar to what was previously there that was removed the building I guess I asked the applicant the building was removed prior to any application so there was no hard location of it but from aerial photographs we we can determine that the building was pretty much on the property line so whatever setbacks we can get

would be an improvement along the Northerly or the Harrison Street side okay great Dan thank you that helps and of course as we go through site plan review look at drainage infiltration this isn't a BL District where lot coverage is not an issue 100 is allowed so although they would be reducing the amount of impervious color would be a benefit no I have nothing else yeah the only access is Pleasant yes

well that's what's being proposed access off Pleasant Street nothing coming in North Harrison Street that's going to be right there that's going to be the frontages

Jim no John any there are there is some vegetation in the back but no room for trees over there well he said they were going to put something in it well there may be something no no but that's what's there now but as I would know him a lot there's there's some wild vegetation there but if there's going to be some arborvitaes or something but it's it really isn't conducive to say let's put a tree or

something but I'm I was just concerned about the lots to the north if it was right on that line all right I just have one question I'm sorry ask what's going to go into the building do you know what the businesses that we we don't have tenants at this time I talked to the owners uh as as recently as about 15 minutes ago and they're they're still talking to different people but they do

not have any specific tenants that have signed on yet so John the uses would have to comply with the BL District you're not granting any relief with regards to use not to the use yes I was thinking more of the parking situation if it's going to be something where people are going to be there always on in that's the post in and out because Harrison Street is very packed you know the people that live

there are on the street no matter what and when it snows um so when the applicant came they came in maybe three months ago to start this process and when we discussed access to Harrison Street I had told them that you know because of the parking situation on all of those side streets are difficult that access we would not look kindly upon a proposed access to Harrison Street taking away some uh okay anything else

does anyone here in favor of this petition anyone here opposed to this petition hearing known members of the board can I get a motion to Grant if you think they've uh met the burden of 48 section 10 shape topography soil condition hardship if you think so then maybe you should get a motion to Grant if you don't think they have then we get a motion to deny uh motion to Grant with any mod any

conditions that you want to change a condition of a five foot rear yard or that side yard to the north where it's 4.2.4 and 4.2 um setback okay um other than that anything else that's it that's your motion yeah okay Jim carkins made a motion to Grant with that condition do we hear a second second second okay Joe Pereira any discussion on the motion hearing none John Frank yes Jim corkins yes Dan De

Pere yes Joe Pereira yes chairman Assad yes thank you very good thank you thank you good luck to you man enjoy your Thanksgiving thank you agenda item number two Beverly Pereira care of attorney Mark L 11 350 Rochester Street Lot 90. the applicant seeks a variance to construct an addition to an existing non-conforming garage waving area lot coverage side and rear setbacks and dimensional requirements in an S

single-family zoning District good evening's Journey weapon tell us who you are what you want to do yes chairman members board I'm attorney Mark L Levin for our success 138 Rock Street four of Massachusetts representing Beverly Pereira who is in attendance tonight uh property is in an S Zone this is a a area that had been built up many years ago before zoning in fact my client's property was built in 1926

along with the garage that's exists today as you see most of the properties are pretty much the same size other than one that's nearby they all have garages on their property for their own use and my client over the years has found that all that purpose of her garage presently is the ability to put storage in because it just really doesn't fit a single car garage at this point her intent is

obviously just to expand at the same level the garage so that the front of the garage would be deeper to put a car in in the addition to the side of the crop the north of property from where the garages would be for her storage the neighborhood is such that everyone has a garage they're all similar sizes and and no matter what we could do that we would tearing down that building to

put it in a different location because it's already there wouldn't be any better because we'd have to seek you anyway for a lot coverage and area because it's just a small lot so it wouldn't be able to tear it down and move it and put another place without coming back here anyway so leaving the garage is what they desire it fits right where their driveway goes right into the garage

expanding it in the front gives them the ability to actually put a car in because the car is the garage is who knows what size car back in the 20s that they were driving but it's bigger than what they have now and they do want some storage now in addition to that with the members uh my client didn't make all of diesel Butters all of they were Butters that are next door to them

and behind them and have they had no objection to it because they all have garages and they realize just leaving the cars in the garage isn't no different than putting it in the garage and it'll just be that much more usable for them so although yes we could tear down the garage and place it a little bit different because we have a house with the back extension we're limited

anyway so no matter what we do unless we cut the house down or you know nobody should consider this relatively a small scale addition yes and it's strictly going to be the garage so it's not that's it so if we make the argument uh it's a blocklin kind of case where it's just a small scale addition question becomes do you even need to be here but the fact that the building inspector said you did

then you're going through the proper procedure of getting the permission from the board to do it yes okay and it's going to stay a single a a it could be one or two star garage but it's going to be it's not resonant it's not yeah they're playing to use as a one stall and then having the energy storage the same height same height same yeah across the old I mean again the existing

garage 1926 so it all needs to be remodeled so it'll all be uniform when they have to pull a building have to be inspected but that's absolutely it's not going two stories of the time the right same line same everything okay members of the board questions John Dan Joe no sir no Jim no okay does anyone here in favor of this petition is there anyone here opposed to this petition

hearing on can I get a motion to Grant uh a motion to deny have they met the burden of the variance and make a motion to Grant motion to Grant second any discussion on the motion hearing none John Frank yes Jim corkins Dan duper yes Joe Pereira yes chairman Assad yes good luck thank you thank you we'll see you in December gender item number three I'll be gajora 193 195 199 snow street map F20 Lot 2

the applicant proposes to convert the existing commercial building at 199 Snell Street into two residential units the applicant seeks a variance to waive area and dimensional requirements in an A2 apartment zoning District the applicant also seeks a special commit to reduce pocket requirements so good evening good evening for the record for the record please thank you Jeff Tallman from Northeast engineers and

Consultants here representing Alba Albi gajera the petitioner on this application uh quite simply what we're looking to do here is we have this property is a pre-existing non-conforming property due to Frontage and area if you look at the overall unit count on the property there's an existence six family dwelling located at the front of the property um an existing single-family dwelling

located in the middle of the property and at the rear of the property this is an existing commercial building that was formally used as a photography studio um the applicant is simply looking to convert that commercial building into two residential Apartments which would be a less non-conforming use than what's there now this property is located in the apartment the zoning District

so we would be taking a non-conforming use and converting that into a conforming use the structure itself is non-conforming to a setback as are the other two structures on the property and currently there is not enough parking on site to handle the the amount of units that are on the property so what we'd be looking to do is again make that conversion and also add some additional Wall Street Parking it's my

understanding at the moment um with the current tenants that are on the site I think there's only one that's allowed to park on the property and this goes back to an arrangement that the previous owner had with the tenants I think there's one uh tenant on in the front building at 193 uh snow Street that's allowed to park on site and I think that might have something to do with the commercial use at the back um

that commercial use has been abandoned for since the um since the applicant purchased the property in January of 2022 it has not been used commercially so he's simply looking to convert it into a residential unit so we're getting rid of a pre-existing non-conforming use even though I think I saw something it may have been granted by a variance uh I said Studio storage um any event it does not consistent with

the A2 District we want to bring two uh residential units on the premises correct two additional uh bringing the total up to nine nine on site yeah and that's it the existing structure stays you've got what you have and will need maybe some relief on a special from the pocket on the 86 445 is that correct is that is correct

is there any red s of it now no no strictly commercials to that back unit and we'd be looking to with the parking that shown on the plan we'd be looking to provide nine off street parking spaces uh so which would be one per unit that would be on the site

I made a mistake the one is uh directly uh east of the uh single-family dwelling it's not labeled but there's a um it's a parallel parking spot in that location is that the when you go by the uh the hashtag then you get the stairs that blank space that doesn't have a number in it that is correct all right because you're saying nine and I'm getting eight and I'm looking yes if you count the

numbers you get eight but that that is nine so next to 195 existing single family dwelling in that rectangle that's just gray this should be a one man that is correct yes no uh exterior construction on the back building um there may be a staircase that gets added within the building footprint so it wouldn't be um I'm showing if you you can see the proposed stairs located there and be in that general area

um again it wouldn't be any closer to the to the property lines and the existing structures but that's those are just stairs for Ingress and egress correct so the second floor apartment in the back door correct how many uh bedrooms are going to be in that house that that they're going to put the two units in that I'm not sure um I do not I know he has plans showing

up a bit I want to say that three bedroom units but I couldn't they're either two or three buildings yeah it is a good size but it's only two units going in there right yeah one per 11.

okay as you can see you look at the footprint it's bigger than the single family that's out there it's almost as big as the six family is there any way I see the parking spots I have people parked behind there because that area is extremely tight even without snow so is there a way of like you know it's on the back putting the you know have cars go back there if it snows because I don't even

know where those people are parked now um we're pretty much maxing out what can be done with the parking the only additional spot that we would have any additional room for it would be on the west side of where the four parking spots are between the six family and the four and I'm sorry the six and the one the the problem with that is by the time you get access back there you're kind of

blocking pocket and you really don't gain anything by pushing that back further um with the four units uh with the four power spaces yeah family you're adding if it's a three bedroom you're gonna probably add four to five people ten people in that building and I really you know in the front you got a six family to me that's a lot of people is there any way that they shrink that down you

know what I mean well again I mean the four parking spots we're providing in the back would be for those two units which would be in compliance with the zoning ordinance the four additional spots that we're providing towards the front would be to help alleviate some of the issue with these six family that's out there but that's in existing condition that we're not proposing to change

um we are adding again the the one spot for the single family so they would have a spot and then um we'd have four four additional spots for the you know for what's out front so they how that gets used and you know whatever it is it's going to be a benefit over the existing condition that's there now it'll certainly be an improvement So So currently the only parking is basically parallel parking along the length of

that driveway yeah and I want to say I've been out there on two or three different occasions and again there's only one tenant in the front building that's allowed to even park off street I was there the other day there were two full-size pickup trucks and God forbid if one of them needed to get out yes it's it it really doesn't work it's very tight and that's why providing those four uh perpendicular parking spots

concrete whatever looks like it used to be a water tank there foreign you look at the parking demand for that you know the additional two units at the back compared to the commercial use that was there before it's certainly to me it's going to be less uh less of an impact on the neighborhood having the two residential units over a commercial use for that back building though you're going to be adding 10 to 15 people

that are on the side there I'm sure I don't know if anybody complained but yeah adding 10 to 15 more people on the back of this gym adding more people into that that's you know besides the parking you're adding more people into a congested area already especially if it's a three bedroom if it was lower you're low in the density of people but it's a tight tight neighborhood right now

at the store across the street greases you got the school across the street from there so it's a tight tight area to add 15 more people in the area that's I don't think it would be 15.

um again if you're looking at a three bedroom typically you look you're talking about four people at least five people normally okay do you have any input on this no um I mean it's it's a difficult situation I mean getting rid of the commercial use is always a good thing um no step one the commercial use goes we have a use that's more consistent and you've got a large structure there yeah

big building absolutely and I can understand I think at the end of the day zoning wise you've got a net Improvement of off street parking that doesn't exist there now now I don't know if there is you know a condition or a provision that you could put in that what happens you don't want to Grant this and then find out that the six family is still not allowed to park on any of these parking

spaces so you you could create something in your decision no well of course it's gonna will be the minimum minimum of nine or street parking spaces however so right now we have an issue with the six family when as Jeff said yes one car's allowed to park so they build this two unit in the back they leave the single family alone theoretically just those two structures could eat up the

nine spaces that are in John's argument so you could require that you sprinkle the wealth of parking spaces amongst each unit policing that is something you know difficult that's something but that's the general intention even within our purview you can always put it in your condition we can put it as a condition policing it is something else substantially greater than our authority

to start getting into yeah house number one you get but that's a bad path to walk I think I I hear you yeah I mean and and I you know it makes sense we've come in we're converting that building to residential to residential excellent we're you know it's two units four parking spaces Banks they require that's it if you know so anything else looking at it like this it's it's awesome yeah and you know

whatever's going to go on up front you know we're in old city this thing would not have gotten developed in the 21st century so we have to deal with what we're confronted with and we've got this big building that exists what do you do with it well we don't want it vacant we don't want a commercial use the residential use is in compliance or in Conformity with what we

can do we wish we had more land but we don't so we're confined with what's there okay I I the only question I would add and have you know after you ask that because things aren't dimensioned so going through site plan review which this will have to do for the increase of impervious surface um the parking require the parking spaces would have to be dimensionally correct by your bylaw they're not asking for a

waiver of the size of spaces so I'm assuming they're all nine by 18. and I understand the aisle with might get a little narrow um but that's also a zoning no but that's but that has to comply with what the ordinance is but yeah but I don't think I don't think it can for the Iowa I don't think no no not the Iowa but the size the space spaces but the aisle with

this technology too so understand that where you are waving here is what's showing on this plan if it's only a 12-foot Drive aisle as you said when you look at it that's what you're approving so you're waiving the ability to have a 20 foot width which I think is what's required and then lastly it's not in the application so when you grant this you may also want to include and it could

have been done through a special permit um the ex you know the expansion of the existing non-compliance as far as a lot of coverage goes I'm just trying to circumvent issues from coming up when they come through site plan review this would come through if relief wasn't granted for lot coverage technically we'd have to send them back to you for a lot of coverage so there is it's already non-conforming

so by special permit you can allow the extension of that non-conformity and the reasons for doing so is to allow an increase in off street parking so there's more than a good reason for it I understand would ask that you include lot coverage in the list of reliefs that you give if we break if we Grant if we should we should include all of that because they shouldn't be coming back for something like

technical issue about light coverage so we so we do end up from a practical standpoint because we don't have the lane you know for example I was out there the other day two full-size pickup trucks if one of those was pulled into one of these barking spaces he ain't backing out if this car is next to him from a practical standpoint yeah therefore as a land use issue and you

can't make the lot wider so from a planning standpoint can we just discuss the practicality of how much can we shrink that lane what what I would do is just require that and this happens often there can be you know an easement or a dotted line to ensure that no one parks in the driveway that's what happens sometimes when we approve these things and it doesn't limit the access you find that you've

now got people double triple stacked within their parking spaces eating up the access aisle and now you're going to call the neighbor in the single family home to move his car so you can back out so you just want to make sure that the lane is left empty both for fire and Emergency Services as well so parking is to be prohibited I would say within the actual driveway itself for Access purposes

yeah I have no issue with that in the parking spots that are shown on the plan are 9x18.

how I definitely that's a good question um let's say it's 18 by 20 feet in that in that area where and again we're not looking to widen that we really don't have the ability to we're looking to keep what's there now in the in the walkway that's there and then provide the parking is the walkway race so technically they could drive on the walkway yeah spaces the spaces are awesome you know adjacent to them so you

will cross that the only pinch point is that unnumbered space next to the single family other than that I think you'd have plenty of width it's great so you'll be able to get a fire truck down there you know yeah a fire truck would fit no correct I mean they would have to back out obviously if we do nothing the questions can emergency view it is what it is at least you're organizing some of the

cameras yeah well over the 20 feet you just factor in the width of the the actual driveway and the sidewalk that's at the same level on the side of it so um there's adequate access to get back there in emergency purposes I mean walking back there it it seemed wide enough and I know where you're putting parking spaces so maybe it's not going to be that bad certainly better than parallel parking

along that driveway so if we're thinking of granting the condition being that the driveway be unencumbered must be me too yeah my question becomes who's going to enforce it somebody can be calling Glenn on Saturday morning or Sunday morning that's the family over they stack the driveway yeah it is you can require that to get hatched labeled no parking you can put up a sign we can do that site plan review I think

also do that which I think would be the more so when I look at this for site plan review because of the narrowness of the driveway the the four perpendicular spaces if they were angled spaces it would actually even make it easier making so that's what I'm saying is driving more backing out more of the technical issues that we're talking about cycling review and I you know I I just think it's beyond the scope of this

boy to start saying I want it right like this I want that okay but and I think site plan review can do that okay okay so that's what we've got uh any any other input from members of the board is there anyone here in favor of this petition anyone here opposed to this petition hearing no one motion to Grant motion to deny incorporate some of uh what we've heard from Dan or reject everything and deny it

I'm going to approval uh with a waiver additional waiver of a lot of coverage like coverage and uh no further subdivision no further subdivision okay and a special permit for the reduction in parking spaces or the required parking well I thought that was part of that 86 foot yeah all right but look we've got two pieces he's got a variance piece and he's got a special permit but so let's so the variance part we can

change the use from the commercial use to the residential usage team yes and in that variance

that we find that less detrimental to the neighborhood that it needs to get done for the waiver of the percentage of coverage and the possible under 86 445 a little more acceptable okay so that's Jim Hawkins motions we have a second no no more than nine units no less than 10 parking places one to one no more than nine no more no less than nine okay yes you've modified you've modified your uh

just get the language yeah no no but I'm just one his motion now incorporates that Nine and Nine not more than nine and not less than nine parking spaces and that's the motion do we have we have the second from the second yeah we heard it from John Frank uh any discussion on the motion hearing none Dan zupaya yes Joe Pereira yes yeah John Frank yes Jim Caulkins chairman Assad yes okay so that petition's granted with

those conditions thank you Jeff Dimensions would be good on the next plan that make an improvement service we strive to get in there thanks thank you thank you that was gone he did it first with the variants that was done and then we had the special permit or two yeah it worked okay next agenda item review and discuss updated fee schedule in 2023 zba meeting schedule so let's talk about damn why don't you

tell us about the fee schedule that's being proposed it is being proposed so it's not a discussion of an updated fee schedule no no problem by no means is this being being thrown at you that this is the updated fee schedule and we want to talk about it so when we looked at and we've been doing this for a while when we looked at adjacent communities in the way that towns and municipalities

handle zoning board of appeals issues and this is also in planning board that we're dealing with this what we found is that our fee schedule is very similar however multiple municipalities charge specifically for specific sections of relief so if you needed three variances you pay three fees so if you needed setback area and Frontage you would technically pay three fees we don't want to get into a situation where

we've got this Converse because when you look at some of the schedules and the calculations of these things it's almost it's crazy the time and effort on the applicant's part and hours to check it and to make sure that it's correct and then you get here and somebody's missed one I don't necessarily think that's that's the right way to go about it so something reasonable and simple is the

way that we've proposed it here but again this is up this is just upward discussion in that packet that you have you'll see that about a year ago there was an updated fee schedule second page um what was updated on that fee schedule was just that the addition of the legal advertisement cost that was being born now by the applicant yeah yeah third page in your application you'll see the fees as they were

increased in 2014 and that's basically where we're at today with the field so they haven't been touched since 2014. so of course some increase um would be would be great to have um and this was just a you know throw a first dart at it so that you all can take a look at it you can put go online yourselves look at what other municipalities do and then we can have maybe a more fruitful discussion once

everybody's digested what's what's proposed what happens in other areas and what we want to do moving forward something also to think about like the town of Seacock for instance they not only charge an additional fee for each section of relief they require an additional full submission application so you sometimes have seven applications for one project we can't get the building inspected no no no

listen to what I'm saying we can't get the building inspector when they do the denial to be specific and this is no criticism of them about whether it's a varying special permit whether it's side yard front yard uh I mean I got it if we had that kind of sophistication in terms of the review prior to coming here yeah that may be good but I just couldn't think of overburdening the guy the the building

inspectors and say give me the component pieces of what relief you need it's bad enough when I couldn't figure out Vieira and then I look at it as a new supplemental page and uh and then I I wanted to say the one that Tallman had was it Tallman somebody it originally said that residential use wasn't permitted that I'm looking at I'm looking for and saying what the hell was I reading

um oh I don't know no no it was I don't know anyway but it was nice to see that it was not there in this current application and like Marx for instance the whole thing could have been done by a special permit right it could have been done by a special permit right and I think under blocklin he didn't even need to come here at all but potentially but what do I know yeah I

mean going going so far as separate applications for each I I go in front of some of the worst communities and not even the mighty People's Republic of Cambridge now remember this is the way we this is still being recorded so we're sorry so if you're going to Cambridge next week not me you're not watching no so um again take this take a look at it you know we'll we can reconvene yeah budget-wise

I know you haven't been sitting there that long but budget wise is the zoning board a revenue source for the city or a wheel a break even kind of activity well it's the department itself keeps and keeps none of the fees everything goes into the general no no I got it but I mean looking at for example the publication now shifting it to the applicant got rid of a line item where

before we paid the fee and we'd end up paying the city wouldn't come out of the United now but it's not happening so now we have these fees coming in and I'm asking just in terms of whether or not we're looking at the zoning board or overboards as being a profit Center or whether or not it's just no it it's not a problem it's not a money making index that's my question

um but but you are able to charge fees um in commensurate level with the services that are being provided um so the time with that but that's my question if I break down the hours that Nina spends doing it looking at it your review prior to getting there when you look at the fee yeah does it we're not getting yeah it doesn't match our hourly that's my that's my question if anybody's done the cost analysis to

review a package how many hours did it take and what are the costs and I'm getting a thousand bucks but I spent 10 hours of review before taking it in reviewing it getting this done and I asked what time frame you're looking at for its Mission there is none I mean it would be great to be concurrent with the calendar year but it doesn't have to be yeah I just think with

the big one we have next month that I would not see this next month we don't have to just my thinking no but but it had to be on the agenda we had to we had to discuss it and before we get to the we have time to do our research and come back whether it's done at the end of 2022 or the new board in the 2023 um we can let those members deal with it

what are next steps on this Dan just really conversational um okay whatever numbers you feel are accurate um review it again when I I caution when you look at other municipalities understand some of them are very clear that it's it says for each like some of the super low ones you'll see two hundred dollars and it'll say each each variance some of them don't say that so it's important

sometimes it's I've I've filed for variances in multiple municipalities where I've done a call and says hey we need three separate applications you're asking for three sections of relief and you have to enumerate the specific section and you know and there's a denial letter for each one so like as the chairman stated that that creates a lot of work so although it looks like a lot we're allowing a lot in a very

simplistic form and fashion more so than most municipalities well and you know most municipalities if you're in for a special permit in variants there are at least those two applications speaking to the requirements and you know how the bylaw applies to what you're asking for that's common but you still have to enumerate and if you miss a side yard sure see you in back next month reapply

do whatever so what we've tried to do is make sure that the the building permit denial the application and the relief granted are the same I tell applicants all the time you can only request relief for what the building inspector says you need it for the board can only act on what the board said you you technically need it for so we're trying to push people to get to you know a more

complete package and accurate across the board now if if someone is asking for a variance and then also a separate special permit we we are currently charging them for each on the same application but we do charge them the the two one form the two forms check two boxes it's the same material but technically it's it's two different I agree with the limitations so chew on it um you can tell me nope we're staying

right where we are and I would have no issue with it how how wide uh how wide a net did you throw as far as looking at uh at other communities you just stay within Bristol County no Washington South Worcester okay the West um where I'm not down the cape some of the stuff gets a little bit really crazy you get Cape Cod Commission that does a lot so believe it or not I couldn't get

on the city of Taunton website I kept getting an error message I don't know if it's an internal internet thing here I think they closed they get the new city hall they closed let's get on to the uh 2023 zba meeting schedule this is input huh citizens input we have two citizens I don't know if they want to input anything oh and this is Avila Mr Villa any comments to the board that you'd like to discuss

there you go that's important that's High Praise Mr Rivera thank you um we had to talk about the 2023 zba schedule before then so did everybody get it does have everybody look at your calendars does that work for everyone we're still standing vertical yeah yeah and we'll all be here some of you will be here yeah okay you know you keep little things no no that's that's it it's yeah no no some

of us I will um okay so having talked about that do we want to adopt this as the as the schedule for 2023 zba meeting schedule still Thursday all right so John Franks has adopted do we have a second on John's motion I'm just curious why are we going to the third week in December it's usually the third Thursday yeah oh well we've got a lot of second September November 7th

March just a second February is December second Thursday yeah

must have been Lebanese we started from right and ended up on the left okay so now that we've got that cleared away does that all work for everyone okay so have a second by Jim Calkins yeah okay second by Jim any discussion hearing on Dan De Pere yes Joe Pereira yes John Frank yes Jim corkins yes chairman aside yes okay so the zba meeting for 2023 is adopted uh we had citizen input uh Nina

we have the minutes from the October 20th 2022 meeting um straight motion to wave reading and an approval of amendment approval all right so that's second Jim John Frank any discussion on the motion hearing none um Dan duper yes yep Joe pereiro yes John Frank yeah and Jim corkins and chairman aside yes motion to adjourn motion to adjourn motion to motion to return with Joe Pereira no that was Dan

but Joe Perry will second second Joe Pereira any discussion hearing none John Frank Jim corkins yes Andrew Pierce yes Joe Pereira chairman aside yes the zoning Board of appeal for the city of Fall River on November 17 2022 is hereby close thank you all