11.20.2025 Zoning Board of Appeals

Good evening. I am Joseph Pereira, chairman of the zoning board of appeals for the city of Fall River. It is 6 pm on Thursday, November 20th, 2025.

We are meeting at one government center in the first floor hearing room.

Pursuant to Mass General Law Chapter 3A section 20 subsection F, I hereby notify all persons in attendance that a video and audio recording of this meeting is being made by Fall River Government TV, Mr. Craig Salvador. If anyone desires to make a video, audio, or combined recording of this meeting, please notify me now and I will make a public announcement of your intent.

Our recording secretary this evening is Courtney Pereira sitting to my immediate right. Uh present this uh this evening are also regular members Mr. John Frank who is our vice chairman James Caulkins our clerk uh and Dan Depre.

We also have present um two alternate uh members this evening uh Alexis um and Salmo and Eric Kelly. Uh, also present with us this evening, sitted seated to my far left is Mr. Daniel Agui, our director of engineering and planning.

Courtney, have all the petitions to be considered been properly advertised and all interested parties notified in accordance with the rules and regulations of the ZBA and Mass General Law 4A as amended?

Yes.

Thank you.

I declared the November 20th, 2025 uh 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 petitioners, abutters, anyone in favor or opposed to a petition, that your presentations or comment should be limited to three minutes. The board's

rules and regulations direct the board to specifically look for information that supports a petitioner's claim. As such, the petitioner should clearly identify and factually support the basis of their claim. In the case of variances of credible hardship uh as defined by Mass General law 4A must be presented. I remind all present that the authority of the zoning board of appeals appeals

exists pursuant to Mass General law chapter 4A and is in limited is in scope dealing with the use of land as regulated in chapter 86 of the ordinance of the city of Fall River.

We require that comments made in the hearing be limited in scope to our authority. Additional permits, licenses, reviews, and/or approvals may be required. The action taken by this board has a real and lasting effect on the title to your land and real estate. As such, I urge all petitioners to seek competent legal counsel before filing your petition and after the decision of the board has been made. 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 because the building inspector has determined that your proposed action is contrary to the city of Fall River zoning ordinance. The city's charter section 9-18 mandates that all multi-member bodies develop and adopt

rules or policies for public comment. We have adopted such a policy that provides for citizen input on zoning board specific matters. If anyone is interested in speaking before us at the end of the meeting, there is a signup sheet outside of uh the entrance to this room. And with that, I declare this meeting open. We go first to old business. We have one matter of old business. Item number 01. The applicant

is Little Hands College Incorporated, Care of Attorney David Msad. The subject property is at 551 Rock Street, map 0-02, lot 6. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following.

One, relief from section 86441 waving parking requirements pursuant to section uh 86-445.

Two, release relief from section 86-450 to erect a sign for the purpose of identifying the business pursuant to section 86-454.

The property is located within an R4 two family zoning district. This petition was uh tabled at the September 18th, 2025 meeting uh as well as the October 16, 2025 meeting at the request of the board [clears throat] council.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. I am David Asset. I'm an attorney licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I'm here this evening on behalf of the petitioners. Uh so what you've responded or what you've read is what why the petition is here.

I received uh the letter from Mr.

Hathaway and I think all the board members have it uh that makes a determination based on the recommendation of attorney Matthew Thomas that says listen you need to get a special permit. I respectfully disagree with attorney Matthew Thomas's analysis uh more particularly uh because this is a 4A section three um paragraph 3 case dealing with early education.

Um, so I was going to prepare a memorandum myself, but uh, the attorney general for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Andrea Joy Campbell, prepared such a memorandum, and I supplied it to all the board members.

Um, and so I'll just read some of the parts of it that I think are pertinent.

uh guidance on the regulation of religious and educational uses of land under the do amendment Massachusetts general law chapter 48 section 3. For over 50 years, Massachusetts law has exempted educational and religious uses land from certain local zoning regulations through the so-called do amendment Massachusetts general law chapter 48 section 3. The statutory exemption is just one sentence long, but

it has been given shape by dozens of court decisions applying it to a variety of real life situations across the state. This guidance summarizes the law of the Dover amendment as expressed through the case law. The Dover amendment limits local zoning discretion around religion and education to foreclose the local exercise of preferences as to what kind of education, educational or religious use

will be welcomed in a community. It reflects a legislative decision that religious and educational uses are important to the state and should be free from local interference.

The local rule, which is our local zoning zoning ordinance, cannot have the effect of subjecting the use to discretionary approvals. A municipality cannot impose a regulation that would have the effect of forcing a protected educational or religious use to obtain discretionary zoning relief like a special permit, variance, or waiver. Eliminating the local discretion to interfere with a

protected use is at the heart of the Dover amendment. If imposing an otherwise permissible dimensional uh regulation on a DOA protected use would trigger a requirement that the project obtain a variance or other discretionary uh zoning relief. The regulation will be deemed unreasonable and invalid as applied to the use.

The last page of the memo that I submitted to you asked the question, can a municipality require the proponent of a doa protected religious or educational use to obtain a special permit? The answer to that is no. Any process that gives the municipality discretion over the use of land or structures for religious or educational purposes is prohibited. A special permit is inherently discretionary. General law

chapter 48 section 9. In addition to some cases, obtaining a special permit requires showing that a use meets criteria that are impermissible under the Dover Amendment, Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 48, Section 9, 7 paragraph, and in parentheses requiring that any reduction in parking requirements be shown to serve the public good. and our particular ordinance 86445 and also the 86454

concerning the special permit for the sign I think fall into that category and say because it's 4A section 3 third paragraph uh that expressly prohibits uh special permits that I think we get to the conclusion that this particular activity this particular use of the early education facility does not have to meet um or ask for a special permit.

I think that it would be deemed um unlawful.

Uh but perhaps but that's I'm I'm not the AG and I appreciate I appreciate what you've presented.

She presents it better than if I wrote it. So I could give you she references the cases that um and yeah, go ahead.

Yeah. So so that's it. The other the other piece if we want to go from that into what our ordinance says both ordinances talk about it being public good.

Correct. So when we talk about the public good uh both the commonwealth in uh Massachusetts general law chapter 15D section 1 and talks makes an express statement that it's hereby declared to be the policy of the commonwealth to assure every child a fair and full opportunity to reach his full potential by providing and encouraging services which maximize a child's capacity and opportunity to learn which strengthen

family life and which support families in their essential function of nurturing a child's physical, social, educational, moral and spiritual development. And 15D section 1A which is referenced in the third paragraph uh of 4DA section 3 defines uh what an early what a child care center is. Uh the our other ordinance is dealing with uh what a special permit needs to be that a reduction or modification this promotes

a public benefit. Both 86445 dealing with the special permit gives us the language that says if there's availability of on street parking or parking at a nearby municipal facility.

This particular stretch of Rock Street from Per from Prospect Street to Maple Street as I've said before has the has 560 on the west, 560 on the west. Uh west and east are the same. Uh I the calculation based on what a parking space is 9 by 18. I get a yield of 62.

The maximum uh the maximum that this particular building 551 Rock Street could possibly hold would re require a total of 20 parking spaces. Um, as far as the sign goes, um, the board may grant under 86454, uh, a special permit to construct a sign other than those permitted, provided the board finds that the sign would not be detrimental to abuing properties and is needed to adequately identify the

business. Antioch school at 618 Rock Street has the identical sign being proposed. Antioch school is approximately 280 ft away.

And that's that's that's where I am at the presentation. That's what I would say that this particular project needs.

I would submit that the special permit uh based on the memorandum from the attorney general and her uh in her conclusion that no, a special permit is not required specifically uh for this numbered paragraph three of the do amendment uh I think would control. So that's my presentation. That's my request.

Okay. I' I've I'm extremely familiar with the Dober amendment and a number of the cases that have been raised over it.

Um no one is no one is uh saying anything about the use. We realize that the educational use is is indeed allowed.

But there is also the greater good that we have to monitor for the neighborhood itself. The do amendment is not a get out of jail free card.

No, but but sec but numbered paragraph three which is different than numbered paragraph 2 has the express prohibition that says no zoning ordinance or bylaw in the city shall prohibit or require a special permit.

I hear you.

So so there's an expressh. I don't necessarily agree. Okay.

Um, and a judge may have to make yet another determination. No, I'm just saying. I mean, because I know the Dover Amendment cases are still ongoing.

So, logistically, Attorney Assad.

Yeah.

Um, the guidance document provided by the attorney general states that you don't need to be here.

That's correct.

For for those two and the most recent land, I was going to give you the land.

So, that that's her opinion.

That is the building inspector's opinion is is that you do It is now.

It is. It is now. First it wasn't. Now it was. No. At first it was. That's what brought you.

That's correct.

Then he changed his mind.

That's correct.

Then he changed it back again.

That's correct.

So you're here because the zoning officer said you need a special permit.

That's correct.

The attorney general says you don't.

Correct.

You're asking the board to vote now on a special permit or do you want to withdraw that petition?

No, I would prefer and potentially and potentially appeal.

I don't want to zoning enforcement offices. That's that's what your path is. So you're here to ask for a vote.

I am acknowledging that the attorney general's opinion means nothing apparently.

So if we want to rely on the attorney general's opinion, this is what I need to do.

I don't want to I don't want to relive want to. I understand that.

I don't want to relive staff. I would certainly ask the board for a vote based on the presentation of what's needed for both of the request for the parking, the relief from the parking and for the sign based on the public good and more specifically of what appears in our ordinance that if there is it's an or and uh that in the event there is a public purpose and on street parking's

available the board can exercise its discretion.

Right. if they find substantially more detrimental.

No, no, that's not the standard. That's not the standard.

It is in the city of Fall River.

No, it's not under the same thing.

No, it's not. It's not in our ordinance that says that. That's what it is. The ordinance for the special permit.

All special permits.

No. Any parking or loading requirement set forth herein may be reduced or modified upon the issuance of a special permit if the board finds that the reduction or modification is not inconsistent with public health and safety or that reduction or modification promotes a public benefit. That particular section 86445 gives the basis for what the board has to vote on. So it's not the it's not public one way or the other,

but but the but the language or modification promotes a public benefit.

The Commonwealth's stated public benefit at the beginning of chapter 15D section 1 says it's for all 351 municipalities of the Commonwealth that early education facilities, child care facilities are in the public good.

And you can have your Yeah. No, no, no. I'm just I'm just saying that's what it is.

There is no question. There's never been a question to that from the from the first presentation [snorts] that you are allowed to have a No, I'm not worried about the use. It's the it's the special permit of an 86445.

So then you're asking the board to vote on public good basically.

Yes. Okay.

That all of those elements have been met both by the statutory scheme of the Commonwealth and what exists out there.

But but you need to define public good. We have good that's in opposition to this.

What's good for them that public and then we also have different which is my point.

You have the declared statement of the Commonwealth, the attorney general. No, the common law the statute 815D section 1 that's also referred to in zoning in 4A section 3 that says as used in this paragraph the term child care facility shall mean a child care center or school school age child care program as defined in section 1A chapter 15D. So when you go to 15D, it says that this is the declared policy of the

Commonwealth, which means it absolutely has to be a public good because the Commonwealth says we understand that.

Absolutely.

Okay. So what But you also couldn't build it a foot off of a property line.

Well, I think I think what council is saying, you could Yeah.

No, no. I I think what council is saying as a number of these cases have gone forward is is to get out of jail free card.

Yeah.

Okay.

So if the attorney general's opinion is applicable Yeah.

then you shouldn't you shouldn't even be here.

You don't need this but right now the zoning enforcement officer says you need to be that's correct.

So that's all that this board can vote on. I agree enforcement officer has directed them.

If this board grants grants the special permit Yeah. then the case becomes moot because I have it and I don't have to argue about it any further.

I understand that.

So the board but the most recent case uh which was darish that got December 24th in that case it said the third paragraph goes one step further and expressly pro prohibits local regulation of a child care facility by special permit. We need to look no further than the language of the statute which states that a zoning bylaw may not prohibit or require a special permit for the use of structures

or expansion of existing structures for the primary purpose of operating a child care facility.

And you may be right, but that's an argument to have with the zoning enforcement officer, not the zoning board of appeals. You're here because the the building inspector zoning enforcement officer said you needed to be. That's all that is all that that's all.

I'm here because Matt Thomas wrote this opinion for him that improperly stated the law.

However, however, however it happened, however, he came to write his last letter, that's between him and that's why I assured him that uh Mr. Hathaway, the board asked a letter from you.

Whatever you do in determining your opinion, that's up to you, my friend. He could have had a consultant from 10 attorney. I understand it.

This board doesn't care what Matt Thomas wrote. They really don't. They shouldn't.

They care with the zoning enforcement.

That's the only charge of this board is to enforce the zoning code and the opinion of the zoning enforcement officer. So that's all that they can act on. You may be tomorrow you be able may be able to go get a building permit.

I don't need a building permit.

Well, permit same thing. So I don't know if they're done renovating the building or not, but so but quite honestly may be able to get the occupancy permit anyway, no matter what the vote is.

Correct.

Okay.

The issue had to do with the parking.

Parking in the side.

The issue is the parking 100%. Yeah. There's no there's never And it's not the It's not the drop offs and pickups because No, no, that's not part of this.

It's the 19 employees that are coming into the building each and every day.

Potentially. No.

Potentially. That's what we were told.

19. If it's 12, I still I still feel the same way. If it's 12 or 10, because that's a lot. It's a small lot.

No, no effort was made to to procure or or produce any type of parking on the lot. I understand that it's small, but no effort was made.

Did Okay, I hear you.

Was any effort made to find an alternative parking? You're [clears throat] saying with the get out of jail free card that with all due respect, it's not a get out of jail free card, but that's how it's been handled. Okay.

Not by me.

It's subvert. No, I not by you. I've I've lived the do too many times. All right. From the other side. And that's how it's that's how it's viewed.

And it seems that every case that goes by, it just keeps eroding one piece at a time the power or the authority of the local boards.

The statute and the ordinance say what they say. They do.

The statute and ordinance don't say a lot. The interpretation and some of the interpretations by various judges have taken it down a different path. You're absolutely correct. But the ordinance hasn't kept up with it. So I respect the letter of the attorney general. I do. But actually that's not even the the the issue that's in front of us.

The issue in front of us is that you're being told to get a special permit.

Okay. So whether or not So let me let's just think our way through the procedure here whether or not we t I don't want to withdraw it. I really want a decision from the board or table it to the next meeting uh to maybe have the building inspector review what I've just presented to the board which based on what he relied on being wrong information the wrong statement of the law he may change his opinion

we get a shot clock running too though no he would have to I mean he asked a table it would it would be it would be my it would be my request for table and it would be for months because I'm not going to play this chase this game.

No, it's got to get settled one way or the other. Either that or I file suit and we go forward that do that route to have a declaratory judgment that this is where it is.

But that's a suit against the zoning enforcement officer, not the zoning board.

No, no, it has to be against him. It h it's not because the board hasn't made a decision.

That's correct.

No, I agree with that. Procedurally, I I get that.

I [clears throat] want the board to understand.

No, and I appreciate that. I I do understand that. So, so if if you would like to table, you can request to table the matter or I don't can't be it's not going to be till the next meeting.

No, of course. You're not going to have a special meeting. It'll be the December meeting.

Well, it's going to be a few meetings after that. So, why is that?

180 day. What happens if the building inspector doesn't again come back with No, wait a minute. If I ask for a tableabling of this particular to talk to the building inspector. Y it is done by the petitioner. I think that tolls because I'm waving my right for the tolling of the 180 days.

So then if so if if by December meeting Yes.

he doesn't give you an opinion.

Yes.

What has that done for us?

Done nothing for you. But what it's done for me nothing for you either.

No, I can't do anything other than forcing us to what I'm being forced to do. What I'm forced to do.

You're doing No, no. I'm being forced.

Yes, I am. Of course, I'm being forced to do.

No, you are not.

I have to bring in action.

You can ask them to vote or you can ask to withdraw. That's your That's your decision.

Not being forced to do anything. You have options.

Okay.

Like I said, you probably So, the board Wait a minute. The board is willing to take a vote on it despite what what I'm saying the the statutory scheme is.

If if you don't if you don't ask for a continuence, if you don't ask the table Yeah. We'll vote. We'll vote on it.

So, let's have a vote.

Okay.

We'll take a vote on it and that way I'm in the same position.

Let's go through process with the uh with the board. Any other questions from the board? This is a lot to chew on.

Now's the time.

We got to go to the general public again.

Anything new?

H anything new? Yeah.

So, anyone who has not spoken before or has spoken before and has anything different to bring up, who is in favor of this petition, wishes to speak.

Anyone who is in opposition to this petition, if you've spoken before, if there's any new, anything relevant. Yes.

Hello panel. Thank you everybody.

William Brown, I am directly beside this property at 527.

So my sideyard is right along the side.

Again, anything anything new? I know you spoke at one of the prior hearings, correct?

Yes.

Y um well, your decision does affect my property and I'm expecting that you're going to protect my property more so than a business trying to get in here.

and whether they hire Assad or somebody else and whether he looks for crumbs or a morsel that he can Okay.

Excuse me, Mr. Chair.

Nothing new. Nothing new is nothing pertinent to the case.

Okay.

So, if you have nothing new, here's new.

If you if you don't like if you paint the building red and you don't like red.

No, that was the chimney.

The 62 parking spaces that he says he measured out. I don't know who did those measurements, but there's nowhere near that. It's somewhere around 40 39 parking spots. So that is new. Uh who measured yours to come up with 62 or 42? No, no, no. He said 62. You said 42. Who was your expert that came up with 42?

Sorry. Sorry. It was GIS maps and it what the his number doesn't take into account is car.

Neither one of you should hire a professional land survey to figure out that number.

Well, he didn't take into account carveouts for fire hydrants, curb cuts, uh driveways, or seven driveways.

You have a plan to submit.

It's the GIS map. No, no, but you have a plan to submit that to show us how you've calculated.

Did I have to as the opposition or you should if you're going to make the assertion that he doesn't have 62.

Okay. It's not what he measured was end to end from the GI we can look to the city's GIS maps. What he measured was prospect of paintball on both sides without nothing new.

Well, if you measure from corner to corner without accounting for driveways and fire hydrants, then it's it's not right.

It's not accurate.

Uh the other thing that uh Mr. Assad wanted to allude to is that they only need four parking spots. I don't know how we came up with that.

He didn't say that. At no point in time did in the last in this last meeting. He said we really only four of the employees drive and we really I don't Yeah, that I'm I'm casting that aside because there zero 19 was mentioned and and as I just said, even if it were 10, I'd still feel the same way as far as parking spots go. as I uh disguise of education. I I'd like to ask

No, it's not a guise. It is education.

This fits under the definition of education in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and therefore aligns with the the definition of educations within our own bylaw.

If you had 19 parking spaces, you wouldn't be here.

Yeah. How many how many of the employees are educators at this place?

That's not a question. You don't have to be an educator for it to be an educational institution or education.

You don't have to have any educators in a building.

You're asking how many that I don't know. You're asking me to to quote something that I don't know if it fits the qualifications of an educational institution. I would assume that there are licensed educators or trained educators within the facility.

Let's ask how many educators do you have?

I ask you don't. I'm sorry. Okay. Sorry about that.

Not my meeting. How many people are considered educators on your staff?

Currently, I have a total of nine educators that are licensed.

Okay. All right. And that is a Commonwealth of Massachusetts license.

Could you could What's What's the exact lensure?

It's um for for example, mine is a director two. So they go from teacher infant toddler, teacher preschoolers um director one, director two.

Okay, great. Thank you so much. Okay.

So, there's no talk about 68 uh how many people? 60.

Not going to talk about that. Again, what they're asking for is in regard to park. The parking requirement would be for the students. We don't have control over the customers. Just like we we wouldn't if something if somebody was building a Dunkin Donuts and we know that parking or or traffic is going to stack up on the street. We don't have control over that.

Right.

All right. So, it's very much the same thing. I know it's I'm not comparing you to a Dunkin Donuts, but of course not. But that we don't have we have it over the employees.

Yes.

What about regard for the drop off and the pickup?

I'm just telling you we don't.

Right.

It doesn't We know that it's there. We can't, but that's not within our purview.

Okay, I understand.

Uh, what else is new? We didn't talk about this. They're talking about a sign. This is my property right there.

And now 8 ft from my property is going to be a sign or possibly.

I don't want to go to that sign because Well, you should because they're going to vote on both.

All right. Well, I don't want a sign next to my property for a business. I did not buy next to a business that had a sign on it. the other doc, the other office had flat unlit uh lettering on the the uh side of the building. I think that was part of him getting the variance. You asking to spread from four employees to 14 employees plus staff, 18 or 19, however many it is. Uh that that

there's nothing similar to the property that was there in the business.

No, it's not. and and we recognize that and and that's if if it was going to roll from a dentist's office to a podiatrist's office, it'd be a very different situation.

May I say something would still be here and be concerned?

Yes, we the variance all the properties that surround this property, all the property owners I think are here. They're all we're all standing here in opposition. We understand that you are going to make a decision.

You asked for anything new. You've brought up things that have been brought up before. You asked about the educators. Maybe there's somebody else that's one of your neighbors that would like to speak as well. We understand clearly where you stand on.

Okay. Well, thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Anyone else?

Yep.

So, last time I didn't talk about safety and traffic congestion uh from Oh, my name is Connie Silver and I live right next door at 577 Rock Street. Um, [snorts] and I've been a long time a bugger and I don't want to take up a lot of time, so I don't want to re reread anything I've said in the past.

Right? This would this would only be new information, right? So, safety and traffic congestion from existing uses, the proximity of the Antioch school significantly impacts street parking and traffic flow twice daily. During student drop off and pickup times, the street experiences significant congestion involving parents, children, and vehicles moving in and out of the traffic stream.

[clears throat] Introducing a new use that further competes for limited street parking will exacerbate this. Creating a dangerous environment for pedestrians, particularly children, and significantly worsening traffic flow during peak hours.

Um, also strain on residential parking and personal burden. The current parking situation is already severely strained.

Employees from other nearby businesses like the Deacon home at 603 Rock Street and 259 Prospect Street and 572 High Street all within the same block of each other currently parked along Rock Street and Prospect Street for the duration of the workday, effectively eliminating residential parking spaces. As a homeowner without a private driveway, I frequently have to pop across the street

with sometimes several houses away with nec which necess necess necessitates me carrying groceries, supplies, and my grandchildren across a busy public street. This is considerably this is a considerable burden and a safety hazard that would only intensify if the CBA approves this application without demanding full compliance with parking requirements. And then also the erosion of historic character. The historic

district's integrity relies on functional and safe streets allowing a new use that mandates a parking deficit effectively pushes its operational needs employee and visitor parking onto the residential streets detracting from the historic aesthetic and increasing street flutter and congestion. This is contrary to the spirit and the purpose of the historic um district ordinance. Our

community worked for years to establish it and and uh our only protected 40C historic district. Every homeowner agreed to its restrictions to preserve our homes, investments, and unique character of the neighborhood. Approving this request that normally violates these established rules would set a dangerous precedent and devalue the hard work of all who support the district's integrity. Furthermore, the recent

approval of a 12 apartment development across directly across again not not new information. just adding to the the I understand but this was this has been covered and I appreciate it but [clears throat] we we we got that [snorts] okay we we know that the traffic is a situation we know that I understand decision on the other property diagonally across the street then I'll just imploring you to please

protect the 40 seat uh historic district and reject this uh special request thank you thank Anyone [clears throat] else wishing to speak in opposition?

Yes.

[clears throat] Alex Silva, 148 Purchase Street. Members of the zoning board of appeals, uh, I previously spoke about the impact of proposed business at 551 Rock Street would have on the character of Far's only protected historic district. Uh, but today I'd like to address the implications as someone who currently brings a child to daycare. I recently went through the enrollment process and while I think most people

can agree that more daycare facilities are needed, just because there is a need does not mean that should be used as a justification to exploit our community.

What the city needs are daycare facilities that are appropriate for their settings. That doesn't and shouldn't give someone license to cram as many people and children as possible into a historic building with no parking on a busy one-way street. The safety of not just the neighborhood and residents, but also the children and parents should be considered when reviewing this proposal. As stated at the previous

meeting, the applicant fully knew the constraints of the site but pursued this location for a daycare anyway. Um, however, now the applicant is here before you asking beyond their right to accommodate a scheme that maximizes profit over well-being of patrons or the neighbors impacted by their actions.

Pickups and drop offs generally are not quick endeavors and regularly take as long as 15 minutes depending on if parents ask uh to speak with teachers about how their child's days [clears throat] were. Um, this would cause extra congestion outside of peak times every day. The process of getting children secured in vehicles itself takes additional time and that's not counting for more mobile children who

might not yet understand [clears throat] safety. This creates extremely dangerous situations on Rock Street, particularly near the turn off Prospect Street uh during all drop off and pickup times.

Additionally, a daycare solely relying on street parking is at the utter discretion of city plat schedules during inclement weather, which impacts conditions even more dangerously. Um, for instance, can you imagine parents dropping off kids on Rock Street with snow banks on both sides of the street?

Still, uh, the applicant's attorney last month suggested that parents looking for parking could just park downhill on Prospect Street. So, picture that in the snow when the street hasn't been plowed yet. I believe daycarees are required to have emergency meeting locations as well, which I haven't heard. Um, whether it's for drills or actual emergencies.

Um, are we suggesting that the sidewalk in front of Rock Street is a safe place for dozens of children to congregate while emergency vehicles are arriving?

So before making a decision, I ask that you please think of not just the residents in the neighborhood, but the children and parents that uh would put at risk as well.

Okay. Thank you.

Some of that not within the purview of our body, but anyone else wishing to speak in opposition?

It's like 48 versus 4C at this point.

It's kind of cool. Spy versus spy. Yes.

Hi, I'm Christine and uh Christopher Field, 511 Rock Street. We haven't been to the previous meetings, but I just want to say that I agree with my neighbors um on the parking load, the street parking load, um being detrimental to neighborhood.

Okay, great. Thank you. Anyone else wish to robot? Just that I'm sure every member of the board has been by this section of Rock Street. There's no cars there during the day, no cars in the morning. um whether or not there's ample there is ample parking on both the east and the west side um the current as I've stated before uh not that it doesn't really impact but there are currently

nine employees uh four of which don't drive take Uber or take public transportation to get there in any event um we're using maximum numbers um I would and those numbers were based on those were based on actual calculations calculus that was there, but that's not physically what's there right now. But in any event, I would ask the board that this is a public good. It meets the criteria for granting the special permit

for both of them. Uh you don't want listening to the neighbors come tell me uh or voice their opinion that we have Antioch school across the street. If this protected child care center is in fact operating, you really don't want people going to the wrong place if there's no signage. There needs to be signage there. Um, and that's fundamentally it. The the legal issues are something that uh

you've already listened to, you've either accepted or rejected. Uh so I just need the board to act and it might disappear if the uh so I just need the board to to take a vote uh to allow u the waiver the special permit for the parking and the sign.

Understood.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Thank you councel.

I turn to board. [sighs] If there are any other questions ask them now. If there are not entertain a motion Mr. chairman. Uh so be a bifurcated motion. Correct.

Doesn't hurt.

On the uh special permit for parking, I'll make a motion that we deny due to the uh insufficient off- streetet parking and it will be more uh detrimental to the public good.

It's a motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

Motion and second. Discussion on the motion.

Um clarify which Yeah, I was just I was just about to do that. You're reading my mind, which is dangerous. Don't look in the back.

Um, this is uh this is Eric on this one.

You attended I think Eric was at one of the two meetings and they both signed affidavit.

We have the affidavit from everybody who uh in that case. Eric, yes.

Dan, yes.

Jim, yes.

John, yes.

And chairman Pereira, yes.

sign.

That is it.

No, it doesn't matter because they have the right to operate. So, I'll make the same motion that uh the special permit be denied.

Second.

Motion and second on the motion. Uh John, yes.

Jim, no.

Dan, yes.

Uh Eric, yes. Uh, chairman Pereira and no.

No. No.

Two nos.

Yeah, I got the two no two nos. John was denied the sign. Yes. And yes, correct.

Okay.

No. Yeah. John. No. John Caukins and No. Jim. Jim C. Jim Cin and Joe Pereira said yes. John Frank. Dan Dupier and Eric. No. Okay. Correct.

Thank you members of the board. Thank you for entertaining me.

Thank you to the attorney.

Moving along to new business. Item number one, the applicant owner is River Investment Properties LLC, care of Peter Beimis. Subject property is 421 East Main Street, map G15, lot 69. The applicant is requesting the variance to allow the following one to construct a six apartment building six unit apartment building waving the lot area and requirements of an existing conforming parcel of land. The applicant is

requesting a special permit to allow the following uh two to uh reconstruct, expand, extend an existing non-conforming structure waving lot coverage side and rear yard setback requirements pursuant to section 86-426B.

Uh and finally to construct a parking facility waving dimensional requirements in accordance with 86445. The property is loaded located in an A2 apartment zoning district. Sir, good evening, Mr. Chairman and board members. Uh my name is Peter Beimis. I'm with Engineering Design Consultants. Uh we are located at 32 Turnpike Road, Southboro, Massachusetts. I'm representing River Investment Properties

LLC of Fall River. We're seeking a special permit and variance in order to raise an existing two-story multif family building consisting of approximately 8,556 ft with an F of 1.03.

replacing it with a three-story six-unit multi- family building with a reduced F of 0.86 that will be more in keeping with the surrounding multif family dwellings in this east street east Main Street A2 zoned neighborhood.

As it relates to special permit relief, the existing building does not comply with the front side or rear yard setbacks or maximum lot coverage. While the proposed six-unit apartment building substantially improves on the front yard setback and sideyard setbacks required in 86 attachment one, it does reduce the rear yard setback and increases impervious lot coverage from 72.3 to 79%. to support on-site parking spaces

which are not provided today. To accommodate the on-site parking lot, relief from side and front yard setbacks is required and parking space width at 8 ft would be required. As it relates to variance relief, the existing lot consists of 8310 square ft that can support up to three apartment units. However, this redevelopment proposal is seeking six units while the existing building at

417421 Main Street is pre-existing non-conforming and the existing structure cannot be redeveloped in any reasonable manner. Chapter 48 section 10 of Massachusetts general laws allows the variance to be granted when the board finds that little literal enforcement of the provisions of this bylaw would involve substantial hardship. The existing development of the subject property as shown in the site plan

especially affects the land and the placement of structures, but it does does not generally affect the underlying zoning district. Little enforcement of the zoning bylaw would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner as it would place financial burden to properly renovate and or remove the existing site improvements to allow a financially viable project that is allowed by right.

Allowing this variance will not create substantial detriment to the public good because the variance is allowing a lot to be developed in a manner substantially similar to the other pre-existing non-conforming properties located in the East Street East Main Street neighborhood. The proposed six-unit apartment dwelling is customary to other properties located within the underlying zoning district and does so

without adversely affecting or impacting abuing properties.

Allowing the variance will not nullify or substantially deriggate from the intent or purpose of the zoning bylaw because the historic dimensional setbacks for the neighborhood would have permitted the planned redevelopment of the pro subject property without need of relief and the completed project will appear and blend in with the streetscape being substantially similar to the abuing developed properties.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for your time. Yeah, my biggest question, and you may not be aware, but the city substantially overhauled our A2 zoning district. There was a great deal of thought, a great deal of time put into overhauling its its definitions, its its dimensions, its its allowances, etc.

That would allow three units. here.

Was any consideration given by this developer to three units?

Um, I can't speak for him, sir. I I just knowing what was there for the existing structure. Um, we're we're it's in excess of that. That's why I gave you the F 1.03. We're reducing it um to 086 and still accommodating the six units.

Um, I know when I first started the project, I started looking at this as a special permit because I wasn't aware of your zoning change in May. U totally unaware of it. Um, and it uh when I I was surprised when it when I found out about it after the fact. So um it it made the climb higher.

That's why that's why we urge everyone to hire a competent attorney.

Um so you know, as engineers and surveyors, you know, we we went out, we located the the improvements in the property. We we found what I would best describe as more of a warehouse building that's been converted to an apartment building.

And um the proposal for the six units I I I think you know makes a lot of sense.

It's it's in keeping. There are other u multi- uh storied and multif family buildings uh in the neighborhood. If the density um is is an important factor, it's not one that I would have known prior to tonight's meeting. So if um if it's not the pleasure of the board to support the petition as it's filed, then I would u I would hear the discussion and understand the table it and maybe I

could modify it. You're speaking to the client.

So the overall impervious service would end up at uh roughly 79%. Correct.

It goes up just a slight amount that because we're it would actually go down a great deal, but we're putting all the parking spaces on the lot, so there's two per unit. Um and that's what causes it to go up.

Uh we could offset that. um with some storm water management uh treatments if if that was an important uh aspect to the board and and that would come and if if approved here that would come under the purview of site plan review.

I would anticipate that. Yes, sir.

Yeah.

It's it's a way to go. Listen, I'd love to see this building come down that's sitting there now. This is what the third or fourth.

I was denied this petition.

Dan Dan was very helpful.

That's why Dan gave up and he's on this side too.

this particular project now just and again all relatively new to most people. Does your applicant understand that he could basically build a four-unit building by right having three by right and an ADU?

Um we we we didn't cross that bridge. So I I'll be honest with you. I this is my my my first time before your board and um and like I said I started the project uh with um the understanding of not having the zoning change. So, um, right, forgive me for not not knowing about it.

We we grabbed your zoning bylaw offline, but didn't didn't find anything telling me to look for something else. Um, not being from the local area, I just wasn't aware of it until it was brought to my attention by your staff.

Right. But no, but you you you were able to get that resolved and we appreciate your effort to make sure everything was done correctly and get it in on time. Um yes it actually it it reduces a lot of the relief especially with regards to setbacks and yeah we improved everything uh except by moving the building back to put the parking spaces in. That's why we we we

end up with a rear yard um issue. But um I know when I first started this looking at a special permit, it it made all the sense in the world because I was taking something that's a much larger structure, bringing parking onto the site and and putting something back here that's much more keeping with the neighborhood.

That was denied already trying that approach.

Oh, was it? Oh, okay. I wasn't aware of that either, but I I did look for the prior cases. No, I did ask for them.

Sir tell me uh what are the dimensional require the dimensional changes or or relief that you're looking for in regard to the uh parking?

Uh parking was just space size. We're going to 8t uh width and then we don't meet the front or sideyard uh setbacks, but we're honoring existing uh features, [clears throat] if you will, fence, wall, that sort of thing at the site.

So, we don't undermine those those existing features.

But we do we do have a set a reduced setback to them. Again the building is enveloping most of this site.

So when the board does contemplate again this could be a fourunit building.

[snorts] Are there ways to get around lot coverage? Certainly you can use porous asphalt doesn't count as lot coverage.

So there there are improvements that the applicant could make to limit the amount of relief being requested whether they be building setbacks and to minimize those things. Um the primary one being the six units. Um we went through the effort year-long effort of changing the zoning for this A2 zoning district that was antiquated. Um Chairman Assad, well exch was a big proponent for many years of

getting variance isn't necessarily the correct way to do it. Changing zoning is sometimes the better way to do it. And and we went through and we reduced the lot size requirements in half, the additional unit area by 70%. Building setbacks in half, frontage in half.

Right?

So we've made the development of parcels like this much easier than what they used to be. I think we've given developers a a much broader toolkit for them to contemplate when they want to do their development. Yeah. And it is it is that toolkit and that that ability that was laid in by the new uh the new bylaw or the or the changes to the bylaw y that make me hesitant to jump in and

start varying that. That's personal opinion, right? Or there are sections of that that [snorts] you can contemplate waver where you're removing a building that's 3 ft from a property line and you're now going you might not meet the setback or there might be provisions of the A2 that this isn't a blanket empty piece.

Correct. So there are things to weigh back and forth. Um, I just don't know if if the applicants given that thought of, hey, I could I could build a 4unit building technically just about by right and maybe I might need some relief for lot coverage, office and building setbacks. Um, because understand when when you get if if it were to go to a vote and get denied and it's an odd lot. So, I I understand

the need or the potential need for some type of dimensional variance from especially lot contemplating potential changes or we always try to work. It's a two-year window before you can come back.

I'm fully aware of that. I was not going to allow the petition to be denied this evening.

Okay. All right.

So, I I would rather you want to take a few minutes and talk to your client.

If that's I don't know if you allow a recess and everything else, but you know, do I don't want to leave the table though while while you're doing that deliberation because you have the chance for a rebuttal. You don't want to leave the table. Don't step away from the TV. It's going to be a touchdown.

Okay.

All right. Uh, other questions from the board at this point?

Anyone? Everyone?

None. Then I'm going to turn to um the assembled audience. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in um support of this uh this application?

Yes.

Name and address, please.

Andrew. I'm talking we have a owner of rein investment I used to be owner in that property we are saving then I used to be then I know you and before because of parking spark now we put it we providing parking spark and wasn't denied well tonight just because we didn't have a parking parking spark now we give you our parking spot so before we was trying to put a out the floor an existing building

That's one of the reason was denied [snorts] because we didn't all the neighborhoods say oh we don't have parking spark now we provided 12 parking spot for a six unit building. So I just want to clarify before was the night just because we didn't have parking spend in the street. Did did you take a look at the plans because all of their parking proposed 12 spaces are on the property not on the street

before wasn't now we have he's saying now now we have responded to concerns previously oh okay which was I don't think was just because we didn't have a parking parking is parked and everybody say oh all the parking is going to be in the street so now we're providing the parkings right we have the parking y yeah so now I'm giving two parking for every All right. Thank you.

Wasn't that wasn't just for that.

Okay. Thank you so much. Anyone else uh in support?

Um in opposition, we did receive a letter from Mr. and Mrs. uh Austo and um Deborah Ma who are adjacent to this property.

uh read the applicant's petition and have uh a copy of the vague plans. We strongly we strongly oppose this petition. Uh we're asking the board to vote to deny the petition uh with prejudice tonight and to not allow uh the petition to be withdrawn.

Our neighborhood is already densely populated and six new apartments um on an 80 8,400 foot lot along with eight parking spaces would actually be 12 um [clears throat] uh is too excessive. We know it is difficult to how difficult it can be to enter and exit So generally, correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying that this is overcrowding into the neighborhood with with the traffic and the the amount of the amount

of apartments, etc. This goes into the record. Anyone wish to speak in opposition?

Yes.

Um I'm next door neighbor to Mrs. Ma.

I'm at 1012 Slate Street. My son owns the house. He wasn't unable to come here today. where directly the building is our backyard. Um, highly oppose having that much more congestion in the neighborhood. It's ridiculous. I'm a manager of Stop and Shop. I come home at night. I circle around forever. I understand there's parking there, but it's already there's the ball game. You got the bar. It it

there's just too much going on in that neighborhood as it is. It doesn't need anything else. parking way down the street to, you know, have walking two blocks at 10 o'clock at night, having to cross by a bar with a bunch of people shouldn't even have to be I I shouldn't have to do that. Neither should any of the young mothers in the neighborhood.

So, I just strongly oppose it. I think it's too congested and I respectfully ask the board to reject the proposal.

Let me ask you this. Are you opposed to anything happening on this lot? I would like something to be done with it, but I don't think it should be more people living there. Maybe a business, uh, you know, a garage or something where it's not so much traffic and not so much where there's anywhere you're going to have an apartment, there's going to be people visiting, right? But, but, you know, also realize

that if somebody was coming in for some type of business, they'd be in for a variance because this is an apartment zoning district. It's an A2 zoning district which allows for apartments.

I I just So, and as we as we discussed by right, they could actually come in and and do four apartments. They may need some dimensional relief, but they could do that.

Correct.

Okay. So, I mean, it's kind of tough. If it was a business, if if it was a mixeduse neighborhood, um it' be a little bit different, but it is a residential neighborhood. And this happened to be a business for a long period of time and then became apartments and then became Oh, I'm I'm became an eyesore.

My ex-husband who who's passed away was trying to buy that building for forever.

No one could ever No one would sell it.

No one would sell it. It was right literally the backyard and Okay. couldn't get in touch with it, but I just the building is falling apart. It need it needs work. I mean, there's bricks in in my backyard, but um I don't think six units is is it's not going to be safe.

Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition?

They're hearing none. Um any So, Mr. Chairman, no rebuttal. Um I I I've just taken the information. And what I'd like to ask uh because I'd like to be able to keep my petition before you because no matter what there's going to need to be a form of relief for the parking spaces. Um likely the size could could accommodate if we were having less density on our parking lot, but there

will be a setback requirement front and side very likely. Uh the building is very likely to need a setback requirement or relief no matter what it is, but we could definitely reduce the number of units. So, could could I please just table my application and come back in a month and meet with my client and and try to put something together and I'll I'll meet with staff as well u who've been very helpful to date.

Okay.

Is that acceptable?

Yep. We would um Okay.

We then entertain a motion from the board to allow Mr. Chairman, I move that we grant a man request for a continent.

Before you hold on a second, there is a tableabling fee. Make sure that that's that's fine. I'll just want to make sure. I know. I know.

I know the the advertising fee got paid today, so I'll make sure that the tableabling fee gets paid promptly.

Said that Wow. Wow. Why do you let people go?

Okay. I'm sorry.

You just got somebody in trouble. That's I didn't mean to.

Doesn't hurt you walking up to the counter next time.

They probably felt bad for me because of all the other.

So, we have a motion on the table. Do we have a second?

Second.

And a second. I think may have said it a little more quicker on the motion. John, yes.

Jim, yes. Dan, yes.

And Alexis, yes.

And Chairman Prairie. Yes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Yep.

It's all about the forms.

You don't have to do it now. He has an expedition as well.

Yep.

Right. That's what I was going to just Item number three. The applicant owner is River Investment Properties LLC care of Peter Beis. Uh subject property is 756 2nd Street, map I13, lot 33. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. One, to construct a two family dwelling on a non-conforming parcel of land waving area, frontage, sideyard setback, rear yard setback. Uh

the lot lot coverage and parking space um size requirements. Uh the uh property is located in an A2 apartment zoning district.

Good evening. Again, for for purpose of introduction, Peter Beamis, Engineering Design Consultants, 32 Turnpike Road, South Bro, Massachusetts, representing River Investment Properties LLC of Fall River. Uh, in this petition, I'm seeking variance in order to construct a two-unit town home style multif family dwelling, as well as provide four on-site parking spaces with sidewalk and

landscaped areas that will be in keeping with the surrounding multi- family units uh of the Second Street A2 zone neighborhood. As it relates to variance, the existing lot consists of 363 ft. It does not satisfy minimum area, frontage, width requirements. Uh and further relief is needed from the sideyard, rear yard setbacks, lot coverage. Uh parking space length needs to be reduced to 17

feet and allow uh reduction of the front and sideyard setbacks to the parking lot. The existing parcel of land at 7562nd Street is pre-existing non-conforming and cannot be redeveloped in any reasonable manner without variances from lot area, lot frontage, lot coverage, sideyard, rear yard setback. Chapter 48 section 10 Mass General Laws allows a variance to be granted when the board finds that little

enforcement of the provisions of the bylaw would involve substantial hardship. Uh the shape of the subject property is shown in the site plan attached there too especially affects the land and the placement of structures but not generally affect the underlying zoning district. The little enforcement of the zoning bylaw would involve substantial hardship to the petitioner as it would render the parcel

undevelopable based upon the dimensional requirements imposed on this pre-existing non-conforming lot.

Allowing the variance will not create a substantial detriment to the public good because the variance is allowing a lot to be developed in a similar manner to assimilate uh other abuing uh pre-existing non-conforming properties located in the second street neighborhood. The proposed two family town home style dwelling is customary for other properties located in the underlying zoning district and does so

does so without adversely affecting or impacting those properties. Allowing the variance would not nullify or substantially deriggate from the intent or purpose of the bylaw because the historical dimensional setbacks of the neighborhood would have permitted a redevelop or a development or redevelopment of the subject property without need of relief and the completed project will appear and blend in with

the streetscape that is substantially similar to a budding properties that are developed in that area. Uh thank you for your time and appreciate this and I'll answer any questions you may have.

Senator That fence that's shown on this uh this site plan, is that is that your client's fence or is that fence belong to the folks next door and it's just impinging upon your property?

It's whoever's land it falls on.

Yeah. And I was just I was No. And it's well on our property and and it could very well have been what someone thought was their property when they installed it because it is going off in the northerly direction. So I believe you're probably correct, Mr. chairman at some point the abuter to the north put the fence there but that's where it is so fences make good neighbors.

Yep. We're honoring it to the extent we can.

Okay. So we're looking at 7 ft on the real lot line and 4 foot three 4 foot five on the side lot lines.

Correct.

At its worst it's a little bit wider and the jog past the concrete walk I take it. So these these will be side by side units. We're not in design, but I just want to town home. Yes. Side by side.

They're side by side or if we were in one side on top of each other by each, right?

Um, okay. I don't have particularly any questions on this one.

Just for historical knowledge, uh, 2021 there was a 4unit proposal that was denied.

2022 repetitive petition for two-unit building which was approved expired.

Okay.

So there was previous relief granted for this for this ex pretty much this exact configuration.

Really?

Yeah.

Okay.

I know the guy that did it.

Same property owner was somebody Same property owner. Yeah. [snorts] We won one that night. We lost I heard I heard he's out of the business now. So okay.

Any questions from the board at this point? Okay. Um, turning to uh the assembled public. Is there anyone here wishing to speak in uh support of this petition?

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to this petition there? Hearing none, I turn to the board. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to grant with condition of uh no further ADUs.

and second.

Motion and second. Any discussion on the motion?

Um they're hearing none. This would be Eric.

Yes.

Dan.

Yes.

Jim.

Yes.

John.

Yes.

And Jeremy Prairie. Yes.

Thank you very much. Yes, sir. I appreciate it.

Have a good evening.

Nice to be in front of you. Thank you.

Item number help at all. Give me a call.

Item number three. Uh, applicant is Jeffrey Johnson, owner is JH Holdings Group LLC. This is for four Bronson Street, map C16, lot 108. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following relief from section 86-35.

Tablec requirements waving rear yard setback requirements to allow a recently constructed deck to remain in place.

This is an after the-act filing. The property is located in an R8 single family zoning district. Good evening, Mr.

Chairman. Before you start, um, we're going to alternate with alternate so that everybody has a chance just to let them know who's voting on this one.

Alexis, prepare your question.

Good evening.

Good evening, board. Um yeah, here in front of you is the property that we put um property was built. The deck is currently on the structure. Um there's no excuse. Ultimately, it's it was an oversight before it was built during the building process and through the various other uh committees and boards that we have gone in front of. We were made aware of it. Once we were made aware of

it, we I wanted to come here to um in hopes that you would give the variance the deck that is in place is consistent with the surrounding buildings. In fairness, I'm the owner of the surrounding buildings. So, we noticed that. Yeah.

So, I don't I don't want to say uh to say that the abutters are okay with it would be unfair. Um, but if you were to go past that uh that development and then throughout into Frederick and Whitfield Street, um, it would be consistent also with uh the small deck on the on the rear of the property.

It's in the corner lot. It's there's there's no visibility. There's nothing that would being [snorts] on that deck wouldn't allow you to see into anybody's yard or anything that or any disruption other than the fact that it was an oversight with regards to building it.

Okay. So beyond that, you get a 9 foot2 in setback correct from that property line.

So it this came about during final asbuilt ready to occupy and sell the house.

Okay. Um, I can offer that the traveled way in Mariona Bishop Boulevard because it's such a wide layout. The asphalt's probably 60 feet away from this this deck. So, it's not [cough] on top of this street. There's probably 60 ft of grass beyond this before you hit the writing line. So, okay.

I have no I have nothing else to ask.

No, appreciate that. Anyone else from the board any questions on this?

We will let Courtney whack your knuckles with the small ruler for uh for letting this happen.

Anyone here in the audience wishing to speak uh in support of this petition?

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to this petition? Hearing none that came to the board after the fact variance to correct the placement of a Mr. Chairman, I move that we grant the variance.

Second motion and second discussion on the motion hearing. None. Alexis.

Yes.

Dan, yes.

Jim, yes.

John, yes.

And Chairman Pere, yes.

Don't do it again.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Thank you very much. You still need to know.

I'm talking to the other Jeff behind.

Oh, I was going to say I'll let you go. I'm just sure.

Flip a coin.

Number four.

You got you got to come up.

Five.

Number five.

Sit. Ice ice.

Applicant is Swall River Auto Repair LLC.

Uh owner is Driftway Farms uh Dri Driftway Farm Estate LLC. Care of Jeffrey Tolman. Subject property is 30 B Street uh map L09 lot 70. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following.

One to reestablish the former auto uh automobile repair use of the property pursuant to section 86-42B.

Property is located within an S single family zoning district and a G general residence zoning district. For the record, Jeff Tolman from Northeast Engineers and Consultants here on behalf of Fall River Auto Repair LLC. Uh quite simply, we're just here to reinstate the former use um that has not been in existence since I believe it was 2019 uh when Mr. Turkot last operated the facility at uh 30 B Street. Um there's

really nothing has changed to the property in that time. Um I know it has been on the market. I've had other clients look at this particular property over that time. Um, and I do know that nothing has been done. So, quite simply, we're just here to reinstate that use.

I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board might have.

I mean, I took a took a drive by. I never realized that property was as large as it is.

It's Yes.

Yeah.

Jeff tried to get I mean, 10 units in there.

Yeah.

It's remarkably been kept in shape. I'm amazed maintained grass cut, you know, very neatly kept.

There's not a lot of grasses.

Well, well, grass could be growing through a lot of it.

The former owner lives, you know, right across the street, and I don't think she's going to let anybody let any grass grow in there. So, yes.

Um, okay. Any questions from the board on this? It operated for over 40 years as a uh automaintenance facility. Um, I'm sure this was not a single family residential uh zone for the bulk of the operational time uh of this property.

Uh, it's been out of this operation for just a handful of years. Um, and this is, you know, fairly consistent with uh with other reinstatements that we've done in the past, although all of these are are individual. And by the way, this is a private street.

So, any questions from the board on this?

Going to the public? Anybody here wishing to speak in favor of this petition?

In favor?

In favor? Just give us your name and uh and address, please.

How bad? Uh, Virginia Tech is my name. I live at 53 B Street. I own a property residential and commercial.

I recently uh sent so sorry. So, um, number 30 dot B Street, which is commercial garage, um, to, um, and I'm here to on behalf of Harvard, uh, auto repair to, um, get a license so they can operate because the garage is still in good standing to, uh, operate. Um, I am the only neighbor on the opposite side, which is the east side, and my property runs all along Eastern Avenue, and the rear is uh

United Kingdom Church.

Um, the city only owns uh the entrance to Baj Street. The rest of the the street is owned by the property. And uh we plow the street ourselves, the roadway, and we have our own private uh trash uh removal.

Um I don't know what else to say.

No, that's fine.

I I think it's a very good place for uh the business to be in there because I was in there for 43 years and uh we never had any problem with neighbors or the city and I've been paying uh commercial tax and storm water ever since to this date. And uh I really think it'd be a good place for this young man to start a business in here at

least for a few years anyway. As long as he calls it Walt.

I said as long as he calls it Walt.

Thank you much, Mrs.

Thank you so much.

Anyone else wishing to speak in support?

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition of the application?

Any comment? Nope.

Any other questions from the board? This is going to be Eric on this one. Um, Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the request.

Motion to approve the reinstatement of the use.

Second.

And a second.

Uh then on that Eric?

Yes.

Dan?

Yes.

Jim?

Yes.

John.

You said Alexis was on this one.

No.

No. Eric.

I apologize.

You're right.

No.

No. I did the last No, she did the last one. She said that to me last time. 36 the number.

Yes.

Yes. And chairman Fra. Yes, you got it, Jeeoff.

Take one off if you want.

Yeah, I will.

We can do that.

I was taking them all off.

Item number four, applicant owner. Uh, Bethany Sharp, care of attorney Peter Acelino, subage property 104 Len Street, map E10, lots 35 and 26. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. One, relief from lot coverage and front yard setback requirements to allow the construction of a proposed single family dwelling. Uh two, relief from front and sideyard setback requirements to convert the existing

non-conforming dwelling into an ADU.

Properties located in within an R8 single family zoning district. This is an interesting one.

It is. Thank you. For the record, Peter Selenino, 550 Locust Street, Fall River for the applicant, Bethany Sharp. Um, I'd like to open my presentation by asking why this random water bottle has been here all night and no one's moved it. Has anyone noticed that?

No. Okay. Anyhow, it's clear so we can see it's not a been bothering me the whole night. Um, all right. Never do something.

Well, the city models will try. Okay.

So anyway um it takes an engineer to do it, not an attorney. Um, all right. Nevertheless, so what we have here is an existing uh single family that sort of hugs the uh southeasterly property line. Uh Mr. Sharp, who's in the back, uh did a substantial renovation to that property. Um it's a small property as you can see and he's contemplating or would like to build a single family dwelling in sort of more

of the northwesterly corner. Um so here we have a situation where we have the existing structure which would be pre-existing non-conforming and that's why it's located where it's located. Uh the proposal would be to erect the dwelling as depicted. Um notwithstanding what was just read, Jeff uh submitted an updated plan of record that would eliminate the setback uh requirement uh

setback waiver request as it relates to the proposed uh structure. So I think if we consider the existing dwelling as pre-existing non-conforming, we're left with a discussion about lock coverage.

Um and so the lock coverage situation here is that uh as proposed it would be 35ish% which is in exceeds the allowable requirement in the district by 10%. Uh currently my understanding is about 17% uh on site.

That's what's showing on Jeff's uh on the plan. Yes. Uh I've submitted in the paperwork that I think the hardship here is the existing structure uh on the lot and how do you do something with the rest of the lot. Um Mr. Sharp and Mrs.

Sharp desire to bring their daughter to this property and reside in the other uh property. So that's the reason for the proposal. Um I'm certainly happy to answer any questions that the board may have. Mr. Sharp is also here to um he doesn't want to speak necessarily, but if there are conditions, I'd like to run them by him.

Okay.

The the quirk here. Go ahead. No, I think you're going to ask the same question probably. I mean because can you talk about the converting of the existing to the ADU?

Sure.

Without having a primary, right? That we're going to the same place. There's no PDU. So it's kind of hard to have an ADU and I guess until we build the PDU.

Precedence or Yeah. So I don't think there's a lot of precedent. I tried to be prepared although I didn't bring prepared like type statement that I'm going to read to you like some of the other applicants tonight. But uh when you look at the when you look at there's no jiu-jitsu going on here. Um, when I'm looking at the CMR, kidding aside, um, it says in the definitions, this is what I got for

you, that the principal dwelling unit can be one that will be constructed as well. Um, so when you, and I can, I brought copies, but it, so I think there's a contemplation there that the principal dwelling could be something to be constructed. Um, but obviously it's same time as the, right? That's so it can be it's interpreted as if you have a vacant lot, right?

You can build a primary and and then have an ADU.

Yeah. I it may be a little bit vague, but for the board's consideration, in any event, if if the dwelling was knocked down, the existing dwelling, and they came in and built a new single that met the zoning requirements, which this one does, they could then apply and construct an ADU right back where they're going to knock the one down.

So, it's just that the state law doesn't run concurrently with our zoning bylaw.

So theoretically what you're allowing is an additional single family home to be built on this lot just happens to be. So if if the other building was another 20 square ft in living area it wouldn't qualify as an ADU.

Correct.

And there would be no discussion. So the end game is still the endgame regardless of what decision happens here. What other except a lockup?

What's the square footage of the existing building?

800 the footprint on the on the uh you scroll up on the uh it's four there you go right there 825 total total but it's four it's four and four it's two story I mean I think this is it's sound reasoning oh it is you know it's perfectly sound find a way to make it fit we just yeah haven't had one before lawyers call this a case of first impression dangerous thank Thank you. Council,

we [snorts] don't like to be first.

President is another word they call.

Anyone else on the board with a question?

Alexis is saying no. You're voting on this one.

I don't have anyone.

Okay. Anyone here wishing to speak in support of this uh proposal?

Sir, just to say that I cleaned up the neighborhood dramatically. The house is a mess and um we need a bigger place because her mother's going blind and just we could use a bigger place. That's for sure.

Can you say a name, Mike, for the record?

Sharp 104 Lton Street.

Thank you.

Was a disaster for 13 years. I rebuilt the entire house, helped out the neighborhood, the 87y old lady next door. We're doing everything we can to improve the neighborhood.

No, it looks good. It looks good.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much.

in favor.

I just want to make sure that you understand that the primary structure needs to be built.

It has to meet the size requirements for for this one to qualify as an ADU as well.

Correct.

Understood.

So, just because it doesn't say how many stories or anything else. So, you have to build a house big enough to get to either 50% or 900 ft. Yes.

Understood.

So, that would be I'm sure a condition somewhere that the building department needs to determine that this would be a qualifying ADU. Okay.

Something like that.

Are you planning on this as a two-story dwelling? The new the new house?

Yes.

We were looking for about 2,000 square feet [clears throat] twotory. And we will put no windows on the side near Peter's house if we have to.

Okay.

Are you Peter?

No.

What were you here just for recently?

Palmer Street.

Palmer Street.

Palmer. Okay.

Okay. Uh, anyone else in favor? Anyone in opposition?

Hearing none, it comes back to us. It sets a precedence here.

U we're talking about leaving the two parking spaces up front for the ADU property and two for the primary.

Not not leaving. There'd be there'd be a new created uh driveway created driveway long driveway and garage being Yeah, correct. It would be eliminated. A new driveway would be installed for the existing for the existing structure and then two new spaces for the proposed structure.

So they're not planning a garage at all then?

No.

Okay.

They can change their mind to that one if they want.

We're not we're not talking about that right now. Chairman, could we get a opinion from the planner whether this where it's precedent, whether he sees any problem in that 100 by 100, this is what 10,000 is going to be.

I don't I don't think it would be an issue. Every case that comes before you is going to be independent. Um, previously the the previous petition was also seeking setback relief for the proposed dwelling. I would have had more difficulty with that when relief wouldn't be required for that. So they've done a good job of minimizing the relief a little bit working backwards but again at the end of the

day end up with the same thing and you can you can put additional safeguards no additional ADUs beyond this no subdivision no further subdivision letter from the building inspector stating that this is a qualifying ADU.

So if they decide to build a 300 foot home, then they end up having to swap this this the small one, the new home would could be the ADU. So they could theoretically have built an ADU and the existing house be the primary a tiny house.

Sure. Correct. If they chose to. So I don't I don't think you have to be crazy concerned about setting a precedent.

No, I'm appreciate that, Jim.

because most people would have come in and asked to subdivide this. Correct.

And those two single family homes, right?

And I can offer that I told Michael not to do that cuz I didn't think it would get approved.

At my guidance.

Yeah.

What's that?

Wait, didn't you have Didn't you have somewhere to go to leave? I mean, you had a meeting.

What was it? Bodge Street or something?

See what's going to happen. He's got 13 more of these lined up tonight, Joe.

He's going to Somerset now. All right.

No other questions. Everybody understands what we're doing.

We don't have any of the problems of of dividing. We don't have any of the problems of dividing utilities because it is an ADU. They wouldn't have to be separate sewer.

Oh, no. They the the building department usually requires So, it's whatever the it's whatever the the Department of Community utilities will require through site plan review. Yep. Okay. Now that's Well, it's two separate structures, right? So, you can take that.

So, this utilities shall be separated in accordance with site plan review requirements.

Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the variance subject to site review. No additional aid as you no AD addition well and uh no subdivision division no no further or no subdivision and a letter from the building inspector that this would be a qualifying ADU and acceptance from the or letters accepting this plan from the uh zoning building inspector building inspector So, will that cover the size requirement?

Yes.

Yeah. Of the new house.

Of the new house.

Exactly. So, before he gets a permit for the new house, it's got to be more than 1,800 ft or whatever.

That this is 1,800 ft or Yeah.

more gross living error cuz this is 800 whatever instead of 1700 or larger.

Oh, they can build a 400 foot mini house and that would be so where the garage used to be. Have a second on that motion.

Second.

Second from Alexis.

Any discussion? John's still thinking on the motion? John?

No.

Okay.

Yes.

Dan, yes.

Alexis, yes.

Chairman Prairie, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Where are we? Citizens input.

Yeah. My input is how come out of town guys from South Burrow get to pay their legal ads on the night of the meeting.

Listen for him talk to him.

Take it up at the counter tomorrow.

He's a gatekeeper.

I pay water runoff fees in the city because he left the water.

All right. No citizens input. Any uh approval of minutes?

Have a good night. All right.

Motion and [clears throat] second on the minutes. All in favor?

I I opposed.

Motion to adjurnn. If there motion to adjourn, second. All in favor?

9.1