11.21.2024 Zoning Board of Appeals

good evening I am Joseph Pereira chairman of the board of the zoning board of appeals of the city of Fall River it at 6 p.m. on Thursday November 21st 2024 we are meeting at one government center in the first floor hearing room person went to Mass General Law chapter 30A section 20 subsection F I hereby notify all persons and attendance that this meeting is being recorded by both video and audio devices

by Mr Craig Salvador fall government TV if anyone uh desires to make an audio a video or combination recording thereof please notify me now and I shall make a public announcement of your intention they're hearing None Shall move on if I didn't lose my place uh our recording secretary this evening is Miss Patty agar sitting to my immediate right present this evening our uh regular

member James Caulkins who is our clerk Dan deir and Ricky sah uh also sitting in this evening our alternate members Mr Eric Kelly and Alexis and Salmo uh also with us this evening sitting to my far left is the director of engineering and planning Mr Dan agar Patty have all petitions to be considered been properly advertised and all interested parties notified in accordance with the rules and reg

regulations of the zba and Mass General Law chapter 4A as amended yes I thereby declare the November 21st 2024 regularly scheduled meeting of the zoning board of appeals of the city of Fall River open for such business as shall regularly come before I remind all persons presenting before the board including petitioners but as anyone in support or anyone opposed to a petition that your

presentation be limited to 3 minutes question and responses must be directed through the chair the board's rules and regulations direct the board to specifically look for information which supports the petitioner's claims as such the petitioner should identify and factually support the basis for the petition I hereby advise the petitioners and all interested parties that this is

the zoning board of appeals the board's Authority exists personally to Mass General Law chapter 4A and is limited in scope to 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 Andor approvals may be required for the specific development Andor use which is the subject of the P the petition before

the board this evening the clerks in the building planning engineering 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 the board has a real and Lasting effect upon the title to your real estate I urge all petitioners to seek competent legal counsel before filing your petition and after the

decision of the board has been made a copy of the ordinance is available in the city clerk's office and 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

multi-member Bo bodies develop and adopt rules or policies to uh provide for public comment we have adopted such a policy which in short provides for Citizens input on zoning board specific matters at the end of this meeting I disclose that an official copy of the Fall River zoning ordinance is available in the clerk's office and that one shall not resign uh rely on the online zoning ordinance with that good

evening everyone and welcome we will open this up with old business uh item number 01 Grand Manor Holdings LLC care of Attorney Peter a selino 289 Bank Street map n04 Lot 29 the applicant seeks a variant special permit to convert the existing 4unit apartment building into an 8 unit apartment building waving dimensional requirements Additionally the petitioner uh is requesting a special permits W

parking requirements the property is located in an A2 apartment zoning district and uh an aod Arts overlay District uh this petition was tabled from the October 17th meeting thank you good evening for the record my name is Peter solino I'm a lawyer at 550 Locus Street in Fall River I represent the applicant in this matter uh Mr chairman I would make a motion um or i' asked your board to make a motion that we

would be allowed to withdraw this petition without prejudice uh we've been unable to settle the parking situation that the board raised concerns about um we're still diligently working on it but we've made the decision that it doesn't make sense to keep paying $500 a month for something that might not come to fruition so respectfully I ask the board that we be allowed to withdraw without

and perhaps come back in the future okay well I I respect that thank I that we Grant permission to withdraw without second motion and second uh on the motion first is there any discussion and on the motion Jim yes Dan yes Ricky yes Eric yes and chairman C yes thank you thank you item number 02 under old business grk Investment Trust care of Attorney Peter a selino property is at 1298 and 1300

Rodman Street map f89 Lots 25 and 48 the applicant is requesting approval to re to restore the multif family use of two properties a six unit building at 1298 Rodman Street and a three-unit building at 1300 Rodman Street The Proposal also includes subdividing the land into four Lots with the two multi- family homes remaining on one lot and three New Lots being created for the proposed three

family dwellings uh special variants permit relief are requested uh to reinstate the prior use as well as to wave the lot coverage sidey yard setback and parking requirements uh per 86445 of the city of Fall River zoning ordinance the property is located in r42 family zoning district and an HD3 Housing Development overlay District uh this petition was also uh previously tabled at the October 17th 2024 meeting

Council thank you for the record Peter solino on behalf of the applicant petitioner with me is Jeffrey tomman the engineer on the project uh before you members of the board is a revised plan uh and a modified proposal that we believe was responsive to some of the concerns raised by both the board and the abutter at the last month's meeting um I'll go over the highlights with you and then go over the relief needed and

then we'll go into the votes we need and the order that I'm seeking them in so the proposal is to divide the existing parcel into four Lots The Proposal includes leaving the existing structures on lot one as shown on the plan the proposal includes uh building two family dwellings on each of the three remaining Lots the curb openings on Omen Street have been closed the the uh density has

been reduced in as much as rather than three three families which is what was proposed last time the proposal now includes three two families the um proposal also includes the provision of two off street parking spaces for each of the newly erected uh two family structures as well as nine parking spaces for the existing uh structures on lot one in terms of the relief needed uh we'd be seeking a special permit first

and foremost as a separate vote to establish or reestablish the use of the existing structures on lot one and we would stipulate to the building inspector's uh conclusion that they are three family dwellings so that would be the first thing we'd be asking for next uh if we get past that we are seeking variances uh the variances include lot area for the four lot shown on the plan lot Frontage for the four lot shown on

the plan lot coverage for the four lot shown shown on the plan and side setback for what is shown as lot one which is at the top of the plan orientation lastly we need a special permit for parking for the lot one spaces so if we Prevail on the special permit for two three unit dwellings on lot one then we would need to provide 12 parking spaces and we can

only provide nine so as a result we need a special permit for that um so from my perspective I think we talked about this at the last meeting but we would be seeking the vote on the request to reestablish the use of the two existing buildings as three family buildings first because I think if we don't Prevail on that then the rest of the petition can't go forward I would agree with

you I watched the last meeting heard input from Neighbors Etc I thank you for going back and taking another look at this and with a reduction to um two family dwellings on the other the other Lots it's somewhat more consistent um any questions from the board other board members at this point as I wrestle with my computer Mr chairman yes just have one question the special commit that you

seeking attorney this one that is not um to find that it's substantially detrimental that's to be established that's yes so if you recall from the last meeting our position was that the front house labeled 1298 was a six family dwelling previously as a result of six meters Mr hathway gave a letter indicating that it was a three family in his estimation as the building official so we looked at

that long and hard and we're willing to stipulate to that so the special per the first special permit I'm asking for is to stipulate that the existing structures labeled 1298 and 1300 Rodman Street be considered three family dwellings Ricky the purpose behind that is because they've been unoccupied for greater than two years so the grandfathering provisions for them not being conforming structures would have

been eliminated so that provision in zoning allows that non-conforming condition to be reinstituted thank you y all right this this this may drag things out a little bit because before we can vote on this we'll will have to go to the public um maybe it won't drag things out any other questions from the board at this point any comments for engineering I mean this this portion is straightforward it's either yeah I mean

I I I don't think there's it might be more productive to have the overall discussion and then when it comes times to vote with separately I I I the only thing that I would I would add this was part of the last discussion is that this is a two family zoning District uh and that's why the board felt that construction of new three family dwellings would have been inappropriate

so the the two unit use is allowed by zoning albe the area does not be the area required correct building setbacks they do meet the requirements for building setbacks for the three new construction uh constructed buildings that's all I have to add re requ respecting your your request I'd rather move through this entire thing I'm with get all the feedback and we'll go from there Fair certainly ultimately

we'll take the um we'll take the special permit to uh reestablish the use first when we get to the vote okay great thank you anything else you wish to present on no I'll respond I'm assuming to some uh objections but anything else from the board on the the uh proposal as a whole for the separation of lots uh the creation of the three New Lots for three um two unit dwellings do you know the um the

anticipated mix on number of bedrooms on those uh on those 32 units I don't you know we ask this every time fair question every time that's no and again we we went back and forth with the petitioner on this um to come up with uh a design like the the the two family units um I mean we are providing the the number of off street parking spots to satisfy whether they be two or

three bedrooms um we would like the ability I believe to have three bedrooms but if the board sees fit to limit them to two um then that's what the board decides so um but again we do meet the parking requirement whether they be two or three yeah that's fine I mean it's the same footprint as the as the three family the footprint be because this is like a a change that we

didn't anticipate um that that we had to kind of do quickly um it's probably larger that than what's going to end up being built there but we didn't want to restrict ourselves um to any certain footprint so we we did make it a little bit bigger so that whatever we end up building would fit inside that footprint we don't have a footprint for two family that's going to be built on these at

this time I think the difference too Joe is that the three units were stacked where these are side by side town houses ah as you see how the door placement lays out all right I mean it's it's the lock two stories yes yes yeah the lot coverage waiver is considerable um the fronting Frontage waiver as well I mean it's it's packing them in and that's that's just me that's that's my impression of I'm looking at

this and I'm seeing a very crowded um very crowded design the other side of that is it is fantastic to get those other two properties cleaned up so I guess is two edges to the sword no other questions from the board at this time is there anyone here who wishes to speak in support of the petition good evening I'm Ken fola I'm the Executive Vice President of the uh Bristol County EDC 139 South Main Street

fiver um I'd like to uh first of all thank the board for you know taking this matter up once again um and also set for an understanding that the petitioner of this particular variance request has really worked hard to try to incorporate some of the feedback that was given as a result of the last meeting I think you know the reduction in the number of units uh clearly is a

step in the right direction in terms of trying to meet uh some of the concerns of the neighborhood itself I think you know uh the recognition that the building is not a nine the first building is a six unit building as opposed to nine bu nine unit building also uh Works uh in that advantage and most importantly I do think that this particular project here will actually significantly enhance that neighborhood

by by virtue of its buildout right now you have a pretty dilapidated lot with two dilapidated buildings on It ultimately at the end of the day there's got to be a way for a developer to re generate a return on their investment here so I think what you see before you tonight is a plan that helps address some of the needs of and concerns of the residents may not totally address them

but I think it was a step in the right direction to try to do that and also develop a plan that's going to greatly enhance that neighborhood I know it sounds you know crazy tonight but I I truly believe that to the extent that this is passed this will have a pretty substantial positive impact on some of the abing um properties there in terms of being located next to newly built facilities and Rehab facilities as

opposed to having a loot there that just in total disrepair and has been under disrepair for numberal years so with that in mind I just ask the board for their consideration and the approval of this variance request thank you Ken anyone else here to speak in favor of the petition I know there's a number of you here in opposition I know that some of this was heard last month so I just ask

and we want to hear from you just keep your your points brief and if someone if someone goes before you and says exactly what you want to say say I feel exactly as Mr Santos does my name is etto etto just just in the uh interest of brevity who wishes to speak in opposition thank you Mr chairman my name is Lou melum I live in 577 verell Street for R this whole project is detrimental to the

neighborhood contrary to what you he we're we're talking about putting 12 families in less than a quarter of an acre the the the dimensions proposed or official in the city of Paul River are here and none of these meet the requirements parking is atrocious in that neighborhood there's several businesses nearby within 50 yards I have seen at least 10 accidents in a corner of Rodman and grenell because of the

traffic there's no off street parking whatsoever that that's one point second point is uh one of the existing properties was condemned officially by the city of Fall River if it's condemned it must come down the city went off for bits to knock it down in the meantime someone bought it that doesn't change the status as far as I'm concerned it's still condemned and needs to come down

it's a foot foot and a half away from my property I have suffered over the last number of years because of n negligence of the owner so to summarize because I don't want to take all your time this is unacceptable it's not going to benefit the neighborhood contrary to what you hear it's detrimental healthwise it's not good either because I understand one of the houses is bastos so the house one of the houses

needs to come down as it is officially by the city of PA River and the new proposed buildings do not meet the requirements of the city of Far River none of them that do and absolutely parking is atrocious thank you okay thank you um I I will remind I will remind everyone that just because a house has been condemned doesn't mean it has to come down it can be rebuilt it

can be redeemed somebody can come in and put a petition in front of the board sit down with the the building inspector Etc and uh and work on that uh anyone else to speak in opposition yes uh James C 32 Omen Street okay uh like said parking is atrocious there and also this new proposal it looks like it's right right against my property line there's there's no leeway in there I I don't understand what you mean

by no leeway please is well my property aligned there's a stockade fence which I put in and if you look at at the new proposal now there's a walkway there it looks like it's right on almost right on top of the my of my property okay just make note of that to address please anyone else is speaking on anything else sir no thank you Mr K anyone else to speak in

opposition my name is SRA Frank I live at 590 grenell Street I agree with uh Louie parking is horrible there I agree with all his points and I think that um something should be done about it I think it's too many units for the amount of parking that has been given okay thank you very much anyone else to speak in opposition okay they're hearing none it comes back to the board address you wish to counter

yet yes I do please okay so relative to the parking um on Lots uh 234 two family dwellings which again are allowed by right in this zoning District um are to be constructed and we provide for four off street parking spaces per two family dwelling that's compliant so I hear the concerns about the neighborhood at large but the new newly constructed units have City compliant parking there's no question

about it that the dimensions don't comply with the uh zoning ordinance which is why we're here as the board knows uh relative to the property line uh point or or question um certainly there's a fence there um we remove the curb Cuts along Omen Street in order to limit the traffic backing out or driving into those lots from Omen Street and funnel everything think through uh the access easement shown on from Rodman

Street so I think that uh in terms of the newly constructed units the parking is compliant in terms of the special permit request and the reinstitution of the former use uh on lot one the parking is consistent with what is generally approved or recently approved shall we say um if you take it at its face we need 12 parking spaces we're providing nine so um you know it's more than one

to one it's about one and a half one so I'd like to point that out uh additionally relative to uh comments that were made surrounding uh imposition on property rights at uh Mr melon's um property I anticipated that argument so I did some research and as I pointed out at the last meeting that law was created pursuant to a zoning variance issued by this board in 2004 and you can see Mr

tolman's indicated existing deck on that plan that deck is not on the variance plan that was approved by this board in 2004 so if that deck is close to the property I would submit to you that it's not approved I'd also like to submit for the record that the property located at 577 grenell is actually owned by an Annabella bananka and so if we go down a further Road of what constitutes in a

butter I just like in the record that Mr melon does not own the house that he lives in can I respond sure interesting enough andab Bella bang is my wife and I got a document here permission to speak on behalf of her no problem but your name's not on the deed and the deck was approved by the building department I assume because I bought the house brand new it was already there okay well so keep doing

your research because that's what it is okay so I'll submit my research which affirmatively indicates that the deck was not approved as part of the zoning okay any anything else from the petitioner yeah I would I would just like to add in regards to the um the concern from the abutter at 32 Omen Street uh we we are meeting the required 10-ft side setback um adjacent to his property I see that um now his I mean

grant that we show the existing uh dwellings on AB buting properties those you know locations um may not be accurate but it does appear from what I've seen that his dwelling may actually be closer to the property line than what we're proposing us to be so you know if if there's any uh concern about you know being too close it might be on on his end rather than on

us on the uh on the parking on on Omen Street you've got three driveways facing Omen those are walkways that's just walkways yep just walkways so the the numbers two across those three properties there is no oh see it's taken off of that I've got an older plan I don't have we submitted a new plan last week yeah they remove the okay this is a mess so pardon they removed the

parking that was coming off of omen y so that they weren't taking parking away from Omen Street okay if if the neighborhood would rather see them meet the parking requirement of two spaces per unit they can put the driveways back in on Omen and use three of the spaces in the back of two three and four EX for the multifamilies excuse me most families have two cars zoning the zoning

bylaw required no you don't understand that apparently because this is the zoning board of appeals I'm talking about the neighborhood please address the all your questions through the chair please I'm responding the zoning bylaw requires two parking spaces per residential unit right that's it well if it's two units then it's four cars correct and that's what they're that's what they're providing no they're

not providing yes sir it's right on the plans and as it is so and let's go back back to it let's I want you to understand the parking that's being proposed would have a hard time getting in there do you understand at least that the zoning requirement is two spaces per unit on Lot number two they have a two family dwelling they have four parking spaces that's two parking spaces per unit on Lot number three they're

proposing a two unit building they have four off street parking spaces off Street that's off street right that's two parking that's not available they're building parking on the parcel which is what they're required to do again on lot four they're building a two family structure and they have four off street parking spaces that's two spaces per unit in accordance with the bylaw the

only parking relief they're seeking has to do with the existing two three families could some their SP I understand but Mr chairman by doing that by building those Park and spots they've taken away from the minimum front yard the minimum backyard the minimum side no they've met all the front yard side yard actually they they have made sidey they've made those setbacks what they haven't made is the

frontage requirement okay but that's not side yard rear yard and they exceed the coverage requirement the percentage of coverage they exceed that yes sir so they've on those three lots as the director of engineering has said they have met the requirements for parking and it's it's off Street and they decided to close up the three driveways that had originally been proposed which would have made the six

parking spaces for three units in each building and by closing those off creates a curb along Omen Street which adds to adds to on street parking you can fight whether it's there or not but currently but there's no curb all the way across that section of omen Street I would add there is an asphalt burn there with a 24t wide opening existing dirt driveway that goes on the property closer to 32 Omen which we're

proposing to close up we're to build a new sidewalk and put in Granite curving all along the frontage of that property okay anything else from the board at this point can can I just ask a question because maybe I'm not seeing it um and I hate to bring it back to the whole parking issue so each two family house that is being built will have four parking spaces that's correct but we

only see two of them pardon I only see two parking spaces is it like there were four parking Swit Jeff you want to show her on she can see it better on the why don't you come up to the to the table and Jeff can show you on a piece of paper so right here with the number four so it's one two three and four these this is one yes right here 1 two three

and four and same thing here one two three and four one two oh this one is one correct not this one this one is one one two three and four yes and this is the walkway that's walkway correct 1 2 three and four and that's the walkway correct I was not sitting there no it's okay that's no bad questions anything else from planning just just to correct one inaccuracy from Mr melum the existing structure at 1298

is not a foot to a foot and a half off of the property line it's 2 and 1/2 ft is showing on the plane not much different than a 4 four and A2 no I just wanted to be correct for the record okay I'll say something to that used to be but now that the trees that were there pushed my fence foot and a half the fence doesn't necessarily dictate your property line dictates your your D

dictates your property and the fence is Right according to the deed but it's that's irrelevant the problem is is not that the problem is there's not enough area too many families in in in a quarter of an acre and there's absolutely no Bri whatsoever cuz they also have visitors what's the What's the total square footage of Ls 2 three and and four combined please it's about 16 right 16,000 just over just over 15 yeah

around 154 155 in that range okay and then it's 12,000 for lot one in total yeah correct no 6790 for lot one oh I'm sorry 12,000 is the exal the property right now is uh two pareles two ex pareles a 12,000 ft parel and basically a 10,000 ft parel got you okay so it's about a half an acre all right any other questions from the board let's do business kids so the first thing you're looking

for is a special perit I am yes to be established use on lot one only lot one only as two three families um I would make that motion Mr chairman that we Grant the special permit to reestablish use on lot one second we have a motion and a second discussion on that motion and by the way um Alexis will be voting on this one Eric because she had heard it uh previously in last

months all right that being the case uh Alexis yes Jim yes Dan yes Ricky yes chairman per yes all right on then we're going to the creation of the new Lots you have variances to contend with yeah and then one special permit for the park so those need to be handled separately faan first yeah Varian first because whether you grant the special permit or not for the parking they still may be

able to meet the requirement without additional relief if they get super creative Mr chairman I would make the motion that the variance be um granted as requested so that's waving side yard right on the revised plan the the revised plan Y and that's also uh okay lot coverage side yard yeah okay I'm sorry was there a second on that this is just a lot one clarification no this is all the variant

work so subdividing it into four Lots everything that you see except for parking so right now you are technically dealing with two existing three family dwellings where you weren't until the special permit was granted reinstituting those uses so now that you have established that use now the variant as a whole can move forward so lot area lot Frontage building setback for the structure at 1300 right and lot coverage

for all four point of order we also did not bate the first vote I don't think it's a special permit that needed to be but you could by all means correct it it could I think it's a statement at this point um that the reestablishment or the reinstatement of the uses of the existing two buildings is not more um detrimental to the neighborhood could you yes I would I would alter the motion to include that

okay second on that please second by Dan de on that motion then Ricky yes Dan yes Jim yes Alexis yes and chairman per yes okay on the variance setback select coverage so my motion is on the table to Grant I'm sorry

conditions this does go to site plan right Dan certainly oh yeah all of them do all all for LS okay uh was there a second on that one on the variant I'll give it a second second from Jim Caulkins discussion in that case on the variance Ricky yes Dan no Jim yes Alexis yes chairman Pereira I have to say no so that's it game over all right thank you thank you Mr chairman you might explain that

even though the was take not car yeah U as a as a clarification just because it was 3-2 means that there was not a super majority so it does not carry so it's not happening on to new business item number one Eugene and Michelle Borges care of attorney David M Assad 431 Whipple Street map G9 lot 14 the applicant is requesting a variance a special permit to transform the current non-conforming three family residents

into a four family dwelling in accordance with Section 86 4252 that requires a reduction of the requirements outlined in section 86 uh 148 I from 600 ft to 4 60 ft citing hardship and constraints imposed by the existing structure Additionally the appli uh the applicant seeks authorization for a special permit to establish a one-bedroom apartment in the basement which would weigh the dimensional

requirements specified in section 8635 and 86148 I due to the layout of the current structure furthermore the applicant is requesting a special permit under Section 86445 to reduce and or modify the stipulations of section 86441 864 uh I'm sorry 444 A3 and 86- 9 by not providing two additional a street parking spaces by decreasing the dimensions of the parking space from 9 by8 to 8.25 ft by

17.75 ft uh while still maintaining four off street parking spaces the property is is located in an A2 apartment zoning District I love your applications Mr chairman may I pass up some artwork please can we grade it you can you will by your vote this just a David asset SCH very very good David thank you I would have colorcoded this myself but so yes the chairman read what the petition was all about this particular

for the record attorney David Assad I'm attorney licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts I maintain offices at 326 Pine Street in the city of Fall River with me this evening is Eugene bores one of the owner along with his wife his wife is unable to be here Michelle can't be here this evening uh so their petition is this this is the ancestral home of the bores family the

mother and father Eugene's mother and father bought the property in 1966 The Borges family has lived there uh Eugene brought the brothers and sisters out after the death of uh the mother um and in the basement um it was an extension of the family home there was a bedroom that was created there was a bathroom that exists um and it's been used as an additional room uh of the ancestral home now there's an idea that

if they can convert it or get permission to use it as another apartment uh then they can legally rent it out and have another unit in this pre-existing three family dwelling um the structure or as it's currently laid out there is a bedroom uh 12x 11 132 Square ft there's a combination living room and kitchen uh 240 ft 20 by 12 the bathroom area is um 4 by 11 is what's being proposed and I

showed you where in the kitchen area we've got the refrigerator dishwasher the counter sink and the stove um the total square footage by my calculation is 468 625 Square ft um the work that was done downstairs to accommodate uh the use of it was done by pulling building permits uh so proper permits were pulled for the plumbing proper permits were pulled for the electricity uh now that we're

introducing or the possibility of introducing uh nonam member living there and turning it into an apartment we come before the board to make sure we have proper authorization uh and we have a legal apartment there is there are currently off street parking for four cars uh but to make it where our ordinance provides for 9 by 9 ft by 18 ft it has to get reduced and I realize that the

distinction um that that I've gotten the petition is such that it doesn't seem like it's much but that's what the actual measurements come up to to make the four units there it's on the corner of Osborne and Whipple Street and around the house there is in fact on street parking available uh it's a one-bedroom the density doesn't increase um Eugene's brother was the one that was uh the last

one living or occupying the space downstairs um so we're before the board asking for the permission to turn it into a legitimate uh apartment in on this free family dwelling I'll be happy to answer any questions uh concerning this particular project yeah so the kitchen fixtures Etc are are already in exist I I don't think are they in existence now Eugene they're there they're there they're there so de

facto this is what's there but it's been it it hasn't been a family house with a family member there it's never been rented out never and his lawyer won't let him rent it out until we get permission he's got a good lawyer needs a new artist but he's got a good um Dan any any comments on this questions from the board at this point none is there anybody in attendance who

wishes to speak in favor of the petition is there anyone I thought Peter slena was going to jump in there is there any is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition they're hearing none it comes back to the board so is Ju Just so I'm clear is this the number of parking spaces that are there now yes or so it it's been four parking spaces you just want to clean it

but I wanted to clean it up to say that they the four don't measure 9 by 18 okay that's fair I appreciate that all right what are our wishes so no well I was going to say if you look at my petition if you go through the the relief it it's sequential and do it that way we we're good you make my life easy first we are looking at uh special P permit to transform the non-conforming

three- Family Residence into a four family dwelling under 86 425 iocated yeah please yes all habits die hard Mr chairman I would make the motion that it is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood very good is there a second on that second motion and second on the motion Ricky yes I'm sorry Eric yes Dan yes Jim yes and chairman Prairie yes okay then we move on to good God quest for a uh reduction of

requirements uh of the apartment itself if you recall that in this District we measure our Apartments of no less than 600 square ft there is roughly 460 Square F feet there um this is a variance uh hardship is the shape of the existing building shape and size of the existing building I'm sure there's a boiler room down here someplace Etc so so before the variance Mr shamon don't you need the second half of yeah

we do we do I was so excited that uh I get flustered my ex- boss isn't sitting in front of me all I've been waiting for these days David I stay up at night all right yes please second half of the special to Grant be granted as as oppos as I proposed and that is for the four family do we have a second second second from Jim Caulkins then on

the motion Jim yes Dan yes Ricky yes Eric yes and chairman Prairie yes now on to the variant Mr chairman I'm move that we Grant the variance um allowing the apartment size to be reduced from 600 square ft to uh minimum of 460 Square ft very good do we have a second on that motion second second thank you Dan was it it was Eric sorry man something about that end of the

table there's a story behind that um discussion on the motion hearing none uh on the motion Eric yes Ricky yes Dan yes Jim yes chairman Prairie yes and lastly we're dealing with the uh off street parking spaces the two additional parking spaces that are being created or actually they not being created being created we're talking about the size of the parking spaces being reduced from 9 ft to 8 and A4 feet

by um 17 length of of 18 reduced to 17 and 3/4 still maintaining the four off street parking spaces and again with a special commit and a fication correct it's a little heavy-handed here but sure go for it combine them I'm just I'm just reading the proposal requesting speci yes so um I would make the motion that um this request is also not substantial more detrimental to second please second second uh

discussion hearing none on the motion Jim yes Dan yes Ricky yes Eric yes chairman Prairie yes that it's a great and in the second half is that the um special permit as proposed be granted you have a second okay second on the motion discussion heing none Jim yes Dan yes Ricky yes Eric yes yes thank you Mr chairman thank you members of the board okay item number two under new business

Tetro realy TR uh realy real I'm sorry real estate LLC care of Attorney Peter isolino uh 102 uh Misa Street uh map co8 lot 14 the applicant seeks a variance to divide the existing parcel into three lots leaving the existing in dwelling on lot one and constructing a two family dwelling on each lot two and lot three applicant seeks relief from 86 attachment one of the Fall River zoning ordinance by way of uh

variant as to lot area affecting Lots two and three rear yard setback affecting lot two uh and lot coverage affecting lot one the property is located in an N4 two family zoning District thank you for the record Peter selino on behalf of the applicant petitioner um I came to City Hall earlier today to file a request to table this petition um my understanding is that there were some concerns relative

to the design of it so I paid the $500 to your Clerk and I'm respectfully requesting that this matter be tabled to the December hearing okay what's the date of our September hearing December 18 yeah that makes sense Christmas I thought it was the 19th 19th 19th 19th do we have a motion for the tabling Mr chairman I move that we uh Grant the petition to table to the December 19th 20124 meeting okay very

good is there a second on the motion to table second motion made and seconded uh I just well let's let's pass it first uh thereby on the motion Jim yes Dan yes Ricky yes Eric yes chairman Prairie yes to those uh who might have come here this evening regarding this petition it will be continued to the U uh December meeting you will not receive an additional uh notification so we don't we don't re

notice on these so it's it's been tabled just make a note and uh if you want to be heard come back on uh December 19th or if you want to submit a letter in you can do so by getting that to the uh planning department do we have to resubmit what we've already put in no no if you've already if you've already got something on file you're all set it'll

be read at that time all right have a great Thanksgiving thanks for coming out um one thing you might want to check in before the meeting um in case the applicant submits revised plans taking into account some of your concerns so plan would be perfect that's what we're looking right so check in so that way at least you know what you're coming into on the on the Y thank you thank you very good uh

item number three KFC realy LLC care of Peter Attorney Peter a selino uh zero Veil street map e01 Lot 19 the applicant is requesting a variance to wave all zoning requirements in an A2 apartment district for the construction of a two family dwelling on a proposed Lot 19 this includes waving the frontage area sidey yard and rear setbacks as well as the lot coverage restrictions Council yes good evening

Peter selino applicant uh a council to the applicant the applicant is Kevin Kurt and his uh LLC Mr Kurt is sitting directly behind me the engineer on the project is Jeffrey Tolman um The Proposal as Mr chairman just read includes erecting a single uh two family dwelling on the subject lot Mr tolman's Research indicates that this is a lot of record it was on the original Slade Mills plat um as you can see from the

plan it's 50 by 100 um the application does provide sufficient off street parking for four cars uh so that meets the requirement we've spent a lot of time on what the requirements of parking are tonight so I'll highlight that um ultimately though we do need significant waivers I should also know for the record as I did in the petition that this matter had come before the board previously uh and was denied Mr

Curt has continued to pay taxes and continued to hold this lot if you've driven by it there's a couple of structures on it sort of a just a miscellaneous lot um and really the size of the lot is the problem and the cited hardship in the petition I'd be happy to answer any questions about the proposal Mr tomman can and Mr Curt is here as well J just an observation we're not waving

all zoning requirements and and you know when it reads all it's I think it's all no it's all it's all this is this is well no okay all right but as far as the footprint goes this is the trifecta this is this is this is what we live for I just don't like to give all on not so we have 18 we have 18 on the Frontage 10 foot on the

side we not leing parking 10 foot rear the parking will extend beyond onto what I assume will be grass area correct well on one side uh to the north is that what you're referring to yeah no it's not to the north would be to the West the West is the street no I'm talking about lot two there's only there's only one lot there's only one lot yeah you on the

wrong one I'm on the wrong one this is I apologize rather have this thing's all a we got it I'll look at that no Mr chairman while you while you working that yes um so you're asking for um all waving all um applicable um zon ordinances is that correct uh yes that is correct so so exactly where are you short by how much on each sure I have it highlighted here so if you look in the

uh A2 District you would need 12,000 Square ft and the lot has 5,33 uh the lot Frontage would need to be 100 and we have 50.3 three the side yard needs to be 20 in The District we have 10 the rear yard needs to be 30 we have 10 the lock coverage needs to be 30% and we're proposing 75% right thank

you you I'm looking at all the Lots around it and one of these things is not like the other well for example uh there's a lot to the east labeled now or formly of garant it says it's an existing two family and the lot size is 5,33 square ft which is identical to our lot because this was all the Slade Mill plat mhm yeah and I think if you look at the

density um on some of the uh lots to the north um 937 Globe Street which is two lots over that's a three family on a just over 5,000 foot lot same as 949 and then also the uh there two three families to the south of this on slightly larger Lots but density wise it it basically comes out the same but the abing lot to the north east and the Northeast are all single

families on approximately the exact same square footage agreed yeah and I'm looking at for example the lot to the South uh Lopes lot is existing three family on a much bigger lot those were subdivided um under 86 423b right the two L slots there were two multifamilies on one lot but you're right they are on larger

Lots I mean they could put two more houses on that they'd be all set um the last petition actually which was to construct a single family home on here was actually going to acquire some land from those ler Lots is that right interesting um that's what happens when we say no further subdivision um any other questions from the board to hear what Dan has to say I have nothing else to add I mean Peter said it

all I mean it's okay is there anyone here wishing to speak in favor of the uh petition anyone here to speak in opposition to the petition please good evening members of the board my name is Pamela carelles I am at 179 Bush Street right behind the proposed construction um this has has been in front of your board before and was denied through our the previous owners of our home I think that as I believe

all of you are homeowners or reside in a place that you have neighbors and I think that all of you can appreciate that privacy is something very important and there is no that we could build that would be tall enough to protect our privacy um from a multif family construction that is 10 ft away from our backyard um in a selfish point I work from home I am the a provider of my

family and a continuous noise of construction would disrupt my ability to provide for my family I work for a law firm I deal with delicate manners and I don't think that clients would appreciate the construction noise and that would be uh not good for business um in addition to that I am also trying to cultivate a garden which would be obstru Ed by any type of Long Tall construction on that area we've we

purchased that space two years ago and since then we've been trying to make it better for not only ourselves but for our neighbors due to the abandoned state that the house was left when we purchased and my last point is that for the two years that we've owned this this home um we contacted Mr Kurt a few times and requested him to take some care of that property which he at some points

sent someone to take care of the overgrown weeds but there are two boats one re one city garbage container all open accumulating water exposing the entire neighborhood to mosquitoes and any other type of diseases that could be generated by that I am not an expert um the city um told us that they would ask Mr Kurt to take care of those items and he promised the city that he would he never did and according

to paragraphs 26-40 on your Forever website uh the owner or person in control of any private private property shall at all times maintain the BR premises free of litter provided however that the section shall not prohibit the storage of litter in authorized private receptacles and he the owner or person in control of any vacant lot shall at all times maintain the premises free of litter and control the growth of wild

plans which um Mr Kurt has failed multiple times to help us with that problem appreciate you did your homework when those things arise should something else happen in the future go to the building department on those and if you don't get any satisfaction call the mayor's office we did talk to really okay we went to um the health department uh the inspector came out too um and I even emailed the

mayor uh most of my requests and pleads were ignored um even having one of the Fall River employees severely dismissing me and mistreating me accusing me of being a liar and things like that so we kind of HD nowhere with asking the city for help normally be minimum housing regarding stuff like not cutting grass or trash so if you go to the minimum housing unit on the fifth floor that

would be the department to go through they used to be in with the health department so maybe that's how Maybe you got to them before but now they are separate en so yousu forward and the only thing I can say if this is approved construction's a limited amount of time you know I know it can be disturbing my next door a neighbor did an addition to his house it took forever

and I understand and I work from home so I understand um as far as far as you know an obstruction how how tall would the proposed building be it would not be in two stories no it would conform to the requirements of the zone so quite honestly I mean anything as far as you know establishing CL in the zone is what 80 ft in the 82 well it wouldn't be 80

fet I'm just thinking let's narrow that down then you want to establish a garden you're not going to get that much shading from the house it's you know it'll be you know to the uh to the to the west of you so you might lose a sunset so um I would like to add to the point you made regarding the construction noise I believe that even though it was delayed on your part um a

building construction something from scratch would take a lot longer than someone um doing an addition to their home and with all due respect um Mr Kur showed that he doesn't care about his neighborhood or his neighbors so I don't believe that that would change with the construction or him having that building there and renting out to other people and and and understand that somebody has

the right to build a lot so and I understand it I understand it can be a pain I understand you work from home professional professional job um we go from there so what would the height be and what would be the number of bedrooms there in the bedrooms two bedroom two bedroom so two bedrooms per unit and the height would be i' I'd say it'd be in line with um it'd be no more than

45 we could even drop down to 35 for the the match the two family out for district okay anything else from the board anything else from the petitioner uh no my client's indicating let it go to a vote Sor my client's indicating let it go to a vote so we're not going to ask for a table or anything like that okay thank you thank you what's our wishes folks motion to

deny okay we have a motion to deny on the table is there a second on that second motion and second to deny any discussion on the motion they're hearing none on the motion Eric yes Ricky no Dan yes Jim yes chairman Pereira yes thank you item number five love this name Blind Faith LLC care of I did I'm sorry I'm sorry I walked right not even the iPad's fault I picked up a

piece of paper and didn't read my own notes item number four t realy uh real estate LLC care of Attorney Peter aeno uh this is for Terrace Street map i23 lot 39 the applicant request a variance to way of dimensional requirements in the A2 apartment zoning District the petitioner excuse me proposed to uh construct a 4unit town house style dwelling on an existing non-conforming vacant lot 23- I

23-39 waving minimum lot area Frontage yard setback and lot coverage the petitioner also requests a special permit to modify parking requirements uh personal intersection 86445 thank you for the record Peter selino on behalf of tetral uh my client uh appeared before the board in July of 2023 the board granted the requested relief at that time Direction no your client it was a previous oh strike that

Mr Benavides who owned it prior to my client received relief from this board which runs with the land um and was not fully exercised as a result of two issues that came up during the site plan review process so starting with the premise that the board's seen this petition before and granted the relief uh the issues that were discovered are first the Northerly boundary line of the property at the last presentation was

thought to be approximately 2 feet wider and as a result the rear setback that Mr tomman has shown as 8 ft on the screen left of the plan was previously presented as 10 ft but as a result of on the ground survey and the abing lot being a landc court lot his survey crew discovered there was a twoot discrepancy which creates the need for a further waiver of rear lot uh setback and then

next there's a existing retaining wall on the property and as a result of that condition of the property the proposed parking area had to be altered so that the aisle widths were a little bit smaller to accommodate the retaining wall so ultimately The Proposal is the same but for a request to make the rear lot uh rear lot setback 8 ft and the parking aisle widths smaller uh pursuant

to a special permit all right so the parking aisle width would be 20 ft instead of correct correct other than that my Cent tetrol real estate is intending to uh go through with the special I'm sorry with the um site plan requirements I also think I everyone can see it but to note for the record on the immediate west of this property line he also owns that 12 unit building I thought so so if

anything he's building close to himself um so just want to point that out you couldn't get a letter from him saying he was in it you see how to uh convey that interesting all right questions from the board comments from planning just to make sure that I mean I know you've requested the lot coverage how much did that change from the previous petition um I lots a few square feet smaller but the parking lots getting

smaller so it might have actually been a walk I think it actually went down um you're proposing 66 yeah actually I have the previous can 67 oh yeah 67 we're down 1% there we go look at that amazing even losing two feet it's the shrunken parking lot any other questions turn to the public anybody here to speak in favor yes Mr Fiola Ken fola ex Vice President Street I'm hoping uh that the

board will see fit to uh to Grant this petition tonight this applies to this particular variant request as you can see um it was a previously approved plan we now come before you tonight with some minor modifications for that approval so as to comply with some of the U zoning I mean with the site plan review but I think you know the addition of this of these apartments to that particular

neighborhood will also be beneficial not only to the developer but also to the the U neighborhood at lodge so with that in mind I hope that you see to uh to approve this thank you thank you very much anyone else in favor anyone against Mr chairman I move that we Grant the variance in accordance with the invention submitted in the plan all right I'm going to carry the variance first yeah okay so we have a

motion to approve the requested variance relief we have a second please second second any discussion on the motion hearing none Eric yes Ricky yes Dan yes Jim yes chairman Prairie yes thank you and Mr chairman I also move that we find that the proposal is would not be significantly more detrimental to the arean and move that we Grant the special permit okay you've put them together which is

cool do we have a second on that second second from Rick sah Ricky sahti on the motion Jim yes Dan yes Ricky yes Eric yes chairman per yes thank you thank you now to an empty house I'm number five yeah Blind Faith LLC Caro Jeffrey tomman wow ne ne and C he's getting it all in here 20 240 Griffin Street map G23 Lot 10 the applicant seeks a variance to wave requirements in the R4

two family zoning District petitioner proposes to convert the office space in the existing non-conforming mixed use building into a third residential unit that brings the number of residential units in the building from two to three therefore it's called the third unit the petition also seeks a special permit perent to 86445 to modify the off street parking requirements good evening for the record

Jeff tomman from Northeast engineers and Consultants here on behalf of Bo fate LLC um the property as you had mentioned is located at 240 Griffin Street it's parcel ID G23 Lot 10 um it's near the intersection of Griffin Street and Broadway that's kind of a regular shaped lot where there is a a 10 foot wide finger that goes from the main pel out to Broadway um the pel itself is located

in two family off4 zoning District the lot is non non-conforming uh due to Frontage uh the area I have listed on the lot is an era that should be 8,400 ft not 3,400 ft just for clarification uh but the frontage uh that the lot has is 5207 uh whether the in that particular District you're required to have a 75 ft um um there's an existing 30X 75 foot building on the northeast corner of the

property this building is non-conforming due to side and rear yard setbacks um historically the use of the buildings was non-conforming uh based on City Records it was used as uh industrially uh between 2004 and 2018 I believe at that time it might have been uh Jonathan's furniture restoration if I'm not mistaken uh that occupied uh the building then from 2019 to 2023 uh it was converted um based on the

assessive records to a commercial warehouse um in 2022 the property was sold and at that time a building permit was was pulled uh to add two apartments um to the to the structure um they went forward they did the construction on that and they received an enty perit in 2023 um my client Bo bought the property in September of this year um at that time um the previous owner had begun to

to to convert the uh the remaining space in the building which was a small office I believe on the Southwest um corner of the property in a garage area which was on the Southeast corner of the property into a third residential apartment uh does not appear any permits were pulled for that work um so as a result in October my client reached out to me uh to begin begin the

process of making the third unit a legal apartment which is why I'm here tonight um the the relief that we're asking for uh so this was filed this petition was filed as a variants special permit um the I believe that adding the third unit um or allowing the third unit could be done by special permit because the the existing building um when it was received the occupany per in 2022 did

have an office and garage space attached to it uh so technically it was still uh non-conforming it was uh a mixed use building at that time um so therefore you know if the board sees fit I believe you can act on this and vote on this um if you find it to be not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood as a special permit um because we are eliminating that use legally and

converting that to a third uh unit which will be a one bit bedroom unit um the other thing we're asking the special permit for is uh for parking spaces there we are proposing five on the site there there is an existing parking lot on the property it's not delineated there's no striping associated with it um so we propose that we you know go in and stripe that identify these five

parking spots uh four of which would be for the existing two units uh that are on the property and then the fifth parking spot would be for the additional uh one-bedroom unit uh so that I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board might have just curious on the on the parking area you you've made some Mark offs on the on the parking could you get another space in

there well as you can see um and what what's not showing on here is the grading so as you can see there's there's a block retaining wall along the front so that front hatched out area y uh is not usable um certainly to use it you would have to pull in and it would be perpendicular to the proposed parking which would interfere with that and and um and then to use the the area to the

north that's hatched out um it's not going to get you enough it's not going to get you anything and then backing out of that spot would be problematic y um and again because of the third unit just being the one bedroom unit um it's my position that the one space would be adequate what's the uh what's the approximate size of that third unit I don't have uh I don't have the breakdown in sizes um

I'm not exactly sure I don't I have not been inside the building I know the existing two bedroom I mean the existing uh units on there the the two units I think one of them is a two-bedroom um and the other one might be a three so this one would be a one the exact size I'm not aware of um but this again this is in uh this is not in the A2 District

so there is no minimum right no I was just curious yeah again I'm not certain I apologize this is all one level too yeah correct yes yeah I think the the initial use of it again uh being industrial and then the commercial warehouse there is a garage door on the front where the existing concrete pad extends into the parking area to the left of that inside the building is where the office space was

and then it was just open slab um so just go in got it yeah all over again yeah okay all right question which would you suggest the special permit or variant either are um well if if if the board was inclined to approve it I'd give them the variant so that there's there's no question right um but if the board wants the easy way out and the applicant's asking you to vote on it as a special

permit you could do that as well I don't have an issue with it either way but yeah if I knew what if I knew what you were going to vote I would ask for a variance so I would leave wa wait we but you don't know that we haven't gotten into hardships and that type of thing I mean I don't I I think a special permit would be adequate um I don't know

what did the Buildings Department did it special permit mariant as well so the building departments apparently agreed that it could be either or could be either or um double check you know what I don't have the I I didn't receive the uh I don't have my copy of the application I apologize would you cover hardship just so that we have the option of going to variant well the um the existing

non-conforming structure yeah existing non-conforming is uh the space is going to be you know again it's a non-conforming use that's that was in there it's going to be converted to a conforming use the building department did listed so it could be either or and you would be eliminating a non-conforming use which would be the commercial use in an R2 District I mean our for district if we vary it yes yeah yeah yeah

so the variance Works to the variance Works to the owner's U benefit benefit um you've got the non-conformity of this former industrial building in here it's been cut into two apartments for whatever reason they left a third apartment and operated it this eliminates the Comm if we do a variance it eliminates the commercial use of the building so I don't see way that's an advantage to the petitioner I think puts

further restriction they're spending they're spending money to to build this out and I realize you know there's there's Office Buildings nearby etc etc but there's also dwellings nearby there's mixed use

nearby I'll ask the question just because the TV cameras don't know there's no one here is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor anyone to speak in opposition hearing none it's all us so we could Grant this as a special permit or a variance I do we carry Mr chairman I move that we treat this as a variance and um move approval or granting of that variance as submitted

on the plan very good we and a second discussion you're hearing none Jim yes Dan yes Ricky yes Eric yes chairman Prairie yes thank you been a heck of a knife special permit for parking ah yes yes yes I'm sorry don't go anywhere Joe can't go anywhere without parking Mr chairman I find that the uh special permit request would not be substantially more detrimental to the area and know that we Grant the special permit

and a second on that Jim yes Dan yes Ricky yes Eric yes Sherman per yes thank you thank you have a great night you too have a good we don't see you but I'm sure citizens input there's no citizens here except for us uh approval of minutes from the October 17 2024 meeting just chairman I move waving of the reading of the minutes and approval of the same second motion and second on that and Jim yes

you were here so Alexis yes um Dan yes Ricky yes and chairman Pereira yes um move adj move adjournment we have a second on adjournment guys second motion second all in favor all right opposed Greg thank you