12.11.24 Planning Board

I want to welcome everybody to the November uh December 11th 2024 uh planning board meeting pursuant to the open meeting by open meeting law any person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any media attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or Transmissions are being made whether perceived or UNP perceived by those present and are

deemed acknowledged and permissible the city Charter section 9-18 mandates that all Municipal boards uh Municipal bodies member bodies develop and adopt rules or policy for public comment we have adopted such a policy which in short provides for citizen input on planning board specific matters at the end of the meeting there is a signup sheet that is located in the back of the room going to do a roll call Patty

agar is is here she's at the administrative clerk we have Dan agar who is the uh city engineer uh Gloria Pico present Beth Andre present Mario luola is absent Mike faras presid and I John Ferrera president as well and we have Craig Salvador from for for of government TV in the back as well under old business uh we have one item it's a roadway reconstruction Bronson Street section six 66-1 185 city

ordinance considering the roadway reconstruction plan and profile of the Bronson Street Extension this petition was previously tabled at the November 13 2024 meeting Mr chairman and board members you may recall this came before you or was initially submitted at one of the previous meetings and we were waiting on a waiver list from the engineer so what this is and I know we don't deal with a

lot of them is um whenever a developer or land owner is looking to construct a roadway driveway anything within an existing right of way in this case Bronson Street is a private way however under your rules and regulations there are certain construction requirements that that needs to meet like a normal subdivision May um this project had gone through site plan review through Conservation Commission approval if you

remember this is the anr that was endorsed maybe a meeting two ago with actually doing here is constructing a driveway that Services the eight or9 homes in a condominium style fashion so they're not actually building a roadway they're building a driveway that's never to be accepted for roadway um so what it does is it provides access to all of the properties uh as shown on the plan

drainage all of those things that are enumerated in this letter but in that some of the standards of course we don't meet the requirements for way construction so what you're being asked tonight to make a decision on is if we look at the waivers that have been proposed I'll run through them quickly for you U these are all sections of your rules and regulations City requires a minimum of 26 foot width uh for city

streets this project has requesting a waiver to decrease the pavement width to 20 fet turnarounds normally there would be a culdesac turnaround at the end of a dead end this development has been done or constructed or will be constructed in a way that provides for a hammerhead turn around like a t um which provides U safety vehicles and everything else the ability to get in and out curbing we

would normally require Granite curbing on on some of the roadways when we're having a subdivision this was to install just Cape Cod burm you which is a 12ft monolithic P asphalt BM along the edge of the road sidewalks we would normally require sidewalks to be constructed on both sides of the street this is asking for a waiver of sidewalks as this is just a driveway and not a street

street lighting again normally we would have Street lighting proposed at some turning areas they're requesting a waiver on the site lighting and then last the planting of Street trees because the narrow width and the ability to construct through this Corridor they're requesting to wave uh the installation of Street trees now on the plans that you have before you this these waivers only pertain to about 200

ft of roadway which is from Frederick Street to August Street which is the part of Bronson Street the majority of this development is actually built through easement on the remaining portions of the Lots themselves that provide uh construction and access to the properties so that's what's here before you this evening I understand that the applicant has sent a representative if you have any questions that hopefully he

may be able to answer or I could also help been doing so as well but so normally when we go through this process of site plan review Conservation Commission approval an anr approval this is really the dotting of eyes and crossing of tees because they technically don't can't touch the right of way unless you give them the waivers that they're being proposed uh to you tonight so if you have any questions or

if you need me to point out anything on the plans for you I have a few questions so again the stipulation is I we don't want this to be the same I guess it was in the Mohawk Road where it was built um not up to standards and then all of a sudden the city took it over we'll never own this this is going to be a private and it stipulated that it is going to be

private they're going to maintain it because there's a reason why we have certain higher standards that you know yeah once we take it over we own it and then we have to repair they didn't end up accepting Mohawk yeah so yeah that's what I but but that that process is available but in every approval today yeah plan review yeah it states this that this street can never be petitioned for

acceptance before we go to the board is there anyone else question um I understand what you said Thank you was very clearly done but um what's your position on the fact that there's no the Hammerhead how do you feel about that for fire trucks there's an emergency there our EMS and our fire be you think that's that's adequate so what's before you is the construction of this so what they're

saying is they're not providing a turnaround at the end of this street this this entire driveway is what provides access to everything so the fire apparatus would have to do this this and this which is which is normally acceptable and the fire proin is reviewed this and is okay because in addition to having I'm okay with you know a few feet off so instead of 26 feet wide it's 20 foot wide no big

deal but then the lack of the um the turnaround yep that's a little bit like I don't know I would just ask the comment on that one and I agree typically we have to go through as you know we do this for the living you have to put a turning radius on there for whatever your fire trucks are or apparatuses are um I'm not sure if you guys have done that or what we do is

fire department has to approve that as well yeah did the yeah did the fire department say okay we're fine with it my understanding is that what during the site plan review project process which was probably a year or two ago already on this that it did go through the fire department you can make that a condition that you want a letter from the fire department yeah I would uh cuz I've

always done even when I was at Somerset we got we had a lot of shorter streets there and we always had as long as we had the fight upon this blessing we know roughly the total length of that I know I think it's in the back of my mind 3,000 ft max distance uh just just on other PL in our rules and regulations the maximum distance before you have to

top of my head I want to say it's 3000 I can't remember what's that well what happens on this no it won't be in the ordinance book it be in the subdivision but um that the length of the actual street that that would qualify to ends at Bronson here Bronson in August yeah this is the end of the actual street so this is the only part of that's actually considered street so the dead end requirement so

instead of making them put a culd theck here they're saying that well they're proposing that that access is sufficient but I don't think there's an issue with approving it conditionally upon the fire department authorizing it that's that's what we used to do all the time long as we had a letter from the fire department check because apparatus changes so so frequently I know someone said was always hot on it

and and they would give you of course here we have so many different apparatus but Somerset they really had one that you needed to meet it but no no issues these are all single all single so you're maybe talking about 35 foot maximum height on this maybe 40 so you're not needing there's no need for a hook and ladder on this but you know um but that those are the types of things

they usually kind of we have it on here and it's kind of drawn over it and we do the whole turning U-turn program to it B what the apparatus are in that City or that town so I would say that and then um and again that's the only thing with the as long as that is looked at and then two um that the um they have a check off on that and then two that we

as the city will never own this it'll be a private way Y and they have responsibility and that include does that include like trash as well as it's private trash is a private it's supposed to be that way but the city historically private ways we have believe it or not a lot of private ways like people will call Patty deals with it all the time um I want my street

repaved or or this well it's not an accepted way it's a private way but the city normally picks up trash and plows even private ways how they would ultimately handle this one I don't know this this will have in their approvals condominium documentation and responsibility for trash snow so we mostly deal with older private ways with condominium because these Lots actually have Frontage on MAR and Bishop

Boulevard okay um that's how they get the anr endorsement for a for Frontage in area so oh now Danny if you look at the plan like lot three on that on that driveway doesn't there's a pave cut out there and also on lot eight would that be possibly for R for dumpsters see my leg right here no that would allow this gentleman to back out and then come in rather than could have back all the way

down but um I know in the condominium documentation through site plan review they are required to handle their own plowing their own you know the city ends up doing it that that's not my department so any other questions or concerns from the board before I go to the audience yeah I know they asked for six favors and I here the condition of the fire department letter approval but why are they waving lighting you think

that they're going to do a nice condo here that' be sufficient lighting that would exceed our requirements I can't tell you why I would have an idea why I know but is someone here from that that can question I don't think you can answer for that so um I think we all understand potentially why I mean most subdivisions um the the the ordinance is odd where it says lighting is really at the

discretion of the planning board um all the most recent subdivisions that I know have of have all required some level of Street lighting so there isn't a standard where it says every 100 feet there needs to be one you could however on this you could say we we will grant the waiver with the exception of acquiring decide where you want them whether it's at the intersection the two ends the

beginning you can you can modify this and this approval can be conditional upon it would be better if we had an applicant here that we could have a discussion with um so this would be my recommendation do this um like with a site plan of this nature the the not the cost associated with sight lighting is pretty uh extravagant and what I would say to protect the city uh the minimum I

would say is we would want to know what the photometrics are at the intersection here Frederick and this propos road and if they meet the minimum stand think it's a half a foot candle overlap or one foot candle overlap if they have that already that's out there then that's a safe intersection if they don't then they need to put in Lighting in there to um go from their private into the public um

Road I think we're already giv up with we're going from 26 to 20 um do you want one at the end of August oh what I would Su what I would suggest we we only control the intersection of August and and Bronson yeah so what what I would say is um please provide the photometrics for this area and if it's if it meets um the regulation it's usually one foot candle um then you're

okay if not then you need to provide a light for safe entrance into but I was asking at the end of the next intersection which I would say yes yeah that's under your right where the Hammerhead is so there there's actually a road here not shown on that's why I'm saying that's where that's where the end of the actual roadway ends yeah yeah both both cases um I would I would

propose here well why don't why don't we just require them and then if what is existing is adequate then they don't need to install it y minimum yeah the minimum acceptable L for that intersection and then if they can do that then they don't need to put it in if they can't we need to put it in okay so so those two I right the letter from the fire department and the lighting at the

beginning by Frederick and then over by August the sections and then just the the caveat that this is going to be private and it's not going to be turned over to the city um because if it is then constructed no I mean I go before the city council often because the way the process works is any private way 12 citizens who are able to vote it's not even Property Owners people on the

street 12 people that are on voter rols can petition for a roadway to be accepted then that goes through a process of going to the city council and years past they just used to accept them all and then now we would be burdened by roads that need to be reconstructed so now when it comes through we report back so it comes here right and we talk about what is it what's it going to cost to

bring it up to the standard and then we make our recommendation since we've been going through that process they haven't ac they haven't accepted the last few because their understanding okay if we take this on immediately somebody's going to want us to spend $200,000 to fix it yeah yeah to bring it up yeah no you're absolutely right just so want don't we see what we have anything else

from the board before I go to do we have anyone that uh would like to speak on behalf of this petition NOP no no one in the audience all righty so we've got the three items we got the liting why don't you ask specifically if anybody would like to speak in opposition to it for or against are you for it or opposed anyone can speak in just to make sure nobody okay the um

so we're looking at the lighting at at Frederick beginning and a light over by August at that intersection we're looking at uh letter of approval for the Hammerhead from the fire department and we're looking to make sure that uh like Mike said about uh us and uh incorporating this and taking this over and not taking it over so if someone wants to entertain a motion three conditions of Street

lighting required at both intersections right at Frederick and the intersection of Bronson and August a letter of approval from the fire department that apparatus can properly deal with all of the homes and lastly never to be accepted or propos acceptance that do I have a motion I I make a motion you want me to state that exactly I will state it I I I make a motion uh to approve based on the

validity of having the photometrics and the lighting um at the corner of Frederick's and August Street uh also that uh condition that the city of fber will not accept this as a public way it will always be continuously a private way and um the third Mo the third uh statement would be in association with the fire department having a um sign off um that their vehicles will be able to navigate

these intersections at August and at the Hammerhead can I just um suggest that instead of the condition being the City FL would not accept the road the private way that the owners do not petition the city for exception to the private way as the public Street owners or successors in owners yeah that's no that's per yeah that's perfect yeah um so uh to restate the uh ownership of the private way that both either the

developer um the individuals building this and or the uh applicants who are going to be living here or any of the HOAs associated with this project will not ask for ownership or transfer of this private way to uh the city of f River as a public way thank you I second the motion thank you goodbye laia all right all in favor Gloria yes uh Beth yes Mike yes and I John forever vote Yes as well thank

you thank you all right n the new business repetitive petition tetral real real estate LLC 72 Belmont street map m-24 lot 7 in accordance with Mass General law C4 a 16 and 86- 487 of the Fall River zoning bylaw the advca requests that the for planning board make a determination that the submitted proposal contains specific and material changes in the conditions for which unfavorable action had previously been

taken by the city of far R zoning board of appeals on October 17 2027 the applicant was denied a zoning variants to convert the existing Barn into three residential units the new petition differs as it seeks to demolish the existing bond create off Street Park and on the site for all the existing units and to create a new non-conforming lot this property is located in an S single family zoning District thank you

for the record my name is Peter shelino I'm a lawyer at 550 Locust Street in Fall River I represent the property owner and applicant tetrol real estate LLC as Mr chair just read uh we appeared before the Zoning Board in October the petition uh was to convert the existing three family dwelling on the I'm sorry the existing barn on the property into three Apartments which would have left

us with a three- family home a barn that had three units and a buildable lot that petition was denied by the zoning board therefore pursuant to section 86 487 of the bylaw we've sought your approval of a new plan which removes the Barn from the equation the barn has been demolished we would provide in the New Concept A sufficient off street parking for the existing multif family structure

and then create a new building lot labeled as lot two on the plan that would consist of 12,999 square ft and would be completely conforming and so as a result I'd submit to you that the new proposal is certainly materially different from that which which was denied in October by the zoning board and we're asking for your approval so that we can go back to the zoning board with the New

Concept D again you know I think you're starting to get good at these um the only thing before you tonight um is is it substantially different for the reasons why it was denied um not whether you still think it's a good idea whether you think it should be granted you're just looking at the petition that was denied which was for the creation of these three additional units in the barn

keeping the existing three family and cutting a new single family lot so as attorney selino has stated the portion of the project related to the barn and the proposed three units and that has been removed so you just simply have to make the determination on whether or not you think that is substantially materially different for the purposes of what it was denied previously that's

all anyone from the board any comments I mean I I see a substantial change I I I do have a comment and I I know our job is only to say did did you do a signif significant amount of changes to this to go back in front of the zoning board um but there were several caveats that I would have just to put this into the owner's hand um you know again one of

the key issues we have here in the city is basically as you can see flooding I just drove down this street and and the road is flooded the um the one thing that you've done is you created a conforming lot but the other one existing lot is non-conforming both for the front and and then two for especially the coverage you've got like 65% uh let make sure I get that right uh

existing is 52 yet your proposed is 65% coverage um again it's only supposed to be 25% there are ways of making this thing um uh the coverage acceptable I.E permeable payers or whatever might be in the lot and so again I understand that you made the changes it's going to go in front of them but really want this thing to go through uh again it's going to come back I think and those are those

are the things that I see um the removing of the existing Barn the removing of the concrete all of these things could be done in order to make that closer to the 25% permeable area or non-coverage are or coveraged area um but this this I agree that should go back to the zoning uh for their U review once again and um but I wanted to at least make that noted as someone who's a

professional licensed and what I would suggest maybe those types of changes would get you closer to what your desired goals are thank you for the input anyone else CL is there anyone else that um has any comments on this petition could you uh uh say your name and address for the uh d m 274 Prospect Street I I just kind of question how is it in October um that they were seeking to

convert the existing bond into two residential and then on Monday they demolished the bond because it was too dilapitated to rebuild but yet in October they were going to do it and so by demolishing it which was a historic Bond they've now byed six months that they have to wait before they can demolish something so I I just don't understand how it can go from being converted in October to

dilapitated it a month later it's the same building and yes I do agree it was in terrible shape but yet in October they gave us a beautiful picture of the three apartments that they were going to make and they were going to convert it into that and now all of a sudden it's gone and when when they knocked it down I no longer have a landline phone because they took down the telephone

with it and pulled the wire right off my house yeah in response um The Proposal in October was to rehabilitate the dilapidated Barn um that proposal was declined there was a lot of neighborhood opposition I think most of the folks that are here so the proposal obviously was denied my client went forward with the appropriate procedures to get a demolition permit from the city of Fall

River and get a letter from the historic preservation commission that the structure could be demolished so that's what he did now what uh now you said the PO the pole there was a pole there that got telephone pole actually in the house behind me not on 72 Belmont Street and that pole came down and it took the wire from my house and I'm sure it took others um and I don't have a lose

electricity I mean I do have my cellone lose electricity my and which which one is yours I'm just trying to visualize how it would run4 Prospect stre and the other thing is it's you know it's only important to me that um I can now see all the way to to I can see for my house I could never see that before the bond made privacy for my area not everything is open the

whole block is open since he's done a beautiful job fixing up the house but since he's B that property it has changed the block tremendously because actually theor trees and then when they were demolishing the historic Garden there my neighbor had all his trees um taken down as well and the other thing that I want to know is I I wanted to be noted that the buildable lot because I

know it's inevitable is only going to be a single family home I don't want to see a two family or a three family home in thatal lot this board has no jurisdiction over any of the items that that you've raised okay um that that would be a discussion at the zoning board of appeals if they do choose to go back again as I stated this does not give this developer permission to build what he wants to

build this is simply looking at what this proposal is in comparison to the last proposal that was denied and if it's substantially materially different for the reasons why it was denied which I think is fairly clear then they have the ability to go back and appear before the zoning board of appeals that's the only thing up a discussion tonight all valid points that you have that should

be brought up to the zoning board of appeals with regards to how was it allowed to be demolished that would be a question for the building inspector uh that's his determination that does not come through the engineering and planning office or the planning board which is here this evening so he be at the next meeting when this comes up or do I have to call the building no you have to call the building inspector's

office and ask for him for his opinion of of why he allowed that to happen and you could ask the zoning board if appeals that but again they can't answer that so hopefully some somewhere our attorney selino can provide something inwriting from the in building inspector of why demolition was allowed sometimes and this may be the case but I have not looked at this the six months isn't hard

and fast if the historic commission says you can take it down on day one then the building department has the ability to grant that doesn't have to last six months so it only gives them it's the six months is to give the historic commission time to deal with the historic significance of the structure can I ask attorney s a question through the chair yeah ask me know okay um when

he just said um in October he used the word they were going to rehabilitate the bond what is the difference between rehabilitating and converting it were they still going to use part of the existing structure yes absolutely okay so so you were going to use part of it but then was so dilapitated that it was okay to knock it down that just again like you said it's not anything to be brought up

here but it's just seems that it was an easy way to get what they wanted well looks like they tried but didn't get approved so now they have to make a substantial change which they did by just tearing it down and saying forget that portion of our our plan and let's go to plan B because that's not going to fly and that's what they've done and it's only up to us to decide whether you

know is there a change versus what they submitted to the zoning board which there is that eliminates that Bond completely and whatever however many units they were proposing for the bond okay so when it goes before the zoning board and say in February um what recourse do the neighbors or the rebuts have that um that what they're seeking it says they they're seeking a new petition to

demolish the existing bond it's already been done well he's got a he's got a permit for the he's got a demolition permit for the to take the bond down so he's already got when they go back before the zoning board appeals I'm assuming the plan is not going to show a bond or it may say previous location of barn demolished whatever the language may be um that's a fair assumption and

if I could also add I mean I asked to be on this meeting on November 7th so at that time it was a true statement when this plan was filed that the barn was to be raised yeah so it's an important timeline event my my question would be I have one question was this brought in front of the historical commission yes and they and they signed off that it was not significant enough they ISS you could

take it down they issued a letter and typically the building inspector will go and see whether it has to be taken down because of health safety issues so you've done both of those processes we had a letter and the demo perit yes um I had talked to the historic commission um when it went before the zoning board the last time I talked to him for about an hour and he had said to

me that they didn't want the bond to be taken down because it was of historic significance and he had also said to me about the H The House on Highland Avenue that belongs to Chon that they were possibly going to move to the buildable a lot but he he said to me because they were not going to knock down the barn that he was going to like write a letter

of approval and I said to him well I'm going to fight against it I appreciate you telling that but I'm going to go against it so I don't understand how he changed so much either well the the initial representation from the historic commission and the letter they submitted to the zoning board of appeals again nothing we taking time from from this board for to discuss these items but

they looked at the preservation of the barn and the reconstruction complete reconstruction of this building when attorney selino says that they were going to keep some of it it could be the foundation it could be one wall but the whole building was to be reconstructed um they were in favor of that reconstruction the opposition from the neighbors directed The Board in a manner that they denied that petition

the landowner is his only option is to come up with a different petition and from what I again I have not seen this documentation but it appears as though they went through the proper steps again none of these items have anything to do with the planning board so again bring those items to the zoning board of appeals and they may carry some weight but again you you still have your rights

to an appeal if the zoning board grants this relief they they still may not again this this vote does not determine whether this is a good idea or not it's just whether or not they can go back to the board that makes that determination that is all thank you anyone else any other comments my name is Paul Ken I live in 71 Belmont Street and that street is way way too

busy to have any more know cars going by there I can't even get out of my driveway now you know I know you're going to have adequate parking but who's to say you know their kids or their friends there's no parking on the street that's about it that's all I have to say okay I feel like it's disrupting peaceful uh atmosphere of the neighborhood Absolut you I live across the street you're adding four more units

to that uh they do have parking what two spots per unit U right yeah and now we have to deal with the Art Association the uh Hospital the Deacon's home the theater it's like Mr chairman if I may to discuss with the Z Bo not and again like like Mr a stated all these items here and all these concerns uh for the neighborhood need to be brought up before the zoning

board of appeals they're the ones with the final decision on this and like Mr AG stated even if they approved it you can still um you can still uh challenge the uh the approval and uh so it's it's it's not like it's none of this is a done deal they've already been rejected from the zoning board come to us there's a substantial change bonds going and all of this and the patio the C concrete pad

in the back is gone the pocking uh layout is different so they did make a change so all we can say is okay go back to the zoning and let zoning look at this and and come up with all the uh the answers for you folks as far as uh you know all the conditions that your your concerns are can I I want to intervene on this because this is one of the

things I think a lot of people have a misperception of what the planning board does when it comes to this and that's why I made the caveat beforehand with some stipulations all we're allowed to do is say they came back with a plan was a significant change to it can they go back in front of the zoning board of appeals your comments your concerns um should be addressed with the

zoning board and less of this and so I'm a neighbor of this neighborhood I agree with what you're saying but that doesn't matter that's why I gave some at least advice to them if you're going to do this these are the things you should modify beforehand so again this is the long board to be going and asking for these changes or trying to reject it you should go in front of the the zoning

board and again it was already rejected they can come back make a change to the plans if it's significant enough they can go back in front of the zoning and they can either approve it or reject it so I just wanted to make that c c perfectly clear okay yeah any other questions what what is going to be the height of that free family that's going to be going up there's no three family

going an existing three family house that's staying that's it there's no proposal to build anything but what they're planning to do no that's not okay there's been no discussion about what they're planning to do that would have to be zoning and then build an inspector for for required Heights and so on so I get what we're trying to decide here like all we're going to do is we're going to vote

whether they made a change big enough in order to go back to Zing yeah instead of building on the existing thing they just tore it down they well we're not we're not here for any of the building or anything like that we're just going by what he's proposing the changes he's made and do we think it's the change is significant enough which it is and it'll go back now they'll handle that portion

of it um you know if they got any more concerns this is where that's where you definitely going to bring up all your just not understanding there is no proposal to build any new structure in the back where the barn was there will be nothing else on that line the existing three family house and parking spaces that's it there is no proposal for reconstructing a barn building a new

three family that's all gone that's why this board is looking at it and saying that's a pretty substantial change you removed that whole half of the project so may maybe you misunderstood that you thought they were still going to try to build a three no that's not that is not the case so the changes are is just the uh now all they're doing is cutting out a conforming lot to the left

which was still part of the initial petition but anything about increasing the number of units on the lot where the existing houses that's not part of this petition and they can't go back before before the zor board of appeals with that they can only go back with what this proposal allows them to go back with so really discussing the lot on the side conforming one and eliminate the

bond eliminate the pad that's out of the picture so you got a three Family House driveway and then you got that proof lot on the side just just to clarify for a fourth perspective um so basically they went before the zba they were denied so in theory they want to go back with another little change hoping it would get approval of the zba and our regulations say you have to wait a year in order to

go back with another petition because we don't want to waste the board's time and but we have a little caveat as Mike said whereas if he can come back and and show to the planning board that the new proposal is different enough from the first one that was submitted in October then we will okay them to go before the zba to argue their case for this different proposal and like they

all said you can go to zba you'll be given notice and you can say yay nay or maybe and come with some kind of settlement but all we're allowed to do is review the new plan versus the one they submitted to zba in October and is it are the changes significant enough or we think they'll have another shot you know another bite of the apple and go before the zba and give notices to all

the the neighbors does that make it a different perspective does that help a little bit so we don't know what they're going to build a lot too we don't know we just know that right now there's no longer going to create any Apartments any units in the barn they took that down they're just reconfiguring it adding some some um some Al parking like Mike said they could add some other stuff but all we're determining is Is

this different enough that they have another shot at going before the CPA that's all we're doing any other questions your concerns are all Val it's just not for this board okay do uh do anyone want to make a motion to accept or to so send this back to the zoning board I'll make a motion motion by Beth second I second second by Gloria all in favor Beth yes Michael yes

laia yes and I John forever vote Yes as well thank you thank you Mr all right number two on the new business a form a application for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval and our plan of land file number 24163 on applicant North Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses for Massachusetts property location 100 Northeastern Avenue assessors map l-9 lot 84 for the record my name is Jeffrey

onel I'm Council for North congregation um with the LA fir Marsh morard on tell and Golder at 99 um I knew I would blank out anyway we're in danver's Mass okay I your last name again o n t e l l

so we get sir so we're back here uh We've submitted a revised plan which shows both the existing conditions and the updated conditions which was requested or required by the board we've worked with the abutters to and all the parties have agreed or all the parties that have communicated with us have agreed to the to the revisions basically what's happened here is there's a paper street called blundon

Street which runs through the parking lot of the North congregation's Church we are not looking to change the conf um it's a it's an asphalt parking lot we we're not changing any of the conditions on the ground we are merely um asking this board to approve the plan um as an anr plan and as I said all the parties have signed off on it we've gone to the land Court we've gotten a judgment which

would basically approve which has approved what we plan to do here and basically once we if this plan is approved by the board we will then be able to record the plan record the Judgment of the land Court we'll be recording an a boundary line agreement which has been signed off on all the by all the parties with the plan reference and we will be done Z I don't have anything to add

beyond what I added last time I think we were we were generally waiting for the court case to be finished and the appropriate paperwork to be submitted so that attorney Pico could review it I don't have any of so yeah I did review everything I did get all this ahead of time so this is an anr and we've mentioned this before I know you haven't been here before but in order for us to

approve the anr plan requireed that reference be on the plan as to like for example the recorded variance in your case we want um we want reference to the recorded boundary line agreement that should be recorded before you submit that plan to us likewise the defa Judgment either record that or reference in the plan reference to the docket number where the default judgment was signed off and then on the uh agement

for judgment I saw that the court did U approve the joint motion for agreement for judgement however normally the court will stamp the motion and the agreement and you can reference that but when I pulled up the case today that wasn't on I don't think that's a problem my only uh issue is that in order for us to approve the an anr you need to reference the authority which would be the the fa

judgment the boundary agreement so record those record the boundary agreement first include that reference on your plan include the reference in the pl of default judgement if recorded than the docket number so anyone doing titled can look at that and then the agement for judgment was approved uh maybe reference that as well in the plan then next time we can just sign off on anr because it's approv not required

true um so just so I understand so you you're asking for a revised plan that has the references you just set the authority The Authority because right now I looked today before coming thinking maybe you guys have recorded this yesterday yeah you need to record the boundary agreement and reference that in this plan and then and then reference the default judgment so the docket in the land court case on the

plan and then even reference the agreement for judgment which was approved by the the judge in a way it's a catch 22 because the boundary line agreement will be will be will typically refer to a recorded plan so you're now essentially requiring me to record a boundary line agreement which references an unrecorded plan so an anr plan means approval not required true it it it exists so in order to sign

this excuse in order for us to sign this it needs to reference the authority where those lots are all own you know paral AB all exist can you record an exhibit plan with the Judgment that's what we would have to do yeah and then this would allow you to because the anr is what would create Parcels that you could then convey to the appropriate authorities and clear up who

owns what or in the agreement but if if they're going to require that the plan come first and maybe you just exhibit plan here within or something like that I don't know I I think we we plan to attach the plan to the boundary line agreement which in which the parties agree to convey the various Parcels to each other as set forth on the plan um it just frankly I don't know that I have ever

seen an agreement with which refers to an unrecorded plan right so I think I think the caveat is you'd have an exhibit referencing this plan recording that agreement because it just being exhibit that this boundary um uh boundary G would not have any legal significance but the parties would know if this laot parcel a parcel B parcel C ever exists we agree that's yours that's mine I'm going to maintain XYZ so you

record that as Mr AAR said with an exhibit that the parties agreed to and then on this anr plan that we can sign off on you'll reference the recorded boundary line agreement uh and recorded you know the default judgment for the court and the doc number for the land court case because when people do SUB development usually do all that they they reference that they reference these

board so would uh Daniel would uh what motion we making on this you guys decide I make a motion we I sign two meetings ago but that's up to you because this this plan is not an anr plan just like we need the reference to the variants recorded we need the variant to be recorded before we get the anr plan likewise we need the boundary of been reported before we app approve the St

plan they did get a court uh judgment saying that know they approved the false judgment was okay so we need to reference that docket number here because someone pulling up this plan doesn't know that the court approved this default judgment but the default judgment will be recorded okay great so reference the default judgment so if you if you're going to reference the default judgment great but in lie of that if you

want to just reference on the plan the docket number that'd be significant to so record that and then the plan will be ready for us to sign off on it as an a not I hear you yes I make a motion to deny the plan until it gets proper references to the proc second motion okay all in favor Gloria y Beth yes Michael yes and I John Ferrero V yes as well to make this

significant changes yeah we need the referen to thank you thank you very much thank you thank you okay item number three form a application for endorsment the plan believ not to require excuse me approval our plan of land file number 24164 owner applicant SD Dreams LLC property location 357 and 361 montop Street census map G14 lot two so this is another uh anr plan where we have two existing structures

constructed prior to 1954 where they s zoning will be a special permit from the zoning Board of appe allowing the subdivision of the parcel that reference is located in the notes on the plan and the plan has been prepared in accordance uh with the approved variance plan so with that I would uh offer that the plan is eligible for endorsement any questions by the board no I have a motion to uh to approve the anr

as submitted make a motion re endorse the plan as submitted by Gloria second a second second by be all in favor Gloria yes Michael Yes Beth yes and I John far vote Yes as well number four form a application for endorsement of plan believe to require approval approval anr plan of land file number 24-105 owner applicant tetral real estate LLC property location 419 Laurel Street cessors map c-8 lot

32 this is um a submission of anr plan for the real estate at 419 Laurel there is an existing single family home at the corner of Laurel and N the applicant appeared before the zoning board of appeals and was granted zoning relief allowing him to cut out out a new lot along Mison Street leaving the existing single family home on lot one which fronts on Laurel Street the appropriate reference is noted in the um note

section for the recording of that zoning decision and the plan has been prepared in accordance with what was presented to the zoning board of appeals with that I would offer that the plan is eligible for endorsement any comments by the board on this one I just have one question Dan I don't know is kind of atypical in Fall River but it seems like we're creating um conforming Lots on here and then at

the end of the day we're leaving the existing nonconforming and it's non-conforming on a multiple of levels like so for instance the lot one is 41.7 and the conforming is 80 fet so is that are we are we just we just feel free to feel free to attend the Zoning Board of appe meeting and during public comment offer your concerns okay again this is not this is not before the prev I I know we keep saying

that but we keep having the conversations if you have an issue with regarding how the zoning board of appeals is handling situations by all means appear before them and have that discussion with them okay well I want to make this on public record that if we keep on getting these things you know you did what you were supposed to do you created a a conforming law but then you're split up they receed zoning

relief this is the planning board okay the zoning board of appeals determined that this subdivision is acceptable and granted relief so that that law could be created I have a motion to accept I'll deny we have to accept it because right so a motion by Mike yeah motion I'll second second by Gloria roll call Gloria yes Beth yes Mike yes and I this as well all right we'll get the minutes of the

meeting the first one will be August 22 meeting Mario and I have to run upstairs sorry we have a serent meeting at 6:30 by the way going to make that I saw that we'll see you guys after all right um okay Michael you can't vote on this one on Mario uh has everybody looked at the meetings Beth myself and uh glorio yes motion we approve the minutes of the August 22nd meeting second yes second by

Beth all in favor laia yes Beth myself yes now we'll go to the October meeting um oh I wasn't there uh no you can't make so October 9th board meeting did you the minutes yes any concerns with the minutes or no iwed it as have a motion a motion I second thank you fav I vote Yes Mike yes F yes all right November 13th Michael wasn't here um everybody's got a Cy of the

minutes do we have a motion to approve I make a motion to approve laua second I second all in favor Beth yes laua yes and I John for vote Yes as well all right we don't have any citizens input the only thing we do have did did you hand out the uh meeting schedule for next year anybody does everybody have a meeting schedule yes yes is everybody fine with them dates

you already approved it I was just oh we did okay okay so that's set own board they asked for physical copy okay so since the done do I have a motion to adjourn Mo second second second by Michael all in favor Gloria yes hi John F yes Michael Yes Beth yes and that's it have a good night everyone