12.15.2022 Zoning Board of Appeals

good evening I'm David Assad the chairman of the zoning board of appeals for the city of Fall River this is the zoning board of appeals for the city of Fall River at 6 pm on Thursday December 15 2022 we are meeting at one government center in the first floor hearing room pursuant to Massachusetts General Law chapter 38 section 20 subsection F I hereby notify all persons in attendance

that this meeting is being recorded with both video and audio devices Fall River government TV Craig Salvador is recording both the video and audio version if anyone desires to make an audio video a combination recording thereof please notify me now and I'll shall make a public announcement of your intention our recording secretary this evening is Nina Krueger the lady to my immediate right

present this evening from my left to right are permanent members John Frank James cawkin Vice chair Joe Pereira Dan duper and Alternate members Ricky sahadi and John Silvia also present is the interim city planner Christopher perrano the man sitting next to the uh the laptop in the front of the mayor and city of Fall River engineer Dan aguiar the man to my immediate left overseer of the planning department

Nina have all petitions to be considered been properly advertised in all interested parties notified in accordance with the rules and regulations of the zoning board of appeals in Massachusetts General Law chapter 48 is amended yes yes I declare the December 15 2022 regularly scheduled meeting of the zoning board of appeals of the city of Fall River opened for such business as shall regularly come before it

I remind all persons presenting before the board including the petitioners of Butters anyone in support or anyone opposed to the petition that your presentation should be limited to three minutes questions and responses must be directed through the chairman the board's rules and regulations direct the board to specifically look for information which supports the petitionist claim as such the petitioner

should identify and factually support the basis for the petition I again advise the petitioners and all interested persons that this board is the zoning board of appeals this board's Authority exists pursuant to Massachusetts General Law chapter 48 and is limited in scope and deals with the use of land as regulated by chapter 86 of the ordinances of the city of Fall River additional permits licenses reviews and

or approvals may be required for the specific development and or use which is the subject of the petition before the zoning board this evening the clerks in the building planning engineering water and Licensing departments are competent in the discharge of their duties as clerks they are however not lawyers and are not competent to give legal advice the action taken by this board has a

real and Lasting effect upon the title to your real estate I urge all persons to see competent legal counsel before filing your petitions and after the decision of the board has been made for example there is a city ordinance 2015-11 section 10-1 requiring site plan reviews a copy of the ordinance is available at the city clerk's office or from the planning department I remind everyone that the building

inspector is the zoning enforcement officer and the authority and you are here this evening because the building inspector has determined that your proposed action is contrary to the city of Fall River zoning ordinances the city Charter section 9-18 mandates that all multiple member bodies develop and adopt rules or policies for public comment we have adopted such a policy which ensure provides for citizen input

on zoning board specific matters at the end of this meeting there's a sign up sheet in the back if anyone wants to sign up and speak to the board after the agenda items are done I disclose that an official copy of the four of his owning ordinance is available at the city clerk's office one cannot rely on the online zoning ordinance are there any questions before we begin we're honored this evening to have the

mayor of the city of Fall River Mr Paul Coogan uh here I don't know why you see it I'm here because uh this is Dave Assad's last meeting as chairman of the zoning board he has been a great Steward of this board for a long time he's competent he's concerned he works extremely hard at his job and he represents the city fairly and I'm gonna seriously miss him as a member of this

board with that being said I bought him a mayoral citation in honor and recognition of 14 dedicated years of service as the chairman of the Fall River zoning board of appeals and his commitment to all the citizens of Fall River Dave we're going to miss you a lot

and thank you all for coming out because without citizen participation and the administration it wouldn't work thank you all I'm sure thank you thank you Mr Mayor okay I'll be ready let's start with agenda item zero one Abbott and Farnam LLC care of attorney Thomas P colaran 100 Weaver Street map T3 lot 15. it's the applicant seeks a varying special permit to demolish the existing structure and construct a 160

foot tall 346 unit multi-family dwelling in a CMD commercial Mill District waving front side and rear yard setbacks and Building height along with parking requirements good evening attorney call Lauren good evening Mr chairman members of the board for the record attorney Thomas killorn on behalf of the applicant Abbott and Farnam with me tonight is Jeff Tallman who is the site design engineer

as I think the members of this board are well aware this is an application that was filed back in the summer of 2022 we came before this board I think it was either June or July asked for it to be tabled and subsequent to that there were some additional cablings that lead us to tonight's hearing I think at least some of the makeup of this board um was still was serving in back in 2019

this property 100 Weaver Street came before the board at that time for the development of a uh multi-story residential apartment complex that was ultimately approved by this board I do have a copy of that decision if the chairman the board would find that helpful I can certainly pass that out that approval was for 192 units the site plan that was submitted with that application was not to take away from Mr tolman's

engineering capabilities but it was eerily similar to the uh plan that's before the board tonight at least in terms of the building footprint obviously the scope of the building or size of the building overall has changed but in terms of its footprint it's virtually identical that was as to what was submitted to the board back in 2019 and ultimately approved by the board our application as it comes before you

tonight is the 346 units what was approved back in 2019 was 192 units uh one of the things and one of the reasons why we've come before this board so many times and asked for it to be tabled is the applicant was working with their investors and really crunching numbers to come to what I would call a bottom line number of units in order to make this project work I would suggest

to the board that there's a reason why the 2019 project that was approved was never constructed unfortunately it didn't work from an economic standpoint and then with the onset of the covid-19 pandemic and the spike in building costs which I don't think is a secret to anyone it became all the more impractical so when this property was being looked at again to be developed that approval uh

the 192 unit uh apartment building simply wasn't working from an economic standpoint when we submitted our application again it was for 346 units but again over the past few months there have been a number of discussions about how many units is needed in order to make this project work because there has been some feedback from various City officials about the size of the proposed project

so we're coming before the board tonight and I just want to to make it clear that we're not asking for 346 units any longer we're looking for virtually a 15 decrease or 296 units um is what would actually be proposing tonight if the board was so inclined uh to Grant the requested relief can as stated um the building footprint is virtually identical to what was previously approved there would be a need for rear

yard setback and both side yard setbacks on the east and west side the closest proximity of the building on the west side is four feet on the east side is 5.8 feet and the closest proximity in the rear yard is 4.5 feet there is a three level parking configuration once one level would be underground then there would be a ground level parking configuration which would include some outdoor parking area and

then a a second floor parking area the proposed parking spaces are 346 spaces again for the 296 units that are being proposed one of the issues I I think that well it has been voiced by by some people in the city um it may be a question of this board I know it was something that we discussed at one of the um hearings that we held in terms of information that we were trying to

gather uh was a traffic study and unfortunately due to Weaver Street being closed this was not something that we were able to accomplish at this point but as this board is well aware any approval that is received by this board excuse me granted by this board would be contingent upon site plan approval um and certainly that is something that if the city felt was needed they could require as part of the site plan

approval process unfortunately it was something that we hope to be able to have completed and be able to present to this board it's just not something um that they've been able to do at this time having said that and Mr Tallman maybe can expand upon this point a little bit um based on the configuration of the units that are going to be there and it's being proposed as being two bedroom one

bedroom and Studio styled units this is not a development that is conducive to family style living we think this is going to be young professionals or empty nesters which would certainly reduce the amount of traffic is going to be people that are leaving for work in the morning and returning later on at night there's not a lot of residential use in the immediate area with the exception as I'm

sure this board is aware of the Border City Mills Apartments which is immediately adjacent to this property that's a five-story 107 unit apartment complex so I think the use that we're proposing here certainly fits in with the character of the neighborhood so we have a large residential use next door and then we have some what I call a mix of commercial style industrial style uses nearby but from a a you know a a

location standpoint it's ideally situated it's that actually butts against the Route 79 Expressway it's less than a mile and a half away from the new commuter rail train station that will be opening we think that this proposed use is something that would be beneficial to the city and beneficial to its inhabitants it'll be obviously a brand new structure with brand new apartment units and it will hope

hopefully help Revitalize the city's ongoing revitalization um Mr Tallman anything you want to add on the on the traffic component no not at this time I I you know if questions do come up maybe I could answer them um but at this point I think we're good obviously the building height um exceeds what is allowed by zoning um it's presently being proposed as a 12-story um building roughly 156 feet

in height we understand that that exceeds what is allowed by zoning but I would suggest to the board that is what is necessary in order to make a development at this piece of property viable with the reduction in units I think we would lose a floor that is cool so based on based on a recent discussion that that is correct so so that would take off one story and which I think is roughly about 12 years

obviously would be happy to entertain any questions from from the board well the use um as I understand it looking at the table it's correct me if I'm wrong please you could have the multi-family uh dwelling units underage grid 20 or more as a matter of right you don't need any permission for that is that correct special permit correct CMD special permit you need that to have the 20 or

more units right a special apartment that's for the use but the use is something that's considered in this District correct okay the variance has to do with the height and the dimensional requirements of the building but those are the waivers that you're looking for by way of variance is that correct that's correct but lot as it exists is a conforming lot there's nothing wrong with the lot it's the it's

the development of it that's requiring you to ask for these variances in special permit that is correct in the hardship that you're looking for is not one dealing with the shape topography or soil condition of the property it is the hardship from the financial point of view of this particular development is that correct mind if I understand what you're proposing that that is correct okay

all right members of the board I mean that's that's the presentation you've got your hand ask the question okay I'm sure what's your configuration for um the units you said two one and Studio what are your numbers uh proposed is uh 70 would be two bedroom fifteen percent one bedroom and 15 Studio which is about a a breakdown of around 210 2 bedroom 45 one bedroom and 45 Studio I

think I did that off of 300 units but so it would be a slight difference based off of 296. so 210 two bedroom correct 45 and 45 45 and 45. right which gets you to 300 I I know what that was here number that I thought we were at it's actually 296 so I can run that again around what's your height you said it's going to change probably be closer to 144 as opposed to the 156

that's showing on the plan do you have a precise because if the board is thinking of granting it I don't want you coming back for two feet um if you if we could cap it at 150. okay now I just want to be surprised you know it's got to go two feet then you're coming back for the thing so 150 is where you think it's good yes that would work Dan what else yeah

Joe you were going to say something so in the numbers crunch since you're going to try to use financials as a hardship this configuration this number of units this height is the break-even point or the break make money point big money Point correct okay I mean that obviously nobody's going to move project move forward the project of this size and scope if it's nobody's going to make

any money off it sat on your side of the the board at any times sometimes sites sometimes things just don't work um okay so there's no there's no reducing the footprint there's no reducing the height except by this 12 feet that we're talking about now correct the the footprint of the building itself like like I stated is similar to what was approved in 2019 almost virtually identical

um the difference obviously is in the height of the building uh that one was roughly six stories in height um and this one would be more like 11.

yeah we didn't reinvent the wheel with the building uh on this plant as opposed to 2019 we just modified it to get it to the point where it would work financially for the uh Developers I have nothing else Mr true Jim just the the stories in the paper about a targeted population did that not materialize or was just that not part of the goal um not I I think it it didn't materialize and that's not certainly

something that would be part of the presentation of what we're bringing to this board is that anything else Jim John no all right um I'll get I'm going to ask TNA after we get the citizen input if there's anything that the director of planning the engineering should tell us about uh is there anyone here in favor of this petition is there anyone here opposed to this petition Okay so

I'll stop Mr Cavallo I'll stop in the back because I don't see anybody on this side nobody on this side but I'll start with Mr Cavallo then the gentleman next to him I don't know if anybody else then I saw return 11 so we'll turn 11 have the last word uh Joseph Cavallo 400 Columbia Street Fall River uh almost identical to me is like if I had a twin from 2019 to now this is this is

different it's not identical and just as a as a back story I had I had flown Abbott and Farnam way back uh and spoke to a Mr Perez that and and I had I I didn't say that I was in favor or opposed I was just looking for information and Mr and and we spoke at length and uh I had mentioned to Mr Perez that I'm a disabled Vietnam veteran

and within a few weeks of that the article came in the paper that all of a sudden not that it had ever been mentioned before about preference being given or these units were going to be for veterans nowhere with that ever mentioned before to my knowledge it wasn't mentioned here this evening either the only question that came up was Mr Caulkins asking about the newspaper article and like I said Mr

chair it was a part of the backstory now uh Mr Perez did uh reach out to me again tried to call me uh just before the the first meeting that I attended and uh that night I thought that he would be here and I had called him because I had talked to some of the residents in the neighborhood and uh who were opposed to it and they voiced their opposition at that meeting

so I called Mr Perez and I left a message for him that I was now in the opposition to this project okay can you tell us what your opposition is to the project thank you the height okay 14-story building uh secondly 150 150 feet correct uh no I just want to be clear about the height because oh that's 11 Stars 150 it was 160. the ordinance provides for 80 feet or six stories so

it's greater than what the ordinance is go ahead yeah and uh one of the other principles Mr mccarrick McCaffrey no no no so tell me about tell me about the project I don't know the personalities don't excite well no it wasn't personality he he spoke to me on the phone at length yes about 45 minutes and told me that they they might adjust it to a 10-story building do you remember

saying that to me well it doesn't matter the pre what's before the board right now is 150 footboard so I'm gonna post to it on on the size yeah the height yes and and also the the parking lot because to the proximity to the Tongue River and the runoff of anti-freeze gas oil brake fluid whatever else is going to be we this City's paying 45 million dollars for a CSO project so we don't need to be

flooding the talking River once again with with lousy stuff so that's the top okay that's the topic of what we brought up if it gets approved probation commission no no with site plan review or maybe conservation but this is the zoning board of appeals what they're looking for is a variance on the height and on some of the setbacks involved they also need a special permit that says is this project conducive to the

neighborhood we have to have a finding if we're going to Grant the special permit where we have non-residentially zoned area where the public good would be served and after refining by the special permit granting Authority that such non-residential zoned area would not be adversely affected by such a residential use and that the permitted uses in such a zone are not noxious to a multi-family

use I mean those are the standards that we that this board has to deal with to come up with whether or not we Grant or deny this petition and I know that you've been here and you're concerned about it I want to hear those specific items about what you're objecting to the telephone calls and the newspaper articles they don't do it for us at least for me well Massachusetts general laws chapter 48 section 10 is

everybody's aware of uh number two is no substantial detriment to the public good and and in my opinion humble as it may be I feel that it's it's a a detriment to the public good I got that thank you thank you thank you Mr cabal sir um unless Mr Floren attorney call Lauren has anything he wants to respond to that so far I don't okay the gentleman from I think the preservation Society yep yes

sir Alexander Silva 263 Pine Street board of directors member of the preservation side Fall River um for the record we have these credentials has been filed so you can speak on behalf of the reservation Society thank you uh members of the zoning board of appeals the preservation Society of Fall River respectfully asked that the zba denied the variance and special permit requests for the property

at 100 Weaver Street standing at 160 feet tall now 150 feet tall the proposed 14 story now 12-story building would overshadow the entire North End of Fall River and set a terrible precedent ahead of the increase development along the city's Waterfront fall River's own Waterfront urban renewal plan stresses that new developments in the area blend with the neighborhood around them as

well as its nearby historic structures the Waterfront plan the water plans propose design guidelines specifically for the zoning board of appeals say that new buildings in the historic districts should relate harmoniously to their neighborhood context by establishing relationships relationships of use scale Dimensions design patterns and materials that are compatible with the historic

design character of adjacent buildings the Circa 1873 Border City Mill number two building stands close by at five stories tall rather than complementing this Monument of flower craftsmanship the new development would hide it and the Waterfront from view of the public the city's existing zoning recognizes the value of part of its historic Skyline as well the proposed 14-12-story

uh 150 foot building is located within a historic commercial Mill District which limits buildings to six stories and 80 feet in height as you well know but this is a decision to waive all setbacks Building height restrictions and parking requirements for 346 units sorry to the correct amount of units we've got it less than the three less than the 396.

296 units and parking requirements for 296 units would be detrimental to the neighborhood and do nothing to maximize the area's potential for the city instead only maximizing profits for the developer at the cost of Fall River if we are insure resident of Harvard residents will continue to benefit from Farmers historic Skyline and Waterfront it is vital that these assets are protected and not walled off by

development unreflective of the community sincerely the preservation sorry Fall River voice directors thank you is there anyone else opposed to this petition attorney what evening for example board my name is attorney Mark L Levin Laura set 138 Rock Street Fall River Massachusetts I'm here tonight representing the Stanley Street treatment resources Inc they are the parcel directly across the

street from this applicant at 75 Weaver Street they strongly oppose this project not only from the community in the area of Lodge but the personal injury that they believe they will suffer first I'm happy to hear some of the points that I would normally make aren't necessary would would be that once you eliminate this building then you got 2.9 acres to do whatever you want with it certainly a large piece

of property to conform to what the zoning bylaws require the statute on the 48 section 10 specific specifically says this board can grant if three things are found all three things have to be found one owning circumstances to soil shape topography with the structures affecting this property than anyone else's well they've conceded that that's not the case and in fact most of the properties are very odd

shaped along the Waterfront just by the natural curve of that property they all have that over there so I won't even get into that detail what is required to prove because they haven't met that burden so that's already a reason not to approve this second the one thing that they do say the reason why they're asking you to build such a large project with the number of parking spaces that won't

be adequate for this property because now I've heard they're going to be two one in studios I assumed before these are no more than one bedroom in that the fact you would have two bedrooms in there certainly encourages the idea that they might be a family it might be Maryland's good one a child at least so you will find cars not only on that property but on the street and across

the street which my clients are afraid will be their property where they had painstakingly built their property to make sure they met the requirements of packing for what they would need and for their structure so the hardship they're not telling you they can't use the property for reasonable purposes they're saying they're not going to make as much money and for them to do this project the way

they want they want more units now the law is very clear that the deprivation of a potential economic Advantage does not not qualify as a substantial hardship it doesn't uh that's in the barisi versus the appeals of Hingham uh the court said there that we do not construe the use of the words Financial otherwise in the statute to mean deprivation of a potential Advantage constituting a

substantial hygiene in fact this is in the governor regulation that's stopping them from making money they could make money they could build a project what they had remember when the central Mill District was put together the idea was to take an existing building on a property we have it to bring it to life to use it for some other programs so that they could convert this these historical buildings some historical

would be used again in putting residentialism would be a good thing he ain't talking about taking it down the property building a very tall tower yes it's a little small tonight but you're putting the number of people there it's like thousands of percent over the density that's required for what I saw in the plans they're talking about using up 95 of the impervious materials so you're

not going to see anything out there about a parking lot in a building now the fact that they may not have the profits they want or possible for possible resale or for rent it's not a hardship Court said that in Dion versus the appeals of warfare now can they do something that doesn't substantially harm the public in the natives yes it's not this project my clients in particular say that the overall effect

of this property and the use in the density is going to be far out birds in this neighborhood in this District my kind alone painstakingly built a building without this being there but taking into account what was there at the time they designed it they actually have a glass front that was designed with I'm not an engineer special materials in order to absorb the light during the winter of

Tahiti in this property and to release it during the summer this building will Tower over that property at certain times a day yes it may not do it all the time but it's going to cover this property at times as it will other people in the front election in turn 11 is your client built the building and they did it without the use of the variance of special permits that is

correct they can fall I just I just wanted to yeah I don't remember them coming they conform to zoning they built it particularly to make sure they would meet that zoning they made sure that their parking spaces were made for every use of that property and that's the other fear they have you're only talking about reducing it by 50 units you're still saying you're short 100 and some units for parking and

that's only if you have one bedroom with two people that have two cars now I hear there's going to be two bedrooms there you could have three cars for each of the owners where they're gonna Park my client shuts down the evening and opens up at five in the morning it's an empty parking lot it's open I think I know where they're gonna pop they're really gonna Park on Weaver Street which is as they say very

congested now it will be in the future especially with the activities that are going on there they're either going to have to park on Weaver Street or the ground unfortunately Park on my client's property and at five in the morning when the patients come in they may not have a place to park or make it very inconvenient for them some of these patients use Walkers and other facilities

wheelchairs to get into the property this is going to interfere with them it's not just a guess it's actually it's going to happen my clients shouldn't be burdened to hire Gods to police their property at night to make sure it isn't overburdened now section 86 2 of the zoning fire was has a purpose it's supposed to promote this health safety convenience and Jenny welfare of the city not only is it

supposed to do that you're supposed to be able to use land to make sure it lessens the congestion in the streets to not overcrowd the land here we're talking about a tower and complete parking lot for the entire piece of property um you're going to have problems with giving adequate light to not only my client's property but others as someone mentioned before let's get a tower over there now no one's

saying probably shouldn't be used for some usefulness and it can be almost three acres of land you could build something practical and not interfere with all your neighbors foreign

if you have a two-bedroom property you're going to have families you're going to have a child on that property from time to time where are they going to play are they going to play in the parking lot they're going to ride their bicycles in your parking lot to get a ride there by schools on Weaver Street I mean you're talking about absorbing every nook and cranny of this lot for a parking area this there's no

real Green Space there's no real area they're going to be able to use they're not going to be playing along the highway no one's going to want their kids being there for what the Green Space they have it's going to be a problem and they're going to end up in other people's parking lots and I see that my client will see that problem not by the objectively occasional use of it

but with you know now 196 Apartments you're gonna have a lot of people looking for parking spaces and using their property instead I think that you're opening up something that actually throws out your entire or eyewear I mean not one of the eight points that the Bible is supposed to meet is met by this project it's against the project I won't read the whole uh information I submitted to you earlier with the law

and everything but remember just because you apply for a permit doesn't mean you're entitled to a permit the law doesn't confer a leon or any legal right to a variant or a special permit um they have not shown you they've met the three requirements under chapter 10.

back I suggest they've met none thank you thank you attorney before I go on attorney Paul would you like to respond yes thank you thank you um addressing issues such as view sunlight things like that I would suggest to the board that case law is abundantly clear that unless a particular municipalities bylaw ordinance protects those things that is not something for this board and

certainly not something that the courts have taken into consideration when deciding whether or not a variance or a special permit is appropriate to suggest that you know the construction of this building or perhaps any other building on this property is is going to deprive their neighbor Stanley Street treatment and resources of sunlight in the way that they constructed their building I

would suggest is a bit of a specious argument and and I would ask the board not to really take that into consideration when making a determination tonight the fact that somebody builds something hoping that they were going to get a certain amount of sun in there uh Windows um shouldn't deter this board from granting relief to a neighboring piece of property and I was suggest the same

goes for a view and I heard multiple references not by attorney 11 but by the the preceding gentleman who talked about views and protecting the waterfront we're dealing with a property that it butts up against route 79. it does not butt up against the Waterfront Route 79 in this area if I'm not mistaken is is significantly elevated from ground level so there if you're standing out on

Weaver Street and looking out you're not seeing a border view from from that area and if you are you've got a I would suggest you've got a strain considerably in order to see one the building itself that's at the property is not a historic commercial Mill as I think attorney 11 was was alluding to in terms of what was in mind when this commercial Mill District was put into place it's like a prefab steel

building that's there we're not demolishing something that looks like the Border City former use in a commercial District right but but it is it is not the building itself it's right it's a manufacturing facility Domingos is making uh engineered wood right but it's not an old commercial Mill in the city of Fall River that that's that is my point that what's being removed isn't the Border City Mills type of building

um which again there's been plenty of references to that by Me by some of the others that have that have spoken tonight I mean that's 107 units that's 190 bedrooms that that's there so obviously there's multi bedroom units in that facility as well I would suggest to the board as far as what our research could tell there's not issues of overcrowding there's not issues of kids overrunning the neighborhood there's not

issues of parking spaces from neighboring properties being occupied I would suggest that that's a bit of a disingenuous argument and purely speculative on the part of attorney 11.

I know he suggested aboard that it's definitely going to happen I would suggest to you that that's not something that's going to happen and if it was it was something that could be easily rectified by Stanley Street treatment resources and I wouldn't require the posting of guards as suggested um I understand the preamble to the bylaw I understand the sections that attorney 11 wrote uh hits his opinion that

um was being proposed uh would detract from the safeguards that are outlined in the Preamble from the health safety General Welfare of the city and its inhabitants create overcrowding I would suggest that that is not the case I would suggest that you know based on the type of units that are going to be constructed there that the parking is certainly adequate that nobody's health or safety is being jeopardized if this

project were to move forward I would suggest just to the contrary there is going to be a beautiful new building constructed for the inhabitants of the city and perhaps others who are looking to move into the city in which to reside uh with the Advent of the upcoming of the commuter rail there's going to be a desire to have some new housing for people for young professionals and we'd

suggest that this building provides just that thank you return nicolor Mr chairman yeah rookie one quick question am I hearing you correctly are you saying that if this project is approved as is that there are no parking issues whatsoever am I hearing you correctly is this what you're telling us that the what we're what the parking that we propose we anticipate that it's not going to be an issue is that that's

what I'm suggesting to the board how many are Mr chairman how many parking places are not not continue here why is why is the value how many are we short they're not they're not looking for a variance on or a special permit on a waiver of pocket right yeah I mean it is shortly right yeah especially foreign

I'm suggesting that the parking that is proposed we're confident that it would be adequate for the units that are contemplated I think you're possible I I don't mean to be evasive to your question Mr sahadi I I don't I we're asking for relief from the parking requirement the relief that we're asking for we think would be adequate for the units along with parking requirements I got it

okay no no you're right Ricky this is not one to one they need they need a waiver a special permit of the reduction in the parking for this particular product approximately the one half shot that's correct yeah yeah so I had a question but wait Ricky is there anything else all right Dan because I was going to ask you give me your give the board the benefits keep referencing the original

approval back in 2018. you know what the parking ratio was at that time I do give me one second I can tell you I'm 47. so it was 192 units sure and 237 space 237 space tell me what that ratio is it doing a math thing uh yeah 1.23 spaces per unit okay and what's the ratio now so 296 and 346 1.69 1.17 so we have a slight difference in in the body ratio right correct yeah

um on the building itself when we're talking 11 stories how many stories are residential are the parking decks included in that 11 yes so the entire structure is no more than 11. I think it would be nine nine residential floors so the ground level would be parking in the uh first story would be pocket so so you could say that the height of the building the required height is to accommodate the parking

that's correct yeah um beyond that so the applicant understands that if the board finds his way to approve this this building footprint is what you're locked into nothing else this is a specific building showing on a plan that will be approved this is the footprint no alteration to it understood and then just lastly this is just a a matter of how things work for six months when

we've asked for items to be tabled we've requested that if a revised plan be submitted that it is done well in advance of this meeting so that proper review could take place that clearly was not done and I know that I've reached out to you multiple times before every meeting including within the last two weeks and I was you know when I was told I think we're going ahead with what was

originally submitted so to come in tonight and then just change numbers around without a specific plan to look at or approve is is kind of difficult I would I would think for the board to move on something that is this significant but again I don't vote I'm just offering up what what my opinion is thank you but I just responded with that last comment oh you well respond then I see attorney 11 with his

hand God attorney call Lauren there's there is no doubt that Mr aguir has reached out to me he reached out to me I think uh middle of last week and at the end of last week asking for an updated plan or a modified plan if it was going to be a modified plan um I told him that we were going to be moving forward with what we submitted uh unfortunately the decision to reduce the

number of units only came think two days ago but officially today so I know I know what the request was and we certainly weren't doing that you know as any disrespect to this board certainly not to Mr aguiar I certainly wish that we had that information ahead of time so we could have come in with a revised plan thank you Judy love you yeah I just want to address the comment that is flooring had about

cities bylaws must address light and air and specifically in section 86.2 it states to provide adequate light and air into preserve and increase the amenities to soon so it is there you have the right to look at how the injury will be to neighbors including my client who will not be afforded the right to use what the zoning would have allowed and not interfered with their property thank you attorney Logan

yeah good so I know we had a discussion about potential walking studies or traffic analysis that could be done a traffic analysis could have been provided um even in the absence of current traffic counts with with current tenants and uses throughout this facility a model the co-modeling could have been done based on traffic generation models of what this building would have added

to whatever the existing traffic number is and it and a designation of level of service could have been provided just based upon anticipated traffic so something could have been submitted for your review and you still have the ability to ask for that in future I agree okay is there anyone else yeah Dan just uh bring this to light originally like you said 2019 it was 192 units only 20 of those were two bedroom

the 107. Daniel go back and read it I mean it says it was age restricted of older residents the unit breakdown 172 one bedroom and 22 bedroom units that was with your that was with that decision no I mean they're not they're not going to the parking apples and oranges two different projects yeah okay all right anyone else I just I think the reference was the reason why for the reference to

that was I understand there's a different unit configuration certainly it's a taller building certainly there are more units um the reference to that though is is that the footprint of the building itself yeah you made that clear okay I I don't know I think everybody got that I got it fair enough what is the status of that variance that was granted is as well done I think the argument was nothing more

than the board had considered something back in June of 2019 this is where we came from and now we've got this other proposal but it's the same footprint yeah it but it's not it's not viable yeah no action all right so is that it so members of the board that's what we've got you've got two pieces you've got a variance piece and you've got a special permit piece I would submit that if they can't

get through the variance part then the special permit piece um doesn't work or if we or if we go through the special permit piece first and say no we're not going to Grant the special permit and the rest of the project Falls away but by virtue of the two component pieces on the variance part you've heard the argument that this is a conforming lot that it's what they're proposing requires a variance and the hardship

that we're hearing about is not one that is associated or tied directly to the shape topography soil condition of the land it's full of its economic project for it to be viable so if we think that that meets the requirements of 48 section 10 then the board can vote on yes we can we should probably Grant the variance if we think we've met it if you don't think that they've met the

requirements of 48 section 10 then I guess the vote should be motion to deny as far as the special permit goals special permits saying in this commercial Mill District multi multi-family residential units are a permitted use if the board finds and it's a specific finding after a specific finding by the board that such non-residential zoned area could not be add would not be adversely

affected by such a residential use and that permitted use is in such a zone are not noxious to a multi-family use this is still a commercial Mill District there's still commercial uses that can go on there industrial types of uses so that's if we have if we deal with the special permit for the number of units or the multi-family units that's a component we need to deal with as far as

the parking goes that's also a special permit if we have make the determination that the parking requirements in this district for this use are adequately met and we can waive the requirements that the ordinance requires then that component piece could be granted to the petitioner and say you have we can reduce the parking so so there's really like three components of this particular vote

and if you want to start with the variance part I don't know whether or not you need to go forward with the special permit parts and if you want to start with the special permit parts then we ultimately go and I think the ultimate one has to be the variance because without the variance and the project doesn't go forward adequate summary yeah I think so the only thing I would add is that you know

you could potentially in light of the conversations that have taken place you could um offer to the applicant if the board choose to vote so to table the matter so that they could not seek a vote this evening but that's that's up to you I know we've I know we've tabled it enough times and no I think that's it tonight's the night of Reckoning it's got there's going to be a vote one way or the other

and let's let's just end it yeah all right so members of the board now that you've heard it all what do you want to do you want to start with the variance the motion to Grant motion to deny have they met the burden for that if they haven't then it should be denied if you think they have then a motion to Grant should be forthcoming I would make a motion to deny on the variance

that the hardship as expressed does not meet the requirements 40a okay which would basically say that unless the variance is granted the lock cannot be used for anything else okay so Joe Pereira makes a motion to deny the petition for a variance we have a second second stereo Dan dupaya second the motion any discussion on the motion hearing none okay John Frank yes yes yes to tonight to deny Jim

Hawkins yes yes to deny Joe Pereira yes yes Dan Jupiter yes chairman Assad yes so the variance part of this is denied and I think that sums up the case I don't think we need to go to the special permit aspects of it thank you attorney call Lauren thank you for coming thank you thank you no no thank you all for coming out it's very important that you come out and come to

the meetings when it affects your neighborhood thank you for a good presentation thank you attorney 11.

okay agenda item number one are we ready for that one let me get this stuff out of the way number one I mean you want to stay in opposition so yeah you want a copy of the plan agenda item number one Scotty and Jennifer M Rivera's attorney care of attorney Mark L Levin 15 Anderson Street math D 6 lot 16.

the applicant seeks a variance to subdivide the property into two lots leaving one parcel with the existing single-family home waving lot coverage and area the of apostle is proposed to be used to construct a single-family home with required parking waving What area in Frontage the property is located in s single family zoning District 11. Mr chairman Madam clerk members of the board again attorney Mark L Levin

law office at 138 Rock Street Fort Massachusetts I'm back in my normal habitat here instead of the other job I just did I actually have a very simple project you have a parcel of land which is quite unique from everything else it has three sides to it bounded by three streets uh most of the streets at the end are dead end streets so it's very isolated in this area now my client

has a home here decides to divide it up each possible have adequate parking and more so they actually Park their entrances were purposely done this way to make sure it would not interfere with neighbors or burning the street so we have one the new house lot gonna have the the house parking will come up on dupa Street which is a dead end Street and right now is just a vacant land across

the street then I'm the Anderson property Street property beat 15 it goes out on Endicott so we're Anderson's a small street trying to reduce the burden of any traffic there part of the thing is is that this area uh and my client does have support of all his neighbors including the neighbors across the street has had a water problem my client understands when he goes through site plan review part of

what he is going to need to do is to change the grade of his property such to make sure that the water from his property does not fall onto the neighbor's property uniqueness my client has the largest lot in this area it's a rectangular property unusually large it also has the house set in a position where the back part of the property really is not used it just sits there

it is such in an area where each side has three areas it's Unique to this neighborhood in Canada just aren't any other properties like this so we believe that we conform to what the statutory uh requirements are of 40 uh ten uh we think that this will be not a burden on the neighborhood and in fact the neighbors that did support it were proud people across the street that have had

to complain to the city with other Providence and although their property isn't the only property that may have a grade flowing toward Anderson Street they're going to change that to make sure that in site plan review it's leveled out and they're not going to have they'll have a zero runoff from that property so it should be an improvement to the neighbors from what they were complaining before what the city

was unable to resolve and that's really the presentation 11 this is a conforming lot yes it is it conforms in all respects the house was built I couldn't find a variance it was built in terms of it met all the s District requirements a front yard side yard rear yard yes okay it's just an unusually well it's not I mean it'd be 12 000 square feet six thousand extra square feet uh

the houses around them some of them have fifteen thousand some have fourteen thousand thirteen thousand it looks like everything around there is conforming well across the street directly across America you got one that's five thousand and four thousand yeah one it's a one I I don't know that four thousand looks if that's a house it says Garage on it but if you add them together it's like I

don't know I don't know where it came from that's true I didn't notice that myself I'm not sure how that goes but under uh so the proposal is I have a perfectly conforming lot with a house that's built there that conforms in all respects and what I want to do or what the proposal is to create two non-conforming lots in contradiction to 8634c that says no yacht A Lot existing on the effective

date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived shall be reduced in dimension or area below the minimum requirements set forth in this chapter the odds are lots created after such effective date shall meet at least the minimum requirements established by this chapter we've done this discussion before and we say Okay 48 section 10 allows the board to make the decision contrary to 86 34

paragraph C and now we deal with shape topography soil condition and hardship and the particular hardship that I'm hearing about this particular case is not one of development of the land I hear it's a personal hardship that someone wants to put a single-family house on is that correct that is correct it's based on the but it is an unusually large size no no I got a shape I understand what you're saying I just

want to make sure that I'm not missing something and what's there and that the grade is another thing that we're looking at to improve right now with slopes off toward Anderson that allows water to flow naturally off the property that my client had no legal requirement to bait but he will do so by building something and having to raise the grade and change that problem that's in the name

got it so it is an improvement and will enhance the amenities to that neighborhood understood members of the board questions I know that you are at a meeting a couple weeks back and the city is actually Stephanie to fix that flooding problem uh are you confident that if this was approved that there wouldn't be an issue I'm just thinking Common Sense wise when you add another property into

an area that's already flooding are we going to have that issue and then it's going to be the tax payers they're going to have to pay this like we did for that area there so what I would offer is that Common Sense isn't so common but you seem to have it um there is without seeing a design um or seeing a plan that shows topography or what the implementation of

is drainage design would be I could give you no assurance that the the existing flooding problems would not be increased or decreased without having a design in front of me and I I might remember it correct me if I'm wrong but that property that is having the issue that the city paid for I thought you had said during the meeting that it probably wouldn't have been approved yeah I mean

in today's day and age correct because it does a portion of it does fall within the flood elevation across the street having to do with the brook behind the property thank you is that these that's not my client's problem and my client is trying because site plan review which you can tell them will require that my client provide adequate ability to put zero zero runoff if it's granted absolutely corrected okay I

wanted to think that no no I mean John could do anything John just happened to be at a meeting and remembers this particular issue and I think that's good that we have the attention across the street approving this because they've seen what my client wants to do so they've signed a petition to to ask that this be approved okay Dan did I see you Hannah no Joe no not my only my only concern is the

fact that we're creating two non-conforming lots okay John Frank Jim corkins any comments okay is there anyone here in favor of this petition yes sir you identify yourself please Anderson Street I'm that individual who lives in that corner lot who has the problems plenty of meetings um when that when his lot was designed they made sure that water problems would not come into the street if you remember

properly so um I have confidence that he's going to do all the necessary things to make sure War doesn't come into my property that lot is elevated already so my concern is with the lot directly across the street from me is somebody building over there and raising the property pushing that water towards me where that water that he has now his blood now water's running off anyway you know

um so the water infiltration systems of course that's going to go all through um planning and everything else and I know nowadays like you said there's more restrictions on a lot of this stuff compared to years ago so you know as an abutment neighbor and as the attorney said all the neighbors are on in agreement with this so I know on Robin's Robinson Street or Nightingale I think it is those two streets and they

just built a lot of homes over there that under the 12 000 square feet one way I think of the street costs the same thing under a 5 000 square feet so you have a 12 000 lot you're breaking into two six thousand square foot Lots so I don't think you know Nightingale and Robin Street all the Lots conformed to 12 000 square feet of all 12 000 square feet there were no

variances required you're saying that and I don't remember that but that's this is the zoning board of appeals sir if the Mr Agri listen to it he's director of engineering if there's an engineering problem with the street or the water runoff maybe it's Mr aguiar maybe it's the water department but this is the zoning Board of appeal The Limited issue that's before this board is we have a lot the petitioners they

want us make two non-conforming lots the site plan review if this board grants it may address some of that but I I think your question about the water runoff and the drainage might be better addressed through uh Mr aguiar's office or another city department but not the zoning board right that's when I think a lot of that stuff will be addressed and not going to affect me really so that's why I'm in

favor of him being able to split a lot and being able that build the you know another small home on that lot I got it because I know like on Dickinson Street off the street more a lot across the street that's well in the 5 000 square feet and of course that got approved a few years ago I forgot the corn a lot that is I should remember I should remember and that's

better that's probably why I'm getting some I believe he's got signatures from all the neighbors so nobody's it's a small little neighborhood very friendly neighborhood yes I would appreciate the board to do the approval thank you thank you Mr chair of the board were to move in the direction of potentially approving this a condition of um zero net runoff from both Parcels should be included

the existing home and the proposal home yep yeah I agree with that I mean that gets handled to the site plan yeah no if the board chooses to Grant it I think that has to be there has to be a condition put on both possible on both fossils on the entire development yes okay anyone else in favor of this petition anyone opposed to this petition okay members of the board you've heard

the presentation have they met the burden for a variance on the section 10 of 48 shape topography soil condition have they is there a hardship that meets that um that tells us that to disregard 8634 and say no you got a conforming go out make two non-conforming lots it's up to you what do you think Mr chairman yes I'll make a motion to deny so John Frank motion to deny based on the

issues that we really don't even have a handle on as far as water and all that but that's not our concern a lot is undersized for what they want to do okay motion to deny John Frank do I have a second second second Joe Ferreira any discussion on the motion hearing none John Frank yes Jim corkins yes Joe Pereira yes Dan duper chairman Assad yes that petition is denied thank you thank

you and thank you for your service I really appreciate all of you have a good holiday agenda item number two scrub Realty LLC 122 Rhode Island Avenue map e51 the applicant seeks a variance to add a 28 foot by 36 foot extension to the existing building waving lot coverage and rear setback in an R4 two-family zoning District good evening sir good evening Richard from field engineering I've been waiting for that name

on behalf of the applicant scrub Realty this is the Sunny's car wash on Rhode Island Ave if you recall we were before the board I believe it was five or six years ago maybe that's what I do remember with the for for a similar request for the enclosure of the self-service wash base which have now been installed for a number of years and as far as I've been told and heard with no with no issues

The Proposal before you this evening is simply to construct an addition over the entrance to the automatic car wash a portion of the operation of the automatic car wash is exposed to the elements and um they would like to enclose that as part of the improvements to the site it's a 20 what is it 28 28 by 36 36 foot Edition totally over existing concrete and improv and pavement has shown on the plan on the screen

there's a second minor addition which isn't increasing the footprint of the building it's a more or less a facade expansion within the existing roof overhang on the exit of the building as well um but that's not expanding that the full behind goes into the side yard no not on not on the not on the exit there's no that's fully conforming okay yeah no the um the request is for the extension of

the of the building within the rear yard um setback it's no closer to the property line um no increase in impervious as I said it's over existing um it's over existing it's important correct um the hardship related to this lot is obviously the size and the shape of the lot and the existence of the existing building is really no way to uh install the uh the addition than any other you

did it by way of the variance I don't think you could have done it as a special permit okay it doesn't uh it doesn't interfere with the traffic flow nothing that's not going to change no nothing nothing's going to change with the traffic flow into the into the um into the car wash it's just a structure over it that's it yeah they're trying to yeah yep will that be two sides in a roof which

is like a yeah coming in yeah it's going to be an extension of what's there now so a lot of the car washes I've seen those are plexiglass or glass or something so that the people yeah I believe they're going to extend because that front um does have a glass front that fronts Rhode Island Avenue now and the intent would be to uh extend the similar Construction okay anyone here in favor of this petition

anyone here opposed to this petition Dan is there anything I need to know no just the only question I would have is that um so this the larger Edition is that so that what takes place at the outdoor kiosk will now take place indoor correct that way you'll be installing a new outside no no no that's going to be to keep that enclosed other exterior changes correct yeah approval okay Jim corkins motion to

approve we'll have a second second second John Frank any any conditions attached to your motion giant didn't ask whether or not there's no fur that's it not okay so we have a second by uh by John Frank any discussion on the motion hearing none um John Frank yes Jim corkens Dan duper yes Joe Pereira yes chairman Assad yes that petitions granted thank you sir thank you thank you for your service here in the

city okay thank you okay my future is going back to the office going home let's see agenda item number three D Detroit's care of attorney Thomas pikomoran the 118 High Street map N8 lot 78 the applicant seeks a varians to construct a two unit townhouse dwelling waving front side and rear yard setbacks block coverage requirements and Frontage slash dimensional requirements in an a20

District zoning district and an aod it's overly good evening good evening again Mr chairman members of the board for the record attorney Thomas and Lauren on behalf of the applicant DCH Realty Trust here before you uh seeking relief in order to construct a two-unit townhouse residential dwelling at property right now it's currently utilized as a parking lot it's paved to its limits but it does

have an address of 118 High Street property sits in an A2 district and also in the Arts overlay District we had originally or I should say in our application we requested variance relief um in taking a look at the Arts overlay District ordinance I believe and and obviously I'll let this that the board make that determination but I believe that much of the relief that we're looking for can be granted via special

permit uh number one the October District does contemplate the development of townhouse style uh residential dwellings and there's no minimum lot size but it goes on to specifically stay in 86 376 C zoning board of appeals shall after a public hearing hearing Grant a special permit to waive minimum lot areas height lock coverage Rock coverage percentage and Yacht requirements for multi-family

development as cited in this code so again we've got a multi-family use proposed the two-star excuse me the duplex townhome uh there is a 10-foot setback shown for both uh the front rear and both side yards these front yard setback requirement would be 30 feet rear yard would be 30 feet and side yard would be 20 Feet Again ordinarily I think we would need a variant but because of the Arts overlay

District I would suggest to the board that if it's a special permit that is needed with regard to lock coverage that's under 86 376 sub paragraph C that's correct and there's also sub D that deals with townhouse development and those areas have no minimum lot sizes correct okay good uh these because I just want to make sure that I'm understanding that I'm reading this as a special uh it's overlay District in the

exception of 86 370s correct and then in a lot with regard to lot coverage um the what I'll call the underlying District A2 would be 30 lock coverage we're proposing 75 lock coverage currently the lot again it's a it's a parking lot paved pretty much to its limits as 100 lock coverage so we would actually be reducing on the lock coverage but again I think under the aod district this board could Grant a

special permit as opposed to a variance um for the uh the lot coverage of 75 percent we provide adequate parking we meet the bylaw in terms of Wall Street parking for each particular unit again this type of development is car encouraged in the aod district it's probably about you know has the crow flies maybe a half mile away from the new commuter rail maybe it's within a half mile of the

MBTA if you did the three if you did the half mile buffer and I think it touches this thing onto Wall Street the proposed Depot uh so if the only reason why I'm saying it was a four to eight apartment unit in 2005 before it burned down so that lot had four to eight units on it and I'm surprised that no one ever came back in to try to redo it uh and I'm surprised

that it's only two units and not four units that you're looking for on this particular project but in that you're only looking for two unit townhouse right and in speaking um with the applicant and who's also the owner of the property I think they were looking to put a use on there um without overburning the site being able to comply with parking um and they thought this would be was

the best use for the property okay thank you members uh questions on this particular project so but the I think it was in 2005 there was a fire 2006 it was raised it was a four to eight unit building the thing's been sitting vacant it's in the otsovalay district under 48 section 3A the new MBTA and I was I'm always amazed by it that everybody knew that it was happening before we had the vote but

it already happened yeah um and it's within the bus station it's within a half mile of the bus station and I think as as I was looking at the uh the buffer zone it was touching that piece onto Wall Street where I think it is but um anyway I think the design is is thoughtful and there's in regard to uh 86 376 that the parking space shall not be between the street and the the front

of the building and it's designed to wrap around the side of the building on either side so the thought went into the design on this anyone else any comments members of the board any questions of attorney calorie is there anyone here in favor of this petition is there anyone here opposed to this petition okay Dan is there anything we should know about it um I agree with attorney column

that this that this could be moved as a special permit um if the board does vote that way um make it conditional upon the additional special but it was but it was advertised and done as a variance correct so let's do it as if we're going to Grant granted as a variance uh in that way I'm not dealing with it was advertised as a special permit we're doing this we're doing that

and then the only other thing is that you would be removing the existing non-conforming use which is the long parking lot is not allowed in the A2 District no it is not but it will bring back multi-family that is in fact conforming use okay okay members of the board what do you want to do motion to Grant motion to deny and mostly Grant Jim corkins motion to Grant do I have a second from Jim corkins

second second Joe Pereira any discussion on the motion hearing none John Frank yes Jim corkins yes Joe Pereira yes chairman Assad yes okay that petition is granted thank you thank you very much congratulations Mr chairman thank you hey he's got four hours back into his month now I still have to I still have to sign decisions it will be accounted for I think that's going to be date night four hours

okay agenda item number four straight shoot is care of Attorney Peter a solino 30 Front Street map k03 lot one the applicant seeks a special permit to operate an establishment in the CMD commercial Mill District zone District that serves alcohol but does not prepare nor serve food the applicant also seeks relief for off-street parking requirements thank you for our purposes we need hot dogs you wouldn't have to be

here because you'd be you'd fit into it go ahead uh good evening members of the board Peter celino representing Bob Alvin the petitioner I should note before I begin my presentation that I was at the site this afternoon with my client subsequent to that he had some type of a medical event which places him in the hospital right now and that's why he's not here um because he was hoping to speak to you

about his operation and his relocation so a couple of his family members are here uh behind me and would do their best to fill in for Uncle Bob if they had to answer questions but with that segue uh the site that we're talking about is 30 Front Street it's a mill just north of 195. Mr Albin has been at 288 Plymouth Avenue which is a mill just south of 195 for 31 years operating

Straight Shooters uh that Mill as members of the board probably know was sold and all the occupants were asked to leave so he's in a position where he was asked to leave uh he currently has an agreement with Michelle Pelletier and Jefferson Realty to move into a portion of the first floor and a portion of the second floor at 30 Front Street it's kind of an odd layout that's why I went

to see it today so when you're looking at the Mill if you're in Front Street to the left of the front door there are going to be eight pool tables on that first floor there and there's a handicap ramp and then there's going to be 12 tables on the second floor which are connected by an interior staircase so that's the reason for the design uh when you look at 86 201 in the

commercial Mill district and the allowed uses establishments serving alcohol are not allowed Mr Mr Albin has a beer and wine license which are part of his operation and as a consequence that's why we sit before I sit before you on behalf of Mr Alvin this evening it's the beer and wine component when you look at the uses offices of any kind including medical allowed retail store outlet

allowed Banks and financial institutions allowed restaurants other eating places are allowed and then accessory uses to the foregoing and art uses Performing Arts Etc so when you look at the table it says that establishments serving alcohol a bar saloon or other establishments serving alcohol are allowed by a special permit and so the first ask in my petition is for a special permit to allow my client to

move Straight Shooters from 288 Plymouth Avenue to first and second floor 30 Front Street Fall River to continue the same operation that he's been running for the last 31 years the second component of the petition is the parking so the parking of the site is unique and I also went there today to look at it so on the engineer plan there are 51 spaces uh listed Front Street as depicted here on the screen has

approximately 26 spaces up against the building then behind the building to the north easterly Direction so top right uh or I'm sorry bottom right on Chris's screen there there's parking and then the owner has also notified us that she has a relationship with the city Fall River and specifically the lot at britland Park for overflow parking so the uniqueness to me and the parking request here is it's really tough to

figure out what the demand is and what the ask is um I was there today at two o'clock the spots along Front Street were all full Associated I believe with the existing sort of nine to five clinical uses and there's also a Precision Sports that they manufacture and make embroidery and stuff like that um Mr Alvin's use he says 90 of his use is six seven is after six or seven

o'clock at night so I would submit to the board that the proposed use would be complementary to what's there as it relates to parking um and that we do have some overflow options also in that loading area to the uh east of the building as well so I'm happy to take any questions that the board may have the city that you alluded to yes that under a written agreement I don't know so this was at a

sitewalk verbal um and you know at two o'clock there was not much part your representation is there is there is some formalization formalized relationship for the Brooklyn Park that's correct and Mr Alvin's nephew Joe who runs our house trying to think Brooklyn Park I don't think it closes down right as well it's technically considered a municipal apartment well that's what I'm saying I

mean so I really need permission to use a public life I don't think so yeah but it does allow you some type of you you know that there's others they don't end up with exclusivity on that because it is a public part right I would I would look at it the same way you would look at it as available on Street products right yeah I agree okay so that's my presentation happy to

answer any questions like I said I have some family here that can pinch hit if I can't answer the question um like I said as of two o'clock today I thought Bob would be sitting right here and tell you that he was excited to open and answer your questions no okay thank you is there any kind of straightforward uh so the special permit determines that such change or extension shall not be substantially more

detrimental than the existing non-conforming use to the neighborhood so you've got this middle building you're letting him go into it because he's serving alcohol is that going to be a detriment to the neighborhood into the use that's there and then the next level would be if we Grant the special permit for the moving the establishment to this 30 Front Street then do we wave or do we

get grants a special commit for parking based on what exists on the site and the proximity to Brooklyn Park so those are the two component pieces and I guess we should have two separate votes on it one for the change of use so letting the use go into the 30 Front Street if we say yes then we need to go to the parking if we say no then I guess it's all over the board could also

um weigh in on with regards to hours of operation no we've been so heavily involved with residential stuff that we haven't had to deal with that okay so we can do

yeah let's get it I mean it's again Bob I'm sorry but Bob knew all that stuff but I don't so say your name for the record please uh Joe Aruda and Joe explain how you're related to Bob and your role in the operation yeah I pretty much managed the business on a day-to-day basis uh the operations and whatnot on a day-to-day basis uh Bob is my uncle I'm related to him

through my family and I plan on taking over the business after him uh through our forced relocation we were in a uh one location at uh 288 Plymouth Ave for 31 years which was also a mill building which we occupied the second floor of over there until we were forced to relocate to the new Mill building which we'd be moving into now can you speak to your hours that's yeah our hours of operation uh

are from 10 a.m daily to midnight with a with 2 A.M uh closing time on Friday and a 1 am closing time on Saturday uh that's in compliance with your liquor license and this is the zoning board not the licensing board I just want to make sure we don't do anything and ultimately we have to see them next if this goes I just don't want this board to do something that's going to be

contrary to what the licensing board has no and we're when we do get there we're asking for the exact same hours that they have now on Plymouth Avenue so 10 a.m to midnight Monday through Friday uh 10 a.m to midnight Sunday through Thursday Sunday through Thursday Friday we're up until 2 A.M Friday 2 A.M Saturday until 1am Saturday always open 10 a.m yes 10 a.m is always the start date okay start time okay

thank you that's when they're signings go in so if you need something to do during your day

um and and Bob was going to speak to that that um his customer base during the day is senior citizen tournaments he said he has a core group of 15 or 20 guys that will come in and play um but he said his Peak 90 of his business attorney Urban I believe he's like a fixture there okay okay yeah if I could just ask yeah good what's the parking situation where where you are

now the old the old location uh we have a shared law that the entirety of the businesses in that lot shared before okay so they've operated in a very similar fashion than what this is a little game this is probably a better scenario yeah I mean from my perspective walking around the new location is better than the old when you had Carter's and the batting cages and a laser tag uh on a Saturday I went there

with my kids for parties you couldn't find parking you're almost in Rodman Street in the others yeah no laser tech favorable well we'll give them the authorization to have the liquor anywhere in the building the zoning board anywhere they want the licensing board meeting where it's going to be and so to that question we need to have a floor plan showing this unique two-floor layout for the licensing board

our granting that they couldn't could you convert it then to a bar without any other change no I don't see that we could no I mean wait a minute could we this board because we're not putting any limit if you wanted to limit it first floor second we can certainly do that but that's I really think that's part of the preview of the licensing is that this is an association with pool

playing not just the bar yes I thought my thought was that he was thinking now the rest of the building

places where they serve alcohol and I was careful in the drafting to say that the applicant seeks a special permit to permit the use of a leased portion of the property it's only it's only limited to this particular portion correct not we're not granting it to the whole building we're only dealing with one business one application well other but other tenants do you need us to be

specific square footage and all that is that I don't think so no because I think the lease and the floor plan for licensing will dictate the area which I don't think we have that you know square footage around because I have so the chain of events here is that my clients spoke to Mr Hathaway he said we had to come here so yeah so I'm just trying because the other board members are

getting to the component pieces of what we're going to Grant or deny so if we're going to Grant then it's going to be the space that's on the Straight Shooters whatever square footage that Straight Shooters uh Robert Albin is using that's what we're going to vote on that's correct unless he buys the building that we can do yep I would say there's no likelihood of that okay all right does that answer somebody's

question on this side yeah yeah okay so I think I asked is anyone in favor is anyone opposed um okay all right so we have Jim corkins making a motion to Grant a special permit and we have is that a bike well I think you need to have two you need to have one for the use that's going to be the board determines that such change or extension which is the yeah you get over shall not

be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming use to the neighborhood what's a non-conforming news I think the non-conforming has to be the use of that Mill building into things that were outside of what the commercial Mill District was allowing to happen in the space I that was a piece that I was struggling with what's the non-conformity that gets us there other

than because there's no other way of getting it other than saying some of the uses that are in the building are non-conforming therefore the structure itself this bringing it over has to be non-conforming under 86 424 if my analysis is somewhat reasonable I don't know if you would be yeah that's true that's how I see it so that's that's the answer to that piece so I move that we find or granted

based on the condition that is not we have a finding substantially not more detrimental than the existing non-conforming use to the neighborhood right okay second so second John Frank any discussion on the motion hearing none John Frank yes Jim corkus yes Dan dupaya yes Joe Pereira yes chairman Assad yes okay so that piece you have authority special permit to move it into that building to the space

used by Straight Shooters or being leased by Straight Shooters the next piece has to do with the uh yeah the parking that we find that there's adequate parking uh both with the designated parking as shown on the plans and in conjunction with the brand the parking available in Brooklyn Park okay the Jim corkin's motion is adequate parking based on what's shown on the plan and the availability of Brooklyn Park

proximity do we have a second second do we really want to mention Brooklyn Park specifically well I think I think public park public available public parking I'm saying and I'm saying I'm seeing Brooklyn Park because our discussion was it's a public facility therefore it would be equivalent to off Street on street hockey availability yes yes okay so that's Jim corkin's motion yeah do we have a second I think

John Frank said yes second okay any discussion on the motion after Joe Pereira hearing none um John Frank yes Jim Hawkins Dan dupaya yes Joe Pereira yes chairman Assad yes so those two special permits are granted thank you good luck that young lady shaking ahead yes thank you thank you good luck it can get better now get out of the house cleaning the tables and yet another Mill right yeah thank you

give Mr Alvin our best and hopefully he makes out well did the kid get a pin yeah good number agenda item number five four of a five cent Savings Bank care of Attorney John J Coughlin 79 North Main Street map N7 lot 11. the applicant speak seeks a special permit to construct a screen patio waving Frontage and setbacks in a CBD Central business district zoning District good evening good evening

um my name is Andrea Willett I'm a project manager Architecture Firm Catalyst Architects and Interiors hello Missoula how are you thank you for coming out this evening absolutely yeah no yes so that was my next statement he could not make it this evening so I am in his Stead okay and hopefully I'll do the legalese successfully um so Bank five um is doing a renovation to their corporate office and we have been hired

to design the first floor of 79 and 85.

there's an old portion of the building and a new portion of 9.85. you're probably familiar um we part of that charge is to relocate the branch which is at the connection of 79 and 85 there's a there's a branch inside the first floor I have ten dollars on deposits okay the chairman lets them borrow money it's the original go ahead the design proposal is to relocate the branch to the corner of North Main and Franklin

there's a new vestibule it's going to be glass gonna go up two stories it's going to be um very appealing um yes um at the current entry to the building there's an existing Granite stair a landing and a handicap ramp with the new vestibule we will have an accessible walkway at a lesser slope than ramp stair and a landing the area that is um so that's that's the branch the inside

corner we are asking for relief for at the front yard setback to construct a raised patio which is going to be an outdoor space for visitors to the bank and employees of the bank so whether so where the current ramp is now yeah it's going that's coming out right and that's we but it's in this it's not you're not going any further than what than where that is if anything

you're getting is at least I was looking at it I think you're getting a little bit closer than where the current ramp is well correct we are a little closer we're basically on the property line with that low wall um with the glass screen above okay yep and that's what you want to do and that's what we want to do okay

okay and the special permit part of this the request I guess is coming Monday 86 424 that we have this non-conforming structure and we're going to expand or reconfigure it correct and that's the authority that the board would be able to Grant in accordance with what the shown on the plan right yep yep I just I mean that was my view of it is rather simple but pretty sure I mean it and we

discussed it it potentially could have just been permitted by the building department but to be safe I mean thanks didn't come so he sent this young lady okay is there anyone here in favor of this petition yes we want to identify yourself no you don't yes please you raise your hand tell us who you are yeah okay thank you Russ you're in favor if you think it's a good idea it'll keep you employed sir

um pray where the construction manager is working on this project with Andrea okay keep me employed too we'll keep you employed too that's good oh that's good we have the bank spending a few dollars in the city good anyone opposed to this petition hearing none okay

okay that such change or extension should not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conformance okay Jim corkin Jim Hawkins motions we have a second second that was Dean duper I agreed out loud and clear out of the right ear okay uh any discussion on the motion hearing none John Frank yeah yes Joe Pereira yeah salmon Assad yes thank you thank you granted you did an outstanding job

and congratulations on your last meeting thank you and don't forget you can charge attorney Kaufman's rates today yeah right I was going to send him a memo yeah why should she take a pay cut oh yeah okay next agenda item discussion review and discuss propose updated fee schedule Mr chairman I would recommend that since you are leaving us that would table this matter and let the new board deal with

it I I think that's probably a good idea but I'll throw my two cents in and I think that we just leave it the way it is okay but I'll let the new board come January decide whether or not they want to up the fees or not for coming before the board I think that there should probably be a seat money to come in so view the board but we can so we get a

motion to table until the next January meeting

second by Joe Pereira any discussion on the motion John Frank yes Jim corkens Dan dupaya yes Joe Pereira and chairman aside yes kick it over to the next meeting citizen import is there anyone out there that wants to uh address the board on any zoning specific matters okay hearing none we have Nino is uh kind enough to bring the minutes from the November 17 2022 meeting uh I don't

know I think we've all had a chance to win them reading and adoption okay second second by John Frank any discussion on the motion hearing none John Frank yes uh Jim corkens yes Dan tupaya yes Joe Pereira yes chairman Assad yes those minutes are approved do I get a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn motion to adjourn dance up here do we have a second second Joe Pereira any discussion hearing none John Frank yes

Jim corkens yes Dan De Pere yes Joe Pereira chairman aside yes the Zoning Board of the deals for the city of Fall River December 15 2022 is hereby close thank you all right how does that feel