12.16.2021 Zoning Board of Appeals

good evening i'm david assad the chairman of the zoning board for the city of fall river it's uh 6 p.m on thursday december 16 2021 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

government tv alex mello is recording both the video and audio version if anyone desires to make an audio video or combination recording thereof please notify me now and i shall make a public announcement of your intention our recording secretary this evening is christine alex the lady to my right present this evening of permanent members john frank james calkins dan duper joe pereira

we're expecting alternate member ricky sahari but he's not here yet also in attendance is the assistant director of planning caitlyn young christine have all petitions to caitlyn young the woman the lady to my father to my far left uh christine have all petitions to be considered been properly advertised and all interested parties notified in accordance with the rules and regulations of the zoning board of

appeals in massachusetts general law chapter 48 as amended yes i declared the december 16 2021 regularly scheduled meeting of the zoning board of appeals of the city of fall river open for such business as shall regularly come before it i remind all persons presenting before the board including the petitioners or butters anyone in support or anyone opposed to the petition that your presentation should be limited

to three minutes questions and responses must be directed through the chairman the board's rules and regulations direct the board to specifically look for information which supports the petitioner's claim as such the petitioner should identify and factually support the basis for the petition i hereby 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 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 petitioners to seek competent legal counsel before filing your petitions and after a decision of the

board has been made for example there is a city ordinance 2000 15 dash 11 section 10-1 requiring site plan reviews a copy of the ordinance is available at the city clerk's office or from the planning department i remind everyone that the building inspector is the zoning enforcement authority and you're here this evening because the building inspector has determined that your proposed action is contrary to the

city of fall river's 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 in short provides for citizen input on zoning board specific matters at the end of this meeting i disclose that an official copy of the four of a zoning ordinance is available at the city clerk's office

one cannot rely on the online zoning ordinance i also disclosed that a new recodified edition approved by the planning board and city council in accordance with massachusetts general law chapter 48 section 5 now with this red grapefruit cover is the official copy are there any questions before we begin we'll start with agenda item number one 285 299 south main street llc 285 299 south main street

cess's map i zero nine zero zero three nine this is a variance request to convert the existing office building into a mixed multiple use building consisting of up to 28 apartment units and up to two commercial tenants on the first floor along south main street also a request for a special permit request with regard to all street parking requirements good evening mr chairman of board

members my name is dan aguiar i'm a senior project manager at scitec cec with addresses here at 10 purchase street and in raynham at 31 bellows road here this evening on behalf of 285 through 299 south main llc with regards to the real estate located at 285 and 299 south main street you may recall probably three or four months ago we were before you uh with the request for the grant of three uh different

sections of relief one was with regards to the utilization of first floor space on south main street for apartment use and if you remember the rear portion of this building we were going to utilize half of the building because of it was a walk out basement situation in the back so it was really the second floor in the back of the building that section of requested relief has not changed that is the same

as what we're proposing this evening is to use the rear portion of the first floor as it when you look at it from south main street for residential use so that relief that was granted identical to what was being requested today one section of relief that was needed last time was that in the zoning district the central business district and the arts overlay if we had less than density of 20 residential units

we actually needed relief to be granted and that was a variance that this board granted to allow 17 units at that time the proposal was for 17 units all at a minimum of two bedroom units they were very large units some even had the ability i think there were three units that had the potential to be three-bedroom units and lastly we had requested a special permit with regards to a reduction in the required parking

regulations of two units per space and we had presented to you that the basement level on pearl street in the rear would be utilized as a parking garage which it still will be in this proposal in that existing on-street parking and the pearl street garage would be utilized for any additional parking that we would need for the proposed uses the two commercial uses that are allowed

by right and that were part of the first petition are still part of this petition the only difference in what we're seeking this evening is the unit count and the types of units that we're proposing in this structure again previously when we had 17 units spread out through the building all were a minimum of two bedrooms two or three of them actually have the ability again to beat three

this proposal that's before you tonight has reduced the number of bedrooms we have probably 90 percent one bedroom units and you should have a set of drawings if you don't i've brought a few extras this is the architectural schematic that we received that illustrates the number of parking spaces in the basement level in the garage which we were actually we weren't but the architect actually

increased that parking by one to get 26 spaces in the parking garage under the building so what we are proposing is that we get to a total of 28 residential viewings and if you look at let's start on the if you turn to the very next page you will see what the south main street side of the building would look like along south main street you see the commercial space and to the

rear you see apartments 1a through 1e that would be one two three four five six one bedroom units on the first floor where previously they were all twos if you turn the page and look at the next floor you'll see that we have one two three four five six seven eight nine ten eleven total units all being one bedrooms with the exception of two units that would be two bedrooms each

and similarly when you look at the next floor up we have one two three four five six seven eight nine ten eleven twelve total units all one bedrooms with the exception of three so when we look at the total bedroom count for the structure we've actually reduced the number of bedrooms by one by converting them all of those two bedroom units into one bedroom units and you can see the types of units that we

are proposed now are much smaller the original plan they were very grand apartments that could actually house a family when we had gotten the approvals from the board and the owner of the property went out to seek some financing options utilizing some state agencies and mr ken fiola can probably add to some of this they kind of frowned upon the unit size and the bedroom count in the previous plan

where they wanted to see a higher density lower bedroom count development in these re utilization of buildings and that's what brings us back to you that in order to meet some of the standards that they're putting on us this is the plan that they would like to see so the project in general is almost identical um the type of housing that's being proposed is a little bit different and

it's what they feel is more in need in this immediate downtown area so the need for additional bedrooms family location was decided upon that that wasn't the way to go so we're here this evening tonight requesting again two sections of relief the unit count is allowed by right so that's not an issue the utilization of the rear of the first floor for residential purposes that relief would still need to be granted

with a variance and the special permit with the reduction of parking is still needed so we would have 26 on-site spaces and the utilization of on-street parking and the pearl street garage would make up the remainder of whatever parking would be needed again when we have one bedroom units of this size similarly to what we've had approved in other locations in the downtown area a

rate parking rate of one to one is what has normally been approved in these downtown locations so that's we're asking for a similar type of relief with making up two of those spaces that we can't meet by utilizing the on-street parking and the pearl street garage so if you have any specific questions um or anything with regards to what i mentioned uh dealing with the state that mr fiola could answer for you i'd be

more than glad to answer any questions you have thank you members of the board any questions we granted it last time yes yes so if you if on the first floor it already exists the very or if we change part of it does that hold variance we want i i think it's i think the chairman will agree it would be cleaner to have one approval not referencing two separate approvals because you're looking at the project as

a whole not segmented really when you vote right so i think the relief would need to be granted again yes yeah really i'm not it has to supersede and we get when you get into the issue we had last do we say we revoke right yeah

but procedurally they're coming in a new design so it's a new proposal so i understand i know you do i know but i mean what do you do do you say now we're going to condition the grants of this on the revocation of the prior one john so that you know the way that that vote took on that project was ended up working out the way that it should because the new um

grant was appealed from what i understand that's what i was oh it was i don't know no it didn't end up getting oh no i don't received anything oh i thought there was a letter that came in that that for an appeal so okay mr fayol is there anything you'd like to contribute to the board this evening sure so i think mr aguiar was pretty much pretty much did a good job in terms of

the explanation of the project uh as noted i've been working as a consultant to dr xedian to help facilitate this project we were able to secure a 400 000 grant from the department of housing and community development to help offset costs for the roof as well as the elevator assuming that the project moves forward the redesign of the project i think is in keeping with the preference of the

state in terms of the types of units they'd like to see there um the logic units two bedroom units you know why they offer less density they also preclude the opportunity from young professionals and other types of getting into the apartments at a rate that's less than than it would be for a two-bedroom unit so i think in in in the overall scheme of things as a as it relates to the downtown development

the project itself is in keeping with the urban renewal plan the urban renewal plan called for the use of this building to be utilized for housing on the upper levels in the back portion of the first floor and maintain retail or commercial use on the sidewalk level and we're also looking to move in a direction where we're not requiring as much parking um and out of the hope of people using public transportation or

just you know using other means of transportation to get to and from the where they want to go so this is going to be a significant investment for the downtown i was still putting the final touches on the uh the actual overall cost of the project but typically the rule of thumb for these projects is you know anywhere between 220 and 275 thousand and 325 thousand per unit so they're not inexpensive um

your most profitable units are the one bedroom units because they're smaller so the price per square foot brings you the most return on investment but there's also a tremendous demand for these units and what i'm seeing throughout the city and some of these other projects that were approved by the board and have been completed there's waiting lists for these types of units you know market rate units within the city

there's waiting lists that just even as recent as the the adams house there's a waiting list at the atom's house already so the demand is there we just need to provide them with the product and this is a good product and it kills two birds with one stone in the sense that it also reinvests in a downtown in a building that's been abandoned for a number of years and will bring in a constituency of

people that also have disposable income that will hold hopefully frequent restaurants in the area and we're hoping that this project would also act as a springboard for additional investment in the downtown area so very important projects from a lot of different perspectives uh from urban renewal to planning to meeting demand that's currently there and also facilitating a new constituency of people that may be

moving into the downtown area for for living purposes thank you uh before i ask if there's anyone else young do you have any comments about this particular project um my only comment is to kind of reiterate some of the things that uh kevin mentioned that you know the planning department is in support of this you know mainly for the increase in density that you know goes along with the arts

overlay district the fact that this kind of goes along with the urban renewal plan and um that you know overall this project would be a benefit to the downtown because of the increase in density and also um the creation of commercial storefront space okay thank you very much you do have the two levels let me see is there anyone else in favor of this petition yes ma'am thanks i'm sarah page the executive director of

the fall river redevelopment authority and besides this being consistent with the urban renewal plan and the arts district overlay it is also in the heart of the transformative development initiative district that mass development has supported but was originally initiated by the community development agency in the city asking for this kind of assistance to have a district with a fellow working in the district

and creating a partnership so we have a large partnership of um people from uh stores like alexandria's and the couple of banks and a number of entities really involved in uh working on plans to uh bring more commercial um tenants to some of the storefronts and to really promote commercial activity and a revitalization of the south main street area so i've been really involved in that um

and i know that a letter was sent by um the transformative development or tdi partnership to the board and there really is very strong support of this because the uh the partnership knows that we desperately need more people living on main street and we need more revitalized commercial spaces a new space new spaces would be great and there are a number of plans to look at ways to recruit businesses to

downtown and to really uh support the really excellent businesses that are there and to create more vitality on that so there are lots of people in support of this in the letter and the redevelopment authority is very supportive of this thank you very much ms page is there anyone else in favor of this anyone opposed to this petition christine i think we've got one light or two letters sure

so the first is a staff memo to the chair and members uh from billa kenny the director of planning he writes chair and members the purpose of this memo is to strongly encourage you to grant the relief sought in the above reference matter this project involves converting an existing structure fronting on south main street near its intersection with columbia street into a mixed use residential and commercial building

this project was previously before the board on april 15 2021 at which time you voted unanimously to grant the relief sought to enable construction of 17 residential units and two commercial units and to allow off-street parking at a per unit rate lower than normally required this new petition seeks approval to increase the number of residential units from 17 to 28.

in the underlying cbd district the only residential use allowed as of right is multi-family dwelling 20 or more units a variance in this regard was not necessary in the first petition was necessary in the first petition which only proposed 17 residential units but is not required for the new proposal of 28 units the increase from 17 to 28 is a welcomed change from a planning perspective since

it encourages the sort of dense development necessary to support existing and potential new retail and office uses and creation of a vibrant walkable downtown the new proposal as with the former is for first floor residential but only in the back half of the south main first floor that is entirely consistent with the intent of the applicable arts overlay district which is to leave the

storefront space directly on south main available for retail and commercial uses but to allow residential in other portions of the structure the relief with respect to parking should be allowed the demand for on-street parking generated by the residential units will presumably be significant at different times of the day from the demand generated by retail and commercial uses further the project is in close

proximity to the underutilized pearl street garage in short the relief requested in is minimal and allowing this project to go forward as proposed will be a significant step forward to bringing new life to our downtown core respectfully submitted bill kenny director of planning and the second correspondence we have is from as ms page mentioned the fall river tdi partnership they write to whom it may concern on

behalf of members of the tdi partnership and local business owners we are writing this letter in support of ramesh azidian's project at 285 299 south main street supported in part by mass development's transformative development initiative the tdi partnership represent a coalition of public and private sector businesses and organizations with the aim of revitalizing the south main

corridor through better connections to surrounding neighborhoods creating a strong district identity improving the look and feel of the corridor and helping to establish a thriving mix of complementary businesses that promotes foot traffic a key component of this effort is promoting mixed use development that builds the residential base needed to support the business community this project is an important step in

that direction mr azidian's project will rehabilitate a long vacant building bring much bring much needed new residents into the south main area and support street level activation through the creation of two new storefronts the additional residential units at the rear of the ground floor will not prevent the development of the commercial storefronts or detract from a street-level activation a primary

concern of and reason for the arts overlay district and we believe the additional parking required is more than offset through the addition of off-street parking moreover the transformation of obsolete office space into new residential units will drive new activity downtown including new customers for existing businesses and restaurants and supporting more activity after business hours

we believe this project is an important step in creating more downtown vitality and bringing vacant and underutilized properties back to life sincerely there are quite a few do you want me to signed off on your letter no why not mark conrad president of the corkiro neighborhood association margo crawford business owner at wave productivity maria ferreira bedard executive director scr jobs for progress julie gagliardi

first vice president corporate giving and community relations at bay coast bank zach leone manager at alexandra's boutique jim mckeig tdi fellow and master at mass development sally medeiros vp of commercial lending at rocklin trust chris nielsen director of the business innovation center michael o'sullivan co-ceo one south coast chamber of commerce patty rigo district director viva fall river todd salpetro

owner at tj's music john vas gonzalez president of the south coast community foundation john varal owner at the tax consultants incorporated and samuel walker executive director e for all south coast and that's all the communications we received that is all thank you for reading those into the record all right members of the board you've heard the presentation you understand what they want to do

you've heard who's in favor who's opposed do they meet the requirements for a variance do they meet the requirements for the special permit for the reduction of the pocket i'll make a motion to approve okay it's two two two okay so the variance so the variance for the number for the rear of the property being used for first floor being used for residential usage that's the vehicle you

can do that again because that was last time that's the variance part so if you want to do it two we can do that one first and then we can go to the pocket i'll make a motion on the variants to approve okay with the uh uh site plan review is given site okay you can make it and make it a specific stress condition if you want this site plan review is a given and my uh

caveat is the previous variance be waived or this supersedes the previous yes this is the second one in a row that i i don't i don't i can't see change i understand changes happen along the way but it's almost chipping away at what you ultimately want to get by doing multiple variances like this and i don't i have a problem with that i don't agree i don't disagree with the project i

think it's a great project and i think it should go forward that's why i'm making the motion but i do at want as a condition that the previous variants be superseded dismissed if it's possible and we might need to get legal on that i don't know no i don't think you need legal we'll have the discussion if there's a second on the motion we can talk about it so so that's john's motion do i have a

second we have a second from joe pereira any discussion on the motion so let me just let me throw my little two cents in about the uh if you because there is an appeal period if the condition you know but but i guess this is how it works no i'm just thinking my way forward so i guess this is how it works if there is an objection if we grant it and there's an objection

then the other variance the period is that is still in the whole life so if this one is approved in the in the appeal period there's no objection then the other one is is on pending all of that language that you just said no no i just had to think my way through what you were saying so you don't have the two that this project if it gets approved as presented this

evening yes then the previous variance will be null and void or whatever okay we'll be will be revoked revoked okay good work that works that works i don't know whether it works out but that that's right but that way because there is a grave no no but if going to be left with no project no no but you wouldn't be if this gets appealed if this is appeal the other one

is still in place it's still good for a year two years so you're still so you're still good okay second by joe any other discussion on the motion hearing none all those in favor john frank yes jim corkins yes uh dan duper yes joe ferreira yes david assad yes so that part the variance is granted second part is the special permit part any parking or loading requirement set forth here in may be reduced or modified

upon the issuance of a special permit by the zoning board of appeals if the board finds that the reduction or modification is not inconsistent with public health and safety or that the reduction of modification promotes a public benefit so i will make that motion to improve so john frank makes a motion to grant the specific permit with the finding that that it's uh it's not it's not

inconsistent with published health and safety uh with 26 on-site parking spaces and additional parking at the pearl street parking garage okay so now second though do we have a number at pearl street or is it just we need a total of 28 spaces right i mean is there a reserved section across the street no it's just over this section if we were dealing with ox overlay it has to be a specific

licensed number of spaces somewhere under the granting of 445 the utilization of on-street parking or municipal facilities in general is how that would vote so if you're moving under 86 445 no specific space needs to be reserved in another location your plan says 25 parking spaces provided via pearl street parking that's why i asked the plan the plan that i'm looking at right you

have 25 pocket spaces provided proposed project via pearl street parking and then it says

yes and the rest of it is whatever it can be no no okay so so the 20 where it says 25 spaces you were using 26 as the number no different this is 25 parking spaces provided via pearl street parking under that's in this building pearl street garage is down the street that's the municipal group no no so were you this or the disconnect you were saying 26 and i'm saying 25 was on-site architectural drawings until

so the number is 25 or 26. let's see 26.

oh clan says 26 on site the architectural plan yeah but this was i would like a little fluff i did not do the parking plan the architect did architects sometimes don't take certain things into consideration so i would request a move with the plan 25 25 25 on site 25 on site 25 on site other ones via the pearl street garage and on okay that's my motion that's your motion do we have a

second second second jim cawkins any discussion on the motion hearing none john frank yes jim cawkins yes dan duterte yes joe pereira yeah david assad yes so those two components were granted documentation was granted variance especially thank you thank you all for coming out agenda item number two raymond and elizabeth prevost 31 more street lot f 13 36 a variance and special permit request to construct an addition

to an existing structure and converting said structure from a single family dwelling into a two family dwelling it's in an r42 family district no this isn't no it's an s it's internet yeah yep glenn says s application well what was missing on the agenda was and i looked at the plan but i when i looked at the assessors map before coming here i thought it was an r4 two family district and i was but anyway go

with it no actually well in the agenda it doesn't no it doesn't it's nothing it doesn't say anything that would have been an issue that's good it does not uh again for the record dan aguiar from scitec cec here this evening on behalf of raymond and elizabeth prevos who own the real estate at 31 more street if you're familiar with this area moore street comes off of new boston road just about at the top of

oak grove avenue just almost directly opposite of oak grove avenue the prevost have lived at 31 more dating back to 2012 but more importantly their family has owned this dwelling as well as the dwelling at 53 dating back to and i think it's in my maybe back to 1966.

so the occupant of 31 moore street her mother still currently lives at 53 more and she is at a point where she's getting to the point where she's unable to live by herself and would like to be able to stay in this neighborhood and would like to move in with her daughter at 31 moore street and the house at 50 53 would then be sold to another family that could come into this neighborhood

and enjoy their life so when we're here this evening we're asking for a variance this is not a special permit this is a variance for this structure to be built so there is zoning relief with regards to setback that we would first need to have granted and that would be eight feet to the southerly of butter and 11 feet to the east alia butter you see we've got an odd shaped lot where that back corner of

this what would have been a rectangular lot was cut out at some point in time with the odd shape of p1369 adjacent so the proposed edition would need that relief that setback relief when you look at the other dwellings in the neighborhood you'll see that they are all located well within the required setbacks of a 25 foot front yard 15 foot side and a 25 foot rear yard this lot also has an existing garage that you

see off to the northwest corner of the property sorry northeast so when we looked at what is the best place to put this addition the only way that we could actually connect this addition to the existing structure is in the location that that we have proposed the existing garage and the driveway that runs to it from more street would preclude us from putting it directly on that north side where

setback relief would not be granted so logistically the location that we have proposed is what would be you know advantageous uh for the applicant with regards to the proposal of the conversion to create this in-law apartment and this zoning board cannot look at it differently as an in-law or a two-family the the zoning bylaw does not differentiate we've had this discussion many times

between one or the other should that be changed many municipalities have made that change and maybe in the near future this one will do as well but for now you do have to view this as converting this structure to a to a two-family structure regardless of who i tell you is going to live there but it is going to be the homeowner's mother that lives at 53.

when you look at the neighborhood we are in a neighborhood that is pretty much 100 percent non-conforming for one reason or another with regards to land area frontage and use if you look directly across the street there are two three family dwellings that are located directly across the street two impacted the butters additionally as we travel along new boston road you'll see that every home along new

boston road that is adjacent to where this addition will be constructed are also two family dwellings as we come up on the side onto ellsbury street we do have a single family home on a non-conforming lot and then we actually have a group home at 38 ellsbury that you see tucked up in the top right hand corner and then directly north to us is the existing single-family home owned by the

applicant's mother and then another single-family home directly north of that both on non-conforming lots of about six thousand square feet where twelve thousand square feet is is required so when you look you'll see that this is one of the larger lots with the smallest amount of building coverage on it in the neighborhood this would allow um the homeowner 53 to remain in this neighborhood as she has

dating back to 1966 and it would create a substantial hardship on this family for this not to be allowed so we would request that that you would grant the relief and that this construction uh could take place and they could move the uh the butter and 53 back into their home at 31 and care for her with whatever remaining days she might have how big is the addition it's approximately 34 by 36.

um we haven't gone to the point of having architectural drawings we're going to live within this footprint that's on here so it would be no bigger how many bedrooms one bedroom it's going to be a one bedroom it's going to be a one bedroom and the reason why you're doing it as a two family is because there's going to be a kitchen in there that is correct separate entrance there will be a separate entrance

mostly for emergency purposes they will be connected you know there will be a connecting door but there will be a separate entrance for christ just trying to distinguish it versus i'm going to move in tomorrow no it's really not designed that way it's going to have a kitchen and that's how you're getting to okay is that the layout of the existing building the reason that it couldn't

move up just a couple of feet to avoid that one set back which one well the rear yard setback is 25 so there's really so you got the 14 but the side yard can you move it up seven feet so you have the well i just i don't i'm not getting all right yeah relief on the side yard oh it being eight feet eight you need fifteen right can you move it seven feet to the north

what ends up happening there is the existing driveway and how it turns to the back around the back corner of the house that's going to allow her to park in that location directly adjacent to the building and not have to walk further or impede on parking in front of the garage door so the driveway is where the garages existing garage coming in there yeah the existing driveway now is going to go straight up like this

this is going to give her the ability to talk right for herself and be directly adjacent to the proposed condition okay so again the existing driveway does this this will allow her to do this and park directly adjacent to the door where she can walk and if it moved over it would

plenty of room for at least uh four off street parking correct oh absolutely yeah so there's there's room now i think for four in the garage itself so now that the condition of a minimum of four off-street parking spaces is not not an issue okay anything else no anything on this side joe is there anyone here in favor of this petition is there anyone here opposed to this petition

all right you hear what they want to do this is um another pro jim carkins make a motion to approve conditions for street parking spaces is it it's there anyway so you can add it in the two waivers uh rear yard a 14 foot waiver side yard seven foot waiver i didn't ask your opinion is there anything that we should know from the director of planning nope i have nothing else there thank you

i'm sorry thank you it's okay all right so that's jim's motion do we have a second on the motion a second second dan jupiter any discussion on the motion hearing no discussion on the motion we have john frank yes jim carkins yes dan repair yes joe pereira no no german assad yes so the vote is four to one that petition is granted thank you very much thank you you want to bump through david just in

case rick shows up i have i've got a bunch anyway yeah cause i'm looking i don't see rick and i don't see so i think maybe let's table it into the meeting and that way if you can decide whether or not go forward or not go forward it's been such a pain petition i know no no it's got to get done i mean it's going to get done and i unfortunately i shouldn't hear it

agenda item number four defined development llc 65 brayton avenue lot f16 triple 006 special commit request to subdivide the existing parcel of land into two fossils leaving an existing multi-family dwelling on one parcel while leaving an additional multi-family dwelling on the second parcel both structures were built prior to 1954.

good evening again for the record dan aguiar from scitec cec here this evening on behalf of divine development llc who owns the real estate at 65 and 61 brighton avenue this is a petition a special permit under 86 423 b that you're all very familiar with that allows us the subdivision of a parcel that contains two residential dwellings that were constructed prior to 1954.

what we did was we went out after we've done our survey and created the most logical lot lines that we could giving some side yard area to lot number 61 a 10 foot access and utility strip from brayton avenue back to 61 and then leaving 65 on our squared off parcel with frontage along brighton avenue the existing three family which is number 65 would be on parcel number two and the

existing two family in the rear would be on parcel number 61.

no fences would be constructed and whatever monumentation that the board requests would be set there is currently no off-street parking there's actually a retaining wall that runs along the front of the site that would preclude uh parking to take so the 10-foot access utility is just that it's a utility eastman it's not a driveway there's a sidewalk now that runs through there and grass on either side uh quite so

so you access slash utility that's going to be how possible one can pass and re-pass from that property to braden avenue correct well parcel one owns that strip yes that's that's what i'm saying right so partial it's awesome they're not using the easement that's their land pot the easement would would be for the benefit of parcel two for access as you can see the set of stairs runs right out to the lot line no

that's that's what i'm concerned about that's yes i'm saying yeah it was backwards right yeah so the the real parcel owns the 10 foot strip owns the 10-foot utilities the front the front house would have the ability to utilize it for utilities if need be but it was the line that was making that that's right there that's why we locate stairs now so that we don't have these issues yeah

and we're going to put permanent markers so we know where that is so the building inspector isn't called out on saturday or sunday afternoon with any disputes as to where the property lines are there's no offenses okay uh members of the board any questions no miss young is there anyone here in favor of this petition anyone here opposed to this petition okay dan are these separated utilities

already i don't believe so so as normal enough affidavit reported if we grant it

okay motion to grant motion to deny what do you want to do i'll make a motion of grant john frank motion to grant conditions separate utilities separate utilities to be recorded permanent markers or boundary markers to be replaced as a condition you know no offense no sensing okay off second who's that dan dan duper ii any discussion on the motion hearing none john frank yes jim cawkins

yes dan jupiter yes joe pereira yes chairman assad yes positions granted with those conditions thank you very much thank you agenda item number five not to be confused with the previous one divine holdings llc 219 225 mulberry street lot i zero four double zero twenty special permit request to subdivide the existing possible land into two parcels leaving existing multi-family dwelling on one fossil while leaving an

additional multi-family dwelling on the second parcel both residential structures were built prior to 1954.

good evening again for the record dan aguiar from scitec cec representing divine holdings not divine development so two different same same manager different name with regards to a fairly similar petition than you just looked at this is located at the almost at the northeast corner of hope street in mulberry street and currently on the property there is an existing six family dwelling that you see located to the very

front east of near mulberry street and to the rear of that a rather small two-family dwelling numbered 225.

you'll see a number of parking spaces delineated on this plan those are existing spaces this entire area is paved currently and it is accessed by hope street as you can see the building out on the front the sixth family there is no room for a driveway at some point in time all of these properties were owned by the same people and we've been able to retain a utility and access easement so that

the utilization of this parking and utilities will remain and that can be made a condition that that easement needs to be granted and recorded prior to the endorsement of the a r plan or however you want to ensure that that easement is in fact secured because that it that really does make this work or not work so the parcel to the rear would sit on 3694.5 square feet it will have zero street frontage

the existing building out front the sixth family will retain the existing 55 feet of frontage along mulberry both properties utilizing the rear parking area will be able to utilize the existing access easement heading out to hope street that is all currently paved and is the driveway that does service this rear parking area as it currently exists

and i can also add you'll see that there's a little bit of additional notation if you can if you can figure it out you'll see there are a few parking spaces on parcel one where you see labeled as up easement those parking spaces will be reserved for the front house so the existing two-family dwelling in the rear will have the four parking spaces that you see directly under the word parcel

one with the area given so we will be able to provide you know two spaces per unit for the two family and then because the existing six family is up on mulberry street and can utilize on-street parking it will retain the existing one two three four five existing spaces and will utilize one on street space for a rate of two spaces per unit one space per unit i apologize so in the deed for apostle 1 there's

going to be it's going to be a serbian estate apostle 2 that those two parking spaces are going to serve possible too that is correct we were going to wrap the lot lined around but it really didn't make sense to make that convoluted lot line when we could just do it with an easement it gives the it gives the homeowners that 225 the two family greater ability to maneuver around the outside of their

building for repairs and things of that nature rather than create a lot line that wrapped around those spaces the access utility easement yeah 16 feet wide by 50 foot who's right now that is owned by the owner of 207 um pope street which is also it's a separate entity but the same manager that owns these other two that's how we've been able to be so there will be a deeded access utility easement for this project

that is correct and as i stated that can be recorded prior to the endorsement of the anr to ensure that that easement is in place and will that be exclusive to the rear lots or can the owner of the hope street property also the whole street property also utilizes that driveway and you see that there's where i have i-425 they park in that corner of the property as well in between there so that's going to be

almost the common that's almost going to be like a common driveway kind of thing i'd just be concerned about parking in that 16-foot wide driveway and just block no that will be that's part of the easement agreement that's why it's it's it's an access season it's not a parking so when the d language or the easement language gets written parking within that 16 feet is prohibited but then

you have a parking easement on here too right utility and parking that's correct yeah use slash pc it's not to pass but the utility easements if they need because they're going to be separate utilities they may have to run so when we see where i have this square labeled as ua easement that would be utility and access this one where we're going around the parking spaces is for utilities and p

for parking easement two different uses within these ones we try to be as descriptive as we can on here but we don't want to make it almost impossible to to figure out what's going on current well currently 225 doesn't have any access or parking anyway no the back house yeah they all park in this pocket all right i got it they all parked but the only way they're getting in because they're not getting in off

mulberry street they're all getting you know the access is not changing we're just creating lines that allow them to do it right but there is no formality at this point no no so this will this will secure a formality it would form it's always if granted there will be a condition if the property were the property today on hope street to change ownership they could just block that off that's correct and

we'd have no offspring luckily we're dealing with the same owner right now today right but the condition being as dan suggests uh no no endorsement until the uh until that written recordable easement is created accessing material and that's why going through this special permit process is the right way to deal with these not through an 81 l exemption that would just allow you so this this can put the types of

conditions that create a better situation and alleviate headaches down the road okay anyone here in favor of this petition anyone here opposed to this yes yes sir you identify yourself my name is uh michael again i'm the owner of adjacent to 225 and 219. i just got one question which which way i'm 231 more streaming the next house up 231 what yep i think i have it labeled as 207. yeah oh you're 207. uh no no

it's got to be numbered wrong on mulberry south this one yes yes in between 219 i got it i see it yes sir yeah uh is connected to mine and uh that if they change the deed they're not graphing it anymore i want it off i don't want to testimize your life well this is what i think is going to happen sir uh one of the requirements if this gets granted is going to be

separate utilities yep so if your utility if you're so is it whether it's your sewer line or it's whoever's sewer line is connected yep sewer lines need to be separated so every house everything there has to have a separate utility because uh the adjacent house above me uh 2 2 43 is attached to my sewer line too because it was all owned by the same owner yeah when my father bought it in 1952

so it was all grandfathered there there's there's three houses attached to the suburban sewer line and it comes out in between the houses of the alleyway and it goes right into mubarak street you don't own 241. nope my uh my national neighbor does and he's uh grandfathered into my sword it goes right yeah i don't know i go right in the middle of the house that's it that's that's one of the big you

raise a perfect issue yeah with these particular splits this is one of the things we always get confronted with yeah it's because like i said uh so nothing to do with the d the announcement the easement that they have the right to use the sewer yeah where if this board grants it it will be that every every house uh at least will have separate utilities yep so if they're combining 207 through one of theirs they

will need to separate it and have 207 have a separate one and whatever 219 225 have a separate one and 225 have a separate utility so we don't have that combined yeah okay yep

yeah he tried to get a change but he had to go through he had to go through my property and down to whole street he's going to have to deal with this general way but his but the combination of 219 225 going through his it's actually 225 it's actually tied into my sword so that's miss young did i ask you anything did i ask you if you had any input on this no

all of my questions have been answered i must be getting old so do a gentleman motion for grant motion to deny what do you want to do with this thing motion to grant with conditions or is this one of those ones that is just too horrible to grant the um yeah a lot of grand parts with uh recording of the is there another comment well i don't know yeah god before we start god related yes

that driveway will become a road or still a driveway off hope street yes that what's that all that's going to be is a driveway it's not a road so how is this access in and out that's it how's the uh the access to that back house it will still be in a driveway yes that's the only entrance to get in that's why it'll be going in same way it is

the same way the same way it is right now the housing people going to get into the back house are they going to go through the alleyway to walk to one person's property going into the 225 you're going to go out to hope street they're going to go onto hope street so same way whatever exists right now stays there nothing is changing the only thing that's happening is that the house in the back 225

will have the right to pass and repass with motor vehicles and on foot and otherwise coming from hope street to their parcel so however they get it now that's how they're going to continue to get in all right now as it is now that property you have to go to 219 to get the 225 for the alleyway to melbourne street they will not have access to mulberry street okay two so this is the 225

unless unless something else happens with 219 and 225 but mr aggie dan aguiar the gentleman represents it no relationship no relationship no relationship you don't know who's making the representation to the board that 225 will not have access because there's no alleyways being discussed going from that one to mulberry street access to 225 will be solely onto hope street that's correct unless there is something

else that they agree between 219 and 225 but that's you can make it a condition no but that that's way i could barely walk in between between the two houses and i did go to the bakery and get something as soon as i was done so that's how that's going to be that parking the lock now it's going to be subdivided part of it's going to go to 225

yes and the rest it will go to those two buildings both built-in jews that uh that's correct okay yeah there's not enough parking there for the boat building that's not the same parking that exists right now yeah but now it's gonna be smaller that's what i'm trying to tell you yeah of course yeah it'll be so they're allocated one two three four to 225 yeah and one two three four five for 219 225.

so if you own so someone owns parcel one they will have 225 the building and they will have one two three four parking spaces there will be two other parking spaces on their property but those parking spaces will be will be for the benefit of 219 225 giving them a total of one two three four five pocket spaces i'm also talking about the property uh the building on hopes iii

yeah it has nothing to do with 207 they still come in off open street and they are behind three buildings going to be pocket in that one block but that's what happens now exactly what happens now nothing will change from how how it works now except we're going to separate his utilities yeah except utilities are going to be separated and whoever parks at 207 is going to park with 207 is on i-425

i mean nothing changed what happens is an imaginary well a line will be drawn iron pins or something will go in and say this belongs to you this belongs to you but you have the right to cross over and come and pop on your own property they're not putting a fence up there i know that will be no offenses no sir okay i shouldn't say no the board may say we don't like the project and

it's not going to happen but if we say we like it then i think

fences will just cause arguments but uh yeah so so what's going to happen what's going to happen if we grant it is i believe one of the conditions will be that the boundary lines the points will be put in with some type of permanent marker rebar granite bounds so everybody who's gets a piece of property here knows where their property begins and ends i mean that that's and again the board hasn't decided we

were just in the middle of doing it uh there was a motion i think yeah it was it was it was halfway through okay thank you that is all the public input so what was the motion motion to grant motion to grant uh no fences uh separate utilities uh permanent markers uh to identify property lines easements easements recorded primarily recorded prior to execution of the

the condition would be that the easements have to be recorded prior to the endorsement of the a r plant so that works for you it works good so that's so that's jim caulkin's motion do i have a second second second john franks any discussion on emotions okay john frank yeah jim clark you know joe pereira yes chairman assad yes so that that special commit is granted with those conditions thank agenda item number six

mesa m silver 169 bond street lot k 1939 variance special permit request to construct in addition which will connect an existing single-family dwelling and an existing detached garage structure good evening again for the record dan aguiar from scitec cec here this evening on behalf of attorney meza silva who is a real estate owner at 169 barnes street this low dwelling is located on the

west northwest side of barnes maybe three or four houses down from county street where ozil's restaurant sits so this is the location of the neighborhood that we're in this is located in a general district that requires 5 000 square feet of land and 50 feet of frontage this lot far exceeds those contingencies under the bylaw we have an existing single family home at 169 that is located right on the

street line of barn street and four feet off of the southerly a butter we'll call at 183 barn street behind this uh this dwelling there was an existing garage outbuilding which is kind of like a she is what i would always call it it's not you can't get a vehicle in there because of the topographic relief from barnes so it's basically a glorified she shed that mrs silva uses

what she would like to do at this point is to create an addition that's going to connect these two structures now this addition alone would only be a special permit or even a finding because we're really we're not getting any closer than the existing non-conforming use to the southerly butter what happens is currently this existing shed structure complies with every section of the bylaw with regards to setback four

feet from either the of the boundary lines and six feet from the existing single family dwelling connecting these will now create make that be a non-conforming so i i did actually add a cover letter to this that i hopefully explained a little bit better if you did take the time to read it but basically says what i just said that this proposed edition albeit by itself is not at issue the conversion of that existing

structure from not being a detached is what the relief is is needed if that makes sense is it additional space or is it just a connecting a walkway or it's really going to be like a breezeway kind of a space it's going to allow her to open up the back of she only let me find the date once you ruin the property the amount of money if you've driven by here and i don't think maybe did

but if you look at the amount of money that this woman has spent on this home at 169 bond street the landscaping the patio stonework retaining walls it's stunning so she's been there since 09 so she built this structure she uses it like for some gym space it's it's fitted out it's not for vehicles so this will allow it to be utilized as one one building and not have to walk

outside over a patio to get to it oh i got it not adding bedrooms not adding kitchens it's not it's just it's just connecting just space connecting space breezeway walkway that is correct okay uh members of the board any questions no miss young any comments no anyone here in favor of this petition anyone here opposed to this petition okay i'll make a motion to grant a second motion to grant john frank second was

dan duper any discussion on the motion hearing none john frank yeah jim crawkins yes dan japan yes joe pereira yes chairman assad yes thank you very much yeah i get that off tv yeah i've never used it before it's my first time out of fear it felt all right it sounded good kevin i've got to say something different from this kevin kurt 603 oswald street lot e617 special permit request to convert the third floor into

apartment in an r4 district

good evening siri identify yourself for the record tell us what you'd like to do please hi my name is kevin kurt owner of 603 oswald street i am here to ask for a special permit in order to get a building permit to renovate a existing third storey and make it an actual living apartment it is adjacent to the the zoning line you have a three family just to the east of it

the that zoning line goes right in between that property and the next property and if across the street there's the identical house if you guys see the pictures that i put in with my application you have the identical house that was built in the same era across the street which is a three family and has been granted special permission in the past so i'm only requesting to do what already exists across the street

my goal is to have an apartment to put my newly married daughter in

so the only three family that i see in this two family district the two i see two three families one is across the street that looks like a number 596.

and the other one is at 631 which is there's one lot in between you yep and then across the street is uh i have to look at the parcel because i don't know the number of it exactly if you go 596 one two if you go two up from 596.

there's another three family as well oh but it's not it's not shown on the planet correct e4 96

do you have any off street parking there yes do you do that's an empty lot to the left yes right okay have you been by to see it yeah yeah just looking at it online here i drove by and i've made sure that there is existing wall street parking okay when i went for the permit they told me i had to come see you because of the fact of where it sat in regards to the

zoning we said i met all requirements in order to do it the only problem was i was one lot down from the zoning line

okay no uh exterior construction it's all interior walls all right just fitting out what's there existing now correct there is a bathroom at the top which you kind of have hit your head and the the scene is going to go with the bathroom what was there this was something that was when i bought the house there never even hooked up so it's kind of like a haphazard thing so i just wanted to do

what should be done legally and do it right so there's going to wind up just take a feeling out and move it over but no exterior as you're asking that's why i was asking no exterior everything in syria commits subject to building permits and all right anything else understand no is there anyone here miss young any comments is there anyone here in favor of this petition is there anyone here opposed to this petition

okay motion to grant joe pereira did we have a second second jim cawkins any discussion on the motion hearing none john frank yes yes jim carkins yes dan duper yes joe pereira yes chairman assad yes good luck mr kirk thank you very much have a happy holidays thank you too thank you agenda item number eight catahoula realty trust 101 president avenue lot o 16 0 1 special commit request pursuant to

section 86 451 and 454 to allow the erection of the freestanding double-sided electronic message billboard now i gotta find it give me a second i just picked up all my papers okay so here we go number eight number eight i hope i pronounced my name right good evening again for the record dan aguiar from scitec cec here this evening with regards to a property at 101 president avenue owned by the catahoula

realty trust who was represented tonight by frank marcioni i think you probably all know frank this is with regards to the large plaza that sits at the bottom of president avenue um and along the wall street dunkin donuts almax diner and the plaza itself similarly to a proposal that we brought into you um last month dealing with a billboard if you remember identical to this would be a v-shaped uh

proposed billboard located along the duval street frontage within the parking area directly in front of the dunkin donuts facility and as we discussed at the last hearing under 86 451 and the subsection of 454 i believe is where we ended up finding it that it was determined at that meeting and as we presented that the outdoor advertising board and massdot will not even answer a call unless we come uh

before you first and just so that you know that last project as soon as we were able to get this relief um have started processing everything so that was the linchpin tool you know to get them to start moving on so this is just about an identical uh property except with we have a much easier site to deal with we don't have route 195 we don't have retaining wall easements we

don't have a tight squeeze of where the sign is going to be this would be directly adjacent to duval street a great location along what will be the lower area of 79 the western expressway once that all that work does get done so tonight by granting of a special permit we are asking that you allow the erection of this freestanding double side electronic message board i know at the last meeting we did discuss the

message board at the existing car wash over at big blue that is one of frank's properties as well so he's been through this process and he was actually educated me you know to help me deal with tony's project as well uh a month ago so we would request that that the board grant the special permit and we can begin our state permitting uh as well if you have any questions i'd be more

than glad to answer them it looks like each face is going to be 50 feet that's correct identical identical sign to what you have now correct the v shape 48 yes what's the overall height the overall height we we have not because of dealing with duval street and the western expressway of when that's going to get lowered the top of the sign would be no greater than 50 feet i think we could live with um

if it ends up once the expressway gets lowered we could potentially lower it a little bit but i think 50 feet maximum height would be safe would the commonwealth have the final say over that yes that's correct there's a number of permitting agencies that we need to get to but again as we stated last time we can't get there until we get past here the main agency would be the depart of the mass d.o.t primary

transportation now there's currently a sign in the corner of that property there's a premise sign uh is that going to remain yes yes the pylon sign that identifies the businesses at the specific location that's at the corner of the volume president that will remain that's part of the reason why we brought it back as far as we could down towards uh the existing duncan it's going to be 50 feet high yeah

oh yeah i know it's going to be up there people on 79 will see it it's a great it's going to be a great spot yeah until that gets forward i was wondering why the double sided because you only really see it one side but if it's up there oh you'll you'll see this on both sides 50 feet it'd be a detriment to me once uh 79 get slowly sold it definitely will

not be any more than 50 feet

okay

so what do you want to do gentlemen you want motion to wait wait a minute let's see any comments from the planning department no is there anyone here in favor of this petition is there anyone here opposed to this petition members of the board any other questions about this particular sign on this particular property okay gonna get a motion to grant it's it's a special permit request under 86 451 and under 454

but it's not but it's 454 we're not really advertising your business it's really going to be used for other right right as we said in the last one 454 the granting of 454 was like a in a comfort umbrella yeah but i'm just but i don't think it's going to be come on you know come on down and see me frank oh i'm sure that there would be tenants in that plaza that would potentially

utilize that sign move to approve good especially permit but not with the ceiling not to i mean the height not to exceed the 50 feet and subject to the approval of the uh advertising yeah no no but we i think the last time we would think the permitting was conditioned upon the outdoor advertising that's correct and start prior to the granting but that's right okay so that's your emotion yes do we have a second on

the second dan's repair any discussion on the motion john frank yes yes jim calkins yes dan duper yes joe pereira yes chairman assad yes thank you very much mr chairman with regards to um angels yeah only because of the difficulties with this in the past i am going to request that be tabled yeah i i no only

or at the request of the petitioner if we only have a four member board and that is what we would have only present here tonight so those in favor of granting permission to all right yes all right we need a second right a second so i'll make the motion okay seconded joe yeah second okay yes and jim yes so the next meeting is january 20th

thank you all very much you guys have a great day have a fantastic holiday agenda item number nine john santos jr of santos family trust 1630 and 1632 meridian street lots u8 triple zero five double zero twenty variance request to subdivide the eight eighth apostles into eight blocks leaving the existing dwelling at number 1632 meridian street on lot one the existing dwelling at 1630 meridian street on lot 2 and the

remaining 6 lots for future development waiving requirements in the r-30 district for minimum lot frontage for lot 1 and minimum lot setback for lot two okay okay please jeff tallman from northeast engineers and consultants here tonight representing john santos trustee of the santos family trust um quite simply what the petitioner is looking to do is just subdivide the property into the lot shown on the plan

the property is an 8-day capacity located on the west side of meridian street just south of the soviet school currently the the property is does consist of two lots lots sorry assesses map u8 lot five and u8 lot 20.

um this property was subdivided back in 1992 prior to which um it was one property one eight acre property with 54.99 feet of frontage in 1992 the owners of the property came in and were granted variants in order to construct a second dwelling and to establish the second law on the property that dwelling is number 1632 that you see on the north side of the property jeff i want me to stop you for yes

when i look at the assessors i was like lost in the woods looking at the assessor's map and looking at this yes 16 i think it's 1632.

they've got on the other side of the amvets highway it's a little triangular piece which didn't make any sense to me yeah yeah i think i i'm wondering if that was part of like the parcel before i'm just asked because that address and when you look at it and you click on comes up yeah and i'm saying am i missing something or is this plan not we had the same yeah yeah see i was i was

looking at the other way i researched these based on lot numbers um and the thing i found interesting on the city gis's um the lot with 16 30 is on would not register i was not able to find him 16 well i guess 1630 that's the triangular piece that's showing up on the other side of the amvets highway and i just i just couldn't figure it out and i said

let me ask you what am i missing um well it seems as though the gis system might be a little confused with this all right no no so this is looking at doing the overlay of the uh the overlay of the deeds i come up with the eight acre piece and i do come across those uh variance decisions from uh perroni lowenstein back in 91.

yes go ahead yeah and in um just to quickly go over that variance back in 91 um there was some relief granted for actually for both lots obviously due to the 54.99 feed the frontage total there was a reduction in lot frontage for both lot 5 and 20 as well as lot width and also setback relief was granted for the uh newly created lot in uh what ultimately became 1632 the house slot

for 1632 the site setbacks uh relief was granted with that um so what we're looking to do obviously is we're going to basically take up that entire frontage to get a right of way in we'd like to bring a road in uh in doing so there is not enough space to fit the road in between the existing property line to the south and the existing dwelling at 1630.

um there's only about 60 feet maybe a little over 60 feet so what what we're asking for with this request is to reduce the um minimum frontage requirement i'm sorry minimum front setback requirement down to 10 feet in order to um that's for a lot too for lot too in order to let the existing dwelling remain on the property the other um request we're looking for here is the lot width on lot one

we're unable to meet the requirement we'd like a reduction well we'd like to uh to go with a 70 foot lot width now in in creating this subdivision we will be alleviating some of the uh relief that was granted back in 1991.

both lots will have legal frontage um they're going to meet the area which they did previously but they will have um they will meet the frontage requirements so a granting of this variance would would you know be a benefit to the property would alleviate some of the old advantages that were granted and would allow the petitioner to develop the property in the manner that you see on

the plans the rest of the subdivision the lot showing on there will all be conforming lots um front engine area um yeah that was what was missing i was going to call sean up and say listen how can you get a little plan with so we have yeah and i was just showing the lots i mean i i don't know exactly what the lot yield is going to be it does have the

potential for the eight lots but we have not looked at any environmental or potential wetland issues or anything like that so it may be reduced at some point but i i don't believe that's going to be the case all indications are it is all uplands but we've got to take a closer look at that so no but a lot but what i'm saying is the plan itself should i was i would be i was expecting

to see that the front what the frontages were almost like it almost like a a r plan so you knew you had a 100 minimum of 150 foot frontage on each lot the representation that you're making is lots three through eight all have minimum of 100 foot frontage you give me the square footage so you've got the 30 000 and the building envelopes all meet the front rear and side yard but you

don't have those dimensions there and that's a little unnerving for looking at the plan because all we're really dealing with is the relief that you're looking for for 1630 and 1632 correct and so that's a reduction in the front yard setback for 1632 and the waiver or frontage reduction for lot number one and because it's already pre-existing you've got the side yard waivers that were granted in that

previous variants am i correct is that what i'm looking at what you really what you're really here for is leave lots one and two but let's develop the rest of it in all conforming lots yeah uh well specifically we're asking for relief from two things lot with for lot one lot one in front setback for lot too we are not asking for any relief on on frontage requirements for any of the

large shown no that that's what i'm saying so right so moving forward with the development obviously they'll all have to have legal frontage and area but unfortunately because of the the the hardship in this particular case is the shape of the lot with the property line to the south we're not able to meet the front yard setback for 1630 and because of the property line uh to the east we're not able to meet

the uh the lot with requirement in that area that was my only comment i don't know members of the board any questions remember to ask the planner if she has any comments about this particular development or you want to go through your questions first good if you want to ask no caitlyn nothing okay so we've got no comments from the director of planning i'm just wondering if there's any kind of plan for like a

uh noise reduction buffer zone between the highway and these new lots because you can take all the trees down and the noise is just going to travel right up through there well not at this time um again it it what what you see at the at the uh the west side of this property is just you know it meets the requirements of of the sub of the subversion control law in

the zoning requirements but it's just it it's not set in stone we haven't done any topographic survey out here we haven't done an environmental or wetlands assessment we don't exactly know what that's going to look like so ultimately we don't know it would be in our best interest to leave a buffer yeah to have the noise reduction because we're going to be thinking of granting then that would be

your condition that there'd be a minimum of something as a buffer because that area where they've done around 24 there has been an increase in noise with the trees down but would that not come under planning it could ultimately it could it could well planning will happen if we grant the waiver that they're looking for and they propose this road in then it will become part of the it will become part of

site plan review in the planning department in terms of what needs to happen but we as granting this if we grant this variance then we can put whatever conditions we want and they have to deal with it you know i mean i i just look at it and the rest of the subdivision does not yet exist we're looking for a waiver all the way down to 10 feet and set back for one

particular lot is there no other way or was nothing else considered that would adjust the roadway to to create a better setback then 10 feet because of the existing property lines uh with the budding properties not the interior property lens that we're proposing the abutting properties we only have a little over 60 feet from that corner um you know right next close i'm talking about the setback from this proposed

room that's unlocked number two yeah i want number two jeff is what he's talking about the the reduction in the setback that we're requesting down to ten feet yeah there's really i mean there's no other place to place the road if you look at if you look at the the way the lot is set up with the two houses and how narrow it is between you know that that point to the south uh just

directly to the south of 1630 that angle point in the property line and then you know the property line up to the middle that's the owl's property is that what you're saying yes yes against the owls crappie there's no um there's no other spot where a potential roadway could be situated on on this property this is the only location it fits we couldn't put it in between the two houses and certainly couldn't put it on

the uh north side of 16th or something

there's a lot of questions where if this isn't uh surveyed or planned out yet or or no you your your lots might be reduced and then if we grant something now then this plan is not gonna exist anymore they're gonna have to come back again no no we'll just have a reduction in the amount of lots basically the certain we have the the the survey we've done is what's required for the relief we're seeking

we haven't done a topographic survey if there's less slots in the back there's less slots in the back it really does not impact what we're asking for here we need to get a right away basically we need to get the right of way in between 1630 and the property line to the south and this is the only way to do it is to get a reduction what happens in

the back is going to be it's going to confront the zoning it's going to conform to subdivision control um whatever we can get back there we can get back there i i i think what you're asking john is that the plan what's being proposed are these for these two lots versus the whole subdivision that's being brought before and it's the whole subdivision that you're looking at and saying based on that that's what we're

that's what the board should be acting on not just on this minimal um waiver or variance on frontage for what's 1 and lot 2 setback set back on lot 2 and frontage on lot 1 because once they do that once that's granted then the other configuration whether or not the roadway is going to be put in the way it's configured which doesn't have any of the dimensions that we can really look at or

whether the other lots three through eight you don't know the configuration i think that's what you're asking and saying yeah i i i know we're only con no no but that's he's here's a plan i got a eight lot subdivision but the two but the two things that i need a waiver for is what you're hearing is lot number one setback and lot number two frontage and they're saying once i get those two

waivers on this eight eight apostle then i can develop it any way i want no we won't and that's not what and that's not what you want to hear because jeff the the last couple meetings we've had issue i've had issue i don't know if anybody else i'm going to make a motion after this by the way with plans being granted and then things changing and then they have to come back and get another plan

and then the next plan gets granted and then they still have the other plan and this plan and then it just it's not it's not consistent or what i think is the suitable way to go and the smart way to go um and i just i understand you're in the early stages and you're trying to get this this development established but there's not enough information here i don't think to make a a a proper

in my opinion a proper decision that's only me it was so in that in saying that do you want them to come back with a more specific and detailed plan with some of the things like uplands some of the things like all the issues that were that you're playing with as you're looking at it and say you haven't given us sufficient information on this plan if you want to

come back come back but if we have to vote on what's before us now that may not be what you want us to do john before you answer that can i just address your comments um when i was repairing this plane i was kind of torn as to how to go about doing it i'm showing the eight lot subdivision plan just so the board can have an idea of what we're looking to do in the bank

i couldn't i was thinking of coming in just showing the right of way because really that's all we're asking for is relief from that and the the lot width for lot one which would be off of that right away but i couldn't very well just show it right away going to one big lot in the back it didn't make a ton of sense um to have to go through and design a full blown subdivision

without knowing if the board's going to grant the waiver is also problematic i would like i would ask the board to be very specific in what they grant if they were to grant the variance on this that you know the lot with um variants that's being granted here specifically for lot one and the lot front setback relief that we're requesting is specifically for the existing house at 1630 and it's

specifically for lot too and applies to no other lot in future lot on this profit but that's not what we're looking at well what you and i think what you're also playing with is we've already granted a variance to allow lots one and a lot two to exist right on those two properties 1630 and 1632 and that was granted that was created by their own application and now they're looking to change it by

saying i'm having a subdivision i'm going to get eight watts and now i'm going to have a road and the road is going to give lot number two minimum 150 foot frontage so now i have frontage there but i need when i do that and offset a waiver of the front yard requirement because i can't meet that with a 50-foot wide road yeah i understand i get that these are easy

these i don't think a a big deal but it's the rest of it yeah with that the unknown of well in case you gave us too much information yeah and that could be the problem i mean if i may and maybe we're i think we're in the same place on this we're at we're being asked to give a a a front line a front setback from a row that doesn't exist

i can't give you i can't in good conscience give you a setback from something that doesn't exist it happens all the time in cases where existing houses aren't property they get subdivided it does it you know where if you can't meet the the new front setback from the newly created road then you would have to go in and get relief for that in in i dealt with this a bunch of times but

you're not putting the road in front of us you you've said you haven't done topographical you don't know exactly where anything's going to be yet you don't know how big this is going to be this is this is your words and i've been in development for 40 something years so it's kind of difficult to come in and ask for a setback from something that doesn't exist well can you can you condition it upon

approval of a definitive subdivision plan in the construction of the roadway subdivision plan doesn't fall under our purview falls but if you can condition if you can condition a vegetated buffer at the at the end of the property i mean it's the same sort of thing you can i believe you can condition it however you want if if we don't go in and get a definitive and approved definitive

subdivision plan from the planer board then we don't need this variance so it's all well we gotta we need the virus in order to move forward with the definitive subdivision plan yeah it's a chicken and egg situation right here i don't know i'm hearing that there's not enough information on this particular plan to make an informed decision yeah we've got some so is there anything else you want to

talk about the plans that you've got before is uh no because we've got i get two in favor of i think the opposition asking for a delay yeah well i mean i'm asking you what are the letters i think so let's see so why don't you read the two letters in sure do you want to ask if they are here is there anyone here in favor of this petition uh and objection you're

objecting to it so rather than read the letters i'll read the ass miss alex to read the letters but you're here in person so i'd like to hear from you and who you are please okay i'm daniel antonio um one of the uh budding neighbors did you write the letter or is that good you wrote the letter okay yeah so let's hear from you why is it called okay so

um i am i'm in objection to the request for relief for reducing the lot width of 1632 because of the setback requirements 1632 is already in violation of the zoning law and the north side of the property so they got only 12 feet setback from neighbors versus the required 25 feet the zoning setback should be enforced for 1632 on the south side between 1630 also in objection to the request at lot

one to change the minimum front yard set back to 150 to 70 feet there are alternative solutions that could be met to avoid changing the zoning requirements lock number three number four and number five should be redesigned to accommodate the zoning requirements i respectfully request the claims water enforce the zoning requirements by approve proving this variance request it will

take away the value from my property as well as the neighbors properties in the area 16 30 and 1632 meridian street plan required to follow the setbacks and if the planning board could enforce redesign to see another way to redesign the plan by clustering these properties into non-conforming locks to have additional locks will in turn reduce the value of my property as well as neighboring properties okay thank you

let me maybe jeff wants to answer but let me just say this 1632 in 1630 were created by a variance in 1991. yeah so so because the variance was granted that means that they are currently conforming now the other ones that's one of the questions that i had asked mr tallman lot the lots 3 4 5 6 7 8 even though they don't show me the dimensions and that's one of the things

that was making me a little crazy uh he makes the representation that they in all respects meet the zoning for this area they have a minimum of 150 foot frontage they have a building envelope that he's showing that has a front yard of 50 feet a side yard of 25 feet a rear yacht at 25 feet frontage of 150 and square footage of 30 000 square feet so unless i'm missing something when you

talk about lots three four and five that you say that they don't conform then i guess i what am i what am i missing or or what can mr tallman expand on it for so the yeah the configuration of the um of one and two um of changing the setback between between lot number uh one and lot number two um that side the side of the side setbacks um you know that looks like it's changing

that's not in variance is that requesting a variance for that one those 1630 and 1632 exist what he's looking for what what he for lot number two is what he's saying is i have sufficient frontage when i put this road in except when i put the road in i don't have adequate front yard setback i only have 10 feet so i need a waiver of 40 feet so that that's one of the requirements

that he's asking one of the variances is that for lot number one he doesn't have he's saying i have a proposed 70 foot wide frontage he needs a hundred and fifty can i correct that jeff it's lot width not frontage what what proposed a lot with what did i say frontage frontage with yes yeah well the request is for a lot with a lot with you it's going to meet the 150 feet of frontage

oh so lot number one we'll have one so it's not 70 foot you're going to have 150 foot frontage there on possible one just a question that's well i'm corrected that because and that's one of the problems with not having the dimensions there go ahead so the uh 150 foot um minimum front frontage should be at the setback not at the property line it's like the this this 70 foot right here should be

100 no no so what he's saying this is what he's saying and that's one of my complaints is that the plan doesn't have those dimensions so we could say he's saying the proposed width of the lot is only 70 feet the whip but he has a hunt he's making the statement does not appear on the plan that it has a 150 foot frontage so it goes it's 150 foot wide and then it narrows down to

70 feet but where it's at that 70 feet isn't that where it's supposed to be the 150 not at the property line at the setback it should be 150. it's supposed to be 150 at both correct the frontage the frontage and the setback correct that's that's correct right so but that's but that's the waiver but that's what that's a waiver that's right right so if i can just address those comments um so right now

the lot with the lot width for for the lot on which 1632 sits in the in the frontage for that matter is 20.0 feet for for frontage and lot width so basically we're looking to take the lot that 1632 sits on and increase the lot width from 20.07 feet to a minimum of 70. a 50-foot increase in what's over there now um on lot two well or the lot on which 1630 sets

right now the current frontage is 34.92 feet and a lot with a 34.63 we're gonna we're going to eliminate those non-conformities uh even though they were being you know granted by by variants we're going to eliminate them we're going to we're going to have the required frontage and we're going to have the required lot width for 16 for the lot 2 on which 16 30 sets and then the the

side setbacks for 1632 that was part of the variance that was granted in 1991 um for the construction of that dwelling the property line between lot one and lot two that we show on the plan is the existent property line that's currently between the two houses we're not proposing to change that just because of what each house is occupying it doesn't make sense to change that at this point so

in the last thing i'd say what in defense of the plan you know there's a lot of information on here this the the stuff that we weren't asking for a relief on i didn't necessarily put on a plan by all means i can certainly add it to the plan but to try to show it on a 60 scale plan that fits the requirements of the zoning board it you know it will get a little

dicey with all the information on here but by all means i can come back with that plan with all the frontage and areas and bearings and distances on the lot lines and show you that all the other lots you know frontage and area are going to meet the standards and that same thing for a lot one and two the frontage on lot one and the frontage and a lot with

on lot two are going to meet the standards so i have no problem coming back with that plan so so here's my problem we're we're questioning two lots here you're in here for two lots and i respect the fact that you're showing the entire subdivision plan and representing that all of those lots are going to meet all of the dimensional requirements yet you said at the top of this you haven't done all your survey you

haven't done your wetlands you haven't done a lot of things back there so that ultimate subdivision plan that gets put in front of planning may be very different from this so we're really down to these two lots and we do not have all the dimensional references on these two lots that we're in here for urine here for dimensional variances or or relief on that's my problem i don't see everything

here and we're confusing it with these go back to your fundamentals of 40a section 10 shape topography soil condition what's here before is that's making this thing come the the proposed subdivision i look at it say yeah okay i got it there it is but you're you're picking up on the basics the fundamentals of why we're here with this plant yeah i would the relief the relief we're asking for basically in

the hardship that we have here is the lot shape it's not a topographic hardship so you know we're not showing the topography um you know i i could have come in with a two lot subdivision plan showing just the road going to the back there and with all the detail and i could have zoomed in on lot one and two and gave you all the specifics um but i don't know if the you know that

wouldn't have in my mind it would have made much sense either but i don't show you potentially what to go on the back if the board is very specific in what they grant if they were to grant these variances they would only apply to the areas that we need them to apply to they wouldn't apply to every other lot in their development no matter how many lots there ends up being in the future it would

specifically be for lots one and lots too i understand in those lots i mean the configuration here there it's all calculated it's all based on an actual perimeter of what's out there so you know i know for a fact that that's not going to change what happens in the back in my mind is kind of irrelevant there's the potential for elon's if it's eight fine if it's six

whatever it is i mean it is what it is we'll deal with those issues as we get further in the planning process but until we can get by these existing houses spending time and money to show something that ultimately is going to conform zoning doesn't make a ton of sense to me that's just my opinion though i mean i'll do with whatever the board feels is necessary no and understand i i get that

then don't come in with the rest of it don't confuse anything that's my opinion my my my peers may disagree but i think and you've just the fundamental is the road's good at the end you've got to have a road yes you've got it i mean otherwise you've got pie in the sky okay i got a frontage i got this i got that but without the road then what's the relief you're granted exactly

what what what's my what's what's the setback from that's correct that's that's what i'm hearing you and john say yeah and that's why quite clearly i'm not totally opposed it's just that more information i think is needed and i i i don't know if you you know i don't want to just say it john no it's going to say table it i see we could do a table until

next month or put it out there where we could get a little more information come back yeah and i have no problem with that yeah all right so is there is there anything else you'd like to say miss okay is that your father next to you so you've got the two lines you've got the two lots father and son in that corner emanuel antonio yeah emanuel antonio let's get the next subdivision up yeah

yeah oh yeah okay i'm going to read we're going to ask i'm going to ask miss alex to read the two letters that we got in opposition oh he just read it yes it's the one do you want me to read oh i don't have to read his regulars okay thank you free catch all right so this came in via email dear zoning board my name is eileen raposa my address is 813 meridian street fall

river massachusetts due to copen 19 a compromised immune system and a husband just coming home from heart surgery i am unable to attend any public function it is at this time i would ask the zoning board to postpone the hearing on this matter i in addition to many of my neighbors are in opposition to the subdivision of the following 1630 and 1632 meridian street lots u85 and u820 due to covet my neighbors are also

unable to attend the meeting we feel that it is our right to have the opportunity to speak on this matter as it affects the integrity and well-being of the neighborhood the guidelines on the variances and lot sizes should be strictly adhered to to divide these lots into eight different residences detrimentally alters what the neighborhood stands for it will also encroach on the wildlife

habitat which contribute to the appeal of our beautiful neighborhood i respectfully ask that you adhere to the guidelines of subdivision with respect to our neighborhood or postpone the hearing on this matter to give the neighbors more time to have a neighborhood meeting so we can come before the board thank you for your time stay safe and healthy and have a good evening respectfully eileen raposa president of

the meridian street neighborhood association okay so that's what we got jeff what do you want to do i'll table it and and i'll add whatever information the board would like to see added to the plan in order to make a more informed decision i would just like to know exactly what it is that you would want to see on this plan i i understand you'd like to see the frontages that's that's obvious um

but john i don't know well i think that the thing we're looking at here is uh there's so many variables that aren't considered uh if it's right on the highway i think there has to be a vegetative border discussed and i know this is site plan stuff subdivision subdivision plan we're talking about here but we don't i can't recall a time that we've done this that we've looked at a subdivision that hasn't had

some information so i i i think uh i think we need more information um i i can't tell you exactly specifically but i think if i do this then if i reduce this plan take out the rear subdivision because we're not asking for any relief and i think that's adding a lot of confusion to it yeah i'll show the future road coming through here with the relief we're asking for

and i'll show lots one and two with all the bearings and distances and areas and and whatnot and anything that happens beyond where this road gets beyond 1630 is is a planning matter it's a conservation commission matter it's we'll we'll let that those boards deal with does does that make sense is that what you would like to see i can't tell you i can't tell you what to do jeff

but i'm just saying i think that's the what the rest of the board is saying here we have some concerns about the overall proposal that's being brought forward understand these two lots that exist now make it wonky to be able to do what you need to do but to get the road in is the ultimate goal for your your project and then the other stuff will work itself out because you could do it by

right once this is the the thorn in the side here is 1630 is the location of 1630 in relation to the the perimeter right if if it were just 1632 on the property then we wouldn't need any relief right but because of the location of 1630 that's why we're here tonight that's why we need relief for the other lot that 1632 is on it's because of the location of 1630 how does the road run currently

to give access to sixteen thirty drivers it's just the driveway it comes down right over here that's it the house prior there's no road beyond that point no so when you look at the dotted line that's what they've got yeah yeah right here oh that's the right dotted line those are the existing sorry drawing all over yeah i don't i don't know when you get to the end of the al's property do you

drop down and get rid of lot eight to give you the fif the the the dimensional requirement you want you end up losing but that's i'll leave that to you guys you smart guys who do the engineering work and the only problem with that is we you know where there's certain requirements that the planner board has in terms of the radius of the road the minimum radius and by the time you get beyond that corner

we can't i mean i you can't bend the road enough to make any significant difference to that setback zoning board of appeal not the planning board um but no i mean i don't know actually that's something to think about if you want to come back make a motion and say you want to come back and give us a more detailed plan that's see what the board wants to do if

you want us to vote on it tonight we'll vote on it tonight when you're hearing what you're hearing i think from all the members of the borders yes more detail is we'd like more detail before we act on it certainly i would like to table it and come back next month all right so we have a motion from mr tallman to table this to january 20. you've got to make

the motion no no i said you know he's making the motion for us the motion for us right that's

decision until our uh january meeting january 20th 2022 is that enough time yes we're we're tabling the hearing on the matter until the 20th we may not come to a decision tonight that's not no we're not decisions decisions the proposal yeah the proposal is do you also allow him do you want to allow him to give a more a modified plan if he wants i think i would have to yeah

i think you have to too but i want to make sure because as mr pereira is raising the issue about what the exact language of mr clarkin's motion was let's make sure that we're not confronted with i don't want to accept the plan so he can give a modified plan if he wants okay permitting to existing plans okay so that's your motion do i have a second on jim carkin's motion to allow the

table into january 22nd second by john frank any discussion on the motion john frank yes jim cawkins yes dan duper yes joe pereira yes jim and assad yes okay thank you see you january uh let me see again number ten receipt of correspondence department of environmental protection waterways regulation program notice of license application chapter 91 license application number w21 6063

so we received some communication on behalf of the department of environmental protection waterway regulation i can have you read this thing at 16 pages public notice is hereby given of the waterway license application by the massachusetts department of transportation highway division to remove approximately 2 250 plus or minus linear feet of route 79 these guys are clairvoyant southbound combining traffic

with duval street constructing the route 79 northbound bridge over the u-turn underpass and reconstruct route 79 northbound from the u-turn underpass bridge to the turner street intersection approximately 1050 plus or minus linear feet construct a 14 foot wide shared use path between massachusetts route 79 and the taunton river fall river harbor shoreline construct a new storm water bmp

and to demolish and remove an existing 24 inch and 30 inch drainage outfall and construct a new 11 foot by 4 foot and 12 foot by 5 foot concrete box culvert respectively the department has determined that the proposed project consists of water dependent and non-water dependent elements and will therefore be reviewed as a non-water dependent used project comments may be sent to ryan morrison

mass dep waterway regulation program ryan morrison mass.gov please use the subject line w21 6063 slash corridor improvements in route 79 and duval street so this uh particular correspondence will be on file it is available at the um at christine at the zoning board it will be part of our file it's actually part of the file for the zoning planning and conservation we all receive so all three have it it's

available if anybody wants to read it and look at the plans that are attached there too okay agenda i have a motion to play something oh do we motion to accept the correspondence and place on file all right joe pereira made a motion second by dan dupin any discussion hearing none john frank jim carkins joe pereira yeah duper assad yes okay number 11. uh input citizen input is there anyone out there that would like

to address the board hearing none approval of minutes of the november 18 2021 meetings can i get a motion to waive the reading and adoption of the minutes motion to waive the reading and abduction of the limits dan dupier makes a motion to waive the reading of the november 18 2021 minutes and to adopt them as prepared do i have a second on the motion second second jim cawkins hearing no discussion john frank yes jim

calkins yes dan dupa yes joe pereira yeah chairman assad yes can i get a motion to adjourn no i want to talk to you more how about your business what do you want to bring before the board yes i have i want to either request a legal opinion or get some clarification from the director of planning's office regarding the second time we've come across the same issue of of variants being

requested for something that there is an existing variance approved on what the status of the existing variants becomes so i don't know if i'm explaining that so proceedings the superseding nature of what we've been doing and now we with my last two motions of being the prior motion has will be quoted the prior variants will be null and void upon approval uh this new one of the new one yes we had a little bit of an

argument last time dan wanted to keep him both up in the air last time dan wanted both right he wanted to keep this one is valid i'm going forward with it if this one gets approved he didn't want to re he didn't want the old one removed he wanted to keep i'm i'm requesting so you're saying clarification or some type of decision on that whether or not that is can actually happen

if it is if it is feasible to happen if they can request that if they do you can have three or four or five of them open and they're wrong i can answer that question okay yes you can yes okay does the board have the authority to say you cannot have two three four variances if i give you this yes then the other ones that we granted are no longer good

we can we can condition the granting of the variance on the revocation of the previous variances that's all that happens all that lots of cases that happens all the time okay there are lots of there are lots of titles to properties that have one two three four variances that is still in place that weren't revoked so somebody could have a doctor's office and then somebody could have something else and then somebody

yes but you can say if we grant this variance then it will be conditioned that the prior variance is now revoked so now the prior one which makes not to talk about the specific case no but if you had no no i was thinking about this particular one it existed because there was a variance they got a variance to do something that was in non-conformity now they've got it now to grant another variance to do

something else can you say the prior variance is now void and this is the one that's going to control this development the answer to that is absolutely yes okay but go ahead so in the case of the one that we just heard for example yeah something was built yes there was a prior variance things were built yes so it's very difficult for us in a case like that to say well gee that's null and void we

can we can add on to it but now dimensions are changing etc in the case in in other places in the commonwealth it is assumed within bylaw that if a variance is stacked on top of another variance that the newest variants supersedes and it's up to the petitioner to make sure that title is clear as far as what is allowed i think we had situations i disagree with the variance and the board doesn't revoke it it

doesn't it doesn't automatically get i'm saying that some of the jurisdictions that i've been in front of will simply say you understand that in asking for this variance it will it will nullify that no no and it's something by saying that i think that's almost a condition that listen right prior one is revoked you know but it doesn't happen automatically you can have three or four variances on a product yeah

for various things but not for the same thing that we could that there is a i don't want to call it a bylaw or some uh something in our charter or something just make it explicit get lost you can't have it well i understand but on a lot of them we don't know but but there are elements of some of the previous variances that may not be affected by the new variants and so you can't make

the blanket void of all previous right but the ones that are completely different projects no no a lot of times back to the old one i'm doing pride i got a piece of property i'm doing a then i say no i want to do b you say you want to do b do b but you can't do a in your hearing no i want to have the option of doing a or b

depending on what i feel like doing right yeah and and that's my my concern i just don't want to be uh uh but our decision on problems and until they enact be correct a is still in effect because it's it's dissolving what did we do contingent on b we didn't do that no no we talked about it tonight this one is no good if this one gets appealed then you've

got the old one but if this one doesn't get any decision can be appealed so if a decision allows if our decision as in a prior case said no keep them both that can be appealed all right okay all right which then even though somebody bypassed and didn't appeal a prior decision because we're saying now hey wait a minute now you can have both now it opens it up well that this that

this decision and and the current decision is appealable the prior decision is not open for further review after the um right the timings run out but if we've and we very specifically and i was part of that and i have my my flat out reasons for it too and we can discuss those outside but it yeah i think it can because i ran into a situation at some point in time with something

and a very similar situation happened and somebody said okay they allowed that to happen and they appealed the prior because it was allowed to stand and i know that stretching it they didn't win but they appealed it and they gummed up the project for for months and months and months certainly gums it up well i just like clarification or on an opinion from the planning director planning's office to to guidance on

uh i i i respect and appreciate your opinion and your thoughts let's get it from the water and what you're saying because it is it is get it from the law department we'll ask the war department for an opinion as to that issue that's fine okay and just our because i don't want to do something that will in the future gum it up and and cause things to be uh appealable or or uh

turn around and say yeah the uncertainty of having what we've done in in in the way that we're going about doing it saying oh you you the the other one is null and void well if there's past practice or open case law that says you can't do that i think we should know that because it's a possibility we can ask for a legal opinion okay thank you that's fine i have no problem with that

thank you madam can you make that request or somebody make that request up to the law department to give us an opinion all right thank you thank you hold the government all right so now adjournment we have a second john frank yes all those in favor aye aye the floor of the zoning board of appeals for december 16 2021 is hereby closed thank you all