The Fall River Planning Board convened on December 8, 2021, at 5:30 p.m. The meeting began with a roll call, noting the presence of John Ferreira, Gloria Pacheco, Cynthia Cevigne, and City Planner William Kenny, while Mario Luciola and Beth Andre were absent. The board addressed three "Form A" applications for endorsement of plans not requiring subdivision approval, all of which were approved unanimously.
AI-generated summary. May contain errors. Watch the video to verify.
City Officials
Public / Other
we will begin it's december 8th 2021 it's 5 30 p.m this is the meeting of the fall river planning board and pursuant to the open meeting law any person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made whether perceived or unperceived by those present and are deemed
0:33acknowledged and permissible and we will have a road call and john ferreira here gloria pacheco cynthia cevigne i'm here we have missing this meeting mario luciola as well as beth andre mr kenny william kenny our city planner is here and so we will begin item number one new business we have a form a an application for endorsement of plan believe not to require approval it's file number 2115
1:1316 and the owner applicant is kyle duff the property location is 469 mount hope avenue and assesses map a 11034 and mr jeff is here with us this evening do you want to say anything or no i can give you my recommendation i've reviewed the plan and as you'll see this is an existing house on a fairly large lot and the proposal is to divide it into two lots leaving the existing
1:51house on one and the other vacant at this time but who knows what might happen in the future we don't have to to judge that or look into it our only concern is whether it meets the standards for endorsement as approval under the subdivision control not required and it does meet those standards it has adequate frontage on public ways partly bailey street for lot number two and then the other part is
2:22lot one on mount hope avenue so uh i advise and recommend that you direct the chair to endorse this plan approval not required under the subdivision control law do i have comments yes john um just i'm just glad that we finally got a uh we're subdividing some property that has frontage versus others that everybody knows how i feel about um which you know that leaves it we're separating 85
2:5187 50 square feet so that's that's a good um good amount of land and plenty of frontage i make a motion we approve uh the plane that's submitted within our second
3:10good job mr duff i appreciate that nice to meet you nice to meet you
3:24you should probably call the office tomorrow just to verify when when you can come and pick up the plans it's got to be signed scanned into the system and then you know that the staff will tell you when you can pick it up okay thank you so much everybody okay okay and item number two we have a farm a again an application for adjustment of plan believe not to require approval and this is file number 21-15-17
3:50the owner applicant is ricardo and anna torres and barbara a burgess property location 83 and 67 wheel is straight assesses map b04-0053 mb 04-0054 okay what's going on with this you'll see i think in your notes that the owners of both parcels have jointly filed this request the property line right in the middle of these two lots in the bold face line is the existing line the space between that and the dashed line
4:34creates parcel a parcel a is going to be combined with the parcel on the left or on the west b4 54. so the apparent reason for this is that the driveway you'll see the paved driveway encroaches the driveway that serves house number 67 partly encroaches onto the parcel where we find house number 83 so this transfer of a sliver of land parcel a from one parcel to the other will correct that encroachment so
5:11they've got adequate frontage on a public way and i recommend that you direct the chair to endorse this approval not required under the subdivision control law yes john i just want to uh again on this one expressed by pleasure as i have before uh seeing two landowners especially abutters work out a situation like this and instead of litigating it and resolving the issue the way they did
5:37so i make a motion that we approve this recommendation all in favor item number three another form a file number 21-15-18 owner applicant is kevin aguian the property location is 44-50 coral street assess this map f-21-006 okay as you'll see on this we have a large lot with two existing dwellings and they're going to divide them into parcel one and parcel two parcel one is going to wind up with the
6:24house numbered 44-48 which is an existing three family according to the plan parcel number two will be wind up with the dwelling number 50 an existing single family according to the plan they did need a variance to do this and that's primarily because the the frontage requirements are not met and i believe the uh i know that the variance rectifies that by allowing this to happen so
6:56for our purposes frontage is adequate and it's on a public way so i recommend that you direct the chair to endorse this plan approval not required under the subdivision control law yes john again i'm going to i've always always expressed my concern with with these lots i mean i'm going to approve it and such but the reason where why this goes against me is because and i called some insurance companies if
7:27i owned that house in the back but we've done some with fewer frontage than this if i own that house in the back and i i got it fully insured that house burns down even though i can't replace it they'll have to pay me the replacement costs i would say it's in short for six hundred thousand they're going to give me a check for 600 they don't care if i replace it or not
7:46if i get my 600 000 and i can't build on that lot what am i going to do i'll let it go i already got my money and then what happens then the city takes it back tax title now we own it somebody gets hurt on it we're going to ensure that puzzle so you know this is why you know again i keep expressing my concerns i even like i said i called some insurance
8:06companies to see because it was called a replacement policy if that was to replace it they said no you know we'll just pay out whatever it is 600 they do whatever they want with the money they don't have to replace the house and they want to let it go they let it go it goes back to the city now the city has to insure all these parcels because of uh you know
8:25if something in the event that somebody gets hurt and again you know that's if the house burns down but i'm always looking at worst case scenario and being the devil's advocate i guess but i make a motion we approve that one the motion all in favor all right okay that's the end of our bone eggs item number four is the receipt of a correspondence we'll have a review and discussion of the department of environmental
8:59protection waterways regulation program notice of license application application number w that's 21-60-63 bill yes this is corresponds that was sent to the zoning board the planning board and the conservation commission from the waterways regulation program this is primarily with respect to the route 79 project and it's to give notice that certain permits have been applied for which which have to be
9:40issued by the waterways regulation program this is because of its proximity to the to the taunton river it's not technically within the jurisdiction of the planning department uh it's more within the jurisdiction of the conservation commission and i uh i believe that at their meeting earlier this week this was presented to them uh for review and really no action was necessary it's more
10:06just to to notify us that this process is taking place and my advice is that you just vote to accept this and lay it on file there's no action necessary to be taken by the planning department by the planning board okay um i have a vote to place this on file emotionally place this number on file second all in favor aye aye i just had one question yes is there any way that we
10:37can get a uh printable uh full rendition of what it's gonna look like is there any anywhere online or that we can print if you print it because i know here we got it in line in sections the one that that i had and that i printed is is as long as this table you're welcome to come visit me and take a look at it i'll come visit you but are
11:02you thinking this this is actually a pretty good uh play i understand it's in chunks but yeah it's pretty good detail to give you an idea what's happening down there but if you want to come see me we'll give you the long and how many eggs the long and short of it i've got the shot you've got the lawn the uh what what was the um acreage again that we were going to
11:24that it was going to open up oh um for new developable land i want to say it's between seven and eight acres that's i believe i could be off on that um but that's my recollection i could i could be way off because my memory is not i this is why i take notes and i don't have those notes with me i took notes today and i forgot where i
11:46put my notes that happens to me as well okay so this item will be placed on file in the office and item number five we have the approval of the minutes of october 13th 2021. now uh john was absent from that meeting and so we only have the two of us here which really doesn't meet the quorum so we'll put this on next month's meeting um okay well you had the quorum to open the
12:21meeting now you've sort of lost it because he's abstaining right let's put it off just to be sure let's table this to the next meeting and we can have a vote on it yes exactly so this item will be tabled and item number six is citizen's import there is no one here so now we have adjournment do i have a move i'm also return second all in favor all right
12:49do you want these separates to put in the packets for next