2.16.2023 Zoning Board of Appeals

good evening I am Joseph Pereira chairman of the zoning board of appeals for the city of Fall River it is 6 p.m on Thursday February 16 2023 we are meeting at one government center in the first floor hearing room first went to Massachusetts General Law chapter 30A section 20 subsection F I hereby notify all persons in attendance that this meeting is being recorded with both video and audio devices by Fall

River government TV Mr Craig Salvador is recording both video and audio version of this meeting if anyone present desires to make an audio video or combination recording thereof please notify me now and I shall make a public announcement of your intention anyone thank you a record recording clerk this evening is Nina Kruger sitting to my immediate right present this evening are our permanent members

John Frank who is our co-chair Jim Calkins who is our clerk myself as chair Joseph Pereira we also have sitting in this evening two alternate members uh Eric Kelly and John Sylvia also present this evening from is our director of engineering and planning Dan aguiar and our assistant uh planner Chris uh Perino Perino I'm sorry see I always do that to you Nina have all petitions to be considered

been probably advertised and all interested parties notified in accordance with the rules and regulations of the zoning board of appeals in Massachusetts General law 40a I declared the February 2023rd meeting regularly scheduled meeting in the zoning board of appeals of the city of Fall River opens for such business as shall regularly come before it I remind all persons presenting before the board

including the petitioners of Butters anyone in support or anyone opposed to the petition that your presentation be limited to three minutes questions and responses should 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 petitioners should identify and factually support the basis for the petition

I hereby advise the petitioners and all interested persons that the board that this board is the zoning board of appeals the board's Authority exists persiment to Massachusetts General law chapter 48 and is limited in scope and deals with the with the use of land as regulated by chapter 86 of the ordinances of the city of Fall River additional permits licenses reviews or approval 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 and the building planning engineering licensing and water 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 upon the

title of your real estate I urge all petitioners to seek competent legal counsel before filing your petition and after the decision of the board has been made for example there was a city ordinance 2015-11 section 10-11 requiring site plan reviews a copy of the ordinances 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 are here because the building inspector has determined that your proposed action is contrary to the city of Fall River zoning ordinances the city Charter section 9-18 mandates that all multiple member bodies develop and adopt rules or policies for public comment we have adopted such a policy which in short provides for citizen input on zoning

board matters at the end of the meeting I disclose that to that end there was a sign up sheet outside the door on the table for anyone who may wish to speak at public input I disclose that an official copy of the zoning ordinance is available to city clerk's office one cannot rely on the zoning ordinance online are there any questions before we begin very good um matter of housekeeping I want to take one thing

out of order item number five ASC Investments LLC foreign good evening your purpose is the record Attorney Peter celino lawyer 550 Locust Street in Fall River I represent the petitioner applicant in this matter I have written to your Clerk and requested that this matter be tabled this evening and continue to the March 16th meeting of this board okay any discussions just so that people yeah so so everyone

understands this isn't capricious um we have one member who would be voting tonight were we to hear this who would have to excuse himself from the vote therefore we would only have four voting members and since this is a variance it would require all four members voting yes so it requires a super majority to pass that that doesn't leave any room for any room for error or any room that uh that could

negatively affect or unfairly affect the the petition so that's essentially Where We Are is there any discussion from the board any questions I would entertain a motion to to allow the continuance until the March meeting so moved thank you extension be granted until next meeting good second second by John Frank um any discussion John Frank yes Jim Coggins yes uh Eric Kelly yes yes and yes sorry John that's right uh

and uh chairman Prairie yes so thank you thank you I'm sure we'll hear from you a little later certainly I'll be in the audience thank you very much thank you everyone for your allowance of that therefore if anyone was here for item number five to speak either for or against the 69 rare Alden Street development and you get a month off so thank you very much the first item item number one resilient homes LLC 555

Eastern Avenue map j-17 lot 62. Mr chairman there's a question yes uh Joseph Cavallo vice president of the Flint neighborhood association yes so I it's a procedural question only so I'm wondering how much advance notice does the zba need to get from a petitioner like ASE before they want to sit down and say that they're requesting a another continuance that that's a fear well it's not another this

is the first continuance they've asked for um I will tell you that the situation grew just this week because of our attendance on the board all right normally we'd like to get these things two weeks in advance but there's nothing codified on that we don't have anything written down on that we like to get it as far in advance as possible and it's always a good idea if there's a

case that you have interest in either as an opponent or in in support it's always a good idea to check in with the planning office the planning department you know the couple days before the day before just to make sure that uh there hasn't been a change because we did receive that letter like two three days ago so excuse me if I could chair um I I question that because uh the Weaver Street project

was like five different continuances uh you know and you try to get people to come to participate and then it people show up and then it gets continued month after month after month and and I understand this is only the first continuance you know and I think the Weaver Street project was a very unique case you know because that had nothing to do with us and we're we're also constrained

because until a case uh is actually opened there's no clock as far as when a board has to make a decision so they never opened it and that was their delays they were seeking additional information there were other things that they had going on behind the scenes it was frustrating for us too because it kept on and there were a lot of people that came out and we we live on that public input we want to

hear what the neighbors are thinking we need to hear what the city is thinking and it's kind of tough when things get pushed and pushed and pushed and maybe we have 10 people here the first night and ate the next and you know four but when it was finally heard so I understand your frustration but we don't have anything codified at this point that says if there's going to be continuous we need to be notified x

amount of time in advance um I know that with Weaver Street we kind of pushed them we did get it I think a couple weeks or at least one week in advance but you know it's well no the last the last time that Weaver Street came if you remember they had only submitted the changes that they had to the to the plan that day correct so but thank you for the

clarification I I would only ask them if there's a way to remedy that situation if if the uh an ordinance or a resolution or whatever I'll I'll take this as public input how's that no I thank you and I know that you regularly show up you're one of the people that that is always very generous with your insights on projects and we appreciate that thank you so Mr Cavallo just to add

um if we had one more member I had that had shown up this evening which there was a chance that was going to happen then we then we would move forward so every applicant can request for a matter to be tabled the board has to grant that request with this evening situation where we were short we have always afforded applicants a five-member board to hear their petitions so that type of

a request to table could happen the night of the meeting and it often does because until we know what members we have then we can't you know make that determination thank you item number one let me go back and start this one over Brazilian homes LLC 555 Eastern Ave map J dash 17 lot 62. the applicant seeks an appeal to the action of the zoning code enforcement officer the applicant seeks

the determination by the zoning board of appeals that the previously granted variants recorded in book 9999 page 164 does not State as a condition that the existing dwelling cannot be occupied unless and until the property is developed into a six unit apartment building the applicant requests that the seasoned assist order be overturned good evening now good evening Andrew tine for

the applicant's resilient homes and with me is the manager for the property and the manager of resilient homes Jocelyn Cabral welcome um yes so um Brazilian homes is the owner of the property and we received a cease and distress order from the Building Commissioner that's attached to my papers I believe it's a third page and it indicates that the property can only be used as a six a six two bedroom units

the issue with that is that the variance that was granted by this board with respect to the property does not impose that condition so my client simply seeks to continue to use the building as it previously previously existed and as was constructed at the time of the subdivision so this parcel has had a church and two other buildings my clients had what was formerly a Convent um the property was subdivided and she

purchased the property from dream homes who purchased it from the church after the subdivision and she's been using the property for congregate living for disabled individuals so the order that we received references book 9906 page 19. that that's a misreference I do have that document with me it was not attached to my papers because it's actually just an incorrect document cited by the building inspector that's

the quick claim deed for when the church on the property and transferred it to dream home so I can provide that to the board if they'd like to see it the correct reference is the document which is attached to my papers which follows the cease and desist order and that's the decision referenced in in my client's application and that's at uh book 9999 page 164. so our position is that a a plain and clear

reading of this variance subdivides the property and there is in fact no condition that the property can only be used as a newly developed building the decision says in the matter of dream homes variants requests to divide property into three lots leaving existing Church on Lot C and each of the two existing multi-family dwellings on lot A and B it does reference a proposed nine unit

building but that's not a condition if we read below there's a vote and the conditions being lot A and B provide minimum of 15 parking spaces each and Lot C to provide a minimum of 51 parking spaces final layout and design of parking and access shall be dependent upon approval of a site plan review and then there's a vote so there's nothing contained within this variance that my client would have

seen upon purchasing the property which imposed a condition that she could only use the property as a newly constructed six unit building so we're at simply asking this board to interpret its prior variants that subdivided the property and allowed the legal continuing use of the property as the existing structures were if we look at the history of this a little further if we look at the

application that resulted in the variance which I just referenced the application itself which is in the paper submitted indicates at paragraph three we are keeping the current non-conforming use of each structure um so the subdivision was requested of the property uh the intent was to keep keep the continuing uses which were existing as of that time and um there were no conditions imposed upon the variants

that anyone could be aware of preventing that use so it would be inequitable to to impose a requirement that's not in the variance and prevent my clients use of the property alternatively and secondarily we asked for a reasonable accommodation under the fair housing act this is congregate living for the disabled as defined by Mass General Law chapter 48 Section 3 paragraph four which provides that

unrelated disabled individuals that are living together must be treated the same as a single family for purposes of occupancy so the occupancy which is being used by my client needs to be treated as a single family occupancy and and therefore given the population is disabled we're asking for the relief that if the board disagrees with my interpretation of the variants that my clients still be allowed to use the

property for congregate living for the disabled without any further relief from this board if I cannot just have one minute for my client to speak to what she's doing at the property sure thank you good evening my name is Jocelyn Cabral I'm the owner of the Jordan Matthew house us located at 555 Eastern Avenue we are home to many disabled individuals who come to us from different treatment

facilities different prisons and they would otherwise be homeless most of them so I uh I am a person of long-term recovery I am born and raised in the Flint of Fall River and um my brother passed away of an opioid overdose and this is my way of giving back to the community so I opened this house uh to help individuals become productive members of society I spend my days there

I am the owner but I'm also the director so I manage the facility I'm there every single day making sure that these guys are getting the resources that they need and the services that they need in place um you know before they come into us uh you know we do ask for a biopsychosocial it's basically a comprehensive assessment that we use to determine uh whether or not they are disabled

individuals particularly individuals with substance use alcohol use disorders so we do uh have a very regimented process in getting into the home we do want to make sure that we are taking individuals who are disabled into the home um and many times they come to us and we're able to refer them to the appropriate resources in order to help them become productive members of society so it is very much a congregate

living situation we are one big family in that household we have dinners together I'm there every Wednesday night doing house meeting so it's just a shared space you know right now we have 19 residents that would be displaced if the Seas and desist order uh you know it didn't get removed and we have a capacity of 25 you know so I mean I guess my I guess what I want to stress is that

our homeless population is already a you know a real issue um I'm doing my best to do my part in helping the community um and and in order to provide them with a safe space to recover this is what I've what I've done with a building so I do have that quick claim deed if the Board needs it yeah okay I'm not as concerned about that okay with the recording which I pulled out myself um

were you aware of the variants that created this property the requirement of the 15 parking spaces the the fact that the six unit was in here were you aware of that when you were when you closed on the property now when I closed on the property I was made aware shortly after within a day or two so you hadn't had you were whoever handled your closing correct they dropped the ball didn't

really run through the title Report with you I mean even after the fact when Glenn Hathaway the building inspector mentioned that there was a variant it was referenced in the wrong book wrong page so I couldn't possibly find the variance because it's not referenced properly um I had to go to the registry of deeds and really do some digging to find the variants but once I did find the variants

I saw that there was no condition there to to actually turn this into a six family it sounds like it was a request made at one point that was not exercised within the 12 months or whatever you know whatever it was the one year and uh I'm not I'm not really sure how that works well let's address that because yes the variance has to be exercised within Azure Council will tell

you within one year from the date of its clearing the city clerk's office no one comes in and appeals it the one-year clock begins at that point the subdivision of the land was the activation of the variance so the variance did take effect if it had not if the land was never subdivided the variance would have run out and we would have been sitting here with the church and the other two

buildings still on the same parcel of land the subdivision never would have happened Etc okay yeah I was not serving at the time that this was passed but I I can't imagine that the six unit and nine unit would have just mysteriously shown up in the decision if it hadn't been a discussion that evening has and Par as part of it I will also point out that the other building on the property

which was granted a variance for for nine units they made a change and they came back to us for a new variance in order to in fact that was just last month in order to do what they wanted to do with the property and then they'll move ahead change that put in the parking is agreed upon Etc uh and go forward I would have to uh I'm going to turn to the board for questions anyway

I don't think we would have ended up with mysterious numbers of Apartments showing up on a recorded document at the registry of deeds as they say at the top of the meeting a real and Lasting effect on on the property um that's why title reports especially on properties that change hands Etc and so so important to review I deal with it every single day and I can think of very very few projects on

the large Parcels that I'm dealing with but we don't find some surprise so um I I empathize with that situation questions from the board at this point good no so all this is is a this is an appeal of the zoning Enforcement Officers determination this is not an application for a new variant or a change of use or anything like that correct thank you so their claim is that nothing changed the sixth unit

was not part of the the application that was made was part of the application yeah I think so too you wouldn't have just mysteriously thrown it in there so you have the application don't you well the application is attached to the our submission and if you read the application it's entirety nowhere does it mention proposed six or nine unit development and I'm reading the decision

correct so somehow or another magic will tell you how nine came up please um you'll see him close in your package you'll also see the plan that accompanied the petition correct that clearly spells out these the minutes of the meeting itself was clearly presented by attorney Gloria for Chico what the use of these structures were to be and if you look further into her application she states about number of parking

spaces and a number of different improvements for the property that that were all taken into consideration when when the relief was granted with regards to the decision itself when we read the first paragraph of what the variance request was that's technically the petition can you read paragraph to what we voted unanimously to Grant a pet petition and then moving on adding additional conditions to it so

to to state that the variance decisions nowhere references a six units apartment building correct I think is a bit disingenuous as it was presented on a plan in the discussion in the minutes on the decision as well I would also offer that prior to the current owner purchasing the property the a r plan that was created as a result of this variance Grant does reference the the zoning decision as well

I don't know again who your legal representation was at the time but I would have thought that they would have done the proper research and guided you in the proper direction to do that additionally some of the conditions with regards to site plan review and the creation of parking even if you want to argue that the six unit apartment building part of it doesn't comply you still need to comply

with site plan review and the creation of these parking spaces which you have not done as well was was site plan review done for these individual lots and so the other two yes I have already gone through and who received not not this one not this one no so none of the conditions of the variants were were addressed except for the subdivision well I mean afternoon yeah so I think it's a little stickier situation

now I I empathize with your situation regarding the cease and desist and I'm not quite sure what we can do with that I understand your feeling on accommodation I'm not feeling I understand the law or an accommodations um you've got and again it's not my decision it's a board decision we've got our decision obviously it was viewed differently by a different different attorney because

they came in and asked for the change in order to accommodate what they want to do with the building now which was just a change in number of Apartments changing the number of parking spaces to accommodate that um and I know I I know you're seeking other remedies as well um any other questions from the board before I go to the public is there anybody here to speak in favor of this petition foreign

well uh on this particular case I'm also in a butter so I owned the property at 575 581 Eastern Avenue and my family has owned that property since 1947.

uh the history of course is is Brothers of Christian instruction that must have been 20 25 Christian Brothers there teaching at the former Prevost High School and then moved on to official Conley so uh I went on the website for resilient homes and read just about everything on that website the the accountability and responsibility uh that that this program requests and demands of its residents is

beyond reproach uh and and I would add also just as a back story between March of 2021 in March of 2022 there were over a hundred and ten thousand deaths by overdose in the United States so I applaud uh this program's uh reaching out and and doing in my estimation the right thing uh if people do have an opportunity to look at the website and see exactly what they require of all the residents uh for

instance you have to have a job work 30 hours and if you don't have a job and work 30 hours then you have to put in community service hours you have to do this you have to do that this is not a this is not a uh by the seat of their pants program this is a very well thought out uh Ms Camara has has a long history of working with in residential

programs of this type and that she would take this building and and turn it into something that's a real benefit to the residents of the city and create really help create uh contributing members of society rather than you know not uh I'm I'm very much in favor of it thank you anyone else want to speak in favor sir my name is Carlos Caesar 112th Street um I'm also the president of the Flint

neighborhood association which this home would be located or is located it is a perfect example for people they say that we always against projects on our neighborhood here's a good project that we Welcome to our neighborhoods we have problems and the city and we realize that we have a lot of problems on our neighborhoods just like we were in favor when Seven Hills locked for location on Pleasant streets

to bring those programs into individuals that need help so here's another another perfect case that we are embrace you know projects like that and we are in favor of the uh thank you anyone else in favor anybody present wish to speak in opposition to the petition sir first of all I'm the pastor of the church that's prime minister your name please Ronald Bernier and uh you know I was part of the process when

they went and subdivided the land as an interested owner to purchase the church building so you know I'm very much aware of the conditions that was set they were you know nine units and six units and that was all presented as three different hostels to be subdivided each one of us had certain responsibilities after that purchasing to be able to do that um so our consideration was that there

would be some apartment houses close to us not necessarily in saying something against the program because all of us are trying to help other people as in a butter I wasn't even notified about this and so that's what a one question I have is that being that we're a direct about her we were notified who this program exists or that this zoning board appeal was going to take place I've gone through the building twice

trying to see who the director was because I've used myself to find out what was going on because there's a sort of a door that's facing right next to the church and there's always somebody standing there either smoking or or congregating that and so even we have a principle that comes in early in the morning and it's almost afraid has to park close to a door not knowing what

what the program is and so you know I think that there's a proper way to establish a program and I would have thought the neighbors should have been at least notified that something like this was going to take place and so for that you know I've got to say that as a church and as a school we have kids from four years so after high school I'm just concerned about we've had a few people

come into the church service and look we're trying to reach people in the community so that's not a problem but but we've had you know sometimes it was a backpack left had to be able to remove it you know so I'm just concerned obviously for safety and you can see all the different issues that are going on in our nation right now and so um look we we were part of uh taking

care of homeless when we were on Bay Street they are still continuing that program so I'm not opposed to being able to help people in the community but I am concerned about how this began the fact that there's no communication to the community around and I'm still don't really know what's going on in the building thank you guys I I will I will point out too in a convoluted way we're not voting on

the use of the building for this for this purpose we're voting on the decision of the code enforcement officer to deny their their petition to not turn it into a section in the department building Etc so it's that's that's the only thing is I wanted to state that when when this all happened it was a certain clear understanding of what the property was going to be about that's all Mr Bernie

just to be clear you were notified of this hearing correct Master Builders 397 Bay Street Fall River Mass where's our addresses over here but what address do you have on record at the city is what it gets emails so we're utilizing you know Butters these yeah utilizing the mailing addresses that they have yeah so we haven't had that mailing address almost but they're only required to go by the

list that was submitted by the assessor's office and this is what your current mailing address is there so I apologize that you didn't get nervous but to back up the the use of the building as whatever use they're proposing if it was a standalone watch there would be no about a notification process for that correct um so I do apologize that your address was wrong but this is you may want to

call the city because this is what they have listed as your mailing address the other ones have reissued our mailing address too so yeah different departments I'm assuming the assessor's office makes the list and they certified to engineering at the time but that had to go through the post office yeah thank you Dan anyone else was just speak in opposition sir good evening my name is

the building that they were speaking of I own the 529 building right across in the same yard which was part of the of the um the subdivision and um when my wife and I looked at the property when the projectors were selling they were clear about what properties were what the variances were for the property you know and that's why we bought the the 529 building and you know we're a Fall River people were

excited about redoing it and we're going to put a lot of time and money we've already done it and we're trying to do things the right way and I don't know as Ashley was saying like I don't know these people they I don't know what's going on you know and we're going to put millions of dollars into a property that we don't know what's going on I know the building Department's not happy with what's going

on we haven't seen anything you know I see people in there like when the building was vacant for a long time and then I think there was a big kind of flood where things got damaged through the uh you know through the sprinkler system so and then I never saw a contractors there I never saw never spoke with the owner you know and um I lived in the Flint I owned two buildings there

so and I understand helping people but you also have to do things the right way right so to jam this down people that are making big investments into the neighborhood and not knowing what's going on it's it's just it's not fair we're seeing people congregating outside there's been known reasons for parking at all whatsoever for that building if you try to go through there it's always congested there's a school right

next door with little kids you know I see people with like ankle bracelets on hanging around outside so you know my only thing is if if they would have done it and come you know to the neighborhood and done it the right way I think a lot of good people here would be behind it but the way it was done kind of like back door the inspector doesn't know what's going

on the abutters don't know what's going on I don't see any you know I don't know how can people live there has anything been approved for safety in that building you know I know you'd have to ask the bill in this way right which I you know and he's not happy about what's going on over there so you know I would say you know the neighborhood would gather together and help but we need to know

what's going on and you know I just don't think it was a right thing to do the way they did it that's all okay thank you for that input anyone else we should speak can I respond briefly please um with respect to the decision which is we're asking this board to to interpret we're not asking the board to SP to read into the decision what other people said happened at a hearing that

resulted in the decision it's it's irrelevant what's relevant is the recorded decision the recorded decision says in that second paragraph variance request to divide property into three lots leaving existing Church on lot C existing and each of two existing multi-family dwellings on lot A and B leaving those leaving them as they are after the subdivision reading time you're reading the petition you

just said no that's this is the decision the variance okay the variance says that they're leaving the existing structures it's clear and there's no condition didn't say leaving the existing uses leaving the existing structures and and I realized you I'm one guy I got a whole board here that's gonna it's gonna make a decision on this well we don't have a cease and desist on the use we have a cease and

desist on the fact that it's not was never reconstructed as a six two unit building it's basically the building inspector is saying you can only use that if you convert it into this new new use this new new structure and that's not what this decision says it says it's subdivided and leaving the existing structures and anyone purchasing this property can rely upon that did you go back to the plans that were

that was submitted tonight did you go back to their attention there we go back to the recording from that evening so I wasn't involved obviously in the closing I came in after the fact and from what I've reviewed the application which is part of our packet nowhere does it say that there's a rook that they're seeking to build these these these two new structures in fact it says in four

different spots they're leaving the existing structures and leaving the use now what was said at the hearing they probably said we do intend to develop this in this way or the other but that was not made a condition of the subdivision and I can understand that language does exist it's on the plans that were submitted it says proposed six unit and proposed nine unit building but this board as it existed back then

could have put that as a clear condition instead the variant says they're leaving the structures so to interpret it that leaving the existing two multi-family dwellings is is exactly how it's written correct okay and they left them yeah correct but the use is different we're not here about use right that's what you're just we're quoting we're not telling you at the tear the building down construction can stay

um in the data structure is what's at issue no the the building inspector is saying that there's a variance for the property to be converted into two into six two bedroom units that's not what the variant says the variant says they're leaving the structures so the building inspector said this can only so they're still running what was the airport poor housing just like was there before

congregate housing as we heard from from Joe it's congregate housing unrelated people living together we have a disabled population previously it was the ministry the use was as a Ministry now it's not so it's that that but that that phrasing is not I don't what the discussion was if the proposal you're starting at a certain point but the motion if you got the full motion we don't have a cease and desist

full motion um foreign

it's permission to waive use and dimension requirements of the apartment zoning District to divide the current single family law which contains three structures a church and two multi-family dwellings into three individual lots and wave minimum front yard minimum side yes sir Eric that's not the motion the motion uh this is the appeal application form that resulted in the variance it's attached to my papers

that was made too oh the motion to the board yes of the board in the matter of dream homes LLC variants request to divide property into three lots leaving existing Church on Lot C and each of the two existing multi-family dwellings and lot A and B waiving use and dimensional requirements and a motion made by Mr Calkins and seconded by Mr Frank the board unanimously voted 5-0 to Grant the

petition with conditioned speech okay so that the petition was to divide those properties into those units that's what the petition was so we're granted the petition with additional qualifications the petition says in one two three different spots keeping the current non-conforming use of each structure as standard the planet read the decision because that you're saying that the

decision matters I'm saying the decision is what really matters yes but the history supports yes LLC care of Glory for Chico Esquire variance request to divide the property into three lots leaving existing Church on Lot C 70 000 square feet and each of the two existing multi-family dwellings on lot A and B that's where you stop the reading continue on this is suppose there's a unit building on lot a 20 000

square feet proposed sixth unit building on Lot B fifteen thousand five hundred square feet waving use in dimensional requirements in the A2 District moving forward in a motion made by Mr corkens and seconded by Mr Frank the board unanimously voted five to zero to Grant the petition period then we go on to the conditions of site plan review minimum number of Partnerships so every time

you've read a section you've eliminated the phrasing of lots A and B proposed nine unit building on lot a and propose six unit building on line b as it was presented on the plan and as it was presented by attorney Gloria pachico of which those words is what the board voted and acted upon well those that proposed you buildings are in parentheses that's that's a proposal but that's not

what's happening because it clearly says they're leaving yeah I I think you know I can't tell you very much this is very very specific dealing with Glenn's decision the applicant has the ability to request new relief construct the six unit apartment building at the beginning or or take it to court there's three options and just so that everyone in the audience understands if the applicant would decide to build a

six human six unit apartment building the use that they have in the building is completely alive if they see new relief asking for it to be converted to a single family home what they're doing is it is completely allowed however the caveats are dealing with site plan review or street parking and utilities that's still a standing condition so the only the only part of this that we're

dealing with today is that it was not a six unit building period that is all so that can be alleviated if they would like to build six Apartments fill it with whoever you want any type of congregate housing you want that that's that's an Avenue that the applicant can move or simply come in and ask excuse me for a new relief to convert it to a single family home with no discussion

of it's to be congregate living because zoning relief is not required for that the only reason we're here today is that this lot was created through a variance proceeding that governs the entire piece of land and all three subsequent pieces of land so we're only allowed to deal with this narrow window of what was granted for relief and that's why the building official made that determination that's all we're

here to deal with today not whether or not this is a great program it is it's needed they're in other locations in the city but this board and the building inspector have to look at the narrow scope by the way this piece of piece of land was created for a specific use and that's why the decisions were made to bring you here today I guess for clarification what I'm hearing from the city Engineers that if

this was used as a single family property then that would be allowed no you would need to come back and ask for relief for it to be a single family house well our position is is that it is a single family occupancy because there's one kitchen there's there was a variance granted for it to be a specific use of six Apartments period just like in a zoning bylaw you want to do this there's a why

if there's a box and is not an N for no that doesn't mean you're allowed to do it just because the zoning bylaw didn't address it and if it's not exercised experience was exercised by the side by the scale the subdivision sale of the first lot development of the first Lot Sale of the second lot so if this was a very specific to this singular Apostle and a singular variance

only for this parcel I agree with you wholeheartedly after two years that variance expires that's not the case here this variance governs the entire parcel and the creation of this piece so you can't pick and choose what parts of the variants you want to utilize so you can't let the Big Lot okay you want to use the variance you can use it other owner you want to use the variants

you can use it the third owner is still governed by the variance whether or not they like the conditions of what the variance Grant was without changing it so you have multiple Avenues to be able to do what you want to do yeah it's a variants had expired they couldn't have sold no it has not expired because no I said no if it had so if it was if the petition was not to subdivide

and the petition came in and said okay I own this piece of land I want to build a six six unit apartment building variance was granted yes that expires after a year if you don't act upon it there were many other portions of this variance as a whole singular variance but three different Parcels to create them as well it was acted upon so that's all that can happen here just like if you have a

subdivision and you say create 12 Watts well I'm going to build single-family homes on 10 of them with the last two I want to do something different with well you can if you go back and get additional release because those partials were created and governed by the relief that was previously granted well if that's going to be the board's interpretation then we're looking for a reasonable accommodation under federal

law to be able to use this this property for a congregate living arrangement for disabled individuals without any further variances thank you Joe I have one question how long has this been used the facility or the building how long have you been using the building has it been two years no we moved into the end of October of last year of last year and so the building inspector must have got involved because

somebody must have complained I gather he was involved prior to I was moving in there thanks so you were granted a cease and desist did you abide by it or is it still being operated I believe that season this has came a lot a lot afterwards like no no I know but this isn't this no we appealed it it's still being occupied the property yeah and that's appealed to the court system

at this point no to to the sport that's what we're hearing today yes I will entertain a motion from the board uphold the season second is there any further discussion on that motion they're hearing none John Frank yes mccaulkins yes Eric Kelly yes John Sylvia yes and uh chairman Ferrera yes is there two votes I'm sorry we were just discussing recommend that you should take a separate is there two

votes because one was reasonable accommodations on his other requests was cease synthesis I I would say the the upholding the decision of the Specter was both two separate two separate books please yeah yeah okay so then your initial was on accommodation

you can do that now your original motion no we'll have to do this too we'll do two separate votes don't desist uh on the matter of reasonable accommodation fan of motion I can't believe I'll second that further discussion John Frank yes Jim carkins yes Eric Kelly yes John Silvio yes and chairman Pereira yes thank you thank you

I guess

he's got a little fumble in here I lost an important document case number two m a land LLC 2322 South Main street map b-23 lot one the applicant seeks a variance to construct a two-story addition to the existing auto service station with a convenience store waving dimensional requirements in the A2 apartment zoning District please identify yourself good evening Mr chair members of the board my name is Hal

chuba I'm a Consulting engineer with offices at 112 State Road in Dartmouth Massachusetts and I here represent the applicant on this application as you stated this is an application to uh well basically it's it's this board about I think back in 2016 did approve this application and the applicant also requested a in extension and back that expired in May 2018 unfortunately then we'll move the conversation outside and

he never exercised his his right so I get the various laps and we're here to re-establish that but through a new application the property is located in the A2 District currently it's an existing gas station with with the building on it approximately 1800 square feet that has three repair bays and small snacks store uh the applicant is proposed to demolish the small snack shop and build the 750 foot addition to

serve as a convenience store it's a two-story edition the second story would be used for storage and office use not a public so and you have the applique you have the plans I'll be glad to answer any questions and I understand we will go through site plan review after the if this application is granted is this substantially what was requested previously absolutely yeah change the stamp

don't strain your eyes plagiarize no I mean no no no talking layout's a little bit different and it's probably better no it's great I think we did them thank you couldn't this have been done as a special permit I think what happens is the expansion of the existing non-conforming use could be a special permit technically the addition will be closer to the rear property we have a

dimensional issue and that's pretty much forced by the shape of the lot I would assume is yes I mean you can see clearly the it's it's an unusual shape I think it looks like a piece of pizza we all know a couple of us have probably bumped into the uh the Caribbean on the front of it um any questions from the board the input from engineering no no I reviewed the plan again it's

very consistent with what the previous release was uh and we'll deal with that stuff during sex anybody here wish to speak in favor of this petition anybody who wish to speak in opposition hearing none if there were no other questions or comments from the board I will entertain a motion I'll make a motion to Grant with the existing uh as stated on the plan's existing uh structure to be modified to a two-story

addition Auto Service and convenience store waving dimensional requirements did you know that that is going to site plan recycling sometimes yeah we'll put it in the motion anyway if you typically do all right any discussion on the motion John Frank yes Jim Calkins yes uh Eric Kelly yes John Sylvia yes and chairman Prairie yes thank you build it this time thank you

item number three FP Rock Street LLC 362 Rock street map 0-01 lot 19. the applicant seeks a special permit to expand the existing nine unit apartment building to include an additional residential unit for a total of 10 units the applicant also seeks additional relief for off-street parking requirements the property is loaded located in an A2 apartment zoning District good evening good evening Mr chairman and fellow

members of the board thank you for your time tonight so my name is Charles Fuller and I am the owner of 360 to Rock Street it's currently a nine unit building and I am seeking a special permit to build a 10th unit in the unfinished basement the work will not um include extending the footprint of the building in any way shape or form and it will also include creating two off-street parking spots so it does not

create a any additional detriment to the neighborhood by you know resulting in more cars having a park on the street so um it's uh fifteen thousand seven hundred and fifty square feet um and you know based on what I understand and the zoning District that we're in um you need a special permit because I think it's ten thousand for the first unit and then 2500 for each additional unit um this is an over building and I

believe it's been used as a rental property for um at least a couple decades at this point we also have my engineer Jeff Tillman here he's with the Northeast engineering consultants and he helped with the little survey plan so you're just gonna So you you're this is not adjusting the apartments that are already there they're using like where those two red doors are in the back of that is that going to be the entrance

Center yeah that would be the separate entrance okay for downstairs there'd be two egresses um and we're not touching uh you know any other units as part of this it's just finishing the basement down there plenty of space down there high ceilings and big windows I don't and this is me personally you're not changing the the footprint of the building 9 10.

that that's not really driving my decision let's talk about parking for a moment those two spaces in the back I I how are those being done are you literally cutting into that Hillside in order to do it yes as you can see on the plan and again for the record Jeff Tallman Northeast Engineers as you can see on the plan there is a walkway it's just some walkways kind of overgrown at the

moment but there is a walkway that goes from shallowner Street into the uh the rear of the dwelling into the basement we plan to utilize that what we would do is cut into the the wall the stone retaining wallets back there and pour a new wall to account for these parking spaces uh and strictly that area would just be used for parking because again we have the stairs and walkway going

from uh Chandler Street up to the the basement so there's no need to construct a new walkway a new set of stairs or to get up the hill so that would be the plan and it would be it would kind of be its own private entrance into the unit so it would really have no bearing on the way the unit functions now where everybody else comes in through Rock Street um in that manner nobody utilizes coming

in from the rear of the property so it would just be for this one unit um tell me this the the existing driveway that's there what would you call the accommodation for parking there how many how many cars right now it can handle about two cars two cars park in there and that's kind of first come first serve yeah they're not assigned um we just kind of Grandfather that in previous tenants that were already

living in the building I bought it back in uh July of 21 and so we have some long-term tenants in there and we just continue to let them you know use that driveway to park because I mean I can I can easily see that you can you can put two cars across that driveway so two people come in behind those two cars and then you've got English you know you've got a problem

right right yeah was there any consideration given to going further into the lot and trying to do something else with parking I realized that many of the homes in this neighborhood don't even have a driveway and and that multifamily and I also realized the parking situation there um a FedEx truck pulled up and I pulled in that's the only reason I got a parking space um was there any consideration to

cutting for the back end of the property or addition additional spaces off channel that would probably be kind of difficult but yes you could be a hero on Rock Street by coming up with a couple more parking spaces the the issue there becomes the great at the rear of the property it really drops off pretty good so we're going to constructs something um would be kind of difficult would be

expensive you need to bring in a lot of fill to kind of make it somewhat level or if you left it at the grade that it's at now it would just be a dangerous situation for parking especially during the winter yeah I could be retaining wall so correct so no but it is something that we did consider um then there's also an issue with lot coverage that would put us well over uh the uh the maximum

allowed whereas what we're proposing here would would fall within the uh allowable limits okay comments from engineering and planning no I think questions from the board I just have one how many uh bedrooms will be in that basement unit yeah two bedrooms two bedrooms is with in that driveway couldn't you fit another car it looks like you could fit three cars in there it would be tough to squeeze into

free like as far as you know um making sure that they don't uh bump into each other you know and cause damage so right now we just try to limit it to two would make it difficult to maneuver yeah and you would have to back out probably not the Rock Street I don't think you'd be able to turn on the driveway itself yeah and and just so everybody knows just for

the record so the building's made up of um seven one bedroom units and then two Studios oh okay but you could you consider parking on the opposite side of the building if there's a five family building there maybe just put another driveway for like two or three cars to take cars off there um because it is I know that's an option I think like that would require a curb cut though right now not sure about you

know that would maybe take a pocket spot away from the street so the issue with that is is the width of the area that you're dealing with like you wouldn't have enough area to go in in perpendicular Park and so it would be a similar situation to what you have on another side in which case you may only be able to get one car in there and by doing putting a curb cut in you're

taking away a space or two maybe on the street so you're really not gaining anything but knowing that work any other questions I was talking about the wall on the back that's a that's a big law that's a big one taking a chunk on it that's something it's about four feet yeah and I understand you're not losing a curb any parking there because that's a there's no parking on either side of the

street Street we'll get to utilize the walkway this is a nice Granite post back there that it's all overgrown but you can clean that all up it looked very nice my question was the same as John if you could go either on the other side of that and put more parking if possible but uh on the opposite side of the walkway instead of just two maybe three or four back there if that works

I know that would probably put us over with a lot of coverage um the maximum lot coverage that is something that we did look at where we were trying to figure out how to design this site so that was the only issue with that I appreciate that effort to get any part any additional parking okay I was I was surprised when ordered around the corner and saw where those two were going I saw the wall yeah

it is kind of unique because the additional unit is going to have its own entrance separate from the rest of the building so really there's going to be no change to the name of it like the people on Rock Street aren't gonna aren't going to notice the difference they're going to be you know um All Landscape and done back there too like there's a lot of overgrown you know trees and bushes and brush so that all

that will be cleaned up and may look very nice you're going to make George Washington Dean proud of that yeah any other questions before we go to the public everybody in favor of the petition is anybody opposed to the petition oh yes in favor of these properties to this property at 362 Rock Street um opposed to it for a number of reasons the property is owned for three Apartments it currently has nine

there are uh so many units there that puts a strain on parking in the neighborhood which is they're asking for parking they're proposing ad in parking spots at the back of the property which would be located on Shallow Street with no right away shallow on the street is an unrecognized Street it is so narrow the city doesn't plow it sweep it'll take care of it my neighbor Joe has been taking care of her for 20 years

he's been plowing it we all take care of it um shell on the street is named for Bradford Matthew schallen or Durfee I don't know if you all know that but his name's on everything in town the house at number 26 was built for his aunt it is one of the only two homes in the city that are grief Revival homes and if this proposal was approved the view from that home and my home will be

that of a three-sided concrete box more reminiscent of Soviet brutalist architecture than quaint old New England the concrete wall that the plan wants to destroy has stood in this neighborhood since the 1700s it's 14 feet high and 40 feet long it has rings in it where residents used to tie their horses up this is a feature of the neighborhood that the people who live in these old

houses appreciate and don't want to see taken away also the plan doesn't take into consideration that residents are parked along the street all the time if these people when they have guests they park across their own driveway which I think they're entitled to there's no room to get out of these parking spots shallowing the street is a narrow Narrow Street and I understand that they want parking for this

particular building but it's already at capacity and knocking down that wall would definitely have an effect on the neighborhood it would have an effect on all of us who live on Channel Street and who have bought this property and that's it thank you very much thank you I just wanted to correct I was just looking at the photo of Patriot Properties and this is a nine unit it's you know I mean it's a legal nine unit

building site because I thought you said three units I think it was originally Zone a three three bedroom apartments yeah but but it is sewn it's an idea in the neighborhood and I'm a landlord I understand and you want to maximize your return on investment but jamming another apartment into what was once a historic property it's really just a cash trial and it's if you put boxing all around it it ruins

the flavor of the neighborhood and all of the butters actually have pocket already driveways as they will tell you so anyway it would it would negatively affect the neighborhood and and I will point out that for the one apartment that they want to add they have accommodated parking for that apartment which is which is unacceptable if I could correct something I think he said the wall was 14 feet high yeah it's

no it's only four feet and that's that's a stone wall there there's a granite wall on either side but that section there is is Stonewall this is considerably higher than four feet you're talking about taking out a few feet from this walkway all the way to here this is the wall you want to take up it's considerably higher than four feet it's 14 feet high and it's been there since the 1700s well I must be 16

feet tall because it was I was just looking down at the top of it when I went out there happy to provide you with a photograph of it yeah I drove down there myself and that's why I said it's a it's a big wall that was my question on whether or not you were gonna how much of it you were taking out if it was even feasible to do it but um we were just discussing either

possibilities of more parking on the front end into the front yard turn a turn in or a back in for two it might be easy for you I I don't know it just that wall was a concern um all the way around yeah well it would be a curb cut yeah I'm not an engineer I was just looking at uh something in the front or something on the other side where John

mentioned if it's possible I know you're talking about lot coverage but you could do impervious you know pavers or gravel or something to do that and it might be more cost effective too but um stop comment anything else I'm just going back to what John said about if if you have three small Co you know if there are three small cars they can fit into that you could have three spots there instead of two yeah the

people are gonna have to back out but you know what I mean a lot of people back out of their driveway no it's not exactly a busy street so I I don't think backing out here is going to be an issue we could you know make those parking spots as deep as we can and still meet the requirements of the you know lot coverage in other words we can get 24

feet make them a little bit deeper deeper to be able to maneuver as you're pulling out then certainly we'll do that you know we're not we won't keep it at the minimum yeah I think right now it's supposed to be 20 I think the the standard in the city is 18. so they're already two feet deeper than across other requirements Mr chairman worth their traditional uh opposition back there just one one quick

yes I also here to speak an opposition oh okay please identify yourself hi my name is Miriam McAuley Correa I currently reside at 337 Walnut Street my house about Walnut and Challenger it's the house on the corner um child on our street was formally known as Challenger Lane I'm here today in opposition of the proposed special permit of the additional unit and additional relief hopping set forth

on behalf of FP Rock Street LLC my opposition is that child in our street is a private way that is a total of 20 feet wide of which 10 feet is for us to pass and re-pass and is not for the public to use nor is it built for an increase in traffic furthermore it would be difficult to make the turn needed to access the proposed driveway the lot has been overgrown and used as a

Dumping Ground not to mention as a path for criminal activity opening it would make it more accessible in traffic could result in an increase in crime Which is my which brings me to my objection of adding another unit the owners are currently neglecting that Backlot as it is all us neighbors get together at least once a year and we all trim back the overcoming because what happens is that overgrowth comes into

Challenger Street so that our cars can't even pass without getting scratches almost every single one of our cars have scratches from the open world uh and damage to our vehicles so I do have an objection to just dismantling of the of the minute block wall the dates back to the late 1700s 100 also adding an additional unit will create additional parking constraints in the neighborhood as well I thank you for

your consideration if I could respond if I may so um so I bought the building um 18 months ago July of 21 and since about the building I've been doing um there was a lot of deferred maintenance and so we've done a lot of work on the build in terms of updating the exterior update the interior units turn in the apartments over getting better tenants in there and we've had no issues in the building from

criminal activity standpoint since we acquired the building we got rid of the tenants who um you know appeared to be Troublesome and um you know updated those apartments and rented them out and we will continue you know to get around to update you know the rest of the lot like it takes time it's a gradual process to buy an old property with a lot of different maintenance and put it on its feet and you know improve

everything for the neighborhood I think it's been you know a positive thing for the neighborhood um you know since the building was bought and we've been doing the updates it and I appreciate that thank you to the to the to the opposition did you get a preservation or historical did you seek their input help Etc did you take this concern to preservation did you take this concern to historical no because we have not

gotten any we have no correspondence from preservation which is kind of surprising but we don't so and they know about it from the engineering standpoint not the site engineering speak to me about this street is it indeed a non-accepted way so there are a number of private ways in the city of Fall River unaccepted ways that the city does not maintain does not plow does not pick up trash so this is not an uncommon

occurrence yep um in a situation like this most normally eat your budding landowner technically owns to the center line of the private way everyone else on the street does have the right to pass and so lay utilities anything so that this property is afforded the same accessibility as everyone else however um it is it is narrow but if they can make the if does anybody else have a driveway office

but I just the correction it's in in pass and be passing right it's not on the Rock Street Deeds right but what happens to you have to you also just because your deed says you have the rights too that doesn't mean other people don't so normally any parcel that has Frontage along that way and this is a legal question for your attorney um that that could be a preventative measure that if it's determined by the

law that this property does not have rights which is very pretty rare if the tree runs by your your property line but that is an Avenue that that you could look into and I would just say I mean if you look at the existing condition out there with the walkway going down to the street um one would have to believe that you wouldn't construct a walkway going to a street that you don't have the rights to

use um you can actually answer that I can't answer that question I'm the homeowner of 337 Walnut Street identify yourself please uh I'm the homeowner Joseph Correa from 327 Walnut Street yep that walkway is part of the June Street walkway where that new house that they just remodeled with the uh a certain Historical Society they have a set of stairways those stairways go back to the 1700s to when

the Giffords own the whole area and they put stairways going down from Gifford Street what the walkway all the way up to Rock Street so you're saying that this sidewalk this is 90 days before his house was even built that's not the question the question is if there was a sidewalk that's presented on that plan

no that walkway is part of the walkway down on June Street because there's another set of stairs there because that's what used to be the gifted law right right so that predates you know those scales being used for his property yeah right but but they're wrong yeah yeah they're both sets of scales are still there okay the only thing I would add is we can certainly take measures to preserve uh

the wall as the best we can we're only going to cut into how much that we need in the stones that we remove we could use we use on a portion of the wall in other words we could take the face of the wall push it back to 20 feet and use the the stones there as the new face so that you know aesthetically it might look better um and still pour the concrete three

ways around it but at least you know reuse some of the the stone that's there uh just to help preserve the characteristic of the a lot appreciate it may I asked the board does the city have any regulations regarding adding parking spaces to unrecognized streets considering how narrow it is we're not adding parking he's not asking to add or or petitioning to add parking spaces on the street right he's having to add

on his on his property yep but he's adding it onto US free where this gentleman yes but it was built for Mr durfee's Aunt they talk right here and his guests sometimes spots across the end of his driveway how is anybody going to get out of that box if there were cars back to you it will not fit out so keep it up there's less than 10 feet so the city

has no governance over a private way however um I I don't know your name or what the address is but yeah cars cars are probably not be parked on that street if if in your deed it says people have the right to pass and re-pass it doesn't say you have the right to park so be careful about it easily side right okay so so just make sure that that's clear

you may make sure that you are allowed to park yeah you need them also Rd goes to the extent of going to a court case to Probate Court where it says we have the right to pass a re-pass on the easterly side okay but the ten place is what I talked about with the half and the half everybody owns to the satellite ten feet so what he is saying is that

yes you automatically have the right to pass on your 10 feet on the other day you automatically have the 10 from starting from your property your Deeds go so far as to remind you that you also can pass on his 10 feet I don't know what this deed says that has makes no mention but it has been presented either for or against so but if that's the only Galley regardless of what this decision is here tonight

this is a zoning Board of Appeals if they don't have the legal right to utilize shall industry then they can you use Challenger Street that's a civil matter between you and the owner of this building this is strictly zoning with the extension of the existing nine unit building from nine to ten in a waiver of the required parking right so as the chairman stated at the beginning of the

meeting there are other boards and other permits that are required after this relief may or may not be granted something like that would be one of those other items that they need to check just like you would need to go and apply for a building permit and meet all the building code just because we say yes you can do it that doesn't mean they can meet the building code requirements that's for another board another

permitting agents would we be able to appeal of course of course any decision of of any public board can be appealed zoning board planning board conservation for that matter so can we any of the normal questions yeah yes yes yes my name is I own the 28 Challenger Street okay which directly about the property and so my driveway if I back out of my driveways there's barely enough room for me to get my car out

and so when it snows and it's pricey say when those cars back out essentially into my house potentially damaging my house and the cars parked there and it's going to create significant congestion that's already significant congestion on that street if you don't live there you really don't know how it is and I've experienced it I bought the house less than a year ago and I see how

frustrating it could be living on that street with a limited space there is even to pass through and I think my neighbors already you know emphasized the other points that I wanted to make but I think that's a serious concern of mine and then not to mention the construction I mean where are we going to I mean there's going to be a roadblock and it was already a roadblock this morning so you know you already have

issues trying to get in and out and now there's going to be you know further problems here okay so so if I can so let's bisect this a little bit driveway and the parking spaces they can build without knowing where they really whether they're here or not so this is driven today by going from nine to ten units do you have anything specific opposition regarding that from going from nine to

ten or is because the department part of it they can build if they've kept it just as enough not with respect to the additional payment however it creates a traditional people living there you know when you have an apartment it's not just essentially one car it's a multiple multiple colors Industries this changes my environment significantly along with my neighbors it doesn't affect the homeowner in any way

his environment but definitely does affect my environment for my daily life

sure Chuck Jacobson's my name I love right next door it's not shown on the plot line there by Dwight goes along just plan the application for the 10th unit I don't mind to problems much of a problem but I can sympathize with these other people on Chandler Street and how they're going to solve their problem that's all I can tell you well Rock Street has a school it has well as you know has the courthouse

it constantly busy but like he said I can understand you know the fact that there is room to put the apartment in there but I can't I don't know where to go with everybody I think and I I thank you you might want to look at your dude just to make sure you get the same right to pass on Challenger okay I'm not an attorney check your deed have somebody take a

look at it because that kind of takes away some of it I would ask and even though it would be a curb cut you could consider moving to the front Rock Street and not dealing with the wall um suggestion planning may say the same thing because you're still going to go into planning for the site plan so what's going to happen is you'll need um approval from the city council for the

additional credit cut no matter where you put it I don't hear a lot of opposition to the existing parking situation on Rock I mean a little bit generally but not to the level of shallowner how can the city give a curb cut permit what's your honor they still have to go just to technically remove curb approximately curb cut means driveway right yeah let's go that's just a just like to get more absolutely

it's just a construction though I could make one more comment of where I lived the thing that he has showing this 16 foot wall of granite which you gentlemen have passed through and seen that is not their property got a 16 foot 25 million dollar wall is mine the one on Chandler Street running along the back of their property no running across the back of my property when it comes to the property

that they just acquired it drops down considerably to what they're talking about four feet right after the stairwells it goes right back now I don't feel crazy so that didn't mean a comment one way or the other I was just trying to just straighten it out okay I appreciate that because I was there and I saw the big part of the wall but I also saw the part

of the wall but you and I can both look over me okay I will entertain a motion there's nothing else I will understand emotion I'll make a motion to Grant the additional unit from nine to ten I do have concern about the additional two parking spaces on the Chandler Street side um are proposals have always been to add parking whenever we possibly can so I would um put the caveat that I would like to

see two additional parking spaces on the lot but not on the Chandler Street side so I'll make it a condition that that rare parking is not added on the Chandler Street side as chairman doesn't her first vote to be whether we find it substantially it's a variance oh no I was on a roll um this one like chocolate covered so so the additional motion is whether it is more detrimental to the neighborhood

yeah that is not more substantially not more substantially detrimental thing right I will make that motion that it is not more substantially detrimental to the neighborhood a second on that said you complete the sentence again the motion is that adding adding a an additional unit is not more substantially detrimental to the neighborhood correct Mr Kelly any further discussion my roll call John Frank yes Jim carkins

yes uh Eric Kelly yes John Sylvia yes chairman Ferrari yes okay okay now now you have this all crafted now the special permit portion of it I will make a motion to again add the 10th unit so there will be a total of 10 units I would request additional two parking spaces on the lot to be accessed from The Rock Street side however that can be done I suggest and I will put in the motion

that we do not access the Chandler Street side because of you have many issues with that topographical and and so on um so my motion will be that 10 units parking to be accessed from The Rock Street side plan review second okay in discussion and I will just say this I know that you said that trying to beef up that that driveway into additional parking would be expensive taking apart that wall will be too

and I think it can soothe a lot of ruffle feathers if you get creative not need an additional grip cut get some grating done and take it on that side I'm not an engineer and I didn't even sleep in a Holiday Inn last night any other comments on the vote to improve and with a caveat that parking access be moved to Rock Street John Frank yes Jim Calkins Eric Kelly yes John Silvio yes chairman

Ferrera yes thank you very much thank you very much

okay can we take that outside please thank you thank you friend of Joe yeah just wondering item number four and is the last name pronounced Galvan galveo yes uh John l galveo and m galveo kirov Attorney Peter solino 652 Wood Street map d-11 lot 42 the applicant seeks a variance to divide the existing parcel into two lots waving dimensional requirements in an S single-family zoning District proposed

lot one will require relief for lock coverage and side yard setbacks whereas proposed lot two will require relief from Frontage lot area lot coverage inside yard setbacks the trifecta good evening for purposes of the record Peter celino I represent the applicant petitioner in this matter to set the stage for you the parcel is located near Notre Dame cemetery on the corner of wood in Perry as depicted on

the plan as the board probably knows in Massachusetts we have a two-fold land registration system we have recorded land we have registered land the parcel in question is land court and you see in Mr Tallman's plan he has the land Court line delineated going west east through the center of the property I think that's an interesting curveball in this back pattern because I think probably on a different configuration we

may be able to create two conforming Lots so I think the proposal takes into consideration the neighborhood and is probably better than what could otherwise be done but I'll go forward with my presentation and then certainly take any questions from the board The Proposal here is that Mr Mrs galveo will leave existing the existing dwelling at 652 wood on what is proposed lot one that lot will be conforming in all

respects with the exceptions of a lot coverage and side yard setback the lock coverage requirement in the district is 25 percent The Proposal would be 30 percent on lot one so we'd be sitting a five percent waiver on lot one and the side yard setback requirement is 15 feet in that district and as you can see on the plan the existing house from what's proposed to be the new property line

would be 13 feet and as a consequence there'd be a two foot waiver on lot one lot two the waivers would be Frontage area and setback and lot coverage The Proposal is that Mr Mrs galveo cut this lot off to build a home for their son Andrew uh who's here with me tonight in the audience I would note for the record that I don't think because of the various landlord lot lines that Lot 2

albeit substandard is that far off some of the other Lots if you look at the plan and the front to John Newhall Street you'll notice uh there's a uh parcel denoted d1139 and that consists of 5 800 square feet further you'll notice uh further down d1136 now we're formerly of Rogers and that's 5 800 square feet our proposed lot too is 6728 square feet we've shown a building envelope on there

the concept is a single family home again for Mr and Mrs galveo's son Andrew um I really think the land Court line is what throws this project into a kind of an odd situation when you talk about hardship because the way the lines are cut there's only so much you can do with the lot lines I don't think that the proposal is detrimental to the neighborhood I think it's consistent with the neighborhood as I've

articulated and finally I don't think it derogates from the intent of the bylaw because the bylaw is intended to group like uses on like lots and I think we're proposing a like use on a lot that's only situated to those in the neighborhood what's the lot coverage of that building envelope shown on launcher yeah good question the it's 50 50. and that's without that's before we get a driveway in there that's correct

I I mean my concern at face right now lot one is owned by Family it may not be owned by family forever and we've got we're we're encroaching on that lot line hard on the west lot line to that property um you know the lot you pointed out number 39 it's a lot it's sitting there it doesn't have anything on it the other one you pointed to over on new wall

has a much smaller building envelope on it although I will say it's it's right up against uh both side wild lines so that's kind of tough um that's my biggest concern is the law coverage in the setbacks that are that are shown at this point in time that's me uh engineering let's see um I I would have to agree with your assertion that they could be on creatively create lot two to have 80 feet of

Frontage and 8 000 square feet in area however that would be such a convoluted yeah the odd angles in the front that you do with fence lines down the road so the frontage an area again similar to what you would just stated I really don't have an issue with side yard setback of five feet and and then also the the side yard relief to number 686 where it should be 15 feet as

well being reduced down to 10. it's a lot it's still 58 feet wide even if you held the 15 and the 15 that would still allow you to build a house 28 feet wide or any other variation thereof with accommodating there's maybe something a little bigger under five but other than that I think the plan has some there and and at that point as well just looking at just looking at the setback

from Wood Street for that where are you going to put parking or is everybody wearing it is everybody going to drive a smart car I mean it's it's tiny the front yard setback is 20.

that would be enough to accommodate we have 20 of them well they're not asking for it along a dashed line um I'm assuming that that's 20 because that's what it says is required in the district and we're not asking for Relief on that so we've got a 20 percent track on the front is that correct yes members of the board just have a question what what's the size of the house going to be

uh fair question Andrew yes the um we're just showing the footprint of the house that would the uh where the house would be located the house would have to fit within that footprint and comply with the relief that we're seeking which is the uh you know the lock coverage of 50 bumped up from 25 the actual house I don't know if we have it designed yet um on the house

so you know if we leave for a granddaughter on this it would just have to conform with with children on this plan uh the other thing I would add too is the right now uh because of what attorney you know had mentioned this there are two land lots of there are two different certificates for the front so this property right now even though the house kind of straddles on is two Watts we're looking to reconfigure

the lots that make them more usable that's all obviously through lancore because that's a situation so you're gonna you're gonna get rid of the East-West line and make a North South Line and foreign but the Lots were emerged by Frontage they can't Bridge no no if the structure wasn't there no way quote Lots can't merge for zoning purposes not landlords for zoning purposes they still were emerged in the city

doesn't have the ability to focused at the land Club not for not for where the parcel wines are but for zoning purposes absolutely we do so zoning and and partial size for a land Court are irrelevant to each other foreign so we don't have a problem doing the side yard setbacks cool 10 on each side I mean that's going to give us a 38 foot wide envelope

are you here no are you here for an opposition I don't know let's finish with board questions first yeah I'm just so you don't know what kind of house is it going to be it's going to be a raised Ranch uh I'm just wondering how what the size you know what size because it could look if you have a raised Ranch in like this it's not going to conform with that area

there because the house is spread out yep so I would think you'd want to put something that's going to make it look nice as opposed to just putting something in there like a raised Ranch like we see them all over there the front they got the door kind of thing so I'm just wondering what what the house would you know what the size is and I will just say I mean lot coverage

wise this thing would be unique in the neighborhood yeah that's that's an understatement to to go up to 50 That's Heavy other questions so not a lot of thought has been given to the house I think is the answer to your question I know but I think that can be addressed too what we have under our purview is the envelope and I don't care if it's a Garrison raised Ranch

or a TP that's a big house on that lot um that's my opinion so I just find a not inconsistency with the neighborhoods yeah all right Mr chairman right may I make a motion oral motion to continue this petition to the March meeting to address the board's concerns okay I think I appreciate that on his motion you want to formally ask if there's anyone yeah we should you're correct thank you save me anybody here

to speak in favor of this petition but he speak here to speak in opposition to this petition okay Mr chairman I moved that we Grant the extension to the March meeting one second on that please second discussion hearing none John Frank yes Jim Calkins Eric Kelly that's John Sylvia yes and chairman Prairie yes see you next Mark I'm sure we'll see you next month anyway it's going to be a live meeting on my

live meeting sure okay

that ends in a petition section all right guys this keeps coming back fee schedule okay you want that yeah okay I would recommend that your table it since the other two current members aren't here I agree can we have a motion from someone table till the next meeting second second uh discussion about John Frank yes Jim Goggins yes Eric Kelly John Sylvia yes chairman Prairie yes okay

okay talk about kicking a can down there yeah I don't think anybody did you sign up for Citizens on Monday you have two events on Monday um

come on right up sir and your name and address please yes uh Nelson Vasquez uh 210 Sunset Hill uh before I begin I just want to say uh my first zoning board meeting and it's been very intriguing um I know all boards play a role in our city uh that helps these boys dictate what goes on in our city as to what gets built and having a say is is very important this board especially is very

important and I I've known it and I've seen it firsthand we had cities uh residents who voiced their uh concerns for and against for Pacific uh prom you know uh properties because they all love their city but I want to bring your attention to a piece of legislation that was passed last year it was regards to section 3A the state legislators passed this uh basically this is just uh to put

it down to the middle this is just another giveaway to these out of town basically giveaway to market rate developers but this is what concerns me this is the whole packet from the State these are the revised guidelines that were revised officially on October 21st of 2022 and this is what it says section four it says allowing multi-family housing quote as of right to comply with Section

3A a multi-family zoning District must allow multi-family housing as of right meaning that the construction and occupancy of multi-family housing is allowed in that District without the need for it for a special permit variants the zoning Amendment waiver or other discretion discretionary approvals now this uh new zoning was passed for uh MBTA districts and as we all know follower has decided to become an MBTA

District uh I find it quite quite ridiculous that these developers once they get the necessary building permits move forward that they get all these waivers and then they could decide what to do what to build how they see fit you know special permits of variants zoning amendments waivers those are very important and having a say in a community is very important because it impacts the entire community

and as we all know the cost of living is rising and when you bring in these market rate developments without the input of the zoning board and whatnot it's going to raise the cost of living for the residents even more and we're seeing it on social media and they're talking about uh their cost of living but in regards to this uh several MBTA towns have spoken up uh one Middleboro right here has decided not to comply

they're saying to hell with you we want to have a say what gets built in our own backyard and the town of Rockport 10 City residents have filed a legal challenge uh and their lawyer pretty much knows how much how this is unconstitutional and this is what the lawyer said quote the legislature recognizing this has attempted to coerce the municipalities to adopt NBTA zoning districts which it

itself is not constitutionally empowered to draw end quote the coercion comes in the form of a statutory denial of access to three specific Grant programs so on on the one hand the state is saying this is not mandatory this is optional on the other hand if it's MBTA District exercise their rights to not comply they're not they're going to be withhold from access to these grants and you know

and these three grants are the the housing Choice initiative the local capitalist projects fund which is um you know funds from gaming fees to support public housing authorities any Mass Works infrastructure program from Rhodes and around roadways and updating storage systems so as and and I bring this to your attention because you know we have decided to join the NBTA and it's been a

huge influx of either out of town developers who have no us uh interest in our city rather than just making money and then leaving town and then not caring about what happens here because I'm a resident and I care about what happens in my community but no developer in my opinion has the right to build what they want without having to go through this process because it plays a role in our community

and again I just want to say real quick and let you guys go to the long life you are um I'm not against anyone making money this is a capitalist Society however however to make money on the backs of the taxpayers to put forward a a law like this that totally disregards The Zone this process is totally unconstitutional and I've gotten calls from City of City residents who will are basically saying they had enough of

this they want to get control of this city they want to follow the same pathway legal pathway that other towns are doing to have a city in the community and I just wanted to bring that attention to this board because I don't think I've heard section 3A been mentioned but uh it's it's it's coming fast and it's very serious yeah we're we're very well aware okay but we don't

create the laws no I know that no no no so what I'm suggesting have you gone in front of the city council yet you have okay all right I'm just I'm just bringing it out that's fine so what happens is this board this is the zoning board of appeals yeah this isn't the board that creates zoning I know so the city creates this book this board administers it when somebody doesn't

want to follow these requirements 3A is for the city to provide zoning that meets those criteria we feel that the zoning we already have in place meets their requirements what 3A was intended to do was to put the burden on some of these other talents that weren't proactive in creating zoning that provided for multi-family as well yeah and we're just getting away with with not doing it yeah so

what what 3A does is it's going to take maybe depending on what these legal challenges do yeah take the time the types of implementation that the city has already put into place many years ago that allow for multi-family drugs into these other communities that have it like a Middleborough and that just wanted us to snub their nose to you know affordable housing multi-family housing

in General market rate so this isn't an affordable or market rate or anything this is multi-family yeah and I just want to say real quick also too that this law you know when it comes to affordability requirements it says that section 3 does not include any Express requirement or authorization for an NBTA Community to acquire affordable units in that in that District so this is just going to be market rate housing on

steroids right but that's what I'm saying nothing with regards to the type of multi-family no no I'm just I'm just bringing it out there that you know we appreciate your input well part of what part of that Community now that MBTA and um and that's why these towns are standing up is because they want to seek relief from this law and just have a say in what gets built in that backyard and

some but some of those towns don't need the money yeah yeah but I mean that they didn't have it in place already right um and that may be the case but they just believe in the principle of having to say what gets in it what gets built in this city that's all understood and these are some of the same towns that when they were requirements for affordable housing a certain percentage

of units etc etc said yeah no we're not going to do that so they just didn't want it we're a very diverse Community here in Fall River yeah we've got low income we've got middle income and we've got you know market rate income folks that are going to be able to you know pick up the two thousand dollar a month apartment someplace for a studio or whatever it's going to be and they'll be

coming in from other areas too they'll move down here because that same apartment would be 3 500 bucks you know 30 miles north of here so they'll take a longer train ride to get a nice apartment and as as Dan said we feel our bylaw covers Us okay where some of these towns don't even really consider their their their zones for multi-family they're so small and that's grandma they've got no place

to put them they want to be single-family towns and you can't do that and live on a rail line they wanted the MBTA but they didn't want people to move through the tunnel unless they bought you know the big house on Main Street and that and that's not the case so we feel we're covered and I appreciate you coming forward people need to know but we're not we put our case forward already

and you know as a city we feel that we're covered we feel that we're safe well you know I'm just saying if we don't if you feel we're not covered you know this is what it is you know it's just uh you know it's right now we're living in a different different time as a community everything is changing rapidly and homelessness is one of them my only concern is is that I

just want developers to still go through the process if they try to invoke section 3A it will be met with residents who will stand up for the community that's one just one let that be known to the board you guys have a great night okay thank you thank you very much thank you very much waving of the reading of the minutes all right so I don't want you to read the ones

you're gonna tell them the table thank you second on the German John Frankie Jim what else do we need a motion on the table mostly table methods yeah and that we adjourn so I can't combine them one second one at a time on the minutes jump rank yes Jim Gogan yes Eric Kelly I'm just half awake over here John Sylvia yes chairman chairman priority yes and on a German movie German second

John yes Jim yes Eric yes John yes Joe yes yes