3.16.2023 Zoning Board of Appeals

you're a Dino good evening everyone I am Joseph Pereira chairman of the zoning board of appeals for the city of Fall River it is 6 p.m on Thursday March 16 2023 we are meeting in one government center in the first floor meeting room here in room rather Chris went to Mass General law 30A section 20 subsection F I hereby notify all persons in attendance at the meeting is being recorded with both

video and audio recording by Fall River government TV Mr Craig Salvador recording both a video and audio version if anyone desires to make an audio or video or combination recording thereof please notify me now and I shall make a public announcement of your intention see none by recording secretary this evening is Nina Krueger sitting to my immediate right this evening our permanent members in

attendance are John Frank uh who's our vice chair Jim Calkins our Clerk Dan De Pere uh Rick sahadi and myself just a prayer as chairman also joining us this evening are our alternate members um John Silva Sylvia sitting to the uh to the my right and Eric Kelly uh sitting on the uh on the Left End uh also representing planning department on Mr Dan agiar at the far my far left director of engineering and planning and

Chris barino our assistant planner Nina are all petitions to be considered have all competitions to be considered been probably advertised and all interested parties notified in accordance with the rules and regulations of the zba a Mass General Law chapter 48 as amended yes I declare the March 16 2023 regularly scheduled meeting of the zoning board of appeals of the city of Fall River open

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

petitionist claim as such the petitioner should identify and factually support the basis for the petition I hereby advise the petitioners that all interested persons and all are interested persons that this board is the zoning board of appeals the board of authority exists pursuant to Mass General Law chapter 48 and is limited in scope and uh and deals with the use of land as regulated by chapter 86 of the

ordinances of the city of Fall River additional permits licenses reviews and approvals may be required for the specific development and or use which is the subject of your petition before the zoning board of appeals this evening the clerks and the building planning engineering and Licensing departments are competent in the discharge of their duties as clerks they are however not lawyers and are not competent to give

legal advice the action taken by this board has a real and Lasting effect on your title of your property I urge you 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 to uh 2015-11 section 10-1 requiring site plan review a copy of the ordinance is available at the city clerk's office or from the planning department

I remind everyone that the building inspector is the zoning enforcement Authority and you are here this evening because the building inspector has determined that your proposed action is contrary to the city of fall River's zoning ordinances the city Charter section 9-18 mandates that all multi-member bodies develop and adopt rules or policies for public comment we have adopted such a policy which in short

provides for citizen input on zoning board specific matters at the end of the evening there is a sign up sheet just outside the door on the table if you care to make public comment at the end of this meeting I disclose that then that an official copy of the zoning ordinance is available at the city clerk's office and one cannot rely on the online zoning ordinance I would ask that everyone silence their phones please

and that's going to include me who's about to do this in two seconds

cookie

it's my favorite part of the day nobody can give me all right we begin with an item of old business item number zero one ASE Investments LLC care of Attorney Peter salino 69 rear Alden Street map j27 lot 9. the applicant seeks variance slash special permit uh to construct 16 townhouse style units waving the requirements in a CMD which is a commercial Mill zoning District the 68 000 plus square feet parcel of land

has no Frontage on an accepted City Street good evening Council good evening Mr chair for purposes the record Peter solino 550 Locust Street in Fall River attorney to the petitioner with me this evening is the petitioner it's David saber as Mr chair indicated the subject parcel is located at 69 R Alden Street and Fall River the parcel is a pre-existing lot that's the site of the former Parker candy that burned down

2010. the lot itself was created in 1948 and as Mr chair indicated and as is in the publication there is no Frontage on Alden Street the lot itself is accessed only by a land Corps easement as depicted on the north side of the plan there which is 30 feet in width and that's what the access is to the site The Proposal is to construct 16 townhouse style dwellings on this site providing sufficient off-street parking

in terms of why we are here we are here for two reasons and two reasons alone the first is a variance for Frontage as the board knows in a CMD we need 100 feet of Frontage we have none as a result of that easement second a multi-family use is not allowed in a CMD District without a special permit and as a consequence we've also checked the box and filed for a special permit for the

use as a multi-family uh establishment so going into the arguments first hardship I'd submit to the board and the board certainly knows that the barometer here is shape topography soil conditions we have a very oddly shaped lot as I said it's existed on the ground and on the plans at land Court since 1948.

again no access to the street but by right-of-way additionally I think we have some topography issues to the West flowing towards the banks of the quikishan river I think therefore that we can certainly meet the burden for hardship next when we look at the special permit side of things and we talk about is it substantially more detrimental than what's there and how does it relate to the neighborhood starting with the

neighborhood to the Northeast you have the apartments at the curtain Lofts we're doing or we're seeking to do Apartments they did Apartments those apartments have worked well they're full and they're a nice use of that area of the city similarly we have Apartments to the east they're doing Apartments we're asking to do Apartments so I would submit to you that number one it's completely consistent with the

neighborhood as it is today it was not consistent as it was in the early 1900s and I think we're going to hear some opposition about why it is not in that same manner but I would submit to you that that time has passed the building burned down and ultimately we need to make the highest and best use of this piece of property next I would submit to you that based on

the size of the lot only 68 000 square feet the allowed uses in a CMD wouldn't be appropriate because ultimately the lot's not big enough to house that type of use and finally I'd submit to you that in the provision of off street parking and accounting for two spaces per dwelling unit we've sufficiently met the burden in terms of safety and traffic ultimately we can house all the cars off the street and on the site

and I think that's important to the board's analysis relative to a special permit lastly I'd like to know for the record that this exact proposal was approved in February of 2020 some of the board members were not here some were but ultimately Mr saber was unable to build that project because if you remember March of 2020 the world shuts down with covet so the variance lapsed what we are asking for if you

reviewed the 2020 filing is identical to that which this board already granted so with that I'll submit to any questions that the board may have and Mr saver is happy to answer any questions about his plans or proposal to what was sent out before are the previous approvals for this piece of property and 2020 and I believe in 2021 when we looked at a single building on the property is that correct correct

this is substantially the same as what was approved pre-coveted um first I'll understand any questions from the board I just have how many bedrooms are going to be in each one of these units yes Fair The Proposal is two bedrooms per unit which ties to the two parking spaces per unit are these going to be rental or are they going to be the plan is rental Mr saber intends to own them and rent them okay

the population that's going to be in there is going to be elderly um the proposed price point for the rent is approximately eighteen hundred dollars so I don't know it's fair market rent whoever comes forward I mean I'm just going to be up front I can't vote on this I understand I was in opposition a couple years ago and the reason why I was as a citizen is that it's mostly

elderly people that are there and when you put another group of people in there and they're really in there tight this is really really tight you know we as a city as Citizens dealing with that where police are coming you know for complaints of this that and the other things so that was my as a Citizens feeling with that you're going to put a new group of people in there right and and five years down the

road when they get all these phone calls the police the tax pays a pain for this so that that's I just wanted to check it to see because I know you guys changed it you're going to put a high-rise building there which would have been kind of the same as we have you know with the uh with the curtain Lofts you know and I think it's just my feeling with zoning when we

put all these different things that's why we have all these issues in Fall River because we put this here we put that there and it's already there but if we can choose to make things better you know what I mean I know that probably that's why we're not doing three bedrooms we'll have a lot more families with a three bedroom are they going to be so they're going to be townhouses with two bedrooms there's two

okay if I may just respond just uh I understand the objection I'm sure we're going to hear more objections but just to refocus the discussion this is a completely conforming project as it relates to the setback so I understand the concern about it spreading out but if you look it's it's CMD it's a 10-foot setback and we comply with all that so certainly here I'm sure we're going to

hear more oppositions similar to that um but I just like to focus that we're asking for a special permit which is a lower bar than a variance and clearly there's a hardship in my opinion sorry Mr sahity yeah did you go over the parking again with me certainly uh so we have 16 units proposed and we have 35 parking spaces that are delineated on the plan um each of the buildings and units is

numbered as you can see one through 16 on the plan and the parking runs along the north side of the site as well as along the would be really the east Southeast side of the site which is in Conformity two spaces per unit yes correct in fact we exceeded so we're at 35 so a little better than what's required anyone else on the board anyone here first of all from the planning side any comment

um just that again it was permitted previously something to take into consideration when when similar relief was granted Mill complexes or the renovation into Apartments those two properties actually sought parking relief as well down to one one space per unit so I think it's important to note that that this petition does not seek that same relief that this is specific by use of

special permit for multi-family housing regardless of the type of housing it is that that's not the preview of this board with regards to the the shape it and the topography and the variance portion of it it's a pre-existing non-conforming parcel of land prior to subdivision control so this is this partial exists as it exists in this 34 right of way if you investigate into the land called

Apostles provides access to the multiple Mills that are in the area as well as this possible yeah and my understanding is one half of the length of that easement is is under your control correct right okay very good thank you and then lastly even Beyond the zoning relief that was granted a few years ago the applicant took the next two steps and permitted all of the different land

use permits needed site plan review and an order of conditions through the Conservation Commission so those permits are in place are they still enforced they're still they're still in place it's still valid and part of that was to ensure that the proposed future construction of the next phase of the quickashan rail trail could be accommodated through the site and that was determined by the site plan

review committee that extra time and that easement is showing on the plans thank you very much um before I take public comment I will remind anyone making comment that the purview of this board is land use um we hear impassioned Arguments for and against sites we are we live within the borders of chapter 48 of Massachusetts General law an article 86 of our of our own zoning our own City audiences so

um I just I just ask for that courtesy anyone here to speak in favor of this petition good evening uh what Mr chairman of the recommended and Biola the Executive Vice President of Russell County Economic Development Consultants I'm here tonight to Advocate support for this project based upon a couple of different viewpoints a person I think the chair has moved into it is that in terms of

land use on this particular project I think we all know is within the CMD district and if this type of project gets shut down what it does is opens up the door for industrial use of this product of this possible you could have a user here that's much more noxious in terms of sound noxious in terms of traffic noxious in terms of activity than what is being offered here by the

by the proponent of the project itself second we also know that the city of Paul Arizon is a state of Massachusetts is experiencing very experiencing a shortage of housing this project not only introduces new housing to the city of Fall River provides for opportunity for forward residents and people from outside of the city to take advantage of the newly constructed units in a location that's

you know become much more attractive over the years but it also represents new tax growth for the city in terms of providing new revenue for streets sidewalks and other things and then thirdly I think we you know I've spoken on behalf in in favor of all the other projects that have put this I haven't seen when curtain loss was coming before the board I was here I wouldn't play Billy Flint Mills came before the board

to help advocate for the passage of those projects so that those particular Mill buildings could be used for elderly residential uses and provide new life into that neighborhood because we all know it's a few short years ago as a ghost town down there we had abandoned buildings we had a bunch of bad activities taking place and by virtue of these buildings being reutilized now it's a much more safe neighborhood and I

don't see this as being detrimental to the to the surrounding buildings themselves I would much rather have residential growth here than have manufacturing growth which could be much more problematic and not and inconsistent with the two Mills that we've recently been approved for residential use and are fully occupied at this point so I'm hoping that the board would would vote to approve this

thank you very good thank you Kim anyone else wishing to speak in favor of the proposal anyone wish to speak against go ahead sir please state your name 367 cross street and happens also to be the president still the president of the Flint neighborhood association um I do have a couple of questions not that actually gonna make any difference with the decision of the sports because I

really don't believe that nobody that this chamber can change a vote um my first question is um and if I forget picking up with my friend Ken just mentioned about Industrial I kind of agreed with him if the industry or whatever the business going to move there is going to work overnight there will be terrible for that neighborhood but if a business go there to uh to work nine to five nine to six I

don't think that was going to be that a bigger problem moving people there what families yes they are they property they pay their rent they want to be outside until 11 o'clock at night listen to music doing a barbecue that's their right they pay the rent for it and it's nothing that the residents around there that actually go to bed at nine o'clock because they all overly can can uh can do about um

if that's the case so one of my questions is this because it's already a big fight there for parking spaces if you know right there write what says j27 for that's the senior center that small space you have there is the steps that actually go into where the the car is going to come by okay just during the day when the seniors go to use the facility there it's a big

problem with soft to remove cars from the seniors because it's no pocket for the seniors to park so I see that an issue because according to them what I hear from them is if this goes forward they go on the fence in their property they're gonna total fence at all in so I imagine this people have families and have a right to go visit their families there waiting on a park that's a big issue

it's going to be a birthday somebody wants to do a birthday party they are for a kid on their backyard where these people going to park I don't think they're going to park all the way on the other Street and walk there so that's a big that's a big issue when we have when we have this many properties putting together like that and if we look at that where's the Green Space

would that people are going to walk their paths what they're going to work I know they walk the bike path it's right on the back but on the backyard they don't have nothing they don't have no space there that's one of the problem I have another problem we have and everybody knows that when we have a little bit of risk we have a big water issue right outside the soft nails residence deal I mean sometimes they

have to close the roads so is any study done about connecting all this development into that Source system into that water drinks and that's what probably it's a good question for Kevin is is it's any study done how that's going to impact so as I stated a few minutes ago this project has gone through site plan review so those types of things drainage utilities sewer and water have all been

looked at and have all been approved storm water runoff from this site does not run up to Alden Street or does not run into the parking lot of either of the Mills It ultimately runs into the quickashan river so the only time you would see an issue is if the quickashan river over topped its banks and a project of this size where we've had to put underground infiltration Chambers and all different types of drainage

components that you didn't see in past development all those things address a concern like what you just raised so in response to not only that question that you asked you had brought up the issue about parking and again as I had stated previously the tool budding land uses when they came in and sought their permits they requested a reduction in permitting knowing full well that

they're parking at a rate of one to one so one space per unit was not sufficient but they didn't have the land to build anymore so they chose for that relief they chose to create their own headaches this site is not asking for that relief with reduction to parking zoning requires two spaces per dwelling unit could be 10 bedrooms in the unit you should only need two parking spaces so

they've not only met that requirement they've exceeded it by an additional three parking spaces so no one in this development by zoning and that's what this board looks at should ever have the need or want to park in other any other location they don't have the right to do that they can only park within the limits of this development well um I see I see a lot of problems in the

future but like we say we just go one problem at a time and when they happen we try to resolve the problem we never prevent the problem to happen we always try to resolve the problem after the problem of course and um and the white they landed there empty it's sitting empty for a long time definitely needs some tobacco in there um I was hoping something probably more friendly to the kind of people that live

on that area but it is what it is and one man cannot you know in uh win the war by themselves so um I've been being kind enough as you know I've been paying bus buses to bring people here being tabled so this time I decided not to so that's why they're not here um but you know I know what was going to happen if it was going to be tabled

again and a bus it's not cheap but the association is being paid for the transportation for those elderly people to to come to the meeting with that being said thank you again for your for your time thank you for your input uh and again with the zoning board planning has has done what they've needed to do with this and approved it conservation has looked at it and approved it and what we're left with is

are we going to give them a variance because of the odd Frontage situation the lack of Frontage except for a private right of easement and uh the special permit that's required uh anyone else to speak against sir Joseph Cavallo vice president of the Flint neighborhood association uh just as a follow-up so 32 parking places is at minimum 64.

more cars uh if I get that right no I don't know 16 16 townhouses is 32 cars at the very minimum each day not counting as as Carlos had pointed out uh other people coming in going out even if they're just driving in not to park there they're driving in to pick people up or otherwise we've got elderly and and curtain Lofts and elderly in in the knitting Mills uh if we

could we could have all of the almost every resident at those two locations come here and speak out against this project the fact that it backs up to the Alfred J Lima kokashan River Rail Trail is also another issue for me you know your point uh city engineer uh about runoff and this that and the other thing so 32 cars and where they're parked leaking oil gas radiator fluid

I have to point out that is not in the purview of the zoning board of appeals it goes into the into the river and the flooding for sure and I know the Conservation Commission listen I've lived in this city long enough to realize a lot of things one of which is some of the concerns that people have really don't matter that much to and and not that it's and not I don't say that as as against

any board but the realization is that oftentimes the majority of people are not listened to and and their concerns are not adhered to and I know that the zoning laws and the regulations of the city are such uh you know Mr Fiola would have 9 000 market rate housing units going up in this city I I'm I'm actually concerned about what type of heights we don't even know what happened there but nonetheless

so I just want to speak in opposition to the project I respond sure Mr Cavallo um I think that your your comments on about people not being concerned about people not being listened to or a bit unfair because we can listen to comments we can be sympathetic to your concerns on the other hand as the chairman has pointed out several times we're constrained by zoning laws that's what I said okay if

if it meets the zoning requirements that's within the preview of the sport we can be sympathetic to the opposition or we must go by within the preview of this board which is zoning regulations and as the engineer has pointed out it meets all requirements thank you anyone else speaking against sir hey private Power 105 Pittman Street I have a sister-in-law that lives in Korean law

and I know a lot of elderly walk around there I got a point you're the zoning board what they have for a special permit which you're you're going to Grant so they don't meet all the requirements if they need a special that's that's microphone and it's a big safety concern in that neighborhood again stop we will decide if they've met the requirements so there are many things no there were two things here a special

permit the presentation being given by attorney celino tonight points out how they meet the requirements of the special permit we as a board to ask questions on that and decide if indeed they've met those those requirements for a special permit if you needed to do certain things at your property or home you may need a special permit you may need a variance and you'd be in front of this board and you or

your attorney or your engineer would put forth a proposal saying hey we meet these requirements by this this and this which has been done here in this in this particular case both in the plans that have been you know stamped by an engineer and by the presentation given by by legal counsel so I'm not battling with you but it's not manual point we're not saying anything's just because they need a special permit

doesn't mean anything is wrong it just means that it's it's something that's controlled by the bylaws of the of the city of Fall River and there's also a pot back there am I right there's the bike path back there yes yes I I get paid it's safety I see this some of that something bad is going to happen when this is all done I just strictly against it it's just

okay a big safety concern and that block big safety and I don't know that's not your purview I understand but whoever's responsible safely should jump on this I think what's important for people to understand is that when you look at the zoning Bible there is a litany of uses that are allowed in this District without coming before this board without any control and as Mr Fiola stated many of them would be

considered noxious inside of this new residential neighborhood it's it's been this neighborhood has been created through permits granted by this board to allow these Mills to be reconstructed into Apartments they required special permits or variances to do so so the fact that this is a commercial Mill district and the uses that are just as a matter of right allowed this neighborhood has changed this is not a

commercial an area that gives off a complexion of commercial historic Mill development and uses so the what's happened around us has now made that commercial use almost negligent I mean how could you put some type of manufacturing or any any of the uses that are allowed in the middle of this how much of it of an inference and inconvenience would that be to this neighborhood I totally agree

with you about that so this is and store through the special permit process what you have to propose is that it is not substantially more detrimental than one of the allowed uses so I think clearly you can understand this is probably the lesser of all of the evils of what could happen here other than someone buying it and making it a park which anyone had the opportunity to do when this property

went up for sale a number of years ago um that that's not what happened understood I understand you're looking at one possible I'm just looking at the whole picture we're looking at the entire neighborhood and trying to create a project that fits into the neighborhood the best that we possibly can we can't build another Granite Mill that's six stories high oh I understand that so that would be what

would fit in the best um with that Puck and them kids running around this summer is going to be a mess and I should see an accident that's and I and I do believe the abutting although they are age restricted they're 55 and older yes so we're not talking I'm 54 right I don't consider myself elderly right so next year I could go move into one of these apartments but I have children and I have nieces

and nephews and hopefully grandchildren so you're still going to have that activity so I think to to illustrate this as elderly housing is inappropriate that's not what this is no no it was it was mentioned that there's an elderly Houser it's not just too many yeah that you want a kid guys good evening I mean you guys know parking on all the trees it will be more congested but the

applicant has met the requirements to deal with that congestion and that's what this board looks at yes anyone else again yes which are we looking at at the variance or a special apartment yes both both we need both first yes no we need both to approve the proposed project the variance request relates to the lack of Frontage on a public way a special permit relates to the use in a CMD District

um this board give a permit right so the the person has a permit now to build one building with 32 units right yeah the barriers that both I believe both variances have expired yes both of them have it yes anyone else wow Alexander Silva I'm a member of the preservation Society of povertis board of directors 263 Pine Street members of the zoning board of appeals uh the preservation Society of Fall

River respectfully asked that the zoning board denied the variance and structural requests for the 16 townhouse units proposed in the historic Marshall Mill District on Alden Street the townhouses proposed for the location would not be consistent with the neighborhood which marries the national register of historic places designated clickashan Valley Mills historic district on the opposite Bank of the river this

neighborhood primarily made of granite Mills and tenement housing is a unified pocket of Fall River history that deserves to be protected from variations of city ordinance that don't work to protect it while many of the historic Mills in the quickestand Valley Mills historic district are now gone many of the Mills on Alden Street have already been redeveloped or in the process of being redeveloped into a variety of

housing stocks as much clearly here tonight with more Frontage on the quick Shane River Rail Trail than any accepted City street these out of place townhouses encroaching on the community's history and Recreation would be a detriment to efforts to redevelop the area in a respectful Manner and to Fall River as a whole please uphold all of his ordinances with respect to this proposal and follow the

guidance of the fall of a master plan and downtown and Waterfront urban renewal plans which call for development in historic areas to be congruent with the neighborhoods around them sincerely at the preservation study board of directors anyone else against the case I turned back to the board I would suggest that first of all is there any other questions any other discussion many members of the board are alternates

I would suggest we take up the matter of the variants first um basically the gentleman has the case been made that because of soil topography lot shape as the argument been made that there is a hardship here and as the as the that argument been adequately made at this point anybody care to move on that on that variance I'll make a motion to approve any stipulations on the variance

my only thing was that I uh he said it was going to be too bad not perseverance um second please a second you have motion and second in discussion on the motion to approve the variance hearing none uh member John Frank yes Jim Calkins yes uh Dan De Pere Ricky sahadi yes and chairman prayer yes on the matter of the special permit we would ask for a determination or motion

that the use is not more detrimental to the neighborhood qualificate that I'll make the Motions that is not more detrimental to me anymore any further discussion that being the case uh John Frank yes Jim Calkins uh Dan De Pere Ricky sahadi yes chairman Prairie yes and then the final would be the approval of the special permit and that's what we can condition do we then have an approval on the

special permit as presented for 16 units um pardon um no more than two bedrooms that's right he decides so as drawn so that includes the parking spaces 3 200 liters three extra so we have 35 parking spaces on the site so that being the case any other amendments before we any other additions before we second it do we have a second second very good motion and second any further discussion bring none

uh John Frank yes Jim Calkins Stan De Pere Ricky sahadi yes chairman Ferrari yes thank you thank you thank you very much thanks I'm glad you said it not me

is it okay if I stay absolutely you do not have to get up and come back again I wouldn't do that too all right very good item number zero two in Old business

652 Wood Street map D 11 lot 42 the applicant 60 variants to divide the existing parcel into two lots waving dimensional and requirements in the S single family zoning District proposed lot one will require Leaf relief from lot coverage and side yard setbacks whereas proposed Lot 2 will require leave for a relief relief okay relief from Frontage lot area lot coverage and side yard setbacks good evening for the record

Peter celino on behalf of the petitioners Mr and Mrs galvale uh as a brief recap we were before the board at the February meeting on this petition to summarize the petition was to divide the existing land located at 652 Wood Street in Fall River leaving the existing dwelling on what is shown as lot one and creating a new lot labeled as lot two lot one would have been seeking a waiver

relative to the lot coverage and the setback to the east uh the setbacks must be 15 feet in this District it's 13 and Lot 2 was seeking waivers relative to Frontage setback area and lot coverage and we concluded last month's meeting with uh board the board-seeking comment from my client relative to what type of house he would need and to depict it on the plan so the plan has been revised to

show a proposed single family dwelling with two off three parking spaces as you can see it's 37 by 48. the easterly setback on the side yard on the new drawing now becomes conforming at 15 it was not last time where we were before you so that would leave us with asking the board as it relates to Lot 2 for waivers on Frontage the Westerly side yard setback and lot coverage so I'm happy to

entertain any further questions but I think we've answered the request of the board to depict a home that would be suitable to my client's interest and that depiction shows a much smaller unit than lasagna that is correct we've tried to a lot coverage it drops drastically it did and you know tried to be responsive to the request certainly okay any questions from the board any other questions

and and thank you very much and thanks thank you to your um to your applicant as well your client for that kind of more realistically sized dwelling on the on the parcel so thank you again no problem questions particular reason why it's not centered I think because we were trying to get to a setback that was palatable all around and if you take another 10 feet off the house on the left side which would be

the West side the house becomes almost too small so we could center it but then you'd need two side two side set back waivers I'm just saying you do 10 feet on either side correct and then am I could I address that yeah uh for the record Jeff Tillman Northeast Engineers we felt it best to comply with the setback to the perimeter sideline to the butters as opposed to the interior sideline which

is the applicants or petitioner's property so therefore we're gonna today today or once it gets built then it's there so then whoever comes in the future knows what they're dealing with but it's just why why put you know butter out and not maintain a setback that's required in the zone if we can meet it if we you know like what what wide burden in a butter if all we have to

burden is the applicant so that's why we felt it best and and like Peter said why ask for a relief on two sides when we only need it on one is there any thought to splitting the difference if you added the five in the 13 and give them each eight and move that lot line over is that is that something imagine or could you make the house smaller and make that five or ten

I don't know I mean that's that might be something that might be more palatable uh I'd be happy I don't know the 13 answer either Jeff do you know 13 answers I'll answer the house um yeah 58 feet uh where that comes from is um uh it complies I want to say the 58 feet comes from the Frontage that was already on the land caught Lots as they exist currently

um even though that Frontage is on Perry Street not on Wood Street so we're maintaining that 58 feet we're just transferring it over the wood tree um we can certainly I mean that lot line is subject to change if the board feels at best to shift that over to split the difference um and make that you know Nine and Nine with that 18 feet by all means um it would make a lot to a little bit

bigger to make a lot one a little smaller it won't impact the project I mean I I'm myself I'm looking down the road and I get nervous when I see five feet somebody's going to come in someday over one of these two properties somebody that's not involved at this point in time they're going to put an eight-foot Stockade Fence between the two properties and you know we're gonna have a border

War back there or God forbid something happens you can't even really get back there to deal with fire you can't get back there to deal with any number of different things I just find it cramped and if we have the opportunity to not completely cramp it I'm looking at the distance to the lot next door um you know quite honestly their setback from the sideline facing this uh this new composed dwelling is is substantial

so you know if it's five maybe they're here to speak against it tonight I don't know we haven't gotten that far yet but you know I think the 10 and 10 the 10 and 10 is a little bit more palatable to me I don't know how the other board members feel um you know do we want to move the lot line it just seems to be the most reasonable

I mean 10 to 10 you sent to the house and now you don't have to move any lines the only thing I would say to that you've got to go 10 and 10 you might as well hold the 15 to the perimeter lot line and go Nine and Nine on the interior lot lines like shift that over um I mean what's the difference between nine and ten so it's it's just a matter

of making lot two a little bit bigger making a lot one a little bit smaller uh lot one is still going to be conforming area wise at that point block two just gets a little bit bigger and I think it satisfies the board's concern so I just have one question it's gonna be a two-story house our one-story house right no but I mean two stories two stories and it's not sideways like 3 52

square feet so that's going to be a big house I think that's what they might be alluding to if you could shrink the square footage of the house okay because if it's two star is that's like I said 30 3500 square feet is a big house might have a garage on the first floor um there's a couple of different Alternatives that we've reviewed that are out there so basically this footprint that you're looking at at the

plan tonight incorporates all of those ultimately the house is not going to be that size it's going to be something a little bit smaller that's going to fit into that footprint depending on which way they decide to go with it but um in order to give the board something a look at you know we felt it best to hold you know the maximum width that we were looking at and the maximum depth and the

other thing I would note too is the the lot coverage requirement on the initial plan we were requesting 50. that 50 was a ballpark figure we had to build an envelope shown on the plane at that point not necessarily a building footprint now we're showing a building footprint which limits or restricts the uh the lock coverage request down to 35 yeah so we're cutting out 15 on that request yep you're 30. he went from 25

we went from 50 to 30 50s you've got 30 on the plan 30 on a lot one um you're correct yep but then again if we shift out a lot line that number could change it might get a little bit smaller I mean it might get a little bit bigger I should say a lot one get a little bit smaller I want to I don't know I don't want to sit here

and redesign the whole thing but I I've expressed my concern on it and it's it's that five foot to the other lot line and it's not today because it's you know if it gets built it's probably going to be two family members and you know in the two Parcels but that's not forever uh Mr chair if I could address that so I have the authority to shrink the house

by five feet in order to make it 10 on that interior lot line so if that needs to happen we can certainly do that as Mr Tallman alluded to we looked at with our client I think three or four different houses and obviously conceptual trying to get something on the plan but we can certainly meet that if that's a requirement of the sport yeah yeah and you know and then that would leave us

with 10 and 10.

oh no 10 and 15. actually if we take five feet off the house then you'd have 10 on the Chris anybody in the audience whatever anybody in the audience yeah anybody else want to throw a design in here it has to be a gingerbread Victorian um I'll joke inside okay any other questions from the board at this point anyone here to speak in favor of this petition Ken you want to jump in oh I couldn't okay

anyone to speak in opposition to the petition okay they're hearing none then we have a decision to make we have a number of variances that are required in order to develop this lot we've had an offer to change Dimensions we've had discussion on dimensions I'll entertain a motion uh to approve the variance with any changes to the plans that anyone wishes to discuss at this point you know it's a tough one nobody wants

to take this one on Mr chairman uh given that Council has the authority as you say to shrink at five feet Yes acceptable yes so um I would make a motion to approve with that five foot shrinkage foreign

do we have a second on that second is there any further discussion on that and if or any additional amendments we wish to make to that motion guys I love you guys they're hearing nothing thank you uh on the motion yes oh John Frank yes I'm okay Jim Calkins Dan De Pere yeah okay uh Ricky sahadi yes and chairman Prairie yes

thank you thank you okay item number one y m Home Solutions LLC 109 George Street and 297 Lindsay street map 8-14 lot six the applicant seeks a special permit to re-establish the use of 109 George Street in formerly Camaro's Bakery as a bakery for 80 86-428b of the city of Fall River the zoning ordinance of properties located in aging District for the record good evening for the record Jeff Tallman from Northeast

engineers and Consultants here on behalf of y m Home Solutions applicant for this petition quite simply what we're looking to do here is to as you had mentioned re-establish the use of 109 George Street as a bakery um the buildings the building is located in the general residency District so therefore is not conforming however the building had operated for 38 plus years as a bakery from around 1980 up until I

believe it was 2018 when the doors were closed on the on the uh the bakery and it's my understanding that the reason the bay week was closed was not was simply because the uh the owners of the bakery who own the the whole property you just wish to retire um they didn't want anybody else in there occupying it they just wanted to live on the property without the hassle of having to operate the

bakery in 2021 the property was sold to the current owners um who have maintained the property since then in simply what they're looking to do is reestablish the use that was there on their section 86-428b since it's been over the two years they want to buy special permit reestablish the use as a bakery of this facility so with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board might have

no change in the footprint of the building obviously nope all right most of the board questions hours of operation

always about operation hours of operation yeah eight to seven Mondays seven days seven days a week seven days a week any other questions I I would I would just um if we could possibly change that maybe make it a little bit earlier as well because just as a bakery use um you know might be something where they might want to operate a little bit earlier than that there was there is a

tenant that I believe that is um uh the petition that has lined up for this facility but um I'm not sure that the petitioners may be aware of what their requirements are so we can go like seven to seven as opposed to eight to seven yeah well Bakery operation for retail for retail retail from seven to seven right you know the actual banking you know if the doors closed I don't think yeah I

mean correct correct the shop open hours yes yes seven to seven seven seven days it's fine play Do It um all right any other questions

yeah all right no other questions I would entertain any motion or not no anyone oh I'm sorry anybody wishing to speak in favor of the petition anyone's will uh wishing to speak in opposition Ken I'll make a motion to Grant First State first step that it is not more detrimental to the neighborhood do we have a second on that discussion uh then on both John Frank yes uh Dan De Pere yes Ricky Society yes and

chairman Prairie yes and I will make the next motion to grant for hours of operation seven to seven seven days a week okay motion and second any further discussion John Frank yes Jim Calkins Dan De Pere yes Ricky sahadi yes yes congratulations thank you thank you all right item number two this is MD masad Rana correct okay okay 159 165 Hunter Street map 1-07 lot 65. the applicant seats a special permit per

86-423b of the city of Fall River or a zoning ordinance to divide the subject property into two lots leaving the existing three family dwelling 159 Hunter Street on lot one a new 2655 square foot parcel of land with 28.65 feet of Frontage on Hunter Street and the other existing three family dwelling 165 Hunter Street on Lot 2 a new 3 300 square foot parcel of land with 163 feet of Frontage on Hunter

Street the property is zoned in an A2 apartment zoning District good evening for the record Jeff Tallman Northeast engineers and Consultants this particular application what we're looking for is your standard divisional land under section 86-43b where you have two dwelling units that have been on the same property prior to 1954 according to the assessors records these structures were built

around 1900 so therefore we're what we're looking for is to divide them into as equal as equivalent as Lots as we possibly can um as you can see we do have a zone line that cuts through the middle of the property uh the front portion of the property being in the local business district in the reinforcement of the property being an apartment two District but as you are aware under 86 43b The

Zone itself is somewhat a relative when it comes to the divisional land uh with two dwellings on it in this case so quite simply what we're looking to do is divide this in the most reasonable manner um so we what we've done is incorporated the existing asphalt driveway onto Lot 2 just to give that the frontage some Frontage to kind of balance that off there's really only room for one parking spot

the way the driveway is constructed Now it only goes back so far and then beyond that is this a lawn area there's no as far as I I know there's no Wall Street Parking permitted by the owner at this time um I've been by there on several occasions I have not seen a car parked on the property so you know this this division may incorp may uh trigger uh some off-shoot parking for the rear dwelling

um upon sale or I I don't know what the intent of the uh the the the properties is after the division but simply what we're looking to do is just divide the property under 86 423 B so I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board might have and you first question is you you base this basically on a square footage basis to try to balance these two off yeah Frontage square footage square footage

is always a big thing Frontage can be a challenge on these things a lot of times there's one house behind the other so you try to do the best you can with that and you try to incorporate you know what's what's happening out along the frontage in this ego case the driveway is kind of tapered to the north a little bit so we did kick that lot line over

um to make it a little bit wider than typically uh would be in a case like this one just to incorporate the entire driveway rather than have it being split on the two properties okay then along the edge of that we have a we have the easement a 40 square foot proposed easement and they take it that is that's what two's property and that is an easement two lot one two lot one for

uh correct just pedestrian use and pedestrian access to the rear of the building into the porch on the side and correct just to maintain the existing use of that uh sidewalk I mean a walkway which is used by by both dwellings at this time so it's non-exclusive correct questions it's crowded anything from engineering standpoint um the only issue I see with it is you know you could potentially

mimic the forefoot easement around the rear lot line to give lot to the ability to get by their front porch along the front of their house I don't think you need to change the lot line but you might be able to it doesn't have to be a four foot easement but four foot off of the porch to give that same accommodation that you're giving to the front building but other than that no

it's the plan is fine yeah because we're right up against that and I I would I would have a concern with a fence here as well you always normally in these conditions put in no fences secondary utilities any other questions comments all right in that case except uh well no I will not anybody anybody in the audience here to speak in favor of the petition anyone to speak against

you want to include the easement from the bar the forfeit easement to get around the back house yeah you can do that too

say support a war for some future date would help with me than it still yeah it might be nice if you actually scrape your board champagne it someday all right so the motion to approve uh with as usual no interior offenses um separation of Utilities in a four foot easement four lot one benefit yeah the benefit of law two across the back of Law Firm we have a second bedroom further discussion

they're hearing none John Frank yes Jim Calkins yes Dan De Pere yes Ricky sahadi yes and chairman Prairie yes congratulations hang on play some point we did not talk about detriment to the neighborhood you don't have to we don't have to because it's a specific section

are you submitting this that this will be representative of what gets built okay so it's part of it's part of the record part of the decision will be that this gets built just as an architect for us we're an engineer can design it well it's not the scale and there's no Dimensions so yeah it's this could be this could be this big HO scale it's going to be prettier than what's out

there huh item number three River Trail condominium LLC Cairo Attorney Peter isolino this is for 644 Rodman Street map 1-20 lot 7. the applicant seeks variants to convert the existing 20 000 puts square foot Warehouse 644 Rodman Street into 16 apartment units the subject property is located in the B1 local business zoning District which allows for a maximum of three residential units per structure the

applicant also proposes to make minor alterations to the existing non-conforming structure at entrance exterior stairways fire escapes Etc all alterations will conform with the requirements of the BL zoning District thank you for the record Peter celino 550 Locust Street on behalf of the applicant River Trail Condominiums Jeff Tillman Northeast engineering Consultants uh the petition before the board seeks

variance to use the existing non-conforming structure located at 644 Rodman Street which is a vacant Warehouse building that's pretty dilapidated and turn it into 16 townhouse units within the existing structure The Proposal is that there would be eight units on the first floor eight units on the second floor as depicted by the rendering here the idea is townhouse style and the parking is

sufficient for two per unit so ultimately we're strictly seeking a variance because as Mr chair read into the record only three units are allowed by right in the BL or HD3 uh district and again the proposal is for 16 units it should also probably be noted that this has previously been before the board this site has previously been before the board and the relief that was granted has lapsed for inaction

we're big tonight on yes it seems like there are a lot of repeats there was this thing called coven this thing called yeah all right any questions from the board all two bedroom units go ahead I believe so well yeah sir yes our is this being is this building actually being converted or is it basically knocked down to the foundation no okay it's being converted okay the the bones of this building are remarkable if you

will go inside and take a tour of the school and look at it it's the woodwork in in the craftsmanship on everything on the inside is remarkable so they want to maintain that okay um the only thing I think they would add is because this property as a whole there's this building there's another 10 000 square foot Warehouse on the corner of Rodman and Lawrence and then there's some vacant land in the back

um it has been subdivided by a r plan um there is it is on the market for sale in this they have had some discussions with a potential buyer that might be looking at the additional 10 000 I mean the ten thousand square foot building on the corner and the vacant land on the back what they would like connectivity between the two properties so if you go back if you scroll back to the um

the initial plan here but that the access the second means of egress that we're showing here out to Lawrence Street potentially could be eliminated um wouldn't impact the us being able to meet the requirements of access to to the parking areas that was shown here but it would eliminate that access to so that lot two could be connected to lot 3.

even two audits on pickup trucks to pass each other if they're coming and going so yeah Market units market rate yes okay any other questions any comment from planning engineering I have we just got the building plans today the only I'm assuming I'm assuming that that you meet the requirements for the two points of egress I know there's a walkout patio and a door but they're very close to each other

I don't mean it's not a zoning issue but certainly the intent is to comply yeah with that yeah right I would question is especially on the second floor you do have that that patio the patio door to get out to the balcony but we'll leave that up to the building inspector for code enforcement worst case scenario is you're going to put a slider out of the back somehow but that's where the bedrooms are

but that could still count as egress if you put a slide around here no other than that I think it's a good use of the property and it's laying out well

um something that Council didn't offer but if you actually do a calculation based on the BL and the 1500 square foot per unit I think when you look at the aggregate of this parcel which is 38 000 square feet I think you can make an argument that you exceed what the with the lot unit count would be per square foot uh on this building so if you look at 5 000 square feet and

then keep adding fifteen hundreds I think if you do a calculation for 16 and my math is full even being an engineer without a calculator but I think you'll be thinking pretty close so good point Thank you and this is also I believe located in the Housing Development overlay District which promotes this type of development on these type of buildings so if you don't want to go down that road if you don't have to so

just to make everybody I was just going to say that um any other questions at this point none anybody here in the audience to speak in favor of the petition

board of appeals um as was depicted in the previous renderings that were up on the state up on the screen here you can see the current status of the building and what it looks like today the one could certainly argue that the site is blighted um and now with the uh with the new proposal that's going to be taken place there you can see the mock difference that's uh that's going to occur as a

result of this proposed development I think the Intriguing part of this particular Apostle in this project itself is that this also acts as the entrances of quickest end of the river trail so you're dressing up this portion of Robin Street for people that are coming into the trail and they have a much more you know aesthetic entrance uh as they should wear a spite as possible into the trail itself and then as was

alluded earlier as part of my last comments I'm not trying concrete nine thousand mockery units in the city but I am trying to advocate for market rate units in the city um and that is condition of impact upon the fact that market rate units there's a demand for mockery units we're not displacing people when we're creating these market rate units these are new units and people who now have an opportunity to

make a choice as to the types of living environments that they want and it also provides choices to people and if they look to either locate or stay within the city itself so again I think just based upon the visuals here this is this makes a good project for that area this census tract is a challenging census tract in terms of poverty and this type of and private investment there I think goes a long way

to help stabilize that the census tract and lastly is what is also implicated the actual bones of the building even though the exterior doesn't look very nice the bones are they building are very strong in terms of hybrid flaws being wooden beams and everything else that'll be incorporated and utilizing the overall design so it's a repurposing of a property that's been here for close

to probably 100 years at least I think so I hope that the blood received fit to approve this very good thank you very much Ken one other thing is the planning aspect is and can't often comes and speaks in favor a lot of these take into consideration that it's not all in one location of the city so the need for housing dispersed throughout the community there is a need so this isn't just all in the

Waterfront or not all downtown around this building this is an area where just down the end of Lawrence Street near the Lewiston Street DCM facility that used to be the incinerator they're currently being permitted I think six duplexes triplexes sorry at that end of that street so again the the nature of this area being Zone BL that that that's what it's there for so to see this type of

development in in this neighborhood would be a you know a catalyst for a lot more to happen if you remember directly across the street but Global glass was taken down that was also permitted for duplex condominiums that developer didn't have the ability or was in fear of pulling the trigger on it once something like this happens then you start to see the infill of all these other projects come to fruition so

hopefully the developer will take this and run with it this time yeah and and something that if not exactly the rendering something along these lines it's very attractive very sleek not gonna be oddly out of style like a 1960s building 30 years from now anybody else to speak in favor anybody wish to speak in opposition to this petition what do we wish to do make a motion to Grant second conditions

two bedroom units 16 total AIDS it's eight and eight um with the parking as stated on the plan if this is a concept so I don't want to say that no we can't look like that when you say pocket has stayed on a plant with the requirement of two parking spots per unit correct uh yes yeah I just want to make you aware that the that overall layout is subject to

minor change now I don't anticipate any major changes but because of the potential sale of the other two lots it's a slight variation that could happen yeah so the other the the other strip is you weren't asking for parking no we're not asking for any relief in that regard so it's got to be two units per yeah it makes sense that's my motion do their thing and uh a

second we do have a motion in a second any further discussion hearing none John yes Jim Calkins yes Dan De Pere yes Ricky sahadi yes and chairman Prairie yes

number four Tavares Cara of Attorney Peter a celino for 508 Smith Street 15 lock 23 the applicant seeks a special permit to demolish the existing detached garage and reconstruct a two-car garage attached as well as uh had an addition to the residents the applicant seeks permission to exceed the maximum thirty percent lock coverage allowed and the power forward to family zoning District

thank you for the record Peter celino 550 Locust Street on behalf of the applicant Mr Tavares can you say your name my name is Mr Tavares is the owner of the property located at 508 Smith Street in Fall River that is the subject of the instant petition this matter is currently pending before site plan review and I think that's how this originally came to be which is to say that the existing pool and the apron

surrounding the pool take the house over the lot coverage requirement should be noted there is a permit for the pool that was not built in the cover and night or anything like that so the proposal is to construct a two-car garage on the um if you're standing in the street on the right side of the house and in addition on the left side of the house there I'm currently on

the site as is depicted on the plans there's a detached garage that is only three feet from the property line so the proposal is to raise that which in my view and opinion makes the site better to attach a garage to keep Mr tavares's cars in connected to his house and to build an addition on the northeasterly side of the house I've done this as a special permit because all of the

structures that are shown predate his ownership and are non-conforming for example the house is only 8.3 feet from the street so I've done this as a special permit seeking to enlarge the existing non-conformity and I would submit to you for the following reasons that what is proposed is not more detrimental to the neighborhood and what is already there number one I think getting rid of that

detached garage which is only three feet from the boundary line is a good thing I think that betters the property I think constructing an attached garage allow him to keep cars inside the property we're not changing the character of the property from a single family to a multi-family it's still a single family dwelling and Mr Tavares is the occupant with his wife and children so the

ultimate site the changes again are those two additions and the request is lot coverage as proposed we are at 55.2 and the requirement in an R4 District as the board knows is 30 percent but a substantial amount of that is the pool itself that is correct yeah so the current lock coverage is already 51 so it's already non-conforming so it's really just for four percent and through site plan review they've accommodated

that increase in lot coverage through the installation of some roof recharge infiltration systems so this does have site plan approval one of the conditions was to resolve the zoning issue that was it and from a dimensional standpoint really the only non-conformity the non-conformity of of area of course but the existing non-conformity of of uh setback front setback front setback and

then the additions meet all set back okay the building department determined that the actual construction with with setbacks needs no relief I mean he can do that through a finding for the expansion of an existing non-conforming single-family house so this is strictly for lock code okay all right anyone to speak in favor can left anyone to speak against their hearing none I I agree with your um I agree with you

position of moving this forward as a as a special permanent myself I don't know where everybody else on the board feels feels therefore you have a motion to approve a motion to deny it should be yes because yes and Mr chairman I find that the proposal is not going to substantially detrimental to the area second on that second discussion

no that's all we need on that John Frank yes Jim Calkins yes Dan De Pere yes Ricky sahadi yes Joe Pereira yes the second one as well

special permit for a second we have a motion the second discussion John Frank yes Jim Calkins yes Denver yes this is howdy yes yes

you still need the variance

yeah put a boat in the pool thank you very much foreign

space into two residential units waving all requirements in the G General zoning District the applicant also seeks a special permit to waive parking requirements thank you uh purpose is the record Peter celino on behalf of the applicant uh Mr Kamara is here with me this is duar Camara uh he's the owner of the building the Lots themselves um obviously you can see from the plan are adjoining and they're created by

variance previous variance relief so what we're here before you on is the fact that we have a mixed-use building and that building housed the Azores Bakery and in July of 2022 there was a fire in the Azores Bakery Mr Kamara has run that Bakery for 40 years and he decided as a result of that fire that he was going to retire he was not going to use it as a bakery anymore

and so as a consequence of that the family is left in a position to decide what they're going to do with that space and so the proposal is to uh include two apartments in that space in order to make this a four unit building so in a g District a three unit building is allowed by right we are asking for a four unit building so we need a variance for the use for

exceeding the allowable number of apartments and then secondarily we do not have off street parking for eight cars and so as a consequence I've sought a special permit for the special um for the offshree parking component of the petition so I'd submit to the board that a the hardship on this petition is certainly the fire inside the existing structure and the inability based on the maxed out

law coverage and lot lines to do anything other than that anything other than a multi-family with this building secondarily on the special permit component of the petition Mr Duart ran the bakery 24 7. he would get to the bakery in the middle of the night he had a box truck he had employees during the day he had customers at holidays like Easter he'd have a line out the door for sweet bread so

ultimately I would suggest to the board that what is proposed is actually less detrimental than what has been there for the last 40 years which is an active seven day a week business with customer employee and loading parking um when the loading and unloading would occur if you've been to the set to the street it's a congested Street sometimes and there'd be double parking backup

beepers so in my view uh the reason why the special permit is appropriate for the parking component of this petition is that there would be less noise there is currently a 30 minute parking space designated by the city in front of the bakery which I would suggest be turned into one of these off street parking places and without the employees and the customers I think we get better in terms

of traffic and congestion so with that I'll close it certainly if anybody has any questions for me or Mr Camara we're happy to answer them one of the questions when was the fire I can't remember July of 2022.

I think the actual date is in the petition July 24th specifically so the commercial if you're thinking the commercial use has not lapsed if that's where you're going foreign

concerns I might have had so yes very straightforward and I was surprised because when I when I went by I actually got a parking space so take away the sweet bread Mr prayer take away the sweet breath there's plenty of robes any other questions no planning nothing okay very good I will then entertain a motion we have two pieces of this I'm sorry I'm sorry I promise to keep these things shorter

anyone here to speak in favor can Viola I believe yes uh Ken Viola Executive Vice President here tonight to speak on in favor of the proposal that's before the Zone board of appeals um as was I think stated by uh attorney celino I believe in a lot of people in the neighborhood believe that this is going to be a less intrusive use upon some of the Navy buddy neighbors and their budding properties uh Mr Doula actually

had a very very successful business there and it was well energized and a hub of business activity and social activity and other things so now converting it into residential use I think is going to actually happen more quieter uh impact upon the neighborhood and certainly a less impact on traffic but in addition to that and what's most important I think to the overall City aspect of this is that this is in

relative close proximity to the new MBTA stuff that's over on Duval Street and by virtue of a full room becoming an MBTA Community the city is under an obligation to providing multi-family housing in and around the area of the commuter rail so the more commercial a more pocket housing that we can establish within this area I think helps the city meet its demand and the number of units that it needs to

to submit to the MBTA for the zoning that the MBT is looking to impose upon the city and surround the area so by virtue of allowing the reconversion of this property into residential use also helps the city meet that demand in terms of Apartments to be Associated and located next to the uh the community rails terminal so for those reasons as stated I'd hope that the board was seeing fit to approve the petition

okay anyone else to speak in favor anyone in opposition they're hearing none of the board Mr chairman to the special commit aspect on the parking I've moved the board fine and said we're not be substantially more detrimental to the area and that the inspection may be granted for the motion is there a second second um all right discussion therefore John Frank yes uh Jim Calkins Dan De Pere yes and chairman for yes

um all right we have a motion to Grant the special permit is there a second second that would be down to pair uh discussion John Frank yes Jim Calkins yes yes foreign

very good motion and second was by Dan De Pere uh discussion very none John Frank yes Jim Calkins yes and a pear yes yes

item number six 77-73 we demo LLC took care of attorney David Perry Ville street map s-08 lot 22 the application the two existing three families dwellings into two separate Parcels waiving requirements in the G General zoning District good evening and thank you for your patience oh hello thank you very much my name is David Perry I am I'm a new face so thank you for your welcome um I practice at 901 Eastern

Avenue That's the bottelho Law Group I represent the new owners of this lot 77-73 we demo LLC um the lot it's two three family buildings um they're I don't know how old the buildings are they certainly pretty excited to before um the new owners are in the process of renovating the structures on the lot they they plan to make no changes to the footprint or the ex you know they're going to clean up the exteriors but

they're not going to change the footprint or the structures themselves and they would like essentially to create a paper change um a change on paper to the lot by dividing the houses up into two separate Parcels the rear house number 73 we demo will get the garage and garage parking the um the front house number 77 we demo is going I guess have um street parking only there's no lot parking um there

should be no detriment whatsoever to the neighborhood because there's not going to be any change either in you know the use or the occupancy of the building it's really an economic decision to split the parcel up into two Parcels on the economic hardship of course is that it's it's it's more it's harder to renovate and sell a lot with two houses on it it's easier to sell two separate

Lots each with a single structure thank you very much yes there's that garage there's the garage yes so there's no driveway parking at all no I mean there wouldn't be room for it because I mean I um this is It's currently actually um what looks like a driveway on the Eastern portion of the lot is actually grassy now you know so it's it's not asphalt that it's grass but it would allow you know

entrance to that to that garage but um there's no plan to create there's no plan there's no room really to create parking spaces in front of that rear house Not Unusual circumstances from planning engineering no but just to be consistent you should discuss the need for easements around the front building for instance where you only have an offset of 1.6 feet into the building um around that portion of the building

separate utilities across of course they don't show where they show the water line comes in the front building I'm assuming it runs through the front building and then out the back of the front building to the rear building and that's the purpose of requiring um all the utility separation so that that is not the case down the road so okay certainly normal conditions too as well excuse me there are sewerage

them all as well so yes they show the sewer lines um but they would have to be separated together okay certainly I will let the let the owners know that what you know you can't it would not be to convey it you know convey to live until that separation is done questions comments Joe I just have one question you said what was your the hardship you said it was Financial um there's no there's no hard investment

I mean I mean there's a request on the forum for a hardship so I'm so special I'm getting out over my skis and yes my like I said I've been practicing with Fall River for for a year or so so forgive me for uh airing and filing experience yes thank you very much I appreciate that come and visit when it's all done I guess that's what I can offer you 've got a hard time

thank you very much for hearing me um all right other questions then I would entertain a motion at this point to improve her motion to deny to approve with any conditions I'll make a motion to prove to approve the conditions separate utilities uh no interior offenses engineer said easement across the rear of the minimum easements to provide four feet of access to around each of the buildings right

and and once again this evening I forgot to ask for comment anybody here to speak in favor the ghost is a former residence Maybe Ken comes running back around the corner let me let you slide on that one oh Lord actually done this before all right is that the whole of your room so approval with utilities discussion all those in favor no not all those in favor yes sure John Frank yes stand up here yes

and chairman Pereira yes thank you very much congratulations thank you yeah you're one for one that's that's true thank you very much everyone thank you all right yeah ah yes our rules and regulations we have the standing ones do you have do you want you all have a package of The Proposal rules and regulations um I have a fee schedule I don't have that yeah I don't have it with that okay remote table discussions

I think we have a motion to table discussion on the rules and regulations we have second second 20 minutes early yep John Frank earlier yes

that's on the uh the matter we'll see um Jim Calkins yeah yes Ricky yes Jennifer yes okay that's just you're right that just saved us 20 minutes all right the fee schedule darn it this has been table 83 times so um I can introduce you to what what the proposal is before you I supplied also with a proposed movie schedule the last two schedules dating back to 2014 where

you can see uh most of the fees that date back to 2014 carry through the revision of uh of the 2021c schedule it was only one or two items that had changed and of course you know in that in that time frame from 2014 until now the fees have not gone up so I had gone and looked at a number of different municipalities their fee schedules and look at the way that they calculate and

deal with fees and Zoning requests a number of the municipalities towns or or cities actually charge per section of relief so if you needed a front yard setback you paid the fee if you needed a front yard setback and live coverage you would be paying three sections every week which giving a menu like that and having to calculate fees is just absurd to me the town of Seekonk for instance you have to

actually submit a separate application for each section of relief so if you needed four variances you actually submit four different petitions four different fees four different bundles it's it's a bit insane so history has shown and you all know it the city is very good to applicants when they come to the city with applying to the zoning board of appeals everyone tries to make it as simple as possible

the fee schedule is simple the application is simple but there does come a time where an increase in fees is you know usually required I've put together what I think is a reasonable fee schedule by no means is that steadfast and set in stone it's just for discussion purposes I think what we've done over time is try to treat homeowners and residential uses very kindly and and I think that continues to do this as well

so that you know the planning board adopted a new team schedule which basically went up to about the same percentages what you see here on this you would see that the biggest increases have to do with commercial variances and Commercial special permits and when you look at that the amount of relief normally required in the amount of time effort to deal with these things it costs more money to deal with them so

again I think this is reasonable we can have a discussion about it tonight you can now take a look at what's been presented let it marinate but what we did with the planning borders I asked everyone go do your own research if need be look at what other municipalities similar to ours or even just surrounding and see how they deal with with these types of items we're very kind with regards to Legal

notice about our notifications about our notifications for instance we we normally would pay for all of that in-house that comes out of the filing fee of the municipalities you write a blank check for about a notification and then again that's you know I can't tell you how much it's going to be we have we'll get into Butters list and then we'll tell you what it is and now we're chasing people for a check

similarly to what we do for advertising here but we just break it up evenly to everybody so something to look at when you do go do your own investigation is look at the comprehensive submission whether it's a button notification legal ad or how they break down the sections of relief and what the cost is for each one of those things yeah when this when this first came up about three months ago now I did I went

and took a look at Taunton New Bedford I looked at all the cities in the uh in the county a couple of the larger swans yeah just was appalled but might have something to do with them sending me a town manager but um you know I went up Brockton you know got a little out of range we're not on a range here in fact we're Fair um spending a good deal of time on the

other side of of the counter the other side of the the table here in much bigger cities these are great because when you go to apply in in a Cambridge or Boston and sort of baffling in the way in which you have to uh you have to put your fee schedule you have to calculate all the fees up and hope it's right when you get up to the counter because they'll just send you

calculating fees sometimes is more important than repairing the plan right well to some of the community so I don't know if anybody else we've had it for a while we do have some new members of the uh the board at this point I have no problem if everybody wants to take the next few weeks to look at it uh I think we're perfectly in line here I comfortable with these Mr

chairman I did the same thing I did some homework and looked at him I mean well within range I mean we've had it for a while I don't know if you do it yeah um just um if I can ask Dan um as you said you know you try to take it easy so to speak on residential yep and increase commercial more but going by lower percentages when you go by division of property

additional units so forth those are 100 increases I mean not not on the uh raw figure obviously the thousand dollars for commercial is much more money right but when you go by percentages a lot of these residential units residential uh proposals or 100 increases yep so so I guess my question is how is that taking it easy on residential units because 600 is still cheap so I didn't recommend that all variances

be one thousand dollars no I understand which at the end of the day for for what for what applicants are receiving from this board the value of the relief being granted to them is far beyond that six hundred dollars the four hundred dollars that we're starting from was so Antiquated again dating back to 2014 right so look at it look at it that way okay I was looking at it I was looking

at where it says plus 200 in and then plus 100. those are 100 increases yep well because we were charging before 100 per additional lot sorry and we're in other towns they would require an entirely separate fee you wouldn't even have just the smaller Edition by a lot you would have another hole application fee for every section of relief or every sector every lot that you were trying trying to get all right

and the last the last question then is uh a special permits residential and Commercial you have residential developments at eight hundred dollars which again is almost a 100 increase not quite but almost yep so if we look at what was there before was residential developments 450 and then fifty dollars per unit so that is for a residential development like we had just seen with the 16 units that's not

individual Lots so when we're looking at multi-family residential developments that needs to be that the time that everyone spends to deal with looking at those things they're not simple and straightforward applications what we did in the planning board the way site plan review is set up now any site plan review South Coast Marketplace the entire development a 300 filing fees for site plan review

you want to put a shed in your backyard and you have to go file for site plan review it's 300 you know I appreciate that so we're just trying to and again this is a proposal for you all to discuss right I guess my um my only comment is that I have not done the homework I mean John Tran did it and Joe Pereira did it and I guess these fees you know the raw numbers are

not out of line I'm just wondering if in well one Fell Swoop we should increase it like that and if it should be gradual and we have that decision we we have made significant change to these fees as Dan has pointed out for a very long time and you know it our payroll is not as cheap as it used to be nothing is as cheap as it used to be in order to to

cover all this stuff even copying and you know everything that goes into this um I have no I have no problem substantially yeah it's just I mean my concern was that um some of these are drastic jumps usually when we increase fees uh it goes you know not in one fellow school but gradually but as you're saying it's been quite a while since they've increased it I I think we

can probably live with these for a few years we'll see but I think we we have to take a closer look at them going forward I think you know maybe not annually but you know we we should really be taking taking a look and seeing what's going on a lot of this is going to come down to how much is how much is coming before us you know really what what's what's the

volume that's that's coming in here listen some municipalities are holding two two zoning board hearings a month because they've got so much going on I think for a moment that that could not possibly happen to us the last thing I'll leave you with then is that um you've compared so velocity is wise we're in line with other communities yeah and again what I recommended was that you all go take a look at that um

because again this is just an initiation to have you start discussing it I have nothing to do with it right this is this is for you to determine what what you feel but these figures that you put together absolutely that does the authority to set the rates reside here or does it is so we would make recommendations to the city council I don't think it has to because it's not an ordinance in your

rules and regulations we would at least as a courtesy send this to the council

so what's our wishes do we want you guys want a month to do some uh looking around that's everybody yeah I I didn't do as deep a dive as you did but I did like the Bedford time you know the bigger comparable and and this is still very helpful just for the heck of it it's very interesting look at the heck of it yeah hey you know that kadim guy yeah

do we have a motion either to proceed with this or table it for another month I mean um we accept yeah I see no reason I was just going to say I didn't see nobody's in the table I'm sorry so we have a motion by Jim Calkins to accept and second by Ricky zahati any further discussion you did did you second one of us did it doesn't matter we both did now now I'm getting now I'm

getting David Assad disease because whoever sits in those two chairs also on the same it's hilarious um that being the case on the motion uh John Frank yes yes we're done thank you good work on that one he looks surprised what else we got here I moved the waving of the reading of the minutes and Seconds of Services too much you want to put them together you're gonna ask him

the next item on the agenda is to ask of this citizen is there any citizens input you know there may be somebody may have written something down and we didn't get it get out here in that case that would be the reason of the minutes

so that is for the January and February minutes yeah the emotion is to waive the reading of the minutes and accept second and we have a second discussion hearing none John Frank yes Jim Coggins Dan De Pere yes Ricky Sahara yes chairman prayer yes do we have a motion to adjourn we have a motion to adjourn we have a second John Frank Jeffrey Jim talking yes Dan De Pere yes Ricky yes chairman for yes thank you

thank you thank you everyone