3.20.2025 Zoning Board of Appeals

oh good evening I am Joseph Pereira chairman of the zoning board of appeals for the city of Fall River it is 6 pm on Thursday March 20th 2025 we are meeting at one government center in the first floor hearing room personent to Mass General Law chapter 30A section 20 subsection F I hereby notify all persons in attendance that this meeting is being recorded by Fall River government TV and

both an audio and video version if anyone Mr Craig Salvador is at the helm back there if anyone desires to make an audio video or combination recording of this meeting please notify me now and I will make a public announcement of your intention they're hearing none our recording secretary for this evening is Miss Patty agar sitting to my immediate right uh also with us this evening present are permanent members

um Mr John Frank our vice chairman uh James Caulkins our clerk Dan deir Ricky Sahar uh also present our alternate members um Miss Alexis anelo and uh Mr Eric Kelly uh also with us seated at my far left is the director of planning and engineering ing uh Mr Dan agar Patty have all petitions to be considered been properly advertised and all interested parties notified in accordance with the rules and

regulations of the zba and Mass General Law chapter 4A as amended yes I thereby declare the March 20th 2025 regularly scheduled meeting of the zoning board of appeals of the city of Fall River open for such business as shall come before it I remind all persons presenting before the board including petitioners abutters anyone in support or anyone opposed to a petition that your presentations should be limited to 3

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 petitioner's claim as such the petitioner should identify and factually support the basis for the petition the are presenting this evening I hereby advise the petitioners and all interested persons that this is the

zoning board of appeals the board's Authority exists personent to Mass General Law chapter 4A and is limited in scope and deals with the use of land as regulated by chapter 86 of the ordinances of the city of Fall River additional permits licenses reviews and or approvals may be required for the specific development and or use which is the subject of the petition before the zoning board this

evening the action taken by the board has a real and Lasting effect upon the title to your real estate I urge all petitioners to seek competent legal council before filing your petition and after the decision of the board has been made 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 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 Rivers zoning ordinances the city Charter section 9-18 mandates that all multiple member bodies developed and adopt rules or policies for public comment we have adop adopted such a policy which in short provides for Citizens input on zoning board specific matters at the end of the

meeting if you wish to do so there is a signup sheet just outside the door on the table I disclose that an official copy of the Fall River zoning ordinance is available available at the city clerk's office and that one cannot rely on the zoning ordinance online and let us begin with item number 01 Marino Z Benavides care of attorney David M Assad 84 and 94 Everett Street and 310 Alden Street map j18 Lot

25 the applicant requires a special permit under section 86- 423b of the city of Fall River zoning ordinance the petition of proposes to divide Lot 25 as shown on the city of Fall River assesses map j18 into three lots leaving an existing three family dwelling number 94 Everett Street on one lot another existing three family dwelling number 310 Alden Street on a second lot and the existing six family

dwelling uh number 84 Everett Street on a third lot the property is located in within an A2 apartment zoning District this petition was tabled at the February 20th 2025 meeting and continue to this point Council good evening Mr chairman members of the board my name is David Assad I'm an attorney licensed to practice in the wealth of Massachusetts I maintain offices at 326 Pine Street in

the city of Fall River with me this evening the gentleman to my right is Mr Marino Benavides uh this particular lot um has been merged by the assesses as three preexisting lot three pre-existing dwellings on them 84 Everett Street is a six family uh 310 Alden Street is a three family and lot number one which is designated as 94 Everett Street is designated by the assesses as a three

family and there is a former commercial use bakery at the bottom that has not been used for the past uh five or six years even though I think it's probably more than that um so what Mr Benavides is requesting the board to do in very simple terms is Grant a special permit to divide this particular lot into three specific Lots three independent lots lots one two and three keeping the three

family on Lot number one keeping the three family on Lot number two and the six family on Lot number three uh there is a curb cut on Everett Street that has an opening uh has a curb cut of 12 feet wide the opening to get into the property is 9.75 Ft um and there is a shed that exists on the property the barrel shed that's going to be raised to

give the benefit of Lot number three the 84 Everett Street may be a straight shot in from Everett Street uh to the rear of the property uh and that's basically what Mr Benavides is asking for very simple uh exercise of the um of the special permit requirement under 86 423b I'll be happy to answer any questions okay thank you very much Mr chair uh Mr asside are there any questions from the board comments from

the board I got a chance to look at this one previously uh a straight shot for parking or just well access so I tried driving my car up there uh I have a David saber paint job on it and the first layer of uh paint so I'm not sure how it can happen but I know that there was at least one tenant from uh 84 Everett Street that made it up and was

parked in the back the area behind 84 Everett Street is um is currently have some grape Vines and has some vegetation on it we're not asking to u to develop that right now but that may be a possibility that's one of the reasons for the 4f foot uh easement over Lots one and two that may in the future Grant some parking for Lots number one and lot number two but there's not that's being

prop that's not being proposed now because there is no current off thank you where is that easement what am I missing so if you look from Everett Street y going along the 99t uh boundary line to the South uh so there's 5T allocated to Lot number three and then there's the 4 feet that crosses the property lines of lot one and two so you end up with roughly a 9t wide um

rectangular piece that gives Lot number three which would be the dominant estate uh the right to pass and repass okay right up to the line right up to the line right across and the reason for the shed for the proposed access easement um existing Barrel shed so you there wasn't that angle if they wanted to get to the back of Lot number three so we're saying we'll get rid of that right

now okay and that would be a cross easement then to Lots one and two my suspicion we we hasn't been developed but my thought would be there would be those cross easements among all of them if we can figure out how to get more cars in there that' be a big help to the neighborhood any other questions before I go to the uh public do you have any comments just

that if you recall um you're on the verge of approving this at the last meeting but then the question came up about that commercial unit and possibly wanting to reinstitute it or convert it um so the applicants decided not to move forward with if they want to do that they can at this point time they can come back before the board and ask for permission to develop it or just just by way of

clarification uh in that that was I was caught by surprise on that and I'll admit that but I asked the assessor um I went back on the day after the meeting and asked them about 294 and the response that I got from Mr rebella was there was a bakery there Jack's Bakery it occupied the basement level for many years it says it was converted to an apartment on 819 1996 it was inspected several times over

the years the owner States in their form of May 2027 that it was converted to an apartment now I could have come before the board and said that Mr Benavides went in and honestly said I can walk in and I can open the bakery again because what's there are the ovens the showcases uh so we're not going to ask for that relief now if someone or he wants to develop it either as a special

permit at has commercial use under 5,000 square ft or an apartment he'll ask for permission from the board at a future time okay but it was just it needed to be disclosed that there was that separate address 294 that's associated with that particular building okay thank you thank you let's go to the general public is there anyone here who wishes to speak in favor of this petition is there anyone who wishes to

speak in opposition they're hearing none I return to the board what are your wishes on this all Dan just as a point of clarification could you just up kind of summarize what you wrote here um so on all of these whenever we have these 86423 BS we always require separation of utilities and an affidavit recorded at the registry of deeds stating that all the utilities have been separated uh no

interior fencing along the newly created lot lines as we get closer to buildings um when the fire department comes out if we have a fence that's now splitting these properties sometimes it makes it difficult exterior property line is not an issue but any new line that that's being created um should not have any fencing we also require because of these odd configurations that all of these

property Corners get monumented either with concrete bounds iron rods drill holes some type of some permanent survey marker so that everyone understands um what they own which is sometimes difficult U and then the last one I had has already been addressed about currently there is no permission or expanded use of any of the structures for any use other than what's being contemplated tonight that's all

okay may I address the the sewer the sewer wine issues the the records at the sewer department 84 has it separate sewer and water line 94 has a separate water and sewer line and 310 was subject to to a fire recently and we know that that has a separate sewer line so we know that the water and sewers on all three are in fact pre-existing there's no combination not

shown on the pl so just requ no I'm just I'm just making the statement if that was one of the comments what we know which is good makes the affidavit that much easier so well the affidavit not being that we separated them affid being and they are separated Mr chairman I move U acceptance of the uh request uh on the conditions as stated by Dan that all utilities be uh separated that the affid affid affid

affidavit affid affidavit come on David uh of compliance be com uh recorded recorded at the registry no interior fencing all property corners should be Stak and marked clearly and no further uh use of any kind in the existing structures no expansion without without without further yeah without further relief from the board correct thank you second Mr chairman modificated proposal

correct special permit not for this kind no no not okay no okay discussion on the motion any questions on the motion we have a motion and a second on the motion John Frank yes Jim yes Dan yes Ricky yes chairman Prairie yes thank you Mr chairman members of the board thank you thank you thank you for coming AGA Patty thank you for your assistance what I did item number 02 Around the Clock service sorry just

clarification on that last one yep that existing shed to be raised it should be raised it's on the plan yes it's on it's on the plan so y item number 02 Around the Clock Services Inc care of Jeffrey Tolman 566-5729 the applicant requires a special permit under Section 86 423b of the city of Fall River zoning ordinance the petitioner proposes to divide the lot to divide lot 28 as shown on the

city of fall River assessor map i7 into three lots leaving an existing three family dwelling at 560 Williams Street on one lot another existing three family dwelling number 570 Williams Street on a second lot and the existing single family dwelling number 572 William Street on a third lot the property is located in an A2 apartment zoning District uh this petition was previously tabled at the February 20th 2

uh 2025 meeting of the zoning board of appeals good evening for the record Jeff Tolman from Northeast engineers and Consultants here on behalf of Around the Clock uh Services Inc the petitioner for this particular application um this is also another uh section 86 423b application special permit application um that was filed and I understand I was not at the last meeting but I do understand there were some

questions that came up regarding the uh the par in arrangement in the uh limits of the easement uh that we had shown on the previous plan at the front so what I've done is I revised the plan um made some minor changes to the lot lines lot two uh which was originally 6 feet going from the rear uh you can see where lot to was located at the back of the property that was 6 feet

going out to William Street the reason for that is there are two side porches on one on 560 the other on 570 that are just over 6 ft apart so it made sense to uh you know go through there with a 6ot property line extend that all the way out to William Street and then provide U an access easement for all three lots to use um to gain access but in order to clarify the the parking

situation what I've done is I've widened the lot uh lot two at the at the street for a distance of 28 feet off of William Street so now that that lot width is 9 feet which would provide the ability to park a car in the existing driveway and still leave space on either side for pedestrian access uh to each of the uh the two multif family dwellings as well

as the to the rear to the single family dwelling and the other thing I did is I I provided a detail of the proposed access and utility easement on the plan MH highlighted so you can see the exact meats and Bounds of that easement um and again that that easement will be um I mean it won't be necessary for utilities for 560 or 570 but um it will be uh necessary for Access and the utilities

that would come through there would come from uh 572 the single family dwelling located at the rear um I'm not exactly sure where the utilities from that dwelling go now I would have to do some research on that to figure it out but I I have a feeling they might run through 570 at this point and would have to be separated um if this special were to be granted so with that I'd be happy to

answer any questions okay thank you for that clarification on the easement at least we have it in recordable form now um go engineering and planning first what do you think nothing other than um some level of site plan review should be required just so that we can make sure that the separation of utilities is being done correctly what happens sometimes on these is a contractor will come in

get a sewer and water connection permit um without acknowledging what the separation distances should be between the two services and the different types of encasement needed if you are too close to each other so this would just give us some governance to make sure that utilities being run to the back house had done correctly that's all no other reason other than that that utility separation yeah and given a distance

between the two porches they would have to be within 10 ft so there would be some encasement required so essentially there is right now only one parking space correct and that's where it's going to be I mean that distance to back to those well one by zoning I've seen Aerials that show too but for the dimensions of parking spaces yeah yeah I actually pulled my car in there not to take a page out of David's

book but I did and it's still there I did I drove in there and there was without blocking the porches like and pushing all the way up it'd be almost impossible to stack two cars in there and if you did you might be overhanging on the sidewalk on Williams Street at that point I want to say there 32 ft whatever parking there is currently is being preserved so whether it be 1 2 10 it's being

preserved any other questions from the board at this point Jeff drives a nicer car than David H Jeff does drive a nicer car than David by that's setting about Prett well he's an engineer he should have an F3 250 I mean in which case it it still be there um turning to the general public is there anyone here who wishes to speak in behalf of this petition anyone who wishes to speak in

opposition they're hearing none whoops wait yes hello thank you everyone thank chairman of the board um I know wasn't here for the record please oh Sila 47 Middle Street my parents uh my family owns a house right on the side of these houses M um that's where actually I was born uh but so I know the last time uh he wasn't here uh but there was supposed to be something Concrete in

regards to what was going to be done for parking I know he says there's one but as uh Dan had mentioned is two I've lived in that neighborhood for 40 plus years and as always been two cars it's very tight for parking in that area um to me I I don't I think there was like there should be like two I know that what what it in in the books it's probably just

one correct CU spaces are 18 ft deep so meeting the space requirement can't say that there's room for two but if they can fit two maybe they drive three Mini Coopers and they're going to fit three you know so whatever space is available for parking now will remain for parking afterwards so there's no reduction in whatever the existing parking scenario is and for in regards to the separation

of utilities it's it is very tight in there right yep and uh so they have to encase it right for that back house yeah whenever a water line gets within 10 ft of a sewer line and depending upon the elevations of them if you can't get enough SE I know they've already started marking and that's why we want to make sure that they have to submitted plan to make sure it's and who will the point

that comes through my office and the Department of Community utilities through Paul F's office okay all right that's all I have thank you okay thank you and if I can just address the the two spaces again the um the the barrel storage for 560 and 570 is at the rear of those two dwellings in the back on the concrete pads there if you were to parked two cars in there again you would

have to pull right up to the porches and there wouldn't be enough room to get a barrel out you wouldn't even be able to walk like by that front car to get out so that's why um you could con conceivably stack two cars in there but it would be very tight very tight you would have to have like smaller compact style cars to do it but it can be done not ruling it out

but no but measurements are measurements and it's only a 32t deep correct in yes you can ask for a special permit to to make 10 foot parking spaces and say you can fit four but whatever's there now will be there available afterwards correct 1 F250 or six smart cars all right anything else anybody else in opposition what say we board make a motion to Grant the special per uh the conditions of uh separate

utilities no interior fencing all property Corners are stake permanent markers um and then easement utility easement that's stated on the plan uh and also uh site plan review second okay motion and second discussion on a motion you're hearing none on the motion Ricky yes Dan yes Jim yes John yes and chairman yes thank you thank you don't go too far item number 03 Robert Mado care of

Jeffrey tomman 106 Bowler Street map L3 Lot 19 3 after the fact filing the applicant requested variance from section 86 466 a follower of a zoning ordinance the petitioner requests a permit to permit the location and size of an existing non non-conforming accessory structure the petitioner also requests a variance regarding the lot coverage properties located in a g General zoning uh General residence

zoning District uh this petition was also tabled from the February 20th meeting uh good evening for the record Jeff tomman from Northeast engineers and Consultants with me here tonight is Rober masar the petitioner for this application um so this again was an after effect variant for uh dimensional regulations of section 86 466 of the city's zoning ordinance uh which pertains to the uh

requirements for private garages and sheds um in in addition to that we were also o seeking uh relief for lot coverage um the oversized garage um was situ originally currently situated in the manner where uh there were some uh setback uh violations that were caused um specifically a side setback on the on the west side and the rear setback um to the north um in addition there was some what I

would consider unnecessary impervious material that was placed around the garage uh really bring in the amount of impervious area on the site up to uh almost 100% but there is a little uh green area in front of the house so resulting in about 99% so what I did was in order to uh I I understand again not being at the last meeting that the board wanted us to take a look at this to see

if there was anything that could be done to maybe help you know solve some of these issues reduce the the extent of relief that we were seeking um so I did was I revised the plan to show uh three separate conditions um one of them being the what I'll call was the 2022 condition which is basically the pre-existing condition before the uh the garage was constructed um there was an

existing 14 x18 shed on the property and another uh 10x30 accessory structure uh well within the the setback for an accessory accessory structure to the uh to the east um those buildings it was my understanding were in very rough shape uh was kind of an isore so those were taken down uh and replaced by the the the new garage that was instructed uh the second condition is what we just

spoke about what's on the ground now uh the existing 12,000 sqt garage or accessory structure um in its current location with the uh the side and rear setback violations and also the uh all the impervious area the as going around it um so in talking to the the petitioner on how we could you know help solve some of these issues uh he's agreed to relocate the garage in a manner so that

it would not need any relief uh for setback requirements uh to get it you know 4 feet off the at least a minimum of 4 feet off the uh the West Property boundary and 4T off the north property boundary um which was resul in it being 6t off the West boundary and it would be then be in compliance um with the setback requirements as part of doing that he would also remove the uh impervious area

located the east north and west of that structure um that would be about 710 square ft of asphalt which would reduce the uh the the lot coverage um down to a propo proposed condition of 85% as opposed to 99% um I have a table of lot coverage at the bottom of the plan uh the pre-existing condition before anything was done here was 63% it then as I had mentioned bumped up to

99% uh when this work was done post 2022 uh and we'd be bringing that down by making these revisions to uh 85% and I would imagine that that as part of doing that work um it would be subject to going through site plan review and in order to account for some of this addition lot area that was shown on the plan um we wouldn't be opposed to obviously putting in some type of infiltration

system to help mitigate any excess runoff that would be coming from the site as a result of this increase in lot coverage what about if I may do you need both of these driveways on either side of that existing structure well I would say uh and again those have been there for a while and I'll just give my opinion and then I'll let Rober uh speak on his behalf

the the driveway on the West Side um it is only wide enough to get one vehicle by it would provide the only access into the accessory structure the the driveway on the east side would be more for the uh you know for for not accessing the structure so you wouldn't if you parked in that driveway you would not be blocking access into the uh accessory structure um I'm not sure I mean I I can let

Robert speak on that to see if there's anything that can be done maybe that maybe the driveway on the East if not totally eliminated might be able to be reduced in length uh to cut down some more on impervious material but um I'll let Robert speak to that yeah I mean like I said it was there I mean but if I have to I'll do whatever when whatever I

need to if uh I have to rip it out I rip it out would you like to keep a portion of it or just get all together whatever's going to work to be honest with you chairman if I could add yeah um so thank you for taking the time to try and minimize the relief needed um by doing that and being able to meet the sidey setback requirements the size of this garage can

actually be granted by the granting of a special permit under Section 86 466 which allows you to allow something greater than 750 square ft through a special permit um one the lot coverage I think is is the bigger issue can be solved in a number of ways one pavement can be removed it can also be replaced with pavers which is not considered impervious um and to lessen the relief

needed for for lot coverage so after all this we've whittel this down to theoretically a special permit for the size of the structure no variance is needed no Grant of hardship it's just a matter of is the structure size detrimental to the neighborhood that's what you need to look at lot coverage is something entirely different but yes it can be offset through site plan review um which no matter what happens with lot

coverage they should still be providing some level of stone water infiltration MH but if you don't feel that the lot coverage request um is warranted you can require that one of the two driveways be replaced with with Forest I'm sure that will get you down to the previous number of what the lot coverage was in 22 Dan just our priation if the if the um petitioner seeks a special permit y does this have to be

tabled doesn't we can do that even though it's asking if it was the opposite way around you can't apply for a special permit then ask for variants because that's a higher level of relief needed um but past practice 30 years that I'm aware of you've allowed applicants to seek lesser relief because it lessens their burden on you for having to agree to a hardship which a special permit is L much lesser yeah

um that gets us by the structure and the lot coverage I still have considered as we had at the last meeting the discussions about what is this building being used for what is being stored in it that's my question and you need to amongst yourselves have a a better understanding of are there Vehicles parked in here if there are Vehicles parked in here they should have floor drains that creates

another whole issue if it's for fence and concrete like the gentleman asserted to at the last meeting you make that a part of the approval um it shouldn't be used as a commercial garage uh you stated that at the last meeting so I think the use of the structure is something you also need to to discuss because that that that could theoretically be that would be a variance 100% for a commercial use but

his structure whatsoever correct correct correct but the but the difficult part is if what is being stored in the structure is part of your doing business I does that make it a business use it's almost a warehouse at that point which is a which is a commercial use yeah that that's for you to decide the the degree of whether that's considered a business or not or it's up with the building

department to decide because they have not made that determination yet that was my question they did not they just went on size no because it's never it was never they never put before them if they needed relief for the use they they only dealt with the size of the structure and the relief needed to to keep that building there um so again you could you could require um the use of the structure to be handled

differently or you can put whatever conditions that you want on it well what we don't have in front of us is a request for a use variant use so that would be prohibited we could prohibit it in which case you're going to sit there're going why why do I need this 1,200 foot garage well I can try to address that um the house itself is is a slab on grade there's no basement um I don't believe

there's an attic in here it's a single level um the the there's no real storage space within the house the the use of the house isn't the question I understand that but the the so the majority of the garage or the accessory structure whatever you want to call in the back is used for storage for items for the from the house so do we want square footage that can be used for

storage of fence and concrete can go that far and then if he's found yeah I mean that I as far as I know in terms of storage of fence materials it's if anything concrete that gets stored in there you know so it's not out in the elements and getting ruined by being sitting out in the rain it might be a few bags in between jobs here and there but it's I don't think it's anything

that would be outside something that a regular homeowner might have in there right that presented at the last meeting what he's doing in the garage so would you would you have a I objection to uh liting that's pretty much yeah I mean my mother my mom and my sister use it for you know a lot of their stuff and then yeah you know like I said I keep some the last meeting we dealt with the

business being operated out of another address that is probably not legal there either but the equ all of the stuff was stored here yeah and then he goes there every day picks up what he needs to go to work and then goes to work I pick through exra job site like um at the fence places you know what I mean like warehouse and picking it up going to the job I'm not bringing it to the house

yeah this might be just like a leftover stuff that may not be used on a given day or maybe he bought excess that day um you know having dealt with several fence contractors maybe a minimum of three I never I know I never went to an office or met anybody at their place they've always come to me given me a price and then showed up with the material and a lot of the material

handling in that business is just in time just yeah that morning pick it up you figure out you measure you figure out what you need there's no Bobcats aers any of that type of stuff is no no I pick up I pick up the material I have my truck there but I pick up the material and I go to the job site and then if I have you know leftover concrete obviously I put it in the

garage um and then I take that I think that's different than how it was presented at the last meeting but yeah well I'm saying cuz we asked me if I kept concrete I told what I said was I kept Concrete in there which I do obviously can leftovers and and then I take that on the truck and but besides that it's not like you know I don't have anybody going there there's none of that

just I just take my vehicle and I leave pick up the material go to the jobsite right which would be very different than if you have a large amount of materials stored in this structure that somebody else is coming down one of your guys is coming down you guys are loading up the truck in the morning that clearly becomes a we're not doing none of that obviously it's a I got neighbors and stuff and you can't

you know what I mean I just take my truck we we head out um and usually the material I order is just the material that we're using on the job you know I'm not like I'm bringing extra material home and this is all uh paved underneath that whole thing yes sir is it paved or concrete is it it's it's a um asold okay yeah okay it's not a foundation it's

just one of those yeah yes sir space that's why we thought sliding it wouldn't be that big of a deal so I'm glad he was able to do that so however you guys vote I think you've gone above and beyond to try to allow this to to get as as good as it can get as good as it can get and at least narrow down the the amount of relief need any other questions from the board

at this point I could ask questions all night um turning to the audience is there anyone here to speak in favor of this petition yes anything different than previously yeah did you speak last time I did speak last time and I'll speak again okay because I feel bad he's a really honest person he won't lie to any of you and he's a hardworking young man and I feel really bad because the company that came

to put this in two years ago should have been the company that got a permit and followed City Rules and they didn't he's tried to contact them he shared the number with me I've tried to contact them and haven't gotten back any call from them I suggested that he send a certified lure them so that we could Allure our building inspector that if this guy comes into town and wants to build

something here that he needs to get a permit I mean so I kind of feel bad he was doing what he thought was the right thing to do paying close to $20,000 for this 177,000 I believe it was and this company he comes in and does this two years ago and now he's thought he did everything right um and all of the neighbors agree that this is better than

it was before I don't know how many of you went by Bor Street we even know where B Street is I go by of it was my neck of the woods and all those neighbors are happy that this is cleaned up and if he didn't know what he didn't know it's still no excuse to the law but I'd like to get the guy that did it and make him prid pay triple damages for not

having got permit with the city that would be through Mr Mich attorney not the Z board we trying okay so and if I can get Triple damages for the city I will do it and Mr per we respect the fact that they're trying right now we are try and if it's a contractor that did it you're right okay yeah but you know still have to follow the law how

much of how much of a lawsuit is he going to have against a contractor for you know something that happened two years ago uh just for the record your your address 99 North Ogden Street W River Mass thank you thank you Mr Pereira and just so there's no conflict there's no relationship no relationship my younger sister okay any other anyone else uh to speak in favor anyone speaking in opposition to

this they're hearing none it comes back to us this would be bifurcated first if you're going to move on the special permit it has to be bifurcated yes but right now the request is for Rance right so you can request for it to be handled special yeah we we would certainly like it to be handled based on the changes that were made as a special permit as a special permit that's correct that being the

case Mr chairman I would move that um this is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood second this is for the side of the structure SI the structure all right on that motion John no Jim yes Dan yes Ricky yes jimy Prairie yes um so now you have to deal with the granting of the special you do both together yes well no so separately that the special permit be granted with the conditions is stated

um including site plan review yes oh yes yeah um squ review uh prohibiting business storage and use um prohibiting Water and Sewer to the garage and uh eastly driveway being removed or or replaced with or replaced for rep and ultimately cine review is going to a lot to say about that but um you just looking at the area that much imperious surface bugs me which is why if we can do something with the

apron around the garage which youve which you've ascented to and possibly this other driveway in order to open that up a little bit a second motion we have a motion and a second any discussion on the motion then on the motion Ricky yes d yes Jim yes John no chairman Prairie yes I wish you a blessing and please be careful in the future I appreciate you're a contractor you know thank you I

appreciate you should have had that permit stuck in the window of that house so on to new business Jeff I think you have to stand up walk out come back in again I'm not sure I'm always does new business item number one kma realy trust Inc Kimberly alme trustee care of Jeffrey tman 395 Goodland street map b six Lots 37 and 16 the applicant is requesting a variance to divide the existing lot into two

Parcels proposing the following leaving the existing single family dwelling 395 on one parcel with 4700 squ ft and a 60 foot UH 60 ft of Frontage waving lot area lot Frontage lot coverage and side um yard setback requirements uh to creating a new second lot with 6,117 square ft and 9.02 ft of Frontage waving lot coverage requirements for the purpose of constructing a single family dwelling

the property is located in an R2 family zoning District good evening for the record Jeff Tolman from Northeast engineers and Consultants here on behalf of kma realy trust um the petitioner and also the owner of the property uh the property is located at 395 Goodwin Street which is at the southwest corner of Goodwin Street in King Street uh the the property shows up as two separate Pils on the city G Lots

number 16 and 37 on map b06 um there is an exist uh fingle single family dwelling located on the Northern portion of what is Lot 37 or shown as Lot 37 um which is located on the western portion of the overall property uh there's also an existing one stall garage that faces King Street uh located on the southwest corner of what is referred to as lot 16 um and um yeah located on the lot 16

which is the corner lot located on the corner of Goodwin and King uh there's also an existing asphalt driveway um that runs from King Street comes in goes to the garage and then turns to the north and uh exits out onto onto Goodwin Street um the entire property has an area of 10,817 square ft with 11914 ft of Frontage on Goodwin Street and 9.02 ft of Frontage on King Street

um as you stated the property is located in the two family R4 zoning District uh that District requires uh minimum Frontage of 75 ft and for a single family dwelling 6,000 ft of area and for a two family 8,000 sare squ ft of area um the applicant or I should say the petitioner originally approached me um to prepare a site plan um he had re re recently purchased the property he

wanted to build a house on what he thought was Lot 16 and he wanted to go through sight planine review um upon looking into the property um I told them that the you know it seems as though that the property has been merged um being that Lot 37 was substandard and did not meet the uh area or Frontage requirements of the two family District um so once I made him aware of that I

told him you know what he's trying to do would need relief from the zoning board uh so then he immediately agreed to file a petition uh to come before this boort to to do what he was looking to do um as you can see the layout of the property the there is a large side yard area uh which is basically that lot 16 that I was talking about which is uh that that particular pole is

6,138 square ft in area um with quite a bit of Frontage given that it is the corner lot so the uh what we're seeking to do here is to is to basically create a conforming single family dwelling lot in the two family zoning District out of this parcel on which a new single family dwelling uh would be built um the lot itself the dimensions of the lot area Frontage would meet all the standards uh

the new single family dwelling um would meet all setback requirements the only relief that would be needed upon the construction of the dwelling would be uh the relief of lot coverage that we're requesting for that particular lot uh the remaining area would be for the existing single family dwelling which would be that lot 37a shown on the plan which is a 4,700 ft lot uh as you can

see on the plan that lot is is larger and has more Frontage than the three lots directly to the South which have two family dwellings on them uh so it it even though it is a substandard lot um by, 1300 ft in area and and 15 ft in front uh it still fits in with the surrounding area uh and still would you know conform with what's out in the neighborhood um

so I we're here to request the variants to to to be able to do this division of the property uh we feel that the you know the overall shape of the property and the location of the existing single family dwelling on the property which results in this large um side yard area which really isn't used um in it's it's not you know it's located right on the the corner of

two streets it's not ideal for you know privacy or anything like that so uh I mean to me it just makes sense to um to allow the the development of that particular lot in this particular manner um so with that I'd be happy to answer any question that's sorry questions that the board might have thank you the existing lot line is that the original lot line when these were two separate

that's correct that's the way it shows up on the city GIS and that's the way uh in the deed it does call for the two separate aples and that's the um that division line shows up as the existing lot line correct so these will merg to the zoning I believe so yes okay the uh is there and I I forgot to check this is there a curb cut on King Street for that driveway that seems to

swoop all the way through the property okay yes you don't need that curve cut any longer then uh no that would be eliminated and we would um like to develop it in a manner so that the it would be a side entry garage with an access off of off a Goodwin Street and eliminate that c cut on King okay for the new single family dwelling and leave the existing curb cut that's on Goodwin Street for the

existing single family dwelling um we would have to widen uh that driveway slightly and that's why we have that little bump and kink in the lot line yeah so we can get two cars that could park there side by side um and still get access to the rear of the dwelling I have a walkway that goes to the side door and also to the backyard okay any other questions from the board I think

that Dan uh I would just offer that under current zoning when we're just looking at density this could be a two family dwelling by right um but when I look at the neighborhood specifically on that side of the property it is surrounded by predominantly single family home so the argument is would you rather see two singles amongst other singles or make this a two when it's surrounded by other singles so

contemplate that as well um Jeff Jeff elaborated on the relief um that's required of course storm water uh and utilities is always a concern um I would I would consider contemplating no additional DW dwelling units uh so and what's important now is as you as you start to put some of these conditions on and that's why we're trying to advise a little bit more it would preclude any of these properties

from utilizing the accessory dwelling unit legislation M so in the in the decision where it's completely spelled out that there are no additional dwelling units that would prohibit an an additional ad even circumventing that so you're allowing this relief on smaller lots to then have someone come back and say well I can put an Adu here now and now we've got two two families so needs

to be conditioned in a way that we're giving some protection when we're granting relief based upon two singles and we don't want to find out that they're two doubles without having to come back to you no and I appreciate that thank you I mean my my concern and I realized it could be it could be a two family I'm I'm looking again at parking which is conly areb could be it could be a two

by right and then they could add an accessory dwelling unit so they could make it this three a three unit building if they chose to but I don't do that work anymore I'm glad there's always a little more juice in that one anything John got nothing turning to the audience is there anyone here who wishes to speak in favor of this petition anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to this

petition okay they're hearing none let's bring it back and make a

decision I agree that if we are going to um approve this the the recommended the recommended um limitations make a great deal of sense and again because now we're we're taking up so much of that lot this is definitely a site plan how do we feel folks Mr chairman I'm turning to yeah okay okay I'll gra chance make a motion a grant second these U conditions of uh site plan and also um no additional dwelling

units you're the zoning board of appeals you can put any condition on it's land use we can do that no further expansion of either lot dwelling usage on either law it's the best way prohibit additional dwellings on either additional dwelling units yeah that should be it that's it second and we have a second discussion on the motion in that case to the motion John yes Jim yes Dan yes Ricky yes chairman per yes

thank you thank you item number two Janet Harrison care of Jeffrey tman 18 Holland Street map t21 lot 30 uh the applicant is requesting a variance to divide the existing lot into two Parcels proposing the following one leaving the existing single family dwelling 18 on one parcel with 18512 ft and 160t of front AG requiring no relief two creating a new second parcel with 10,50 square ft and 70 ft of

Frontage waving lot area lot Frontage sidey yard setback and lot coverage requirements for the purpose of constructing a single family dwelling the property is located in an S single family zoning District I recognize this property you should uh good evening for the record Jeff Tolman from Northeast engineers and Consultants here on behalf of Jana Harrison uh the applicant um or the petitioner on

this application the um yes so if this looks familiar to to the board it it very well should it's been before the board on a number of occasions um originally which I did I I don't even know if I realized this the last time I was in but it was wasn't in 2001 uh there was a petition that we discovered to divide this property into three lots which was denied at that time um then in 200

22 um we came back with a proposal uh to do I I'm not sure what the original lot layout was for the 2001 division but again to create three lots out of this divided into three lots and that was also denied um so when we went back to the drawing board in 2 in both of those I well I know our uh 2022 application I believe the um proposal at that time was

to demolish the existing single family dwelling and and the reason that we were going for that is is uh um Janet Harrison is is is elderly she's been in and out of nursing homes and rehab facilities uh for quite some time and she was looking to um uh stay on the property and build herself um something that would be more easily accessible for it um but once that application got

denied um again we came back in after going to the planning board to get a determination um we came back in in 2023 for this exact same relief that we're asking for tonight um at that time that that um variance was granted to create this second lot with the relief that we're seeking um but it was never acted upon um I want to say that at after that uh Rance Grant uh Janet

spent a considerable amount of time in a in a nursing home it was the property was kind of left in flux it wasn't I don't I don't know exactly what happened but I know you know went past the one year the variant expired and um we were approached recently to uh to come back in and bring this back before the board and with the hope of um getting the exact same re relief that we were given

in 2023 so uh with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board might have Jeff just one question there have been no changes no same proposal exact same proposal yes okay and the the envelope of a house that you're showing on lot two is simply for example is that to make it clear that you can meet your setbacks yes yeah that that's correct and we are asking for a slight increase

in the lot coverage for that particular lot from 25 to 30% um in that was granted again in 23 and the reason for that was that 30% of the 10,000 sqt or 10,50 ft lot would basically give us the 25% that we would get for a 12,000 foot lot um so it' be you know if we did make it the 10,000 I mean the 12,000 square feet that would be required we'd have to like you know

um remove the shed and do different things to the property that the that M Harrison doesn't want to do at this particular time so um you know again that that that lot lot coverage would be addressed during the site plan review process um if there were to be granted and um we did move forward on a development of lot too okay and the lot that's immediately next door to that has a tiny

Frontage 42t yeah everybody else is fairly consistent through the area here it is incept for one ant cone that sits here with all the front is I love it uh other questions from the board Dan anything to add it's Noe I mean I so familiar I put some contemplated I didn't do this that was this was all J before um just some conditions to contemplate uh site plan review theoretically even for both

Parcels to ensure that uh lot one as the appropriate parking I mean there is an existing driveway shown there but we should formalize the the parking for that lot as well utilities we don't want to find out for some odd reason that utilities the existing dwelling run through the new lot you just don't know um there should be some contemplation of with allowing the grant for area on lot two contemplate can lot one be

subdivided again would need relief to come back to you and seek another variance to cut that into two Watts but you can stop that now because you're being um favorable with granting the relief a lot too um and that's all that I had really the only difference in the application which I believe was a typographical error was the previous Grant still had an arrow calling for the existing dwelling to be

removed but I don't think that was the in so Jeff just just for clarification any any consideration of making this a large a lot by a dog leg or something that that goes to the West um into the uh into the existing lot or yeah I remember we talked about that at at in 2023 and it was decided that it was uh it looks a lot cleaner on paper obviously you would just go

straight back off the road and if a fence were to be installed um by whoever comes along and builds on lot to um it just it's it's a neater looking division it is in conformance with you know the Lots in the well several of the Lots within the neighborhood in terms of area um and I believe the board at that particular time just thought it was a a cleaner way to divide the property um

and it also allowed the uh out buildings the sheds and stuff like that to be uh to remain on lot one um the idea being we weren't going to make any changes to lot one um so I mean the only thing I would add in terms of filing site plan review on lot one I just don't know um what we'd be filing for um I know maybe to prove that we can get the

parking but if the existing driveway is adequate would would then we need to file or if you no no or we just plan Illustrated yeah with dimensions on and two parking spaces then okay yeah I mean that's that makes sense and then obviously lot two would have full site plan review um yes and can we require parking be provided on lot two should it be built on lot two we have to have not seeking any Rel

to re we can we can add it but it should be lot two is only seeking relief for Frontage total area sidey yard setbacks down to 10 ft yeah and lot coverage sh and Jeff can you can you express uh a a hardship for those setbacks uh just the well it's the area mostly the coverage correct yeah it it just with the reduced Frontage um to to build a house in there the I believe at

the time they had a house had somebody interested in in buying the property and building on it and in house that looking to build would fit within that setback and uh there is a topographic if if you look at the to topography on Holland Street you could certainly make the case and I believe on the previous version of this plan when we came in with the three lots we did have the topography on I

don't know why it was taken off um don't ask me but if were to show that talk to your engineer yeah yeah my engineer were to show that uh yeah it would you could clearly see that there is a um some some s topography on this yeah particular property and quite honestly I mean you know and it'll be a future issue or we or we squash it tonight we got an 18,000

foot lot still sitting there somebody's going to come in and want to cut it in a half and you know it's an oddity in uh in the North End in the in the S Zone well somehow that lot got Incorporated in into the wtod like across North Main Street then what what would that would the Restriction you put on it preclude further development even though the Lots may meet the requirements of that zone well WT only

extends to North Main Street no I know but I'm saying if there's the future change there won't that won't change I'm going to write that down I need a crystal no I mean that that would be the only thing I would ask that if there were some type of zoning change that that lot not be restricted that it could be reevaluated you say that it can't be subdivided requiring relief if it

doesn't require relief then it doesn't have perfect yep okay nothing else on the board to the gathered public anyone here wish to speak in favor of the petition anyone to speak in opposition quiet Rob okay it's to the

board I move granting of the variant uh subject to U prohibition on any further uh subdivision of lot one uh unless zoning should change and uh site plan review for both

Parcels or just was it a revised plan would be submitted showing the conformance off for lot one that would be sufficient as opposed to full-blown site plan review I think was the that's fine that should be fine yeah um yeah the the the wording regarding subdivision of further subdivision of lot one would be a Prohibition unless zoning changes such that it's allowable it would be allowable by right be

allowable if we decide that s slots are going to be 5,000 never know small homes tiny homes there's a motion do we have a second please second motion and second discussion on the motion you're hearing none Ricky yes Dan yes Jim yes John yes chairman per yes thank you good night Jeffrey I'm not leaving item number three Jamie Duff care of Attorney Peter 5 uh 951 Slade street map g15 lot 35 the

applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following one convert the existing automobile detailing facility former daycare center into an 11 unit apartment building SL automobile detailing facility on a 26783 ft parcel waving um the lot area and L area and count requirements as uh detailed in section 86 attachment one table of dimensional regulations and section 86 attachment two table of uses

of the city of Fall River zoning ordinance the applicant is requesting a special permit to allow for the following one extend extend the pre-existing non-conforming lot coverage from 90.5% to 100% the property is located within an A2 apartment zoning District good evening for the record my name is Peter selino I am a lawyer with office addresses at 550 Locust Street here in Fall River uh this petition has been

before the board several times so a little historical background I came before the board in 2023 seeking a special permit for the auto detailing facility that is in the um sort of bottom right corner of the existing structure and at that time I indicated to the board that the facility was previously used as a child care center my client is a owner of Auto gals on uh Plymouth Avenue and was seeking an

ancillary facility to detail cars so that was the first piece of relief we then came back and sought 15 units in this location uh that petition the board probably remembers was met with some opposition uh and ultimately went to vote and was declined subsequent to that I filed for a repetitive petition SE to come back before the board with an 11 unit proposal and the planning board granted

that request at the February meeting and so we sit here tonight seeking 11 Apartments to be uh constructed or erected within the existing footprint of the building labeled 951 Slade Street uh in terms of what the proposal contains so again it's 11 units there would be nine one-bedrooms and two two-bedrooms um the parking is sufficient so we meet the parking requirement as you can see from the

parking table on the plan um the total requirement would be 27 spaces and what is being provided is 30 so that for the record is much better than it was last time so we're completely compliant from a parking perspective the relief that we need is effectively three-fold uh the variance for the unit count and the A2 um it should be noted here that everyone I think on the board understands the A2

is honorous when it comes to the square footage required to to construct additional apartments and so as a result uh we do not have the lot area sufficient to support 11 Apartments so that's request number one and then we're seeking a special permit to expand the existing non-conforming uh lot coverage um again as Mr chairman read to 100% so uh I would submit to you that the hardship Associated for the variance

argument is certainly the odd shape of the lot the existing structure on the lot with zero to no setback uh Northwest and East and relative to the special permit component uh if I had to argue why this is not more detrimental my argument is simply that we now provide for all parking off Street uh one of the most strenuous objections in my recollection of the the prior hearing was that uh when there are

baseball games there's no parking um there's tight parking along barlay so now again we 100% comply with the parking requirement and so as a consequence of that I'd submit to you that granting us a special permit uh would not be more detrimental to the neighborhood in as much as we can contain all the parking on site now the the only access to the parking is through dwell Street correct that is

correct then someone needs to explain to me we there's parking off of barlay see the two arrows at the Sou okay all right there's there are two separate parking there two separate parking areas I was looking at the U the crossover where there are four area four spaces for the um the auto detailing s okay thank you not shown as a curve cut okay no problem that was my bad I feel like I know this

place questions from the board at this point did you say Unit S yeah 11 uh 11 total 9122 and Dan when you rate that the proposed amendment would allow for 15 units so if you recall over the last few months we've made recommendations to change the A2 zoning District if you remember starting the calculation at 5,000 square ft and then, 1500 square F feet per unit so that recommendation

through through this board with the planning board as well was sent to the city council for adoption that was remanded back to the planning board for formal recommendation last week that recommendation was sent forward to the city council to be heard on the April 8th meeting I believe to amend the A2 zoning District that would Al if that Amendment goes through they'd be able to get 15

units by R not needing relief for that 11 so again this could theoretically reduce the number of units I mean there's no guarantee that that vote will go through through and that reduction would take place I just as far as looking at what we're looking at this A2 zoning District we've contemplated many times I want to say I think almost probably four out of the six petitions tonight already are in the A2

zoning district and uh chryst the assistant planner had done a study based upon the kind of relief that we U often deal with 23% of the variances that we deal with as the zoning board of appeals have to do with the A2 zoning District it was it was poorly it was poorly worded when it was printed in the bylaw in the ordinance and I don't think that was necessarily the intention but the

way that the calculation can be interpreted I think it's excessive and I think most most others think that as well as well as you did by making the recommendation to reduce that number so I was just pointing that out for your own edification that the unit count is beyond what we even considered reasonable in our proposed amendments that's all not to be considered at at this vote because it's not but just as

an idea of does the density actually work but it's possible that on April the 8th um the right could be granted to build up to 15 correct but on this plan parking yeah so uh so for instance so parking parking is what's the driver and we talked about that when we talked about the A2 zoning District you know unit count is only one small part of being able to comply to

zoning we still get the parking hurdles to get over so they're capped at 100% lot coverage being able to provide X number of spaces that's really what's dictating the number of units not what the zoning allow so we're we're giving some flexibility if that Amendment goes through but you still need to comply with parking and lot coverage so um we'll probably still need some relief lot coverage U but as far as density

goes per unit count per square foot you would not need to be granting that level of variance office than attorney to the general public right now anyone here to speak in favor of the petition yes thank you Mr chairman members of the board uh Mr AGA uh Alan Sylvia 684 Woodman Street state representative I represent the uh areas uh the South End from the brager bridge to tib Rhode Island basically and

I I come before you in support of this variance this building um that I have visited has been vacated been underutilized and vacant for some time uh I don't have to tell you that uh we have I I see approximately 10 individuals or families a week that come in the the major priority in the south end of our community is of course housing and security and

um not having a unit to to go to so um I come this evening as I said to support this I think this is will be uh many of these are single single units for uh which is a serious lack of we have a lck of single for single one-bedroom units and St Studios units to speak so this would be very important okay thank you very good representative thank you good to see

you anyone else to speak in support yes Linda Pereira 99 North oon Street to be honest with you I like the first proposal that came in because it was going to be one-bedroom apartments for our veteran population and that fell through with this board um but as representative Silva said I get calls every day for people looking for apartments there's such a housing shortage this is a good location because for

people that don't have a car there's a great bus route on Slade Street and the buses are for free and I like the one-bedroom apartments too because some of my senior population that's been priced out of their Apartments um would be able to get a place like this so I would hope that the board is that thank you thank you thank you anyone else in support all my my

name is Jeff Roso I live in 48 wle Street I have an objection I have uh we're not we're not I had got to objection in favor of you don't go too far is there anyone else wishing to speak in in favor of the petition opposition please you're up I have a list of all landlords around that area we all signed a petition

you said landlords so these are all landlords tenants I live on bleay street and um there's no like we said last night there's no parking I live right behind the detail shop it's not a good idea he saying he wants to put vets but it's not going to be vets that goes there for the record hold it not that's not the case please councel yeah in response there's no veteran preference proposal in front

of you tonight that was the last proposal which was the client and what was your address for the record just so that she has it 48 B Street you the property owner

yep is the main objection parking is that where your objection is uh parking and and um you know people not just going to park in a parking lot they're going to park in the street and you don't know who's going to come live there it could be trouble you don't know how much the rent's going to be you know please understand the pview of the board the pview of this board is to make sure

that they're in compliance with all regulations and as of now this proposal uh the parking is 100% in compliance as far as your other concerns whether it be crime or whatever else that's beyond the view of this sport we deal with land juice okay so so last time I came here so I looked at the plans is in there a dumpster a dumpster is going to be right right hitting my

yard right against my yard no they moved it um where's your Chris it's hard point but it's right yeah it's there you go it's a roll out dump roll out dumpster right up against their building not up against the fence see it right there near the existing where it says dwell and the arrows and then I had another question how did he start building stuff without permits cuz I brought you guys

pictures of him doing electrical everything without pulling permits you know what they told me that he pulled the permits after he did the work that's not right yeah but that would be a case for the building inspector I did I dealt with him he never called me back did nothing no jurisdiction as far as giving building permits so if you have a question or a concern regarding zoning then that's something this board

can he doesn't live there he's just there to make money I lived there for almost 20 years a lot of the people that signed that petition Liv there years so he lives in Swansea so he's going to be comfortable living in Swansea and we're going to deal with whoever lives there again that concern is beyond I still think parking to is bad is there anything in in the petition that's different than what you've said

because if it is then the chairman should read it in if you think there's anything that you haven't raised no it is important to get your objections on the record accurately either go through it quickly we the abuts and neighbors of property at 951 Slade Street Fall River Mass owned in the name of Jamie Duff of 951 Wilbur Avenue Swansea Mass who has filed a repetition for a special permit to now convert the previous

daycare into 11 Apartments waving unit count parking and lot coverage to be H to be heard by the Fall River zoning board of appeals we hereby State our opposition to uh the repetition for a special permit on numerous grounds and in particular because of increased traffic uh certain to result in our neighborhood if the 11 unit apartment complex is allowed to be created increased noise in

our neighborhood increased traffic congestion in our neighborhood specifically in the spring and summer with both parks across the street while children and parents enjoy the playground and water splash not to mention the softball and baseball games that flood the street leaving us with no parking available the unsuitability of the use sought for by the special permit to our neighborhood which consists of

nearly exclusive single family and multif family homes of long slate and barklay Street on which 951 Slate Street excuse me sits the unsuitability of the proposed 11 Apartments being put into the existing building as proposed without suitable parking for more than one occupant and none of the visitors a guest uh we would like to remind the board that the petitioner who who was denied the previous waiver uh had work

being done I can't cover that um without permit uh granted a detail shop in the rear of the building which occupies more or less a quarter of the building and the entire parking lot for his Auto Sales known as Auto auto gals I didn't realize there was an auto sales there there is no sales there not there other that's what I thought um then it doesn't matter Autos are being detailed and hand

washed um into the city drain which has been brought up to the city residence and no action has been taken again not in the purview of this board as well as engines that are being washed into the city drains and and uh disposed into cook Pond polluting the environment not in the purview of this board but certainly something that I hope has been brought down to to Government Center nothing we well it's here so uh we

believe the building would be suitable for other uses but not as apartment complex and and detailed car wash shop so the detail the car detailing shop is already permitted so that's not even on the table any of these potential infractions not our purview has to go has to go up to floor five conversation had with the um with uh inspectional Services uh you're saying the parking this is going by we enforce the

regulation we're within the regulation on the parking in this case so the correct number of spaces have been allotted you saying nobody's going to park in the parking lot let me tell you something if I was in an apart an apartment building even at my single family house I try not to park on the street simply because people go flying down the street and I get a better

chance of have my car hit than if I'm in a parking area or my own driveway that's a matter of perception we're not dealing with perception we're dealing with uh fin document that we we have to we have to interpret and we have to act upon I appreciate the fact that this much interest came up that you're here a lot of what you brought up concerns me but I can't do anything about it those items

have to go after inspectional Services okay understand what we're limited to do and not do and we can't go on what kind of people are going to live here are going are they going to have a lot of guests we have tables of tables of requirements tables of of parking Etc that we have to look at and and interpret and in some cases if there's excess parking in a neighborhood which is not the case here

you know we're we're not as strict on parking and we will give some relief but we're not asking for relief in this in this case we have um we have a variance in this case that we have to that we have to address we have an existing bu building that covers the bulk of the lot so it's an it's an oddball situation we would probably not allow a building to

be B to be built right up to the property lines like that but it's there and we can't mandate that he gets taken down so this this third try Council this is the third try third try um anyone else to speak in opposition I just want to bring something up to the so on barklay street there's name and address please George Mel at 41 barlay thank you on barklay street there's two

c Cuts already and he also has the driveway that gives access right now off a dwelling if the board is to Grant this this uh variance could at least they have the two curb cuts on Barley Street deleted where can give an extra six parks to tenants on that street and they use only the driveway on while Street as their point of entering and exiting the parking lot no because the parking lots

are actually separated between the parking lot that's designated for the auto detailing which is coming in off of dwelling correct but didn't isn't isn't his petition saying that they're going to delete the auto no Al so there's going to be retail shop and the apartments correct so if that's divided there's no way they can fit 11 cars in that pocket no way nope no if that fence is going to

remain dividing that that parking lot it's not so it's going to have two driveways so on brolay street there's two driveways already there's going to be one there's going to be one they're going to close one are they going to close one one proposed on the plan okay so the first one they're going to close is the one towards slate or the one towards barway toward Slade toward slate so there's going to

be the one barway which is actually directly in front of my driveway so that's going to create a nuisance for me where cars are going to comeing out on their end and cars coming out on my end so could they convert that driver to the bottom cuz in the bottom there's no resonance in front there it's it's penis house and this there's just vacant land over there where he has a vegetable

do like I said that parking lot where that line is that's a fence down the middle fence is coming you understand that the fence obviously coming out the fence is coming out that's correct so he's going to use the detail shop as more parking no well for the detail sh on that side so how he's going to fit 11 Cars Plus guests plus visitors plus all his cars he's washing and detailing that

parking there there's a total of 22 spots for one of those spots 4x4 for a tricycle uh no the by 9 by and then there are also eight spots for the detailing shop along the side coming in off of dwelling coming off a dwelling they they've actually exceeded the parking requirement by three spaces they get they can fit there's no way they can fit eight cars along that wall and still

go in and out with cars well they have to otherwise they can't occupy the building yeah they have to meet with this plan so their engineer and surveyor licensed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts submitted a plan showing that they can fit this many spaces at the required size so we rely on professionals to present plans yeah well professionals are not always right and if they can't build it if they can't fit

it MH then they can't occupy the building it's that simple we'll see when the time comes 100% and we'll remind the board of all the problem that's going to happen on the street we're talking about parking and the number of spaces corre we see how and they met the zoning requirement which is all that the only regulation but we can't sir with all due respect sure the spaces is drawn here a

9 by8 yes they're the size that we require what size what size is the aisle between 22t which is what we require so the design of that parking lot meets the standard in the Fall River code meets the standard in the Fall River code we can't ask them to exceed the standard if they wanted a 20ft aisle instead of a 22t aisle they'd have to come in and ask for relief for that but they're not

asking that so if you're saying it's not going to work here then it's not working at Market Basket then it's not working at at any of the parking lots in this city that have all the parking lot tight that can ask you a question on that parking spots how wide and how long are they I just 9 by 18 ft 9 by 18 yes sir by the time you put the cars in and

they open the doors they're going to be hitting the cars on the side they're 9 by8 ft in our regulation the 9 by8 Boston regulation I have a question so I'm looking that's the building right there right so there's a door entrance right there of the uh Body Shop the detailing shop that's way he washes his cars and it show him pocket spots and the pocket spots are going to be against the

building like you guys got to come out and check out this goes through site plan review it looks like wait wait you asked a question let me answer the question this goes through site plan review that make sure logistically they can accommodate what relief has been granted by the zoning board of appeals where we contemplate lighting storm order utilities a number of things so that all gets vetted through the site

plan review committee to make sure that they can build this correctly so I I'm not sure exactly what spaces you're talking about against the building because you're just talking to a plan on wall but yes there are multiple doors that provide access to the auto detailing facility including the garage door at the very southernly end of the property and then there are 18 parking spaces coming in off of barklay Street

which would access the residential unit to the door opposite of the existing ramp you can see that and then there is the additional parking coming in off of dwelly Street the four spaces of which cannot be utilized for either building and then there's parking along the side of that driveway coming in off of dwell street so that's going to be right against my house that parking spot right against my

fence which number is yours again 48 no the parking spots are on the opposite side in the back see see 48 yeah yeah all right so you go to the left is see how it's showing parking spots to the north you mean up top up on the plan one there will be but it waspers before it's showing six and one in the back of it that's right on top of my fence

correct so when I have guests over and stuff I'm going to have people well they move the DP that's you didn't want the dumpster there last time no I don't want I don't want nothing there I want nothing near my house so you're saying that the owner of a property next to you has no right to do anything no he had he he has his right bought it but I'm just saying

that's right on top of my property that's a is there a fence now that runs along that property boundary yeah that he paint the back of my fence what kind of fence is it it's a uh it was a chain link he took it down it's a wooden fence like how high six foot regular size 6 foot

okay well we're the horse is dead was still kicking it um any additional uh opposition anything that has not already been said I don't know what level of fencing is out there but but the board could condition that privacy fencing being installed along whatever property boundary you decide to be but that's if you wanted to contemplate that or if it want would be offered by the applicant

but I don't know I don't know if there's a for wouldn't fence there now and would it make any difference so I don't know don't know you can consider it nothing else from the general public anything else from the uh from the board at this point I have one question yes counselor um what's the consideration on these on these unit it's like low income affordable market rate market rate market rate yes

what are your wishes uh Mr chair and I'll make a motion to Grant the variance with the stipulation of uh 11 units with a total with 11 units and the uh auto detailing facility including as detailed on the plan uh 22 spots for the residential unit and spots for the auto detailing spot also um with a Prohibition of uh no increase in the number of units so max of 11 site plan review for sure for all

lighting parking storm water and I think with this needs to be noted that since this is going to happen now storm water review is a big thing because we're going to be at 100% And and now they are required to bring up everything to correct y the runoff and a solution could be to use bars Asphalt in some locations if they choose to but that that gets handled through site plan review uh that's my

motion on the variance which is the greater of the two so we should address it first that's the motion do we understand it everybody hear it do we have a second on the motion considering PRI pry fencing too pardon are we considering privacy fencing too you want to make that motion yeah we could uh I'll amend my motion to uh require private privacy fencing along the Eastern Eastern borders of the

western that's Western y western 48 60 and 984 984 privacy fencing around that those three properties the people on the other side and I don't know if there's I think there's an existing fence there there's existing fences around the whole thing I just don't know what what size fence it is yeah could I get a definition on privacy fencing 6ot solid or Sol if it's already there it's already there okay it's

existing Bic neighbors three choices three choices wood vinyl or um chain link with whatever that'll be my amended motion second you do have a second okay discussion on the motion before we go remember we sell a special permit portion of this then on the motion John yes Jim yes Dan yes er uh Ricky yes and chairman Prairie yes thank you on the special permit to expand the uh non-conforming law coverage from 90 to

100% vated we need has we vated first that is not more substantially detrimental that is not more substantially detrimental to the neighborhood we can combine it we'll combine it and then also that will be site plan review I already said if we have a motion do we have a second second very good on the motion Ricky yes Dan yes Jim yes John yes chairman F yes thank you thank you third

times of charm a thank you that's good I wore my Irish tie for the luck or your or your Jujitsu G yeah item number four ninth and Bedford LLC Demetrius I'm going to butcher your last name go ahead why don't you say it right now no one's ever gotten it right so that's I'm not going to try so but if you do it'd be awesome it's uh s Pogo see I would have gotten that wrong thank

you and Demetrius salago manager care of uh Attorney Peter a selino 351 357 Bedford Street map n um N1 Lot 10 the applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following personent to section 86- 425a of the zoning ordinance to convert the two ground floor commercial units of the of a pre-existing non-conforming mixed use building containing two commercial units and six residential units into four

one-bedroom apartment units resulting in a 10un residential only apartment building two puru to section 86- 441 444 and 445 of the zoning ordinance to allow a reduction in the number of parking spaces uh parking space size and and parking aisle width requirements the property is located in an MD medical zoning District I'm only chuckling because of the last conversation fully understood uh Council good evening Peter

selino lawyer 550 Locust Street in Fall River for the applicant petitioner um in terms of the substance of the petition members of the board this property sits at the northwesterly corner of 9th and Bedford Street we've all driven by it when uh driving Westerly on Bedford Street there are commercial units on the first floor they're faced in Brick uh my client has owned the property for a couple of years they've tried

vigorously to OCC or to have those commercial units occupied and there's been no success um they cannot find any takers that want the commercial space and as a result they've decided to Pivot and consider a residential use in the uh first floor so the proposal as was read is to convert the existing uh two commercial units into four one-bedroom apartments The Proposal contemplates the

provision of 10 parking spaces uh so to be clear there are six units upstairs now four units on the ground floor 10 units total in the building is what is being proposed with one space per unit um the waivers relative to the parking are related to the travel aisle as the chairman just pointed out and the length of the spots are measuring at 17 ft as opposed to 18 so the petition is pledged

solely as a special permit under 86 425a to change a pre-existing non-conforming use and then secondly uh special permit for the parking requirements in the district um in terms of the argument relative to the detriment or lack thereof I'd submit to the board as I have previously that the commercial use could be much more dense than the proposed residential uses again what's being proposed here are one-bedroom

units and I'd submit to you if you had a busy barber shop or some other commercial use uh parking would be much more of an issue um I had a call with myli yesterday and they indicated to me that currently and I know this you know doesn't predict the future but currently there are only three residents in this building that have cars so uh parking is not an issue currently and I'd submit to

you that we've seen several petitions as of late where a oneto one uh ratio has been considered favorable and lastly I'd like to note for the record in my presentation that a related entity to my client owns the building to the South which would be an abutter um it's shown on the abutters list as NextGen realy so um if there were a concern that perhaps that person would be negatively impacted

he's sitting right here okay I I was going to ask if residents in that building were parking in that lot currently um we can actually add more parking as well um in the car park there's a carport as well on the side of the building on the other one so okay yeah only thinking so currently though are your tenants in the 8 unit park in the parking lot I I don't think we have

a park parking issue there all I'm not sure if there's some bleed over but we're not having any problems with with parking at all after hours there's parking on the street up there so and here's and here's the the Crux in this neighborhood and we deal with us all the time um the peak uses offset each other here so there aren't a lot of other multif family buildings in this area

right where we have Auto Body across the street Town Fair Tire Town for your tire to the West um so there's not a lot of Need for over night parking when the resident uses would would be in uh in nether spaces okay any other um would you care to add anything else on this no um I would like to see a screen dumpster only because how tight everything is um sometimes just having dumpsters floating

around parking lots aren't great um you you could contemplate site plan review to make sure that the dumpster gets done correctly um there really not much to change as far as um storm water goes they're not increasing any the faave surface so um however the board would would want to move forward with either limited site plan review or just condition it with what you want to see I think about that any other

questions from the board at this point hearing none going to the general public is there anyone here who wishes to speak in support of this petition anyone wishing to speak in opposition they're hearing none it comes uh comes back to the board just let me take one quick last look considering the coverage I would say limited site plan you can just put whatever conditions are required prior to

occupancy for the items that you want to see whether they be a screen dumpster or lighting review or something they don't have to submit side plan review that's up for the board to decide bated D yes yeah yeah so want to a motion chairman I will make the motion that um the um the proposal is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and that the uh proposal be approved with the conditions screen

dumpster and say plan riew second okay motion and second discussion on the motion they're hearing none Ricky yes Dan yes Jim yes John yes and chairman per yes thank you good luck little be nice to see that cleaned up right there thank you thank you chairman members of the board appreciate your time very professional meetings the city doesn't currently pick up trash there right because of the unit count and

Commercial they don't right that's why they sure it was going to be different I think six units is the is the kicker right so if it was less than six the city may have picked it up so yeah Republic does y thanks thank you thank you all right item number five mass Canan Capital LLC I'm not going to butcher your name either Ed Ed hamu Mas Capal very good this is

care of Katie Enright 460 glob street map G27 lot 9 the applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following one persuant to section 86 attachment to table of uses of the city of Fall River zoning ordinance to convert the existing Mill building into an 89 residential unit apartment building two person went to section 86- 441 444 and 445 of the zoning ordinance to allow a reduction in the number of parking

spaces uh parking aisle and uh parking aisle withd and parking setback to a property line requirement the property is located in a CMD commercial Mill and HD housing overlay overlay zoning District all right good evening everyone um my name is Katy enr I'm a professional engineer with Howard Stein Hudson um and my office is at 100 Apollo Drive In chumford massachusett um I'm here tonight with Ed from Mass

can Capital I'm not going to butcher his last name either I'm also here tonight with um Barry ganick who is our architect who's in the audience with us tonight um this lot as you stated is at 460 Globe Street the lot itself actually runs between globe and Griffin it's about 74,000 Square ft and there's a large underutilized mill on the subject site there's a furniture store on the

Griffin Street side um but essentially the buildings in disrepair and certainly the parking lot um areas around the building are in disrepair um McAn Capital would like to uh repurpose this building for 89 residential units um what we've looked at is essentially taking the um the entire the entirety of the lot which essentially is paved right now right up to the building and right up to the property line and and

repurpose the whole area for a residential and in doing that um we are looking at striping parking spaces we have 89 parking space is shown again a 1:1 ratio with 89 units um but we're also um investing in creating some additional perous surfaces Landscaping areas and really looking at improving The Pedestrian connectivity um from Globe to Griffin and all the building entrances to allow for the residents um

to work their way through the parking lot um also providing a loading area um and enclosed dumpster area on the site um we're also looking as part of this to excavate an area if you've been on site um there is a buried wall um and there's there's apparently known Windows underneath that wall to excavate down to that bottom level um so that's proposed also as part of this plan um to create

those 89 units we're here tonight for the use under the commercial Mill District we need a special permit to create a residential use here um and then we also need special permits related to parking um and so what we've done as you can see is we've we've really done the best we can sort of with the space that we have maximizing parking um really concentrating on reducing curb Cuts so we have two large

curb Cuts both on globe and Griffin um looking at reducing those creating better pedestrian connectivity on both of those streets um and closing off some of those large curb openings that exist there today creating striping within those lots with Ada accessibility um to allow for essentially order an orderly um parking lot around that building and creating some landscape areas too while we're at

it um as you know there's a significant um issue with housing in Massachusetts right now um we're down about 270,000 units um I think this is um as you stated previously in a previous application with parking um there is some residential in the neighborhood we are kind of surrounded by business in this area as there's a large parking lot AC across the street from the furniture store um and we feel that the providing

one space per unit um is adequate for this area and I'll I'll point out that you're only asking for an adjustment to aisle space on a portion of the parking lot that is actually immediately AB budding the the sidewalk in the building itself that's true Mr chair in the front section you're you do have the 22 feet which is good because that's where your curve cuts are so that's exactly true and and what we're

looking at doing is the only place that we're seeking that reduction to 20 feet is where the aisle is only stacked on one side so there's not parking on both sides of the aisle it's just that area of the aisle on the side of the building um where we're asking for that reduction okay um do you have bed count unit type count on this we do we have um it's basically 60 it's 6030 so we have

four Studios 50 71 bedrooms and 282 bedrooms to create the 89 unit market rate market rate currently yes current Mark um curious the there there is still an attachment from this building to the other portion of it what's going to happen with that is that coming down or you just going to make it beautiful on the inside and hope nobody notices um there are actually more than one piece

dir uh there's a party all that uh we uh crafted and spoke with aad about that he has no problem actually the second part was the uh uh area a that they had a ement they released that ement already recorded but for the party well yes we need to make some alteration right because the uh attaching do Tower Y is not in a good shape the liability to both yeah it's pretty bad yeah yeah so

we have to take it down but uh but we are working on that to exactly how to do it during construction we need to go to the historic commission to get the approval for taking that you're working with Ellis Family Trust on that exactly okay all right very good and the the Big Smoke Stack with the cell carriers on that's on their property that's I I really wasn't until we got this

application I really wasn't aware of the uh the division between the two a wise man from the biggest the biggest project with the most minimal relief of the night right unb last um I first want to say that the applicant and all of his Consultants have been great to work with I know we're not easy sometimes with what our requirements are um but we've met multiple times about making this the

best project it could be um including closing up some of the the curb openings increasing sidewalks in Griffin Street and and providing a better user experience for residents in this you know industrialized area as we see all of these Mill buildings becoming apartment buildings we learn a little bit more on each one about things that we can improve on so I I think the the presentation before you is is

thoughtfully done um all of the criteria that I recommended that they try to fit in uh with um they've been able to incorporate so I'm thankful for that um the parking relief is the biggest relief of course which is one to one all of our existing proven Mill projects easily uh operate with that with that parking correct uh ratio so I see no issue with that as well okay other than that um we

hope to get a shov on the ground quick as again we do about a year from today yeah that's still quite a crowd out there going to be tough getting out kids um be waiting for us any other questions from the board at this point okay before I go to the public I have one letter in support um bris County Economic Development Consultants dear chairman Pereira in keeping with this office's past practice of

supporting the development of new market rate and non-market rate housing uh initiatives please accept this letter as as support for the requested special permit for 460 Globe Street h River Mass as noted the applicant uh mascan LLC is seeking to convert the historic 98,9 historic Globe Mill Globe yarn Mill he was typing fast Globe Yar Mill into 89 uh Studio One and two-bedroom residential units within a federally

distressed census tract area uh constructed in 1891 the globe yarn Mill has served the city's south end well and it's uh repurposing for residential will allow the property to remain intact and provide it uh to endure for another hundred years of occupancy um the private sector investment for this project reflects a total project cost that exceeds $20 million as part of the overall Capital

stack for that project in addition to conventional financing mascon LLC will utilize recently approved federal and state historic tax credits to maintain the historic character of the property and allow for its adapted uh adaptive reuse as a result the collective private and public sector investment in this property will have a positive quanti quantifiable impact uh on Globe Street uh and the abdy neighborhood areas

through the effects of this board and its members Fall River has been able to accommodate a record number of market rate and non-market rate new and rehabilitated Housing Development throughout the entire city this project along with many others will increase the overall supply of rental units in the city which in turn will lead to an overall reduction in rents and allow the community to build and diversify its

housing stock spur Economic Development and enhance neighborhood stability as such um it is for this reason stated above that I respectfully requested the zoning board of appeals approve the special permit request before you tonight without the approval of the requested zon and release the project uh cannot proceed and the city will lose a significant opportunity to preserve an historic uh building and

realize significant private sector investment in a deeply distressed census track all of which is very true signed Ken Fiola uh for the U Bristol County Economic Development um all good points and gee he gave us a glowing uh a glowing attab boy for what we did in an add girl for what we did nobody ever does that especially on Facebook anyone here to speak in in um favor of the petition anyone to speak in

opposition is that you they're hearing none it is up to the board it's the biggest thing we've had all night Mr chairman I find that this U special permit would not be substantially more detrimental to the area and move that we granted second Motion in second discussion on the motion with the conditions stated yes want as presented as presented okay on the motion Ricky yes Dan yes Jim yes John yes chairman

Pereira yes best of luck with this thank you all very much thank you so much challenge item number four anlo was still here good approval of minutes from the February 20th 2025 meeting yes chairman I move waving of the reading of the minutes and approval of same we have motion to approve minutes second motion and second on the motion all in favor I I opposed and the best hold on before you

adjourn did Ken submit a letter for Slate Street no no guys want to make sure he did not but we we didn't get anything if it if it came in make it's coming in late okay motion to can I have a motion to I'm just going to leave anyway we have a motion who's going to Second it second motion and second on the motion to adjourn all in favor oppos you can stay here