3.21.2024 Zoning Board of Appeals

chairman of the zoning board of appeals for the city of Fall River it is 6: p.m.

on Thursday March 21st 20124 we are meeting at one government center in the first floor hearing room person went to Massachusetts General Law chapter 30A section 20 subsection F I hereby notify all persons in attendance that this meeting is being recorded with both video and audio devices by PA River government TV Mr Steve Rice recording both video and audio version if anyone desires to make an audio video or

combination recording thereof please notify me now and I shall make a public announcement of your intention no very good our recording secretary this evening is Miss Nina Krueger sitting to my immediate right present this evening our permanent as uh alternate member Eric Kelly uh also here with us tonight at my far left are Mr Daniel agar who is our director of engineering and planning and at my

far right Mr Chris pereno who is our assistant planner Nina have all petitions to be considered be prop been properly advertised and all interested parties notified in accordance with the rules and regulations of the zba and Mass Massachusetts General Law chapter 4A as amended yes I thereby declare the March 21st 2024 regularly scheduled meeting of the zoning board of appeals of the city of Fall River open for such

business as shall regularly come before it I remind all persons presenting before the board including petitioners abutters anyone in support or anyone opposed to a petition that your present ation should be limited to 3 minutes questions and responses should be directed through the chair the board's rules and regulations direct the board to specifically look for information which support the petitioner's claim as

such the petitioner should identify and factually support the basis for the petition I hereby advise the petitioners that all interested per and all interested persons that this is a zoning Board of Appeals the board's Authority exists persuant to Massachusetts 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 for the specific development Andor use which is the subject of the petition before the zoning board this evening the clerks and the building planning engine duties as clerks they are however not lawyers and not competent to give legal advice the actions taken by this board have a real and Lasting effect on

the title to your real estate I urge all petitioners to seek competent legal counsel before filing your petitions and after a decision of the board has been made for for example there was a city ordinance 2015-11 section 10-1 requiring site plan review a copy of the ordinance is available at the city clerk's office or from the planning department I remind everyone that the building inspector is

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

board specific matters at the end of the meeting sorry I disclose that an official copy of the Fall River zoning ordinance is available at the city clerk's office and that one should not rely on the online zoning ordinance welcome everyone we have some housekeeping to do up front this evening um we have three regular members and one alternate member so we only have four members voting we have notified all of

the petitioners tonight because if you have if someone is petitioning for a variance it requires four votes to pass so you would need 100% of the voting members here tonight if you are seeking uh a special permit you need three the simple majority of the five four four but it's a simple it's based upon the simple majority of the five just as the super majority is the four out of the five so

you would need all four votes for uh a variance you need uh just three of the votes for a special permit okay that's your opinion not mine but not mine but it's okay okay if there was a finding we would only need a simple majority but right my my opinion is special permits and variances but everyone can still act the court okay we should have talked about it earlier I thought everybody was under

the same I have a basis for that so usually when I'm sitting on on that side all right so ask the attorneys as they come up one by one we have 16 attorneys here which means you have 16 different opinions that's right right and five Engineers who can figure it all out um so here's the circumstances we have contacted all of the petitioners and offered them the opportunity to um table

the action until a later meeting and some of the attorneys involved and some of the petitioners involved have agreed to do that I am just going to walk down this uh if anybody is here for item number 01 which is uh 771 Rodman Street you are going ahead with being heard so that one will be heard if you are here in the in the audience regarding that action it is being heard under new business 2446

Highland Avenue which is the celco partnership Verizon Wireless um application uh the attorney handling that Mr Michael gimo has um for the record uh entered a um a request to table that until next month we should we should take these individually I move that we commit the taing without okay motion to table without fee to the April meeting do we have a second second on the motion John Frank yes Jim

Caulkins yes Eric Kelly yes chairman Prairie yes if you hear about that petition and all of these petitions that are continued I remind remind you at each one of these they will not be read advertised and if you are an abutter you will not receive a new Ab Butter's notice so know that that item number one CCO partnership to 446 Highland Avenue will be heard in April April 18th H April 18th April 18th thank you very

much um Mark Levan item number two big dream trust at 943 County Street yes we would request that this be postponed to the April meeting to April can we have a motion on that please move uh postponement for one month till April 18th meeting without fee all right second Motion in second John Frank yes Jim ckins Eric Kelly yes chairman PR yes so uh 943 County Street if you were here

for that that will be heard on March 18th April April 18th April 18th I'm sorry I'm moving backwards in time item number three which is for 117 and 125 um Carl Street who's bringing that one forward um it's actually Arthur Frank it was Arthur Frank after after it was already applied for Arthur Frank picked up okay so that's on so he sent an email all right so we had an email from from Arthur

Frank asking to table item number three 1171 and 125 Carl Street until the April meeting yep April 18th so move that um the petition be uh table till the April 18th meeting without be right second Motion in second uh John Frank yes Jim ckins yes Eric Kelly yes chairman prair yes um one uh 542 Hope Street and uh 15 leane Street uh Mark 11 forward move forward on that one so if you're here for 542

Mount Hope Street uh that one will be heard uh item number five which is for zero SS Napoleon Street why is it SS Southside thank you um and North Side Edmund Street that one is Arthur Frank is that is that also included to be moved so we have an email to table that one until April 18th move that table the item until the AIL 18th meeting second very good then

on the vote John Frank yes Jim Caulkins Eric Kelly yes chairman Prairie yes item number six Lynwood construction zero County Street uh that's attorney colorin yes we be we' ask that to be postpone till the next meeting please all right so April as well we have a motion on that please move that the item be Ted till the April 18th meeting uh no Fe second on the motion John Frank yes Jim

Caulkins yes Eric Kelly yes J per yes thank you thank you have a great night go to Somerset there's got to be something going on they're actually meeting next week uhuh all weeks of all weeks all right item number eight Scotty and Jennifer Vos um attorney P selino the intention is to go forward on that one Mr chair all right thank you and that is for uh 15 Anderson Street uh item number

nine miss you skipped seven I did Skip seven follow River Ventures sorry um Fall River Ventures item number seven that's 95 and 151 Rob way also Attorney Peter selino we'd move to table that matter but I'm asking for May as opposed to April because I'll be on vacation on the April meeting okay I think it's May 15 all as long as we said the date today is 16th May the 16th May 16 May 16th uh

Mr chairman I move that we table the item until the May 16th meeting wav from the feet very good for the second on the motion John Frank yes Jim Caulkins yes Eric Kelly yes chairman Prairie yes so if you are here regarding 95 and 151 Rob way um that is T until May 15th again 16th sorry again no notices will go out uh no new notices no read vertising um you're going ahead with

Scotty so we're down to item number nine hummingbird trust which is 932 Blossom Road Again Peter selino yes also move that one to be Ted to the May meeting May 16th May 16th I'll be hearing the 15th just because move uh table the item to the May 16th meeting very good second okay on the motion John Frank yes Jim ckins Eric Kelly chairman Prairie yes so if you here for any of those

items you get the rest of the night to yourself um and we'll be back if there are any questions on the continuance dates if in doubt you can always call call into the office just to see when it's going to be heard thank you folks I'm so sorry there was no way to get that out ahead of time have a good evening folks all right item number 01 Rodman Enterprises LLC 771 Rodman Street map

i21 lot 15 the applicant seeks a variance to demolish existing garage uh at 771 Rodman Street and construct four townhouse style apartment buildings containing a total of 14 units uh two four unit buildings and two three unit buildings as per plan waving yards setbacks and lock coverage in an A2 apartment zoning District you have the floor uh good evening for the record Jeff Tolman from Northeast engineers and

Consultants here on behalf of Rodman Enterprises LLC uh the petitioner on this application this um this was continued from the last meeting because it was a an issue regarding Salem Street the classific uh excuse me classification of Salem Street uh we had it um classified wrong on the plan and we were going to petition to have a section of it abandon but um it's correctly uh labeled on the

on the revised plan it's a private unconstructed road um so therefore in order to uh address that and to make some changes to the plan uh what we did was we shifted the buildings around uh slightly so if you're looking at the plan what you'll see is the the the for a family dwelling closest to Rodman Street has been shifted approximately 5T to the west and also 5 ft to the South

the uh the setback to Rodman Street on the previous plan was 15 we are now proposing that to be 20 um the other the other change we made is we took the the three buildings um that were along the back line parallel to Thea Street and shifted those uh 5 feet to the West as well uh the result of that being the the uh Easter most three family dwelling was

able to be rotated and be on that same line and we were able uh on the previous plan we were proposing a setback of 15 ft off a Holy Oak Street uh that is now 10 and what that allowed us to do is that the buildings that we did have going slightly into the Salem Street uh layout have now been uh pushed out of that layout so the in order to make

these changes we did modify the the parking um the par parking lot that we have shown uh the main parking lot off of Rodman Street has been shifted um approximately 4T to the west and uh the other parking lot off of Hool Oak Street Remains the Same but what we did was we eliminated a couple of parking spots from those uh parking areas so they're e each uh have one less parking area uh

due to that change and we also added um ADA Compliant parking spaces to the plan and as a result we lost uh two additional parking spots there uh so on the revised plan uh we're required under the under the code to have 28 parking spots uh we are proposing 30 I believe we had 34 on the previous plan so we are down four but we still meet the standard um so th those were the changes that

were made uh the request is still a request what we're looking to do here is to eliminate the non-conforming use of the of the property um there are actually two commercially used used uh garages on the property uh 771 being uh the one along Rodman Street uh which is an automotive repair facility and there's also another commercial garage that uh currently leased by the city on holy O Street um we are proposing to

raise those structures and to construct uh total of four residential buildings um two four family buildings and two three family buildings to provide a total of 14 units um with that I mean the plan is basically uh you know with these minor changes it's basically the same as presented previously I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board might have you're getting kind of choked up there yeah

um in in speaking with Dan in engineering and planning is one thing that I think bugs both of us and that's the zero setback on the uh the easterly building only because I know your footings are going to go underneath that right of way or you going to have to disturb that right of way yeah there's um I think we'd have the ability um it's tough I mean we'd have to consider the grading and

everything but I think we'd have the ability to ship that over a foot to provide the one foot um to account for the footing um so the footing would not go into that right away uh so if the board sees fit we can certainly um you know change that uh require a one foot setback can be conditioned that way and they can handle it on cite viw I don't think there's another no reason for another

plan you should be able to yeah yeah we do have room in the front we can eliminate uh the size of the porches or or we can come up with a way to account for that one foot okay that's cool thank you so much sure um any other questions from the board any other comments from engineering we cover we asked the applicant to address the Salem Street situation with with not removing the

existing parking there that is utilized by the abing three family property um they did take the time and effort to go back and make those changes so I think it's an excellent project um I think the density is in keeping with what the neighborhood density provides already per square foot of land area and with the off street parking provided I think it would be a benefit to the neighborhood yeah Ju Just to EXP expand

upon that we have um labeled on the plan a proposed saw cut line uh so we we will be maintaining 27 ft of pavement uh within Salem Street MH uh for use of the abutter so they'd be able to park three cars um in that area all right has anybody spoken to the ab since the last meeting um not that I'm aware of I have not okay all right uh turning to public at

this point is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of this petition can excuse me can I ask a question sure I own that pre ten house at 791 R stre right next door the where I'm not objecting to him building this whatever he wants to build I just want to make sure that I have my four parking spaces that I've had for years so what's happening here just so you're clear and

you know you remember this from from last time everything is out of that right of way your parking spaces are untouched so I don't have to about that and if somebody starts somebody starts parking there four right say something about well well there's they're leaving 27 ft of asphalt okay so what's important to understand that this is a private way and and the same way I defended your rights to the private way

I will defend the applicant's right to the private way this is a private way that provides access to abing properties including this one if they so shows fit so parking across entirely a private way is prohibited because you theoretically would now be prohibiting access to this property so you own half of it by right you both have rights to the full width of the way which is 50 ft wide so there will be 27

ft remaining if you wish to stack Vehicles turn Vehicles continue to park that's up to you but with the full understanding that that you should not be parking blocking the entire way but that's an that's an issue separate from the zoning relief being you know discussed this evening entirely separate issue and if I could just add to that so what we're looking to do that saw cut line that's basically even with that

front oh uh front left corner of the garage so you can see the existing garage so we're taking that we're actually pushing a little bit to the West uh to get the 27 ft but just so the abutters are aware that's where the pavment from that front left corner of the garage out to the street and over towards the house will be left in place you in front of the building now the

garage that's next door no I wouldn't say in front no no but right like right up to the corner of it you'll be fine they're not going to take so the only asphalt they're taking away is from the building corner to Rodman Street that's in front of their building all the rest of the payment heading to yards yard direction is same however you choose to use it and however you all decide to coexist I get

it that's beyond that's beyond this point well right now is when they use that bin that B that that lastar that last garage thing right even for years it's always been the same thing y right they fix a truck right at the end of the day of 3:30 that truck is out of there yep because this way it leads us move to get in and sure yeah I I would I would

venture to guess that your access accessibility privacy and quality of life would be improved by this project rather than have the truck repairs com rather than an automotive garage on the side yeah like say that was all I was worried about what he wants to build your your rights your rights within Salem Street have been preserved and that was the board's concern from from that's why that's why

he came back that you know you you were here you heard it I get worried about these private ways sometimes so and what was your name I'm sorry anyone else wishing to speak in favor anyone here to speak in opposition to the application my father has few question no no I'm sorry I I live on T Street I'm sorry I live on T Street in my backyard of BU can can I have your name please

yeah George trip okay Mr trip go ahead so um we got date that we've used on uh for the last 40 years maybe even longer I think I was just a kid when we went there yeah just like you anyway um yeah so we just wanted to make sure that we weren't going to be blocked but we we open up right onto h y Street and U okay

so that I I don't see anything as so if anything through site plan review probably going to get some improvement in Holy Oak Street I would assume because it's now going to be providing access to this apartment complex again beyond the jurisdiction of the zonan board of appeals but we'll have to make sure that hoio street meets the standard required for accessing it for the residential purpose that it's going to

be intended to do so um but your again hly the access and rights to Holy Oak Street the access and rights to Salem Street are being unchanged by this petition okay and that that's number 408 sorry yes it is okay you're right at the very dead end of he's right at the end yeah which we questioned that property last month so glad you're here so you're you're good okay excellent anyone else questions or

opposition you're hearing none I turn back to the board I'll make a motion to Grant do you want to put in the provision of a one foot setback from the street on the of the plan of one foot setback on Salem Street of the four uh proposed four family dwelling and site plan review is given second all right motion and second and discussion they're hearing none John Frank yes Jim ckins yes Eric Kelly yes

and chairman Prairie yes thank you good luck with it great project all right now I'm confused which really doesn't take a lot

okay all right where are we it's item number four correct item number four Deborah Howard care of attorney Mark 11 this is for 542 Mount Hope Avenue and uh 15 the plain street map b04 Lots 13 and 15 the applicant seeks a variance to subdivide the existing 7500 ft parcel at 542 Mount Hope AV into two lots leaving the existing single family dwelling on a 5,000 sqare foot lot while conveying the remaining 2500 square ft

of the ab budding property 15 the Plain Street this property is located in an r42 family zoning District uh I will mention that this item has been before the board previously and I'm sure attorney 11 will explain the situation I will uh good evening uh attorney Mar L 11 LW offic is at 138 Rock Street 4 of Massachusetts I'm representing the applicant in this and what I will start

is back in 2019 when this board granted a variance um at that time uh the property at 15 llant Street in 542 Mount Hope Avenue were owned by the Donley family um prior to their decision to sell their they they used both properties indiscriminately where the boundaries were and so they had plenty of room uh when they were going to sell it they realized that the property on Mount Hope

where they you see that proposed L line is where there is a fence and they had a they do have a sh had in a uh dog run there they were using that for their two family uh or three family dwelling next door as extra land so the the the single family had a lot of land that that the single family was not ever using and that the extra area that we're asking

you to allow a variant again is to add to that property so it has a large a lot now the single family family lots in that neighborhood are pretty consistent to about 5,000 square ft so I believe at the time they proposed this back in 2019 that was brought up and that was reasonable to take that little area away so that instead of that other pastle at 15 the plant only having

5, uh 500 square ft for a multif family it would now have about 8,000 square ft so we're asking you again tonight to allow that variance so what happened is the Donley's did in fact get the variance they recorded that variance back in uh April of 2019 they then went and got a subdivision form a plan in June of of 2019 recorded that plan unfortunately when their property was sold Council not me uh for the

buyer at that time did not pick up that there was a variance or a plan they use the original description from the deed that was in that title and unfortunately the diales didn't pay attention that they were letting the attorney draw up a deed using the same description and obviously the attorney didn't pay attention so there was not an issue uh cuz he just thought the whole pass was

going he didn't see that the plan and the variance was on so subsequently uh Mrs H Miss Howard uh determined uh through Her counsel here Peter selino personal counsel that uh she was being paying taxes for that little area that the dones have their shed in their dog run and we're using it for extra parking space for their property and we're here before you to ask that we can resplit

the lot have Miss Howard convey it to the Donley's and the dones pay their own taxes on property they're actually using and not on land that should have been split off and not intended to go to the houss uh as you look at the neighborhood again the multifamilies uh generally do have smaller uh larger Lots some single families do but this is not inconsistent in the entire area I know the plan only

shows a few house Lots there but if you look at the areas around there a lot of the single family homes are around 5,000 so it's not out of character to have the size lot and certainly adding the extra 2500 from 5500 with the multif family certainly makes it much more inconsist consistent with the Conformity of that neighborhood in the Conformity of the uh zoning bylaw so I'm going to ask that you uh do allow this

to be reinstated so that they can correct the mistake that was made back in 2019 okay all right um it's pretty clear any questions comments from the boards I'll take that as a note anyone nothing from engineering planning nothing is there anyone here who wishes to speak in favor of this petition anyone here wishing to speak in opposition to the petition they're hearing none I turn to the board for a

motion on the matter move granting of the Varan second and on the motion John Frank yes Jim ckins yes Eric Kelly yes and Sharon Prairie yes thank you very much will make sure make sure you take a nap on April 18 yeah well I'm just thinking should I bring pizza for you guys no it might be a long night it could be L luckily Lily attorney seleno is not taking all

of them into to may all right good night good night down bird for the first day item number eight on our agenda scan Jennifer Vos K of Attorney Peter a selino 15 Anderson Street map d06 lot 16 the applicant seeks a variance to subdivide the property into two proposed single family lots wavering Frontage and lot area in accordance with the submitted plan and an S single family zoning District good evening members of

the board my name is Peter shelino I represent the petitioner applicant Scotty and Jennifer Baris uh relative to this petition at 15 Anderson Street in Fall River this uh plan is probably pretty familiar to the board in the sense that this matter has been before you on a couple of different occasions uh I'll speak briefly as to why we are here again um the last plan that was approved uh by the board uh had a lot

line that was going through the shed and so it proposed to divide the existing lot into two lots leaving the existing single family on one lot and creating a new single family lot but the lot line went straight through the shed and the size of the house was a little different than ultimately my clients would like to build for uh Scott and Derek bis's parents so ultimately what's happened is

they've gone to the plan that is before you which has a jog in the lot line uh as opposed to being square and what that does is it prevents uh we discussed this at the last uh hearing moving the shed the shed is on a foundation it would be a large undertaking to move and as a consequence of that um we thought I guess a little better of the original

design um and are seeking to jog that lot line so the two waivers that would be required in conjunction with this petition would be the frontage um because we do not meet the frontage requirement in the zoning District which is 100 ft and the overall area on what is labeled on this plan before you as parcel 3 uh which has 6,286 squ ft of land the requirement in the district is 12,000 ft I should note

for the record that the uh lot sizes are almost identical to that which was approved and that the change is really the lot line the size of the house and the location of the driveway so I respectfully submit to the board that as previously discussed um the hardship associated with the petition before you was that Scotty VES is looking to relocate his parents to this property shown as proposed single

family dwelling on parcel 3 that the uh removal of the shed would be a big undertaking and as a consequence of that we're asking for Relief to create the uh what is shown as parcel three on the plan before you okay and all the varises are here if there are any questions of the VES is this the last time that's my only question we've got two nods Mr bearus is

got two nods I'll take it any other questions from the board at this point is there a partial two Mo somewhere um it's a fair question Mr agar that I I can't really yeah uh so on the last plan we had parcel one and parcel two and I guess presumably since it's a different configuration you might jump to parcel 3 I don't know was L this is it l it is it is registered land

that's why yeah that's why it might well no if it had it hadn't gone to land CAU yet so it wouldn't have been given a designation but clearly understood I just want to make sure there's not a fostel two that we're not seeing I don't see it on the the last approval gone to Lan court and been recorded No in fact uh I should note for the I don't know I

need to note but I'll tell you for the record we are actually petitioning the land Court to withdraw this parcel from Land registration to make the subdivision more Fe or easier TimeWise and it is Scott VES can probably quote you exactly but it's taken us what eight months so far um almost the year to get it withdrawn uh we recently got a request from the land Court title examiner to make a motion to amend the

land Court certificate because since they've bought the home the Fall River division of the land court has carried the wrong book and Page reference to a sewer easan so that was every I'd say five or six weeks we get a little trickle of can you send us this so uh so I filed that motion to correct the certificate uh last Friday so hopefully we don't need to go to lcore that's the thrust uh to to deal

with I hope you don't have to as do we sounds like dealing with a Fall River fire department um I'm sorry I'm at the Boston fire department that was a you better get some Jiu-Jitsu out yeah you had to get it in right somewhere you have words left to say um okay any no questions from the board anyone here to speak in favor of the except anybody here not named vus to speak in favor of the

petition okay I'm in favor of the you know just like last time I'm still in favor of it just identify yourself please for that Richard B 50 Anderson Street thank you so I'm in favor of it I don't think much has really changed in it and uh we'll get a great neighbor in the neighborhood excellent thank you anyone else to speak in favor anyone to speak in opposition you're hearing none I turn to

the board for a motion and any conditions make a motion to Grant no conditions uh just asking whatever the last conditions were if there were anything special there probably wasn't I don't think there was I don't think that that were no just in case trick question Mr Frank see that I it's s plan review and it's going to be separate utilities it's going to be its own dwelling it's a

site plan consistent with the previous Grant yeah we'll just refer back to the to the previous okay second motion and second uh on the motion Eric Kelly yes Jim ckins yes John Frank yes and chairman Prairie yes thank you thank you a it sounds like you know it's a good decision not to be here in April getting ill I'm thinking of the same thing this is why're not all right item number

nine that's getting moved to that's it may that's May 16th that's everything in that case citizens input I see none approval of minutes move waving the minutes and approval thereof second on the motion John Frank yes Jim ckins yes Eric Kelly yes chairman Prairie yes no other business on the agenda therefore there's no other business I'll take a motion to adjourn so moved in a second second all

in favor I I thank you thank you Steve we'll see you soon