4.18.2024 Zoning Board of Appeals

good evening I'm Joseph Pereira the chairman of the zoning board of appeals for the city of Fall River it is 6 pm on Thursday August 18th 2024 it's April April 16th the other the other a month 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 hear hereby notify all persons in attendance that this meeting is being recorded with

both video and audio devices by Fall River government TV Mr Jake Pereira uh recording both video and audio versions if anyone just desires to make an audio video or combination recording thereof please notify me now and I shall make a public announcement of your intention there seeing none we move on our recording secretary this evening is Nina Krueger sitting to my immediate right present uh this evening are

permanent members excuse me John Frank who is our vice chair uh James Caulkins sitting next to me who is our clerk Dan duper Ricky Sahar and Alternate uh member Eric Kelly uh also with us sitting to my far left is Mr Dan agar the director of engineering and planning and sitting to my far right uh Chris pereno who is the assistant planner for the city of Fall River Nina have all petitions to be

considered being properly advertised in all interested parties notified in accordance with the rules and regulations of the zba and Mass General Law chapter 4A as amended yes thereby I declare the April 18th 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

the petitioners abutters anyone in support or anyone opposed to the petition that your presentation should be limited to 3 minutes questions and responses must be directed through the chair the bo board's rules and regulations direct the board to specifically look for information which supports the petitioners claim as such the petitioner should identify and factually support the basis

for the petition I hereby advise the petitioners and all interested persons that this is the zoning board of appeals the board's Authority exists personent to Massachusetts LOD chapter 40a 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 additional permits licenses reviews and or approvals may be required for the

specific development Andor use which is the subject of your petition before the zoning board this evening the clerks in the planning building engineering and Licensing departments are competent in the discharge of their duties as clerks they are however not lawyers and not competent to give legal advice the action taken by this board has a real and Lasting effect upon uh the title to your real estate I urge

all petitioners to seek competent legal counsel before your petition and after the decision of the board has been made for example there was a city ordinance 2015-11 section 10-1 requiring site plan reviews 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 ordinances the city Charter section 9-18 mandates that all multi-member bodies develop and adopt rules for public uh comment we have adopted such a rule which in short provides for citizens input on zoning board specific matters at the end of the meeting if you

wish to uh make any such comment there is a signup sheet on the table in the back I disclose that an official copy of the Fall River zoning ordinance is available at the city clerk's office one cannot rely on the online zoning ordinance with that we shall begin this will be a little bit longer meeting than usual we had to move some items over from the prior meeting to this meeting um so let us begin with

item 01 which is the petition of celco partnership DBA Verizon Wireless uh care of attorney Michael gimo this is for 2446 Highland Avenue uh map t23 Lot 4 the applicant seeks a special permit for a radio or television transmission station including Towers related to said use per section 86- 462 and the table of uses uh in the city of Fall River zoning ordinance to allow for the installation and operation of a

wireless telecommunications facility in an existing structure the application also seeks a special permit person to 86- 425a and 86462 to alter or change a structure that is non-conforming with respect to height the property is located in an S single family zoning District Council if you please introduce yourself for the record thank you Mr per um I'm Michael G Law Firm Robinson and

co- representing the applicant celco partnership um and and this is Amy white who's with Verizon real estate um thank you for uh hearing our application tonight we're here requesting a special permit for a radio or television transmitter which is the the way the city regulates Wireless facilities and also to alter a non-conforming structure although um that was out of an abundance of uh precaution this this site is

nonconforming based on height we're not changing the height of the of the tower um the purpose is of the steeple the purpose is for Wireless Communications facility at the Catholic Memorial Home um to provide coverage serving the nearby areas of Fall River including areas of deficient surface service along Highland Avenue North Main Street Route 24 Route 79 and surrounding neighborhoods and businesses um this is

not a tower uh I just want to be very clear about that it's an installation inside the steeple and attic of the building um the installation and and it's the elevation is up there uh behind the board um the installation is uh consists of cables and a conduit running up the side of the building from the basement to the attic level um antennas one in each of the four sides of the

steeple and uh radio equipment with with those antennas the antennas will be behind what are now uh Windows those windows unfortunately would need to be replaced because uh they create too much heat with the window enclosure and what happens when uh antennas are installed in Steeples is those kinds of openings are replaced with uh louers something that can move some air through um and it

will be replaced with louvers that look exactly like a continuation of the louvers that are below on the same building uh the round windows at the top and and the rest of the top of that antenna and the cross will not be uh affected um there will be no noise at this facility there's no generator um there there is an existing dish antenna on the building it's on the steeple now

the landlord will move that Elsewhere on the roof um this use will not be a detriment to the neighborhood uh rather than uh propose building a new tower because there was no other location uh that was an existing tower for Verizon to to go on Verizon identified this building at the top of a hill and is proposing to do something that is uh you know very fitting with uh the way the neighborhood is now

um it will be located within the building it will require minimal changes to the building and it will not have any noticeable impact on the neighborhood and it will in fact benefit the neighborhood because it will provide reliable Communications for the residents um it's also good service here it's also a an appropriate use of the site uh because it will not negatively impact property

values it won't create demands at all on city services and again will be an amenity to the City because it will enhance telecommunications service and including service that might be used by uh city employees or Public Safety workers uh in that area and um it also satisfies the criteria of the code for an alteration of a non-conforming structure the building is non-conforming as to height the addition of the uh

equipment the Wireless Communications facility will not increase the degree of non-conformity it will be mostly concealed within the existing steeple and it won't have any appreciable imp act on the appearance of the building or the surrounding neighborhood um and for all those uh reasons Verizon requests that you grant the relief requested okay um do you have and you may have it in the in the documentation

if I've missed it I apologize do you have uh a proof of need for the uh for the coverage in this area we do there's a report by our radio engineer unfortunately he's the guy C the c s yes yes that I've got in front of me right

now are Graphics in this Mr J um there are Graphics coverage there are okay we just we just don't have these um in the means by which we can show them I do not have a means to actually display them unfortunately I didn't we don't have these on boards Martin the person who has the boards is in traffic um but essentially there um and this is depicted in the application materials and I can I can

hold these up and I can turn to the to the public also with the this is the proposed site the white is areas where there's insufficient coverage both under the 2100 mahz uh antenna uh Spectrum and the 700 megahertz Spectrum so those are two Spectrum ranges that radio spectrum ranges that Verizon uses in providing its service um the white areas are areas with deficient coverage under both of

those um this is the existing coverage and that is uh near the back of that RF report the proposed coverage is um this and as you can see the uh the white areas have been largely filled build in in that immediate area um and uh it provides service in the area that's needed for Verizon there's both a capacity issue and that area of deficient uh coverage and there's also no other site around um Verizon looked

at the uh American Tower company Tower it looked at the ambulance Tower and U the ulet tower at 1290 Wilson Road and it looked at a water tank on uh has Street the uh American Tower at one current Street it was rejected because it was too far outside of the search area this is a pretty targeted area where the service is needed um the ambulance Tower at Wilson Road was also

rejected that's too far in the other direction uh outside of the search area and the water tank um although it's closer to the current site now um it would have exterior visual impacts we're not going to be able to put this in the water tank and it's also uncertain you know what we do have that yeah we were we were able to it the assistant planner is a wizard so thank you Chris okay good um

and and the uh the the water tank also would have a visual impact and uh would be uh more in a residential neighborhood setting than this is although we understand there's residences here but this is kind of a campus property for the memorial home okay and and a good good deal of this is not just new coverage but enhancement of coverage correct it is yes yeah a lot of traffic people use their phones more

data and so forth okay questions from the board at this

point my phone works here I won't say whose service I got all right I will turn to the public at this point we do have one letter that came in in opposition um if you bear with me we'll read into the record this is the North End neighborhood association uh to the zoning board of appeals re 2446 Highland Avenue Dear Mr Pereira I am writing to express the Northend neighborhood association opposition to a special

permit uh request for radio or television station located transmission station located at 2446 Highland AV um the ne na meetings are held on the third Wednesday of every month prior to our meeting on 41724 uh the Nema posted its agenda attached on its Facebook page of which there are 654 followers Verizon 32124 uh informational report plan and structural analysis were reviewed and discussed resulting in a 60 vote to

request that the Fall River zoning board of appeals deny the grant the granting of the special permit based on the following uh Catholic Memorial Home structure is listed on the city's historical register and proposed installation of the antenna on its historical steeple will require removal of one of the large Windows Alid um f FRP panel would be uh placed where the window is currently located Additionally

the placement of these antenas is strategically located to provide additional wireless coverage to a majority of residents in Somerset a large area of Fall River would also benefit from the installation and mostly wooded and small number of household s a more appropriate location of this antenna would be in Somerset Mass um if the Fall River if Fall River is the desired location for such a wireless

system uh the Nema would recommend Verizon contact UM SST on West Street and place the antennas on their Smoke Stack The Smoke Stack is part of the board of City mil complex and more appropriate location for such installations this came from signed by uh Anton J Das uh who's the president the agenda is attached I will not read through the entire thing uh and this is signed I'm taking it by the members who

may have been in attendance uh of which there are six listed on here um in support of of this letter um is Verizon already on that bard of City Mill smokes back I actually yeah yeah this is the first I've heard of it it I mean it is it is downhill so I was just going to say it's it's significantly outside of the Ring because it it didn't even register in

our search for a site so it must be far enough away that I believe there's more than one carrier on that I would be surprised if one of them is not Verizon but um I don't think it's listed SS T I think it's

SM okay um let me ask another question while you're checking on that um you've made the decision to only because historical came up did we get anything from historic preservation um we did from I don't think we okay all right but there is people in attendance okay um everybody will have a chance to speak that chooses to had you considered using frequency transparent glass or some other um something that would be more

in uh concert to what's already there even even if it were frosted or you know something that that changes a little bit rather than the louvers yes we did so the equipment needs ventilation so even if we were to utilize you know RF friendly windows that mimic the look that's present now it doesn't solve the issue of overheating of the equipment because the ventilation is not provided

for with the complete enclosure of the window itself so the only way to resolve the overheating of the equipment in such a small confined space is to provide air flow and the only way to provide air flow would be to put louvers on there and we chose louvers because there are already existing louvers below and that it's in concert with the style of the building and a typical um feature that

you would find in kpas if you weren't going to have Windows okay and I take it where is the equipment area itself the ground equipment yes it's in the attic space below and will that have HVAC to control its temperature I would have to or or are you mostly concerned about the obviously these are the types of antennas that have radios either in them or correct directly behind them correct so that's your

concern with with heat up there yeah it's the ground equipment is not our concern it's the actual installation in the Koopa itself okay um a small confined area you know as multiple antennas multiple radio heads in this small confined area with zero ventilation so and they just produce a lot of heat when they operate so the only way to relieve that issue is to create ventilation okay is there uh anybody

present uh this evening that would care to speak in favor of the uh the project as presented you're hearing none is there anyone here who would uh wish to speak opposition okay I wonder if you would like to respond to the issue of the coverage being predominantly or out of the city that was raised in the letter no understood and um you know some are said is across water these signals do travel

well across water this is a high sight so there will be coverage that that reaches Somerset but the target area is in Fall River and specifically in the area near where this site is um and that's the reason for the for the uh proposal is there any ability to provide Cooling in the koua if you were a leave glass or at least on the street Side Glass there is not we actually red it no

fans no hva systems within we couldn't put an hva system hva system up in the itself the construction manager and I talked at length about it um given the concern that we were presented by this Civic organization and it's this it's the confined space that's really an issue so the real the only way to to resolve it is to put the lubers in to allow ventilation it would have to be on all

four sides yes because we have antennas on every single window so it it appears is it going to be a central map that's going to hold those there is not okay no there's a pipe Mount behind each each window now each each proposed lubber there's going to be a pipe Mount so and all four all four of those windows have antennas and radio heads behind them I mean I I would

say what what is glaring is that we haven't heard from anybody in preservation yeah well that's what it specifically if if the neighborhood association references the historic so it's it's it's on the city's historic structure list right that that isn't afford do isn't the same overview perview or jurisdiction of the preservation Society or the historic commission so that's it it's differing

levels of um of authority and I would think of any level of Permitting would need to go before that board that would be something that would go through the building department at the time of of submission agreed if there are no other questions from the uh from the board members um what we're avoiding is a tower we have a number of similar installations by different carriers in the city and Steeples Etc so this is not

something that's that's new to the city um let's face it you know even I who forget to turn my ringer off have you know car carry my phone you know literally 24 hours a day for business and personal use it's the way of the world and there are different Services there are different enhancements Etc it's not going to stop growing and um if we have a way to for them to provide coverage in

a way that's not going to be seen using a building we already have Etc so with that in mind keep in mind this is a special permit a VAR so so we're lucky that lucky I guess I guess luck is the right word that there is a structure 94 ft to the top of the to the top to the top of the C the the center line of the antenna a 67 they're they're almost

lucky again like as you stated that that they they have a structure that they can hide this to a certain extent because they could be petitioning it is a tower is allowed by a special permit right we would have the height to deal with however even even that um no that that would get pitchforks and and torches I think yeah neighb I do not believe so but by all means you you could make the

determination that the uh non no more detrimental and then take the vote to approve or deny one way or the other I think we should do the bated yes I all need no um just um as I'm listening to you Dan uh special permit meaning that the bation is not required well no special per that's when bation does come into effect it's the two determinations one that it's deemed not more detrimental than the existing use which

is the existing non-conformance yeah that's what I thought also I just thought I guess I misre what you were saying I thought you said it was not required Mr chairman I move that we find that it is not substantially more detrimental to the area and that we approve the uh request for the special permit second one vote this is one vote or two I can't cover vote so it's one vote covering you're do the one motion

covering both okay okay and did we get a second we did get a second from John so we have a motion and a second is it a discussion on the motion in that case on the motion John Frank yes James Caulkins Dana yes Ricky sahti yes and chairman Prairie yes you were fantastic thank you all right item number 02 dream big trust care of attorney Mark El this is for 943

County street map k19 Lot 56 the applicant seeks uh variance relief to divide the existing parcel into two lots constructing a single family dwelling on the newly created lot waving lot coverage and area requirements uh and convert the existing structure from a two family dwell dwelling to a four family dwelling waving dimensional requirements lot coverage front yard side yard rear yard setbacks in a g

General zoning District this is another one of our holdovers from last month good evening Council good evening Mr chairman members of the board Madam Clerk and professional Dan and Chris course I'd just like to present some pictures of this property for those that may not really know it and then you can pass it around um the last use of this property was as of a single family home but prior

to that this had been funeral power for many years with uh multiple parking spaces on the property the garage itself was used to keep the vehicles that were transporting uh people to their final destination uh this property is used huge um it has uh it it came up for sale because the current owners who were using as a two family home could not maintain and as you see the pictures

it's pretty deteriorative and those are pictures after my client actually had taken a lot of the debris and brush out of the property so he could even find what was what those lines were um the property itself is unique because where that building is and the size of that building is sits right on County Street in Earl Street there's no sideline setbacks there they they are as it

exists as was built uh before zoning and the garage is where it is uh the reason why we come at variant and not special permit for the building alone which we could have asked for is because in doing the work and how much renovation needs to be done my client determined that the the extra land to the back where he's asking for a single family home doesn't give any benefit to this property

because it itself contains so many parking spaces we put down the the minimum amount there's enough parking spaces for another 10 cars there you know because of what it was before but this building is underutilized I mean the the people that were living there were living on the first floor with a two as a two family and the rest of the building is completely unoccupied U my client intends to rehab the whole

building so that there will be four units in this building and obviously has sufficient parking the the land to the rear has no benefit to this property itself for its usage it just sits there it does nothing but gather weeds and debris uh over the years my client intends to build a single family home uh the the problem is because we are waving certain Sidelines and set backs because

of the buildings you have the garage we don't have room and we want to give an adequate size to the single family dwelling the the properties are uh di Minimus as to the number of square feet that were missing but based on what we do have and the the fact that we have this large building with the garage that we going to keep with the building because it didn't make sense to add that

to it a single family home word to give a odd cved up piece of property we felt this was the best solution to renovate a building uh have it useful for uh residential property uh market rate and then have a single family now this neighborhood is a multi-use neighborhood and my client before he even got to the point to decid what to do did meet with all of the butters to the property and I

believe they dropped off a list uh that you have in your file right they been one okay so you have that from the neighbors they really want to see this place cleaned up and they really want to make it useful and make it look nice and make people that were going to live on the property uh may have an ownership interest so I think this is a position where this is going

to uh not be a detriment to the neighborhood but but an enhancement based on its prior use its current use and what can be developed out there with ownership which someone living on at least in a single family home of their own and possibly the multif family being if it ever gets sold for someone to uh own this uh my client de is a developer who's decided to do this because he owns property in

that area uh he's been looking at this property for a number of years being in such a bad condition and it devalues his own multif family structures that he's kept up very nicely for the neighbors and his tenants so this became a great opportunity when it became available uh as you see the the hardship itself is where the structure and the size of that structure is and where it is on that

property that prevents it to be cved up a little bit different because we don't want to take the garage down it's a useful garage it's it's a good shape and can be used for the tenants uh they could actually put four cars in there but we're only showing the two because we don't want to we want to show T the parking at that point in time um and that's about it thank you okay if you

would just speak to the um specifics of the various variances that uh that you require here just so we uh well we're asking that we exceed the two units in the multistructure because that's what would normally be so we would now ask for there B4 units just because it's a non-conforming structure and had been converted from the business to a two family now we're asking that to be

increased um we're asking for the uh the sidey yards and setbacks for that building in the garage to be waved all together based on the fact that it exists there uh the problem with the uh the the area is that we're just a little s insufficient for a single family home uh at exactly how many square feet uh it is we short we short like 800 square feet for that lot uh and the coverage is

what it is I mean the building the the the lot one building is in the garage is so massive it uses up a lot of the space in the property we're not doing exterior work at all it is what it is it's only going to be interior work uh so that was an actual waiver for the uh that and also with a single family home because we couldn't give it much land because of

where the garage sits without having an odd configuration it uses up a little more land than what would normally be allowed for under its percentage uh including the deck and the parking spaces that would be provided we had to include all that area into the coverage um we have plenty of parking beside what is shown there there's you know the whole back of it was a parking lot originally uh and they

could use more parking if they wanted for guess but we show the minimum parking requirements to meet the requirements okay would you characterize the size of the proposed single family lot as consistent with the other Lots in the neighborhood actually it's probably as consistent if not larger than many of the Lots in that neighborhood these these that whole area was built before

zoning so it's pretty consistent in that area what they've had over the years uh and most of those properties were small lots that were built on and as the zoning got larger the the larger Lots uh not in this area because they had already been uh existing at that point in time but they're all different Lots because most of the people have multifamilies they there are three families or eight families or six

families uh you know uh the there's probably I think only two or three single families actually in their neighborhood all the rest of them are multifam on smaller Lots than even even the one that that single family is going to be on so we we have the curb cut at the at the garage currently where's the curb cut to access the the balance of these parking spaces that you're providing is there a

curb cut on Earl Street there is another curb cut on Earl Street y there already is one where that parking area they put and that's why they put it there because it already exists at that place one of that said in case anybody has any questions on it so is that total area in front of the curb cut going to remain paved yes okay I toldt it is okay so that was included into the

calculations and then you have the curb cut in front of the garage in County Street with any other questions from the board at this point yeah D so they're asking to exceed the number of units maximum number of units to do they have does that fall under waving dimensional requirements or they're asking for four units yeah they ask for they ask for Relief to to put four units in where where only three is allowed so

w I guess yeah just the description where ask convert the existing structure from a two to a four so there so they're asking for that relas as well yeah cuz we were ahead it's a three family area so we're asking four because it didn't make sense like I said the building is so massive I mean even inside the the units themselves are going to be massive for the people that are going to be living

there they be like little homes within the two two floors yeah Dan if you if you refer to the application itself it's the first line the VAR variance or exception requested and it is to divide the property into two Parcels comma to convert the existing dwelling um to add an additional two units exceeding that allowed and table 8636 so Dan have any I I have one one question for attorney 11 and then one

comment just for the board to consider um and in dealing with the the surveyor and your client did you contemplate it all being able to provide the conforming lot to 5,000 s ft they did but the gr an easement for the driveway and parking for the multi well I mean that would eliminate relief of laot area for that pel could have but they were trying to keep no no I understand

but it would have eliminated yes great thing of an easement you don't need zoning relief for making a lot 4,000 ft you do need zoning relief for so do you guys understand what I mean like they could have made that 58 foot depth side of of the building another whatever 15 ft wide just for the area calculation and it could have been been granted an exclusive use easement to the multif

family for driveway and parking it it's convoluted it creates one problem after but it does eliminate the need for additional zoning I mean there there are a couple places where that could be done as you just pointed out so on that you know the the area along Earl Street if you will coming back into the the larger the four family property the other thing which I just see as a beast is Lop off

part of that garage yeah I would I wouldn't that far I would because that thing's just going to be an expense to keep up so I mean I I don't know what what else they're going to do in the garage but but that would have been a resolution too but again the the reason why they drew the line line is trying to keep NE boundaries for an owner so

neither one of them have an issue and I understand the easement thing but I know when we've had these issues before it sometimes becomes a problem with neighbors deciding what the easement meant do they understand it we need ATT TR to write clear eement so that the own understand and then I have fights over going to court on certain these easements that mean they could put in a

pipe uh for a water line or a sewer line on top of it and you know so making it a clean line where it is was the decision I mean if the board felt that that was a more acceptable thing that's an easy fix but it's you know again it puts now two different Neighbors in a different position as to the ownership of their land and the liability for anyone

passing over one pel to get to the other uh you hope they have insurance on both of them so they're covered but you never know in life uh this makes it clean uh unfortunately this was the it's clean because it's a straight line but you know by by putting a jog in it could be it could be accomplished I mean if it was if it was a couple of feet you know

maybe um it would require about 15 ft to get to the 864 whatever it is and then the comment to the board was and again you know we we've been kind of dealing with this case by case but understand and the applicant needs to understand if this gets granted it is specifically for the structure being shown the impervious areas shown it's not a bigger house it's not a different shaped house it's going

to fall within the shape of the house shown on this plant and that needs to be consistent through vote on every petition we can't be allowing people to create Lots showing one size house then try to come back and build a larger house because when you're contemplating now the granting of a variance on a 4,000 foot your mindset is looking at a reasonable 28x 30t structure not a 28x 40t structure and that goes into your

thinking of it's a reasonable size house on 4,000 square fet may not be a reasonable size house if they want to make it 20 feet bigger so all of the approvals should be specific to reference the plan for the structure that's being shown yep good point and I agree with that I mean that's why there was a deck shown exact same size and no but it's it's that building at those

building setbacks rear U rear exit which is that little jog on the outside is to get to the outside of the back of the property and the size of the lot and where they they actually show the AC pad so there'd be no confusion that there'd be some other structure out there so they were pretty specific to make sure that this is the house they're only going to build and only this house and

they're taking down just so they are aware and and you might want to we'll ask you'll ultimately have to ask the surveyor when you measure from the jog to the corner of the house it's probably less than 10 ft so just understand when when we come no no no no he doesn't show that Dimension this one here diagonal the diagonal from the bump out the corner to the corner of the house if if it's 10 ft

from the deck that's in set a cup no no other side oh oh oh oh that corner okay so that might be less than 10 ft which is going to be a problem cuz you're getting relief to 10 ft to side yards well I think what it is is yeah cuz the other otherwise the deck wouldn't be pushed in a couple this is as correctly required done by a license surveyor so your side yard offset will

be 10 ft so let's hope when when they prepare a real plan for site plan review that they can meet it you've got you got two Dimensions that say 10 ft that are definitely not the same well that's because the there's offset yeah yeah a jog there you don't have to deal with it right now no no but may be an issue I'm assuming that cuz you can't slide it any

further left I understand I assume that he built it and that designed it properly and if had to then the width of the house might be 27 ft if he made a mistake at least he'd meet that sideline requirement but that's what he showed as far as a s BL cuz that that line that comes down from what is that uh the back house toward Earl Street actually the way they

pitched it was to move it along because there's a concrete curbing structure there that was part of the funeral power that uh that kind of they use that line for it and it moves over as it is so when you see the where we pick the point of the deck for the 10 ft and there's 1.6 I think they figured that that line went over to give them 10 ft so they

could still make that over just advise him when he does site plan review he does have the ability to drag this building forward front yard set back's only 12 feet so he could drag it forward a few feet to make that spaces over there too it'll save them yeah yeah there's room to slide everything forward if you needed to Y all right thank you thanks for that information that was a freebie

there one less revision on site plan review absolutely my guess is it's going to come in just like this could be any other questions from the board Eric looking deep thought an unusual property we'll get back to you it is it is but you know what if that if that house can get cleaned up that would be there' be a bonus on that well that's why my clim is happy that it came on the

market he was the first one at the door because he said I have property around here and this really brings down my property value in just because of the way it looks and the way it's been kept up in the yard I mean he spent he's had dumpsters out there to clean the yacht up yeah all right if there's nothing else from the applicants Council if there's nothing else from the board

let's turn to the general public we do have a petition that was signed by I think eight n 10 uh local Property Owners uh on both mostly on County Street also on Earl Street um which is good and the petition simply reads the undersign hereby state that they are in favor of the variance application applied for by Michael cavalo Trustee of dream big trust to divide the property into two parts is located at 4 943

County Street Fall River Massachusetts waving the um this last waving the setbacks SL coverage in area as applicable um converting the existing large dwelling from two units into four units uh and construct a single family dwelling on the newly created lot that's part of record if anybody wants to take a look at uh those signatures on here um and following up on that is there anyone

present who would wish to speak in favor of this petition is is there anyone here who would wish to speak in opposition see you almost raised your hand I almost got you um there hearing none I turned to the board we've heard some uh some input from engineering we've uh I I will I will again pick up on that that admonishment and I will take it that way somebody draws a box on there

and says that's the house that's the house we got to do it that way Mr chairman I move we Grant the variance as presented in the

plan second second on Dan in that case on the motion Dan deare yes I'm sorry Ricky sah yes James Caulkins yes John Frank yes and chairman per yes thank thank you very much moving on to item 03 also carried over from last month Rodman Oman LLC care of attorney Arthur D Frank Jr uh 117 and 125 Carl street map e09 La 7 and 8 the applicant seeks a special permit for section

86- 423b of the city of far Riv zoning ordinance to divide the subject parcel into two lots with one existing single family dwelling on each lot waving dimensional requirements Frontage setback and lot coverage in an ra8 single family zoning District Council thank you Mr chairman members of the board for the record my name is Arthur Frank I'm a lawyer with offices at 209 Bedford Street for of Massachusetts I

represent um your petitioner Rodman Omen uh the property manager uh Mr uh Pudo is with me tonight uh he also happens to be a u a member of the LLC uh we come before the board tonight uh in accordance with Section 86 423b um these are two houses that are on one large parcel uh we'd like permission to divide it into two Parcels leaving one house on one lot and one on the

other uh it is the llc's uh desire at some point to place one or or both of them up for sale uh we feel it's easier to sell one house on one line versus two houses on one lot and it is in keeping with I think what this City's planning practice has been that there should be one house on one lot and not multiple houses on one lot uh if you

look at the assessors Data Bank I think the the assessors have used the default code that this house was built in 1900 well they they probably use that for quite a few houses Mr Pudo tells me that and he's in the Building Trades that his by his estimation the foundation of those two houses dates from the 1920s so that would satisfy the requirement that they'd be uh the buildings be in existence since

1954 uh there's not going to be any outward uh changes to the buildings you won't know that there are two different owners of the two houses uh if you grant this relief and we go ahead and sell them again we just want the relief of the special permit u under Section B of that section of the ordinance u in order to carry out this transaction okay this had been done before hadn't it

no I was here a number of years ago where the previous owner wanted to divide the two houses and create a third house lot gotcha so this is a completely different petition and it's more than two years so the provisions of section 16 of 48 won't apply we well beyond the statutory period Y and it's a totally different petition all he was substantially different regardless and and I think at that time I was also

asking for a variance this time I'm I'm asking for the special permit under U section 86 423b okay very good thank you Council from the board um as you see is this um standard practice within the city that um one house to one lot rather than two on one a standard practice throughout theity that's that's what I've heard uh from various chairs of the sports uh in the 40 years that I've been come into this

board that it it's better practice to have one house on a lot rather than have two houses on a lot and a lot of times this board is tested with a situation where one house is behind the other house and you have to have various easements for parking for Ingress regress this one's much cleaner it's two houses they each have driveways they each have parking uh one of the houses obviously is going to have a substantially

larger uh backyard or sidey yard than the other house but that's just where the houses sit on the lot we can't change where position yeah the the previous plan was dramatic I'm I'm looking at that right now not not good all right that any other questions from the board turn to the general public is anyone here present just do they have separate utilities and everything currently yes there's no

connections between the two pro well I think this plan shows proposed separation for sewer I think probably still has to be done so the standard standard condition separate utilities okay very good turning to the general public is there anyone here to speak in favor of the petition anyone here to speak in opposition of the petition they're hearing none to the board oh I'm sorry whoops sorry that's

okay uh my name is Ron Falcon I'm property owner at 106 Carl Street for Mass U Born and Raised on Carl Street believe it or not so I've seen everything on call street over almost 40 years um first I I want to get clarification is that 2400 foot one house on 2400 foot of space okay um which is far below the normal I believe for an R8 in that area um my

concern is um literal property space for that one piece of property There is almost no backyard whatsoever uh no space for anyone to convene or uh do any type of recreation as someone who has lived in that neighborhood literally right there I grew up playing on that larger portion of that Lodge with folks who lived in those houses um to me I I I just can't understand I don't see how that's beneficial to

neighboring property values um to leave a single house on a 2400 foot lock in that on that street okay um are you with the gentleman hi my name is Diane I'm also um at 111 C Street of them resident since 1978 about 10 ft or 7 to 10 ft away from the the houses if the houses were split up the first house has a tiny little hole these these proper get constantly

flooded I have pictures to show you this is um this is what they really deal with there um and uh if they split up the two houses the first house when he goes to even paint his house it's one foot from the house so he'd have to smash his body up to paint his own house on the second house because that's where the property line would be sometimes they park a car in that

driveway they can't even get into that second house um they're just too close together and there's just not enough property now I have been there for 40 some years and watched different families living there and every single family plays on that bigger on what their backyard looks like a sidey yard so I have merged properties these are three merged Lots they're actually lot seven eight and nine and I don't know

why they're only referencing seven and eight because there's a third merged lot to this property they're not discussing here tonight that I know of it's certainly not on the paperwork so I don't know where it's disappearing to um but uh every child played there previous a month ago there was seven children in those two houses and every single one of them was playing in that that bigger piece which

looks like a side but really is their backyard because there's just no backyard those two houses they if you separate them the first one it will have absolutely no land the second house will not even be able to be painted it's too close um it it it was meant in the ' 50s to be merged together so that there would be more land for people to breathe and pulling these houses of H is going

to just take and make one family living in a tiny little hole I'm totally against it okay I I have to ask sure what might sound like a very stupid question yep if the houses already exist yep how is it going to be too small to paint a house if the two houses are separated see where the LW ends like he said there's going to be driveway without going there be one

driveway Drive in the middle and there's going to stay one driveway that they share that so there'll be no fences they're going to share a driveway so they're actually taking that first lot and making it smaller cuz currently that first slot is about a foot away from the second house well the surveyor on the house to the right of it yeah no I'm talking about on the right of it as

you're facing the house from the street facing the house the house to the left there there is currently 12T there 12T between the houses which is occupied by driveway correct correct that's going to stay and and that that was my my understanding that driveway was for the first house for both houses well then you're even giving that first house less land CU at least the last people who

tried to split it were going to you know give that first house a little bit more land I I'm not even noticing how much are they saying total land area is there I can't tell the entire parel to start with yep 15,696 okay can they just split it in two somehow and give each house they could yes so what's important and I I don't know if all the audien has spoke

yet but let me intervene here for a second so 86 423b allows for these types of subdivisions when the buildings have been in existence prior to 54 exactly as attorney Frank has stated however it's through a special permit and what's important is that the division ision is made in a way to maximize the use of the proposed Lots specifically access parking and yard areas so you could

require you don't have to take what's submitted you could for instance where they're showing the the parking spaces for house number 125 you could add additional land from that parcel to the parcel that's only 2400 sare ft and give them give them somewhat of L-shaped parcel and those would have a place to play and you could theoretically for better access and parking you could require that 125 have

its own driveway to the south of it and its own parking you don't have to allow for there's no reason to allow the common driveway and parking situation when we've got an additional 10,000 ft of land where they could add other parking or use some of that area for the smaller lot I I I have to agree with with what the B your butter asserts with regards to that it's one thing when we

have lot line to lot line and the best you can do is is split it in down the middle the best you can and get around the building this has excessive land that you can creatively carve out in a number of different ways 100% so my one of my questions is with all this land why is that the only driveway well the only proposed driveway that was what the the owners and the

engineers came up with but they're obviously open to any suggestions that this board would would make Mr chairman well I mean if we have a shared driveway on the smaller of the two Lots now you've got to create an easement situation for a shared driveway and you've got an abundance of land you're going to need an easement no matter what right to even provide the parking for 117 unless let's say you took 20 feet

off of the back like offset 20 feet from number 125 off the back line and run a line all the way to whatever the side street is there aim Street and give the Westerly side of that area to lot one and leave the corner at like 107 by I don't know 60 ft that corner to to the house number two and then you could actually if you if you wanted to you

could provide parking off of a street for number uh 117 so there there are a number of ways that you could do better with land use on this for sure if that would have happened then um it's it's almost asking us on the flight to to approve something that is not before us you're not going to approve anything that's not before you you're going to give the applicant attorney Frank can only present what his

client and what the engineer drill come back I can come back next month with a new a new configuration come back with a different configuration after hearing what the concerns are and I'd also like to answer one question um the butter had mentioned about painting houses um there is a little known statute um in the Commonwealth where if you need to repair the side of your house or paint it and

you don't have enough room for ladders you can go down to the police station you can post notice noce that you're going to have work done or paint have your house painted the the chief of police can determine whether you need to post the bond and you then have permission from the chief to put the ladders in your neighbor's yard and if this Board needs that I'll bring a copy of the statute

next month so the board will have not the only Board of I love I love the Obscure it's I forgot to turn this one in this is the driveway between the houses they're talking about splitting up this no room at all here they've been up for a 100 years the same right so the room doesn't change I guess is the point and and I understand what you're saying flooded every single rain it's terrible

there where's that coming from because if it's coming from the street I had 100y old people tell me they used to ice I has anybody talked to um to the side DPW this tried to talk to different people about like and if they did something there our fear more is if you the small house the second's to come up B lot build more we could we could say no further subdivision that's a reasonable issue

but that looks like part of that part of that's a city issue I think the street is your amenable to altering this sure yeah I'll I'll come back with another plan next month that's not problem concerns absolutely and and I'll I'll look into this issue about the water um and I'll I'll also I'll I'll quiz the the Water and Sewer Department if they know about it and if in fact

they have some solution for it yeah if you look at the photographs that that were presented to us it it's right out to the street so it's whether it's coming from the street or coming from this property into the street I would think that the city would would want to get involved with it not our job to kick it over to them but um if you would do that just in the course of uh of

checking this that could be helpful and come back with some other obscure law that I didn't know about um would you care to ask for a continu might want I don't know if opposition finished oh it's true no no no we want to hear from you we want to hear from she wants to oppose but she said we said everything that she would have said would you want your name on the record put your name in

The Record okay and you will have the opportunity to speak again on the Revis plan at the next meeting that's another thing only a butter thatal there's so many Butters land owners who get who gets notified she's a Lander for which property1 she'll check the the assess office makes so if you are in a butter in a butter to in a butter or across the stre then you'll be notified if you many

there so many that never got a letter them she check the list is that your request attorney I I do and if if if the Board needs me to sign uh an extension of time I can work with your clerk make sure that's on file yeah this is one of the this is one of the table so we don't want to get into issue it's just dve we got to understand the board have to understand I

usually all right listen listen got three conversations one conversation at a time please I'm Li the B as well okay um if you give um if you see this land if for you to have R to confirm you have to have a confirm 8, for each lot correct so the reason we we come to the board is because the land is not conform if I give both of them I still need a

special pmit so the that's why I I mean I understand the position I willing to give the land whatever the house the the rest of the land to put on one house so it will be confirmed cuz you need 8,000 sare ft on that's all eight right so you could give it 8,000 8,000 one if you want generous for one lot but the other lot would be no confirm if I give the

lot it's going to be a lot closer than what it is yeah but I just like I was talking to Glen the building commission and then you know we would discuss all this matter CU I want to sety the neighbor too you know even want to sell the house I want to make sure everybody's happy you know they was complaining because we you know when you have the two houses like Mr Frank said

it's hard for you to sell it because it would be too much money but if you divide people will afford understood so right we're going to come back next through your attorney you can either request a continuance or you can ask the board to vote two options we going to have a continuance come back next month okay anybody else to speak in opposition are you satisfied with the

the ABS list of this point no I think we need a new I I think it's wrong too I don't understand that we'll look into it that has to be addressed our departments will address that with the applicant does not create that they submit a form to the assessor's office and the assessor office provides an AB Butters list thank you okay my my guess may be is when they looked at it they

maybe they did not know that the law on the corner cuz when this was originally submitted I think they only I think the application only said seven I think we changed it to make you add seven and eight so so when the abuts list went through that's probably we probably didn't get a new one that was seven and eight n there's a seven eight and a nine oh there's a nine it's seven eight and

nine I think eight and nine have already been that been merged merged s eight and nerg I can show you I I understand but as far as the assessors records show there is no nine anymore eight and nine are now eight this this a Butters list is just for seven years ago owners then tried to split up the property um somehow she did get a lawyer to put a

new deed with one law but it never got split so when she came down the gentleman who was that said you got a bigger problem because you just put a deed in somebody's name it's like I sold up my backyard I got a merge lot too I can't just sell my merge lot off which is what happened here that's why nine looks separate but it's not separate we know thank you so

if you do allow the matter to be tabled it should be conditional upon receipt of a Time extension or if you want if you want to write one up now auth and give it to you before you leave I I actually have a form I can get it into Nina no say if you want a handw write one now and give it to her EI either way if you

don't if you want to get her a form in tomorrow that's fine I like the I like you like things to look nice I want them to look nice so the table conditional of that time to act because this was a tabled matter for some reason if we don't meet next month it would automatically be approved so you don't want that to happen so I would make that motion as

requested to the table um with um time restriction unlimited time extension not not unlimited unimited 60 days yeah it's a 60-day Time extension just to meet statutory requirements I'll I'll extend it into June okay just in case the way this winter so we have motion a second okay very good on the motion Ricky sah yes danar yes Jim James ckins John Frank yes J Prairie yes okay excellent and I'll

figure out that of Butters list sorry about that thank you folks for coming out only right on the side of that first house people down the road there okay we will re notify for the next meeting absolutely thank you so much folks thank you thank you councel don't go too far item number 04 Antonio Costa DBA attorney a d Frank Jr Zer SS Napoleon Street and zero North uh NS Edmund

Street um I'm sorry Emanuel street map D16 Lots 83 and 9 92 the applicant seeks a variance to construct a single family dwelling waving dimensional requirements setbacks Frontage and lot coverage in an R8 single family zoning District this is another one of our continued items from last month Council thank you Mr chairman members of the board my name is Arthur Frank I'm a lawyer with an address of

209 Bedford Street for Massachusetts and I represent Antonio Costa there was also a co- applicant Jason Flores and I'll get to that in a minute as to why Mr flor's name is on this uh Mr CA owns a parcel of land across some other land that he owns and it's it's probably a true orphid lot that was created by the city of Fall River if you look at the original assessor map and I've

highlighted where this parcel is that's what the neighborhood used to look like as you can see everything was a grid all the lots are approximately the same size as was the way Lots were laid out um this is a rather old subdivision and if you look at what the city did they when they laid out Napoleon Street they wiped out like half of the lot so so what Mr Casa had is left with is this

triangle and Mr Flores owns what would what would be the point of the triangle so what what we now have is what is basically looks like a um a uh a right angle triangle it's an orphan lot it's I think it's the only vacant lot left in the in the neighborhood if somebody wants to correct me I I'll stand corrected uh we want to put the lot to use it currently has no use the proposal

is to build uh a single family home 29 by 28 uh we can meet um the minim minimum um uh Frontage U area the required is is 80 we've got 113.5 we're shy on on front yard side yard and obviously on area and building coverage but it seems to me where the city in its wisdom decides to change a location that probably was there for 100 years um the city would hopefully try to

help a homeowner or land owner um put the the land that's left over back to good use and we can't think of anything else we can do with this parcel um it it it's small it's it's 46 4,646 sare ft but uh there's really no other use for this parcel um if the original layout was still there um I think we'd have obviously a cleaner looking lot but this is what we're left

with and we asked the board's Indulgence uh to allow us to do something with this lot okay it's an interesting one I hadn't seen that original layout that's funny it's um unique um haven't we had something on this previously adjacent to it the number of lots running up along Napoleon Street y there were a series of lots and um that's those involve Street discontinuances for us because all of

these streets used to go through so my my my question almost would be I don't know what the status is of Ed edman Street um as it's adjacent to this my guess is it's not constructed for sure um that would be my so there may actually be some some rights to the center line of the way of Edmund Street with this partial as well but that would only be an extra I think the board can

yeah look at the petition they have and and move on that clearly a odd shaped pre-existing non-conforming so Council tell me about the Jason Flora's tiny little point where he wants to put a gas station on um that that that little point I think is what's left from some land that was taken from the Flores family when they laid out that Napoleon Street uh layout and uh my client has an

agreement to buy it to add to the U the main Locust so that kind of just squares off the point of that triangle um I think it's the backside of the poset directly across the street d682 it it could be and they put a pull in and they they bed the lots and when when they transferred the Lots on the North side they just left the D90 1692 just floating okay but that is it is a

separate lot there is a description for it it's it's under a pns right now correct or at least a and I I did get Mr M Mr flor's U signed off on this and we do have that under agreement um you see yeah Mr flores's name is on the is on the application matter of fact I talked to him today and U Want just to know what what was going to happen tonight and I

said it's up to the board uh but we would hope that um the board would agree with us that if there were Parcels like this in the city we got to figure out what to do with them uh rather than just let them lie fallow it's important for the board to understand that that the petitioner is not asking to create this lot right this is a pre-existing non-conforming parcel that that serves no purpose um both for

zoning as well as tax base creation of a new housing stock so so it does have value the other undeveloped section of that lot on not section of that lot to the south of that lot is the layout for Edmund Street correct not constructed but that's what my question is as Edmund Street on paper extends to William canning Boulevard right the applicant depending upon the status of it um they

may technically own to the center line of but even contemplate that for now nope that's a bonus if they find out later on questions from the board not in the audience this evening is there anyone to speak in favor of this petition is there anyone to speak in opposition they're hearing none it comes back to the board before you decide to vote again specific to the house shown specific to the proposed building

setbacks lot coverage everything that's listed in the site plan review it's cute what say we Sage men of zoning would make the motion to approve the variants as requested um with the site plan review which is understood anyway with the exact dimensions as laid out proposal a second on

that second okay we have a motion in a second is there discussion on the motion they're hearing none on the motion Ricky Sahar yes Dan de no James Caulkins yes John Frank no chairman Prairie yes

unfortunately now if I could ask something attorney Frank and Rod manoma has item number eight on the agenda tonight if the other applicants would not mind letting that come up to the top so that um they can uh they can move on so I would ask then that's uh we're asking Mark you'd be still next up after that I got three okay I don't mind uh Timothy Pento Marlene Abad Simpson Lane realy that's also you mark

uh PA Forest is the one you're covering also h55 yeah I'm sorry limit construction Thomas where are you right okay you're not in Somerset so why the heck just not stay around a couple minutes longer all right in that case going out of order let us go to item number eight which is Rod monoman LLC care of attorney a d Frank Jr uh 15 star street map c-94 Lots 36 37 and 38 the applicant

seeks a variance to divide the existing Parcels into three lots leaving the existing dwelling on one um lot and creating two buildable single family house Lots uh waving lot area setbacks Frontage requirements and an R8 single family zoning District Council thank you Mr chairman for the record my name is arur Frank I'm a lawyer with an ADV 209 Bedford Street for Massachusetts my

client is Rodman Omen and we come to the board tonight basically on the request of Mr um Hathaway um I'm giving the chairman a copy of a a letter that I previously gave Mr Hathaway um chronal ising the the history of this property uh I was before this board I guess it was 20 years ago and the board granted a variance to do what we're asking for tonight uh in keeping with what Joe

bisco the then building inspector used to tell us uh his his theory of exercising a variance was record the variance get a form a plan stamped and signed record the plan and then deed the lots and we did all that the client at the time just for whatever reason didn't start building so I I I brought this to Mr Hathway's attention and he agreed yes that's exactly what they used to tell us

uh when we got this type of relief um that was at proper exercise of a variance and since that time I believe there have been many Court decisions in Massachusetts that have even expanded um what an exercise of a Varian is to the extent now that if you even forget to record your variance but you act under it it's considered an exercise of the variance but Mr haway felt that he

wanted to air on the side of caution uh and he felt that um go back before the board um he didn't have any problems uh with the project but he just felt that um because of the amount of time that had elapsed um he didn't want to make a decision one way or another if if the variants had in fact been exercised I think it has um but I'm here before the

board because Mr haway felt that this was a better course of action to let this board take another look at this uh if you look at the the map you can see that the um there's a structure that's right in the middle of this track of land and chapter 10 of 40a tells us that that can be a hardship the location of structures on the land can be a hardship

we can't move that house to to do anything else with the land so if if that house stays in the middle there's land on either side uh I'm asking the board to Grant the same relief that the board gave me 20 years ago um if you have any questions I'm more than happy to try to answer them how has it been treated by the accessors res yeah so they're treating it as they been

divided yeah when the first subdivision went through and I didn't look I didn't go look through it and you say the subdivision went through and they deed out the Lots did they de them to separate entities at that point at that time what we did was if I remember we put I think the UN the unbuildable unb lot yeah into a trust yeah and then we had the main house in one

lot that gentleman moved back to Portugal and he just sold everything to one individual so maybe that's what yeah back into the same entity maybe I I can I can understand Mr Hathaway's you know uneasiness um he did although he did say you're right when Mr biso sat in that seat on the fifth floor yeah he would tell us you do these three things I'm okay you've exercised the variance um and I

don't have a problem coming back before this board I think it's still a good project um the current gentleman that owns it wants to build some houses uh right now the land is underused uh I think this is a candidate for for relief from this

board if if that really is needed well the billing inspector he he did not appeal Glen's decision so this is a new petition forget what you know you can keep in the back of your mind what's happened in the past but the zoning enforcement officer determined right new relief is needed I know I disagree with that's not it's not our job it's not my job either so it's there's one zoning enforcement officer

y questions from the board how does this this lengthy oh no sorry yeah no this is this is recounting um this is going back to this from uh attorney Frank to Glenn haway it was just a history lesson I thought it was no Glen react what happened was the don't have that the owner went down to to get building permits and Mr Hathaway contacted me he wanted the history of

what I had done 20 years ago and I gave him copies ough and and he he agreed that's exactly what we were told to do that that was considered um an exercise of a variance by the then building inspector of course there's there's plenty of case law that says current building inspectors are not bound by their predecessors I fully understand that and I think Mr hathway just felt

let this board take a look at it it's a different board it's a different

error so please enumerate then the dimensional relief that you're looking for on these uh on these individual laws

it's an R8 District um the minimum lot area is 8,000 square ft lot a has 5,419 Square ft uh the minimum uh front yard is 20 um we do we do meet the minimum front yard the the side yard yards are only 12T each um the rear yard we can meet

um right on Lot C you've got a five five Lot C is a little closer to the to bait street it's only 5 feet um

I think the 5 ft was what was allowed on the original variants I think you're right Mr than you um the only question I would have is I don't I I see on the plan that relief is requested for lot area yes I mean sorry lot coverage right but I don't see that in denial paperwork or application um the board can act on what's proposed but then the only issue that that raises is there's no proposed

lot coverage for Lot B which I'm guessing is probably not going to meet the 25% either yeah with the with the house parking deck garage no probably does not it's good point and V that we find that the original is still in no no no because that's not requested of you if attorney Frank could have appealed Glenn's decision that Glenn said it's no good anymore we we only had this was an informal conversation I

didn't ask him for for for a denial um we just felt that that's what the building inspector wanted he wanted me to come back yeah you know and that's what I agree I mean his denial is is denial paperwork yeah so right

yeah curious the building layouts that are here I take it are different than they were during the original back in 2003 well I I think back then I don't even know that we had um any conceptual drawings of of the houses um I mean the the 5T for Lot C I think is an issue for me it's probably an issue to the person that lives next door too um I mean they

could I mean Lot C they could change to 12 and 12 like or or some some some other dimension something that yeah more balanced like like L take 10 10 correct yeah we can't get the 12 and 12 power lines looks like well because one house is proposed at 26 one's proposed at 28 that's why you can't get to 12 to 12 correct again if if the board wants to make some suggestions of uh revising the

plan I'm I'm open to it I don't think we need to read advertise for the lot coverage but the lot coverage for Lot B should be shown yep and then just accept it as as the plan and this is new business so you don't have to uh get a Time extension right yeah with with if we can revise I I would suggest revising possibly the building footprint on see and the uh the

setbacks I'm not quite sure why it was done this way with u with 15 and and five um yeah that was just some that was a discussion between Mr sudo I think and his uh and his engineer okay but we can we can they can reopen that discussion then that's fine yeah we've got a larger lot on the smaller I mean a larger house a smaller lot right yeah so we could potentially

improve that lock coverage area too get up and by 11 I described the uh the lot coverage area on not B I think if we come back with that we'll have a much better understanding of what we're doing I'd feel a lot better about Lot C that's my personal opinion anyone else on the board care to weigh in I don't think they want to do that I don't know if you ask audience

yet no we have not that would be valuable I just wanted to get the board wrapped up from the uh from the audience uh is there anyone here who wishes to speak in favor of this petition anyone wishing to speak uh in opposition yes I want to know where the people are going to park there so all all three lots are providing the required amount of off street parking which are two spaces per residential

unit they they're not charged with providing any more than what the zoning bylaw requires so they're meeting that requirement as long as it's off yeah it is every on their plan it shows two spaces off Street for each house that street Y is horrendous it's barely got enough room for two cars to go down when the Liberal Club has something going on everything is blocked off but I can't get right but the so if

you're having issues with Liberal Club no then we'll deal with Liberal Club separate but they're not going to be able to go the other way who won't be able to go the other way whoever buys those lcks well they're not going to be able to park in front of their driveway right yeah but the police block off all the streets okay but if there but there's somebody living in that house now

are they able to get to their house now when when the Liberal Club has an event or is there are the street blocked up they block bait Street up near Tower not baits star so the person that lives there now so they block the street off and that person can't get to their house on Star Street I don't think they can have trouble and I'm on a corner lot well trouble is one thing it might be

difficult but they can't close the street and not provide access to people but that's separate from the zoning board of appeals so if if that is actually happening we can take that up with the licensing board and with the building inspector and the police department to ensure that access is provided not only for the people but for emergency apparatus to get to these homes if they need to so it's a separate

issue from from the zaring board appeals but to your first question they have to provide the required amount of off street parking which they have proposed anyone else speak in opposition we're hearing none be requesting a continuance very good we have a motion on for two months I think I can be back one month should be fine be back yeah May 16 and I think and I think Mr agar

agrees with me I don't think we're up against the this 100 day time limit not do we have a second on uh Jim ckins second second on the motion then uh John Frank yes Jim ckins yes Dana yes Ricky sah yes and chairman Prairie yes thank you thank you Mr chairman thank you for the courtesy of taking me out of order I love being out of order Council that being the case let us get

back to where we were item number 05 Lynwood Construction LLC care of attorney Thomas P curen zero County street map k06 lot 18 the applicant seeks a variance to construct a single family dwelling waving lot area lot coverage Frontage and setback requirements in an A2 apartment zoning District this is our last continued item good evening uh Mr chairman members of the board uh for the record attorney

Thomas colar representing the applicant hide uh actually strike that excuse me lywood Construction LLC uh the property before you um has an address of zero County Street um this actual this this property did come before this board I think most of the members if not all of you were on the board at that time a little over two years ago so were outside of that two-year window under 4A uh 16 uh this

property has a a bit of a history to it um there was a it appeared to be on one large piece of land with about six different dwellings on it and in about 19 72 uh the property was carved up there was a foret plan that was recorded where again I think we were dealing with six structures at that time I don't know if the board has that as part of their records but I can

certainly submit that to you um one of the lots that was left is the lot that's before this board today again is being 3,150 Square ft um and at that time uh the property had a multif family dwelling on it uh it's difficult to tell from the records I think my surveyor La labeled it um as a three family dwelling I've seen other records that refer to it as a four or five family dwelling

nevertheless you're certainly dealing with a multif family dwelling that was on the property and the structure itself that existed pretty much took up the entirety of the property you can see below the proposed 30X 32 single family dwelling that's shown on the plan there's the kind of shadowed area and and there's a uh a notation uh with some arrows showing the record location of

former 3 family dwelling and as you can see it it really comes out near to the limits um of the property I would say the setbacks in some locations are well under 5T um based upon the 10-ft setback lines that are shown on the plan in front of you uh what we're coming before the board is asking for a variance um again we would need a variance for uh Frontage lot coverage lot size as well

as uh setbacks but again we're dealing with a lot that previously had a multif family dwelling on it I understand uh that we're dealing with a certainly an undersized parcel of land but it was one that was used for multi family purposes and what this applicant is seeking is for this to be used for a single family dwelling I know one of the concerns that this board has and and often times

Neighbors have is whether or not we can provide the adequate off street parking and as you can see on this plan there's a proposed 18 ft by 20 ft asphalt driveway that can certainly accommodate two vehicles um which certainly complies with this board's um zoning bylaws so again I think we're dealing with a very unique uh piece of land a unique shape with a unique history to it um again where we

had an existing dwelling a multif family dwelling um that pretty much took up the entirety of the property what would be proposed uh would be a much smaller dwelling than than what was previously there and would be less um impervious area and if you take a look at the surrounding neighborhood on the plan plan um most of the Lots in this area are these substandard lots and and substantially substandard Lots um most

of which are under 5,000 square ft there's one immediately to the West um that's 319 Square ft which is even smaller than the the lot that's before the board today if you go across the street uh you're dealing with a lot that's 6,000 square fet 3600 Square ft uh 3459 so again that what's being proposed is not out of the character um uh for this neighborhood uh and further again

if you take a look at the plan that's before you just about every use that AB buts or is in near proximity to this property um is a multif family dwelling I'd say with the exception of the uh house lot that's diagonally across the intersection of rockliff and and County Street which is another single family dwelling but other than that you're dealing with three family dwelling two family dwelling um a lot across the

street that looks like it has two multif family dwellings on one house lot um so again what what we're asking for in terms of a use um in terms of at least the size of the lot is consistent with the neighborhood but the intensity of the use is significantly less than what you find on on the neighboring properties again I know this was a a petition that came before this board a

little over two years ago uh but we would suggest to the board that um one of the one of the first things that's mentioned in the in the purpose of the full River zoning bylaws is to encourage the appro appropriate use of land and this land has been sitting here vacant now for a little over 20 years um and would suggest that the construction of a single family dwelling in this neighborhood would be the appropriate

use uh of this land again I don't think that it uh would would create a situation where you're dealing with overcrowding due to the um due to the fact that we have got the off street parking spaces and I also think it enhances and conserves the value um of not only of this property uh but the surrounding properties um by putting a new again single family structure uh on this otherwise unoccupied unused lot

that really can't be used for any other purposes and with that I'll I'll yield to the board and be happy to answer any questions I'm just taking a quick look back at the previous decision which I I actually made the motion um to approve or deny I believe the motion was to approve and I believe I watched the I watched went down through to two no I I didn't think it was you Mr Pereira that that

made the motion if I remember correctly I I watched the meeting today and uh I I I thought it was another member but I could be mistaken I look very different back then Tomy I know one thing that different from the from the last petition and and I did watch it as well and and it was it was an excellent presentation by attorney 11 probably the best I've ever seen that he's done so it

was it was very well done but my my question is on the anr plan because this is the only one of the major differences the size of the house and maybe some parking but that it shows the location of what the old dwelling was it does it does all right so so the board can at least see and not just take a representation of what where the building was you can see why the lot was

carved out and the number of houses that were divided at the time and the reasoning for the shapes of the existing lots and neighborhood and the sizes of it and then also the W I think the existing land owner has owned this for a while right back to the back to 88 isn't that like the most recent sale so double check but I believe that's the case and something for the board also to consider

is that when the city assesses these these Parcels they assess them as buildable Parcels so the landowner has been paying taxes on this as a buildable lot valued at whatever $775,000 now but for a number of years and when when it's deemed that they're not able to build on and not to be utilized there could be a potential request for an abatement and that the property value and taxes received by the

city are greatly diminished not only for this for this application but also for the previous you know exist pre-existing non-conforming law last Le which also comes up a little bit later on in the night this applicant at the time of the fire when when this building I for what year it was um but within a two-year period of time they could build back that exact structure with the same number of units they just whether

financially couldn't do it at the time or whatever the reasoning was um and we'll bring that back up again tonight with another petition on Irving Street um which does fall within that time frame so good and just just to to answer I think Mr agar's question yes the the current owner has owned it since 1988 okay members of the board questions on this I would say I would characterize this as

being consistent with the neighborhood as far as coverage as far as you know size of building Etc where it is inconsistent it's a single family and a lot of multifamilies around it immediately next door is a three family dwelling you three family across the street two family across the street and it it continues on that way um six family to the rear of it on a very large piece of property but six family

nonetheless um and then we get into the change in zone and um and other uses office uses Etc so if there is an appetite in the market for a single family house in a multif family neighborhood there it is any questions before we go to the public you can think on it you get another bite at the Apple um to the audience is there anyone here who would wish to speak on in favor or in support

of this uh application is there anyone here that would wish to speak in opposition to the application we do have one piece of Correspondence in opposition uh came to our office via email uh hello my name is uh Eric uh suusi I'm the owner of 129 County Street in Fall River I'm emailing this as a complaint against a proposed dwelling located next to my lot the property would be too close to mine uh and I

would worry about privacy as well as safety for my tenants it is not a good idea uh firewise to have a dwelling so close in addition the intersection is very dangerous and the parking is limited um any additional residences that the any additional residences in that area would also uh cause that to be even worse I'm aware that the land was uh attempting to be sold and the prospective vyer feels confident he can

get this pass um why bother to come if you don't think he can get it done this is uh insulting since this has been attempted in the past and was denied over and over again and unable to define the meeting due attend the meeting due to having to work but I hope that this is expressed it is thus expressed that is is indeed the owner of the property immed immediately a butting

um at uh 129 County Street which is a three family dwelling would you care to certainly Mr CH address his his concern of being too close so I think he raised two points uh at least two substantive points first one being um the issue of of parking and again uh what's being proposed complies with the zoning ordinance in terms of providing two W Street parking spaces the other re indicates that properties

too close and could potentially create some sort of fire hazard um where the dwelling is being proposed uh shows a 10t setback from the deck and the deck being 8 feet wide so you've got an 18 foot setback from that um Mutual boundary line from the owner who wrote this and I would suggest to the board that that is uh certainly um significant enough uh set back I think that the

requirement in the district is is 20 ft so this is a a twoot difference uh from what is required in the zoning bylaw and um I would again based on the based on the placement of the proposed structure I don't think that that is a legitimate concern right and you know point out that his property looks like it's four three four feet off the uh off the budding property line it show on the

for plan does it have a dimension uh the form8 plan I don't think shows a dimension but I mean based on the scale on the plan that we've submitted um you know you can see what you can see what 10 ft is and it certainly appears to be at least half if not less three feet thank you I think it says see I said three or four feet you sure you want to say three approximately

three can we get a second opinion I all right uh so noted part of the record um that was the only opposition we had uh come in to the members of the board if there are no other questions or comments on the plan how see you

this I that we Grant the VAR as presented specific house plan no logger house no right as presented but on the yeah on the plan second Ricky thank you we have a motion in a second then on the motion John Frank yes Jim ckins yes Dan deir no okay uh Ricky Sahar yes and chairman Pera yes great thank you very much a good night everyone thank you congratulations we've arrived at new

business we already have one but it's new business item number one hqv homes LLC uh care of attorney mackel 11 150 purchase street map n08 lot 49 the applicant seeks a special permit to convert the pre-existing mixed use commercial and residential building to five residential units waving area lot coverage and setbacks in the BL local business zoning District Council yes Mr chairman members

of the board again professionals and Madame clerk attorney maral 11 138 Rock Street for of Massachusetts I'm here representing the applicant who's the owner of the property at 150 Purchase Street I look out my rear window from my office and see it every morning uh that property I knew very well because that used to be owned by a friends and a client Paul jaru uh Frank felberg and later their family uh and they had on

the first floor the insurance company and the second floor the real estate office and they had I thought at that point in time two apartments on the third floor over the years this property got changed handed over by different businesses uh ultimately it was a uh multi uh unit where it had the commercial on the first two floors and apparently my client tells me it was one apartment on the third floor at the time

he purchased it the uh property was part of a larger parcel that got subdivided uh and this board approved it into separate Lots uh garage went to the preservation uh commission that I understand uh a new two family house was built closer to the Pine Street area uh the the back lot was separated and sold to a third party and this house remained um what was required back then and was insightful for this

board at that time was that they required that this parking area be set forth on a plane and part of the site plan review when they built the other property in fact they had that on the plans that were provided and then when this property was sold this property was deed Lots parking spaces on the abing properties in fact this client because he put these tandem figuring there's only going to be five units and the

people that are going to live there could have tandem parking spaces actually have a total of 11 parking spaces to use so he's asking that he be able to convert this to a five unit building uh two on each floor in the top one where it is the as you look at this area it's not just in a BL District it's also in the two overlay districts it's in the housing District in the

AO D District which allows four to six family homes in this area so This Is Not Unusual to have a 5un building where you can have four to six units now we're not asking to do any exterior structural part of the property it's deemed to be a more conforming use based on the fact there was a variance before but the use was such that it was commercial in residential now the applicant wants to turn this over

completely pursuant to uh section 86 uh 4 uh 425 with a special permit to convert its use to an equally appropriate use that is actually conforming to most of that area most of that area is now residential there's only a few mixed uses in that area so this will be bringing you to more residential and again the overlay districts are for residential purposes so the real question is we have a building sitting

on the slot its uses are preexist pre-existing we now want to convert it to something that is more useful and uh within the building and with within the footprint and allows it to be able to be uh reconstruction completely uh putting new energy efficient equipment putting Fire Equipment getting rid of the lead paint that is in this building and bringing it up to code uh under the

statute uh under special permits we have case law and I believe I submitted that with my permit for the application you know this makes it economically feasible to do the project by allowing the expansion within the building to be conforming now again this will eliminate a pre-existing commercial area unit which has largely in this area based on the oet that was provided for by the city a

few years ago wanting and looking to convert property for residential property um the rehabilitation will allow this structure to be preserved it's an older building it's been around well older than me and has now allow upscale Apartments to be placed in there and allow the values of that property and the values of the properties around it to exist and increase because eliminate a commercial area where you

won't have as much traffic that would come to that property yes they did Park a lot on the property itself but they parked on Purchase Street now we're going to have parking essentially off parking for all the cars there won't be a lot of travel onto that property um other than the residents other then they may have guests from time I mean the primary purpose of the residential zone

is to preserve the homogeny of this multifam residential neighborhood uh I think and my client's application believes through the the statutes and the case lore I won't recite them all for you that this becomes a more conforming use for this neighborhood and based on the overlays that were allowed in this at this found in the the city place those overlays This falls right within that

picture I will agree with you on many things you just said but I am looking at this plan and looking at this plan and I am confounded by these parking spaces I've got tandem spaces with a concrete wall in between them I don't know if these are theoretical spaces or if these are designed spaces but and help there was park there they used to come up the driveway and park in the back that's where the Jus

Park their cars and those parking on the left on the left where no we're showing proposed new driveway and a proposed new curb cut there's no parking there now well that's what was designed four five yeah that was designed before with the last variance and approved because that's the plan that was submitted on the left of of the five unit building where it's it's sidewalk and the lawn right now right there are

two spaces for the two family building in the back but you're proposing a new driveway and a new curb opening adding spaces two three four and five those do not exist and we're not on the original oh okay I I see what you're talking about now sorry I'm sorry I'm looking at the wrong plan sorry to interrupt in reading that parking space by definition of off Street the last line it says and regulated that no

maneuvering incidental parking CH be on any public or private Street of walk and so that any automobile may be parked or UNP parked without moving another so those don't qualify so right now the parking proposed on this plan does not comply to the zoning B yeah and no request for variance or waiver of the existing parking regulations was requested and we alerted attorney 11 to this at at the beginning

so parking is an issue let's let's also look at space number six which straddles the access easement line that gives everyone else room to get to the parking that was laid out first so I think the parking that's proposed I think the use is fantastic the five unit residential use if it's the appropriate number of bedrooms but this parking is aury 100% And so relief either needs to be

requested for parking or a new parking layout provided in the Arts overlay District parking can be provided in a number of ways on the property offsite or reserved in other locations in in the vicinity through lease so I think again I don't vote but it issue of of parking needs to be resolved and addressed yeah I I'm you know honestly Council I'm I'm not I have no confidence of this parking layout

okay well I mean like I said it does have the four spaces on the abing land that belongs to them that was by deed and I provideed that deed uh if you know if the board feels it's more appropriate for me to uh have the engineer redesign it maybe eliminate unfortunately a couple parking spaces and then come for a ask for relief for that too so 8 n 10 and 11 are deed to this

property I just get the right on yes okay all right those four but the the rest of this I mean and you're eliminating two on street parking spaces to create the driveway right right at least that at least one one probably two yeah I mean parking Spa not to be sarcastic parking space number one is the only one I have any confidence in that's good now we're up to now we're up to

five well they were trying to you can't open your door if you were in the passenger seat so I they were trying not to ask for waivers of parking they were trying to provide you with parcking and that's how the engineer came up with it uh you know I didn't design the plan so fit the defition but you're the you're the guy that gets to represent it but if that is something that you believe I

should I want something more I would want to see something more than conjectural parking spaces and that's what I feel we have and I think as um and I I discussed there is that there is that spaces laid over an easement yeah you you at least have to address that space um because you can't impede anyone else's rights to that easement so let's start with that one so we're g to we're going to cross that one

up which I think you had you thought you said you had 11 proposed so you're talking about six you can easily get rid of six and now you still got two to one um but again I think if if if you look at the O overlay district and the reasoning behind creating that District it was to give land owners flexibility with providing and accommodating for parking doesn't have to be on this site

right so with that flexibility if you're coming in with a copy of the deed right that says you have these four parking spaces on an adjacent property you know that's covered if you come in with a lease that says you've leased x amount of parking spaces for a long period of time on another lot someplace else come up with a way to to prove to you me I think the idea is awesome it's a great

building this is a perfect use for it um this well attached to your pro little jiujitsu attach your package is the deed that gave the pokkin bis that's in book 11306 page 320 I did provide that so you would see that cool I stand I stand no no I just didn't want you to think I didn't try to do my homework I never don't you coun well um what is the best method for this

board for me to have the plan revised and then request the waver of depending upon how you can address it um let's look at Arts overlay how many bedrooms are you uh proposing I think there were two in each so two bedrooms that's what I recall but I I didn't write it down unfortunately I looked at for earlier get that answer too for yeah well that's why I asked

it oh actually it's going to yeah uh so you three one bedrooms so you've already asked for the special permit the Arts overl two bedrooms that's what he said three ones and two twos yes that's even better for the Arts overlay District you have asked for a special permit now 886 376 e off street parking may be provided through one or a combination of the following onsite but not limited between the

street in the front of the building which I think you're okay on that one offsite by contract in public or private off street parking facilities so those are your options so you can provide 10 parking spaces utilizing a combination of those two now if you can't get provide 10 then you'll need a waiver of parking correct to reduce the required number of spaces so that would require a

new petition or read vertising at least but if you can go find private public or private off street parking facilities then you don't need to read vertise or reapply well I understand I I I I'd have to talk to my client if any of these others are available but you know again if we're eliminating six and seven if those are the ones I get to eliminate well no I think seven seven you're

probably okay with one you're okay with and three and five you might be okay with or two and four but not all four of those so you may only need to find two two yeah or ask for a waiver or ask for a waiver of parking or even just even ask for them that they could be stacked rather than to reduce the numbers but that would be on Street

yeah is it is this the uh this is the property that they um they had a problem with the um Balian because of the moratorium that should be up now right yeah is that up by now they they ended up going to the city council for um permission to open for the for the two family building yes they did that but is that moratorium up yet no it's not because they are they

are they asking for a curb cut yeah they want well they they've applied for a curb cut and it's been sitting for a few months to get through this process right so a cur cut would require also now granted dealing with concrete sidewalk is a lot different than asphall yeah so the council does look more favorably upon creating a driveway because you're not digging trenches or patching the

street the pavment part of it so but yes that would be another level of Permitting that they would need to get so the proposed 16t opening is not by right that they would need specific approval to do that right and then we've got a 16t opening that also directs you halfway into parking space number one right um so what happens we often get the site plan review when we get things

like this and when you can't make it work now that's three months down the road and then now someone has to come back before you to now go seek that relief so now is the time to really deal with it before you before you deal with that so everybody knows the variables moving forward okay well I I you know again I have to talked to my client and he knows his neighbors or hopefully

knows his neighbors now to find out what parking availability is on the adjacent property it can be I mean you can rent from 5cent Savings Bank across the street you could rent from the eagle parking lot there there are number of parking lots in this area um that if you could get contracted parking for a couple of spaces all right again I don't think anybody has a concern about the use of of converting this to a

residential use at least I didn't hear any at least not the audience we'll hear from the audience next but well I I guess the the situation is such that I need to make sure I have my parking or I need to ask for a waiver for parking I mean for right now the today my recommendation would be to right now withdraw table no no no just table CU before the next meeting if you

can come up with other providing 10 some way then then we can act on it at the next meeting if you find out before the next meeting you can't then you'll have to file a different petition and read advertise for a reduction in parking or however you want to handle the parking okay and I will ask for a continuance so I can sit down with my client as engineer and find out with the

neighbors what has the availability I mean his attempt was to make sure he had two parking spaces per unit that's really what he trying they can't be pretend they have you know I uh better than conjectural um let me turn to the public uh at this moment just in case there are any issues we have in in public before we kick it out is there anybody that wants to speak in in favor of this

petition anyone in opposition okay wh one two three four 18 whoever wants to start I can speak right here so it's okay good evening board my name is Jim sa I'm the president of the preservation Society River I represent them in behind the property uh as an about to 150 Purchase Street the preservation Society is expressing its opposition to the proposed special perit requests to convert the pre-existing use at 150

purchas Street into five residential units that's the property owner 148 purchase located behind 150 Purchase Street in the home's historic C carage house uh the preservation Society has serious concerns regarding the increased uh density in the uh local business district and we believe the proposed five units of 150 purchas stre rather than the allowed three units would provide two heavier burden on the

neighborhood which already suffers from high density and traffic The Zone board previously rejected a proposal to construct a new three fing home directly abing that property uh just in 2020 uh for similar concerns the preservation site is already required to provide parking on its own land for 150 Purchase Street at no cost it does not believe the neighborhood could handle an influx of any more Motor

Vehicles for additional two units at the site with inadequate parking to handle the current number of allowed units zoned the property already we believe it would be extremely detrimental to increase the density at this site even further and I have to say uh vly that the the drawing is elery it is not appropriate okay anyone else do you wish to speak individually or is this hello

Alexander Silva 148 purchas Street also a board member of the preservation society and I'm actually the volunteer of landlord on site at 148 Purchase Street so I'm very familiar with the property um when this uh I guess when we saw this I was confused at the five suggested units since this property already did not meet the required parking requirements as Jim already stated we're required to provide at

least one of the spots on our own land and looking at this drawing parking space number nine half of the spot is in our easement for the garage which is in use with our trash receptical so that is also not a valid parking spot in my opinion um Additionally the two spots uh in front of the Carriage House in between the two properties once those vehicles are there there's absolutely no

access for those two to four spots in that corner which half are on different grade which is the wall that they actually construct they actually constructed a wall further into the parking spot I believe um so I'm not quite sure how the two Ford I can't see the numbers would even access that spot um additionally when this property was originally subdivided in 2021 uh the zba made the subdivision

contingent on the separation of utilities um it's our understanding that the 150 Purchase Street has a separate meter for the Electrical uh but the power line still runs directly through the entire length and center of the wooden house um so I don't know if that was examined on the site plan review for 160 Purchase Street um I was speaking with National Grid and I don't think they' have had

any work requests in recent years so I don't think that's been looked at uh and just you know as it's zoned as is not additional units you know per the zoning so I'm relatively concerned about the capacity and safety of that um I would just recommend you to actually look at the property and try and figure out how this works the two six and seven spots that are blocking the easement I mean it

kind of looks on paper like they could squeeze in there but they have a d dumpster in that prop that spot currently right now and there's already been two instances of Far Over ambulances refusing to go down the driveway and because they could not fit already um and I will just say that one of the instances it probably could have made a difference with the length of time it took for them to get to the

patient in our property uh so I just have serious concerns about this initially on the north side of the carriage house I think it's marked on this plan but in previous plans that Mark those parking spots there is a stone wall that juts out of about two to 2 and 1/2 ft that is on this plan now but it's in the parking spots you could actually see the tail end of the uh

Street most side par spot it has the the full length spot kind of T ticking out over the wall but the rest of it the cars essentially will be in the easen so it's not a it's not a perfect parking uh layout thanks anyone else that covers that covers the team separate I I my name is Priscilla por and I'm here regarding property at 34 Franklin Street and thetion which used to be 46 Franklin

Street I have I think they've articulated all the concerns that I have probably much more much better than I could have so I'm in agreement with what they have presented to you the board um I am concerned about those things as well as the parking issues which I wind up having to um have cars stay overnight and in the lot that don't belong to my property or don't rent in my property so

that's a pretty significant concern and the number of tenants if it were to become a five I've been in that building many times I grew up on 34 Franklin Street in 1947 so I've seen what goes on with parking and limited parking for many decades and I just want to support what Jim has brought forward to you and I think it uh there are very good points that they made very good thank you well thought

out thank you thank you so if I can Mr chairman please so I think we all agree that the parking is an issue and I think attorney 11 is going to go back and take a look at that but something we we need to take a look at is the number of units allowed in this district is not limited to three that's in that's in the underlying BL zoning District it caps

off at three This falls in the Arts overlay District which is only limited by the unit account by the amount of popping they can provide so if if attorney 11an also goes back and says okay we can only provide eight real spaces well then they can modify the position to have four units inad set of five so that zoning District specifically details limit of of unit count based on being able to provide

parking and that's why they give you the different formula for being able to to get to the to the calculation with the separation of utilities that this board puts on these types of subdivisions those are utilities controlled by the city of Fall River Water and Sewer which I do believe did take place here um providers electric gas they handle that they handle their own stuff um people

don't call the city and say hey the guy in front of me won't let me fix my electric line my my answer has to be we don't control electric lines so the reason behind that stipulation in zoning was so that someone doesn't call and complain I my my neighbor won't allow me to fix my water line that's on their property so the purpose of that requirement is so that we don't have to

deal with that and and it's just good practice also when when attorney 11 when you have your engineer look at um specifically spaces 9 10 and 11 I don't care how they're painted on the ground today they need to pres be presented in the same manner as they were when the variant was approved the first time and also through site plan review so if if they somehow squeaked in an extra space

by getting rid of I don't even remember what the plan showed a hatched out trash area or something closer to the building so just make sure that the representation of what's shown on this plan is what was per approval yeah I'm just looking at the old plan that was part of the deed and just just make sure the survey addresses the the comment of let's make sure that 9 10 and 11 or whatever

parking is shown on this plan is representative of what was approved previously okay because that's what you have rights to right I understand that that's all I have if it does need to be read vertis um I have to send out the legal ad next Friday it won't be re it'll be a be a

okay yeah I'm in a table to figure out what the parking is I mean that obviously is the biggest issue you don't seem to have a problem with it being changed from commercial to residential where the overlay allows it so it's really just to find out if we have true parking spaces or does he have to get it somewhere else and that's going to drive the number of units and that'll drive

the units if there's eight then there's four units if it's Mark something that might help the board when you when you do a parking analysis if you can't come up with the number that you need um do an analysis based upon square footage of what commercially this building would require for parking sure um that might be a number that can be discussed if you're looking for a waiver of parking I

don't I don't know how but the square footage of commercial tenant is in that building but it was the two floors originally yeah no but but the bylaw is going to tell you you need X number of spaces for x amount of square foot of commercial space so take a look at that motion to table pardon May mayor June motion second hold on no table table till May table to May

yes and you've made that motion yes do we have a second second okay then on the motion John Frank yes Jim Caulkins Dan dear yes Ricky sahti yes chairman Prairie yes thank you thank you for your input I appreciate that Mr chairman two minutes five minutes five minutes five minute break can you just pipe in some cheesy music back there okay n put music on your phone it's going to be Taylor

Swift I get some scorpion you have letters oh good okay thank you that helps thank you thanks

actually I two burn down properties are you doing Irving Street no I'm doing Irving and I'm doing the uh one of B Baker oh yeah that one burn down a while ago yeah simar buring was just recent but well that one you theoretically if you wanted to build I don't know why theen wouldn't just give you a building permit was it less than two years ago yeah would refuse

to said you going you don't have a wall up

still there foundation's a wall I know I know there's one zoning enforcement officer it's not me

how did College visits go was his favorite yeah

is all housing off campus

then what your wife like that's the most important question not to you not to you but to her you know TV cameras are still running

yeah it comes out at midnight oh it's tonight yeah but I miss the merch and it's

know

she started him way too

young they'll be out tomorrow

every Super Bowl they create all the merch so no matter who wins their shirts say they W he all Los I've got a

all right

Jeff

youth looks like five minutes to me yep ins timer item number two Timothy Pento 193 197 Oak Green Oak gr AV uh map l12 Lot 19 the applicant sees a variance to change the pre-existing non-conforming auto repair shop use into Auto Sales and a g General zoning District identify yourself and how you do I'm Timothy Pinto I uh own and operate SM Automotive LLC on 193 GR which is owned by my father celestino

Pento um I'm just trying to operate an auto repair and Auto Sales on the same property uh which was done there prior I guess they had lost the license to non-renewal um so therefore I'm here to seek a variance to just kind of do what was always been done there before do you know when that I copy when the prior lapsed I believe it was 14 2014 is I think it probably lapsed in 2012

when they requested new releas to go to auto repair and a roofing business that might have been what it was it was 12 I knew it somewhere so it was granted an ' 08 then changed in 12 so that's when that the sales use would have been eliminated 4 Z vote was that to approve at the time what was that the vote that was taken in 2012 that was to approve yeah

yeah both them were approved okay to Grant and then not acted upon no I I was it ever did they ever operate the roof stuff the roof company I I couldn't tell you we didn't own the property at that point in time okay all right so when when had it been approved for Auto Sales 088 08 but this this ended up changing the use right in 12 yeah talk to me about the property

because you're going to have you're going to have an ongoing not just the auto sales business you're you're also going to have the other business ongoing correct yeah the Auto Repair essentially will be the is the uh the main business the auto sales is just a supplement um you know I'm in the auto business so obviously buying selling cars fixing them gives me an advantage to to make a little extra money you know

um so I mean you you got a kind of crazy grd of parking out there and to realize that you have customer cars coming in you can stack them up you can yeah so essentially my my parking lot is uh it's got a privacy fence so in in the aspect of a normal car dealership like you drive by see cars for sale you're not going to be able to see that from this

property because there's a privacy fence for the Neighbors um you know I took this into consideration figure and most of my sales will probably be online based anyway so the surveyor kind of came up with a parking plan that went off the license that was granted back in ' 08 for 20 Vehicles so he kind of figured out a way to stack the vehicles in a way to equal up the 20 that was

given before um there is you know we could modify a little bit if need be on Bard Street there is a break in the curb um to so the third spot fourth spot fifth and sixth would have their own separate access if I were to take the fence down and put a gate there essentially okay is there a curb cut on bad yes and and there is a curve cut on Oak

Grove yeah the whole almost the whole L wide open apron so I mean to me the the the parking and the the access is is the major concern so you're saying that if you have if you do have cars for sale let's say you have eight cars for sale here they're going to be stacked in someplace maybe doubled in because you got tandem parking space B you'd have to shift them around move

them around which I mean that's no different than what I do on a daily basis if you know a broken car gets pushed you know tow in we got to push it out of the way to to get it out it's whether they kind of the nature of the whether they 20 vehicles for repair or 20 vehicles for sale it's the same maneuverability right correct if it's yeah if it's a full lot it's going to be

the same game on on this plan it it doesn't show spaces for repair Vehicles it just says for sales Vehicles so we kind of it was going to be both I don't know how many sales spots license when you go for a license they may want to know how many are going to be for sales faes and how many I mean we could different differentiate them further if he'd be y the other thing

that that makes it a little bit confusing especially coming in from the okro Val side because that's that's where your customers are entering from typically correct to to drop off Etc so you got two customer parking I'm I'm assuming they're well there's three but two of them are right in right in off the street um there is a fence there yeah so you can't pull direct off the street You' have to pull into the park lot

they're going to have to come in the gate into the lot got it yeah but the a width of 22 ft is what's required so the the customer spaces and the employee space is what's required by by ordinance yeah um so I I 9 out of 10 when they pull into my lot they stop like in that loading area and yeah yeah how they actually use it that's something else we're just dealing with the zoning yeah

we need to we need to see them which is which is fine if they decide to park in the loading area then the force faces to the east up Bard all the way at the top it looks like those fall off of the pavement so it is gravel over there there's a gravel area okay I think maybe a couple of feet of you understand that because you can't pay it you haven't asked for increase in

lock coverage so correct it's got to stay what it is but I figured being gravel vehicles are already parking there I'm sure their grandfather to some degree of continuing to park there there quite a bit of that gravel okay I didn't realize that yeah the only non- gravel I have is like behind that little square next to Bor guard there's like a little grass area right but majority of the lot's either paved or graveled

and just a question clarification if we prove we don't have to approve the number of cars that can be so we to approve that be LIC you're approving the number of yes so when when he goes to licensing he'll only be able to get one license or the other not totaling more than than the 20 but within the pview of this board Dan is that within our you could but but

then you're going to kind of handcuff him yeah unless he wants to tell you how many he wants of each but if but if if licensing will give him that flexibility um it it really shouldn't I I don't see where it would make a difference for for this board whether it was a repair space or a for sale space because the for sale vehicles are probably being fixed as well so they

might might fit both yeah so what better A lot of times it's a matter of whether there's a plate on the car or not yeah we're kind of better to leave that alone right that's yeah I I would I would okay yeah I would leave them the flexibility on that it was just that on the plan it said Sal spases so if it's approved sale and and repair not to

exceed one two three four 20 I eight n 10 well is it hold on 1 two 3 four because you've got customer customer and employee so it's 20 minus 4 so a total of 16 for sale or repair right because that takes them to account the the required for customers and um parked on on the lot whatever the licensing board wants to give him for parking in the shop itself that's separate

okay all right anybody in any uh anybody in the audience wish to speak in favor of the petition anybody wish to speak in opposition hearing none it comes back to us guys make a motion to Grant second no conditions on that site plan review and I don't think I need site plan licensing which is changing use yeah it's just use you're not be wondering if he was adding parking not uh packing as presented on the

plan sounds good do we have a second on that please second second then uh on the motion Ricky Sahar yes P to yes Jim Caulkins John Frank yes jamman Prairie yes set thank you grant item number three Marlene Abad uh 150 Baker Street map F10 lot three the applicant seeks a variance to build a four family dwelling waving the number of units lot area lot Frontage lot coverage and an R4

two family zoning District the applicant also seeks a special permit waving parking requirements your didn't get on here but Mr chairman members of the board again attorney Mar L 11 138 Rock Street for Massachusetts and uh thank you for the professionals and Madam clerk uh my client purchased this property with the intent to build this property had been a multif family unit that burned down a few years back my

client Only Knows scanted uh history of about it but there was between a four and a six-unit building there before the fire was destroyed if you look in that neighborhood that's basically consistent to most of the units they are twos threes fours sixes mixed commercial uses I think there's only one single family in the entire area but it's been always a multif family neighborhood uh and the

zoning permits two families uh I am told that back around 2014 or 2015 the prior owner had obtained a variance uh 4 or four unit building uh but never uh exercised that and then when he came back it was denied uh it's been several years since that time and my client proposes to utilize the property and in fact uh provide most of the parking that's available we're short too spaces but this is a property that has

sat there uh it's Barren uh it uh calls for someone to use this property and make it utilization that is in a multif family neighborhood she's proposing to put a twostory building which there will be two floors only uh the uh units will be uh two to three unit uh uh bedrooms uh and we are asking for the waivers of the lot coverage in area in order to provide

this plus the uh the usage and the uh Frontage of the lot is still small too but we can't change anything with the frenches that we have uh we are looking at the viability of putting this property back on the tax rolls it will uh utilize uh the most most of the parking will be on the property and in fact from what I'm told it's not a bad area for parking anyway uh the

maintenance of this property be taken care of uh she intends to use one of the units for herself uh we think the character is such that the size of this lot is not different than the other neighborhood lots that are out there uh it affords some affordable housing uh it has some efficient use to provide some harmony with that neighborhood in conforming to the zoning and we think that this will be a a good position for

a property that had housed a very large uh property uh in the past and now bringing it down to a more modern 4unit building thank you a lot of history here looking back at um where this has been it was approved for single family in 2013 two family in 2014 1 oh that was a four family 2016 it was back again what is it you do five within a certain number of years they're free I can't

remember well this is all before my client purchased the property he's got more history than ghos bre

and then 2017 what was approved denied denied it was denied for four for a four unit at that time yeah that's when the prior owner didn't exercise apparently for when I'm told and then they denied it but we here for a new day and no no I know I'm just we believe that this it's an empty lot and empty lots and I don't know what pton speak were available before my client has used

uh the most in fact she had intended to use it in the back but Eugene had spoke to her when she went to the building department he didn't like the idea or have parking in the back of the building so they put most of it in the front and the two on the side so this is the fourth iteration of this plan that we've seen since submission date third so how many

parking spaces are being proposed yeah six cuz there is a notation that has the other area being called out as another proposed for see we at in the driveway it says well I mean that's the proposed Pocky in the front I just want I want to make it clear no it's two there and four okay no but they're numbered independently so six spaces yes stack again trying to maximize the number of spaces that are available so

that not asking for maximizing the size of the building come parking on the building well maximizing with what's left so so the two to the north are tandem yes they're all 12 they're all tandem three sets of tand three sets of Tandem but they have technically requested a special permit for reduced parking so I would say that that allows you to act on stacking as Mr ckins presented earlier

the general term of special permit for reduced parking I I would say would cover you to allow that to happen I know and I know we're restricted to use but common sense as you start stacking parking spaces you're going to have a problem at some point so so we have six realistically six yes and the idea of putting him in the back Jean didn't like the idea of having a driveway going around the back and

people having to back up yeah it's not going to make any more right and moving the house front to put park in the back then pushed everything out front I mean let's see if if we have any audience members that have complaints about parking on the street as it exists now yeah why not one thing I'll offer is that the proposed new driveway and curb opening will be offset by the closing of

the existing curb opening which is on the southerly side of the property so I think you'd be close to a net wash for curb opening so I don't think you would be losing that's not entirely clear opening to the C I did drive by this one and it's okay let's turn to uh the public anyone here wish to speak in favor of this petition anyone to speak in opposition to this petition there goes on neighborhood

input anything else and these were two bedroom units you said right did we ask twos and thre twos and threes twos and threes depends how they design I guess

so Mr chairman um two separate votes one to approve the V one to wave the boing yes yeah two separate votes

so one is the variance and one is the special permit

correct building footprint is okay it's 52 deep 52 by 34 that makes a little bit of sense I mean they they provided a a maximum lot coverage on the plan I hope they calculated the pavement and the building it's actually designed to have blue Stone what's that blue stone they're not going to do previous do you mean for the parking area where the parking spaces are they weren't putting a perious material was

going to be impervious was going to be perious oh that doesn't show that that that's what well so Crush Stone parking lots don't cut it excuse me said crush Stone parking lots don't cut it for parking so it's going to have to be an improved surface whether it's perious asphalt asphalt or pavers it's not going to be blue perious perious that's what I was told I assume assume that was blue stone Crush

Stone Crush Stone doesn't work yeah it's going to be pervious that's what I was told cuz I asked the the engineer he says how are you planning this for the lock coverage he say well all all the water's going to flow in the ground we're using the material I mistakely just guessed it was blue stone site plan review these have to be marked because otherwise it's a free for all

so and I'll get a complaint from the Police Department any other questions kids I would do the special permit first yeah yeah I

think so we're looking for a special permit uh as to parking requirements we have a 4 unit building we have six spaces drawn

what do you wishes guys I'll make a motion to deny I'll second motion to deny with a second on the motion John Frank yes Jim Caulkins Dan yesy sahide yes and chairman prair yes you should still make take a vote on the variance on the variance yeah so on the variance uh we're uh looking at the U the four unit make a motion to deny second motion and second uh on the motion John Frank

yes Jim ckins Dan dear yes Ricky sah yes chairman perer yes thank you thank you number four Simpson Lane realy LLC here of attorney marel 11 136 139 Irving Street map j16 lot 20 the applicant seeks a variance to construct a three family dwelling waving lot area and lot coverage in a g General zoning district for the record again attorney Mark L1 138 Rock Street for of Massachusetts I'm representing the

applicant on this property and what this is a property that uh the last couple within the last two years had contained a uh a five family residential unit uh the building inspector um felt that we could not rebuild uh he had his own reasons for that believing that a that a wall had a stand although the walls were there and the foundation was there at the time of the fire and required my

client uh last year to tear down by an order the building all together down to the foundation so my client now has a a large lot the area again had a five family unit that pretty much took up the entire parel there was no off street parking on that property at the time our client is now uh proposing to build rebuild a brand new three family dwelling on this premises and he will

provide six parking spaces two per per unit on the property there were four parkes oh they were yeah oh well sound corrected there were he said there were four parking spaces of the five unit building uh but now there will be six parking spaces there with a residential so this is asking just for you to wave the area in the lock coverage because the use is permitted in this area so we're asking that again

there's property that had had a building there for over a hundred years uh now be allowed to instead of the five unit that my client believed and at one point thought the building inspector agreed it could be rebuilt as a 5unit is now short 700 ft to conform to allow a 3unit building uh you're talking about a neighborhood that are all three four six uh two family unit buildings uh having

this property with a a three family building which is a smaller footprint that would had been originally existing before set back from the street that had not been before where the original building went right up to the street before provides a a good buffer for the neighborhood it allows the uh all the traffic to come and be pocked on the property and provides a usefulness of a property that we had believed at one

point would have been be able to rebuilt but uh you know sometimes not worth fighting City Hall and to provide something then go through years of uh prolonged litigation uh we think it's a good use uh it's conforming to that neighborhood uh but unfortunately we are uh are missing two of the the dimensions that we can't conform with which is area and lock

coverage other the sheet 7,300 ft so there's they need 8,000 for three next sheet so we're short 72 32 yeah 700 Square ft roughly we're short right so it's the Minimus when you're talking about the size of a lot in in this neighborhood and coverage lock coverage is supposed to be 25% I think they said it's they give an actual calculation of total impervious area yeah which is just slight more so

64% it was actually existing at 62% right because they're putting more parking spaces down correct that's not so they took an account of the parking what what side of the 30X 60 unit will the points of egress be I'm assuming these are townhouse style so on the driveway no need for any Stoops Landings no so that you're going to walk open the door and you're going to be on pavement nothing impeding that

driveway of 10 ft wide no that like I said earlier that's shifted over the the original Foundation was more to the left no no I I know I understand that but I'm just saying right now the new doors that you're going to install when you open the door within 8 inches you're stepping onto the paved driveway there's not going to be an elevated land so elevation wise you're going to be okay

not to provide steps Landings that may imped the width of this driveway yeah okay so so you're stuck with this footprint so that bump out on the side on the souths side is basically an entrance for you type situation or yes okay yes I don't have any issues with it all right any other questions from the board well before the board does vote so in response to the lot coverage issue yeah

we've talked about this before with with the new implementation of site plan review a small amount of even any amount of lot coverage increase originally all the lot coverage calculations were based upon R off we now require infiltration components and and everything else so we can offset any increase in lot coverage by requiring some type of infiltration during site plan review okay very good anyone in the AUD

audience here uh wishing to speak in favor of the petition is that a nod no anyone wishing not you anyone wishing to speak in opposition they're hearing none it's the uh to the board second okay Motion in second on the motion uh Ricky sahi yes Dan de yes Jim ckins uh John Frank yes and chairman Prairie yes thank you very much thank you have a good evening we'll maybe we'll see you

next month if I can figure out where I can get to Pocky everybody else can find parcking out there so come on go to Belmont put on your comfor shoes she was just saying she rent spes so well be paying for Paula fory care of Attorney Peter acelino being being portrayed this evening by uh uh 212 Barlo street map J10 lot 61 and 1950 Pleasant Street map J10 lot 62 the applicant seeks variance relief from

86 uh attachment one and two the city of Fall River zoning ordinance uh to divide alter property known as 212 Barlo Street consisting of 1580 feet there from and adding area to the property known as 1950 Pleasant Street so that the water line for 1950 Pleasant Street is entirely within its boundaries uh property proposer requires waivers for front and side yard setback and lock coverage uh as it relates to

J12 Barlo Street and the newly created 1950 Pleasant Street requires waiver from lot area the properties are located in a g Central and BN neighborhood shopping zoning District good evening good evening Scott Adams from Advanced Engineering Group representing the applicants here in this matter um simplistically both of these properties are in Comm the same family of ownership uh one of the family

members is wishing to consider selling one of the properties in the near future so they're trying to kind of clean up some outstanding issues both the water line and we found out the sewer line was installed in the same trench goes onto the rear portion of the property which is the 212 Baro Street which is owned by her mother and that's where also their their driveway is currently and I got

photos and pictures I can show you folks uh to show the this area more clearly so what the applicant's looking to do at 1950 is basically carve out a 15ot strip that goes up to basically the existing edge of pavement that's there now um and then just allow basically what they've been how they've been living for the past several decades here um to just be basically formalized there's no building

additions no increased impervious no other setbacks any of the buildings are going to change other than carving out that 15t strip what's unique about this property and kind of uh caus us to bring in Mr celino and and obviously conversations with the city is the fact that it crosses two zoning lines the BN zone is the shopping the neighborhood shopping district which technically doesn't even allow single or three

family dwellings within it majority of the properties fall within the gzone which is as you know the general residence Zone um for the most part the partials are generally consistent with um the requirements of a g they're not consistent at all with the requirements of a BN District so you know four to five of the of the BN District requirements they don't meet either now or in the future but majority of Zone G

would be compliant for 1950 under its existing conditions and it would also be compliant under its proposed conditions under Zone G so that's I guess part of the conversation it gets a little muddy I guess for lack of a better chance with which which relief we're seeking but again we're not adding any impervious we're not increasing the the coverage area we're simply changing the internal lot line between the two

Parcels to include uh the driveway to the to that that's servicing and has been servicing 1950 and also their water and sewer line locations that are below grade I do have a bunch of photos and Boards I'd be happy to pull them out but you guys have been here for a while so I don't want to do it unless you really need want me to and I have handouts too if you if you

want them that has photos of the areas that show it from the street view as well as different angles from up top instead of boards if attorney s will stay home next

time I have no issue with it Mr chairman eliminating you know on their own grounds what we try to ask people to do and get rid of these types of encroachments so not an issue it's actually sense petition questions guys I'll ask the question anybody here wishing to speak in favor of the petition anyone wishing to speak in opposition they're hearing none Let's uh let's act on the petition gentlemen

bring with the petition second questions on the petition on the uh motion none uh on the petition on the motion rather um John Frank yes Jim ckins Anda Ricky sah and chairman per yes appreciate it thank you selo no there was no J Jiu-Jitsu involved tonight was not I'm sure I'm sure he'll be watching that thank you he's three hours behind us right now uh where are we number six

live was that never said live never said live VI fundo 915 County Street uh map k99 lot 41 the applicant seeks a special permit to convert the pre-existing non-conforming mixed use building into four residential apartment units leaving two apartments on the upper level and converting the existing restaurant space uh and two additional dwelling units waving lot area lot coverage setbacks uh

number of units allowed and parking requirement in G General zoning District uh in an unprecedented uh Quirk the entire board has recuse themselves because this is closing oils so that's I I figured that could be a problem um but it's going to happen anyways um so uh good evening for the record Jeff Tolman from Northeast engineers and Consultants here representing Vic fagundo the

applicant for the on the special permit for 915 County Street um the property as you are well aware uh is the oil's restaurant which is on the ground level uh it's roughly around 3,000 s fet gross floor area and there are two residential apartment units uh above it uh the property is located in the general residence gzone uh the structure uh itself is non-conforming due to front side and rear

setbacks um and the the lot currently exceeds the lot coverage requirement uh the use the restaurant use of the uh of the the building is also non-conforming in nature and the lot itself is non-conforming due to uh lot area does have does have this sufficient Frontage but it does not uh meet the lot area requirement for the uh for the second residential unit that's what um makes it non-conforming so quite simply what

we're looking for is a special permit to convert the ground level the restaurant portion of the uh building into two residential apartment units approximately 15 square feet GL for glow for area each um what we are proposing to do uh since it would no longer be required is to take the existing loading area which is located on the west side of the building and add uh two off street parking spaces

um one per unit one per uh additional unit that we we'd be adding uh there's also the potential uh within the two stall garage to provide uh two more two additional off street parking spaces but that would um you know require stacking uh which I believe would still fall under the same relief that we're looking for in terms of the special permit for the parking requirements um you know the

proposed uh you know the proposed change to the structure would bring the the structure into uh closer into compliance with the zoning ordinance um and I would submit to the board that the proposed use um the prop poos conversion of the restaurant into two residential uh apartment units uh would be would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood uh to the existing

nonconforming use simply because of the uh the amount of parking that would be required for the two residential units as opposed to a restaurant of that size a 3,000 foot restaurant so with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board might have how many units upstairs now two just two yes um in the new units existing I I want to say the exist in a good size they're either three or four I'm not

100% positive um the new units I would not like to uh restrict it they're probably going to be the same either three or four um depending on how the layout ends up getting done downstairs I mean there's sufficient area there these These are good size units so yeah I always thought there were more upstairs to be honest with it so there got to be pretty big units they are yeah there was a I I

believe at one time there was a function room on the second floor that was converted into a residential unit so that's no permits of crossbow we're cleaning it all that up right now yes we're getting rid of a non-conforming commercial use in the G District yeah yep I agree I agree I agree uh dangerous question it doesn't really have to do with your petition where are the people where are the apartments

upstairs parking now do we know on the street strictly yeah there's no Wall Street parking for the residents of of the structure now because of the driveway is used for the loading area for the restaurant right um they don't have access to the existing no no that's access for Peppers bar sh deliv um yeah okay so the the spaces in the back would be assigned to these two units to people the two new

units correct suddenly decide to yeah which would make these because of the ramp that they have for loading in the back I mean the units would be considered ADA Compliant Ada accessible um so with those parking spots in the back they'd be able to to um access that with the ramp okay and there's always tons of on street parking as long as the restaurants not open yeah so the the

offset of that and I also looked today there is a an assigned handicap space in front of the building now right which I'm assuming could be eliminated um it's up to the city providing well no somebody would have to petition to have it taken down but if it was for a restaurant use then it could technically provide an additional space on the street somebody in the house handicap well that's what in the back they they

can actually provide accessibility with the ramp so yeah the the two second units wouldn't be accessible yeah they're not an ADA are accessible so you're saying there's going to be 12 to 16 bedrooms in this structure potentially I want to say I I I'm not certain if they're three or four um I I want to I think they might it'll tell you how many bedrooms are upstairs

if you get to the uh I think it might be three it'll give you a total bedroom count if you get the building square footage tab total bom n there you go two units it says yeah number units too you sure you looking at the right one number say six two three bedrooms yeah that's what they proposing downstairs I'm assuming but it they may be four I I with 1500 square ft each right yes each

unit yeah so chances are they're going to be three yeah but we don't have a layout of you know how that's going to work out so I if you're concerned with the with the parking demand you can limit it to three not that that's really going to limit the number of people going into a three in comparison to a four right it's a matter of kids either share a room or they don't share a room

and again I mean the park and demand with those two units even if they are four is going to be far less than what the restaurant requires your right yeah they don't own it

yeah so if we vote to J this down to those stay open no unfortunately no sadly no that's done all right anyone here to speak in favor be quiet anybody here to speak against none okay what do we think guys we can have a we can have a wake for the restaurant some other day remember it's all special permit no variances correct so bated yeah yep yeah so I would make

the proposal that uh the I would make the motion that the proposal is not substantially more detrimental to the area you can put them together if you want and and there Point yeah and then the second part of that would be to approve as requested second we have a second motion on a second no conditions then on the motion John Frank and I'm sorry that's with a total of four off street parking spaces yep yes

has presented on the plan yeah uh yes very good Jim ckins yes Dan dear I'm no on this you no okay Ricky sah yes chairman Prairie yes thank you thank you do you have the next one too yes number seven Jill link zero Horton Street map k 19 lot 103 the applicant seeks a variance to divide the existing parcel into two lots lot one would be 6,700 square ft with 64 uh

I'm sorry 6839 ft of Frontage on uh Earl Street and 9 9.33 feet of front of John County Street on which a three family dwelling townhouse would be built waving lot area and lot coverage lot two would be a 5,000 ft lot with 50 ft of furniture on Horton Street and 11.05 ft of furniture on County Street on which a single family dwelling would be built waving lot coverage requirements the property is located in

a g General zoning District okay good evening for the record uh Jeff Tolman from Northeast engineers and Consultants representing an ojil Inc on this uh application uh this this property is the oo's parking lot which is located uh one block south of the restaurant uh located between Earl Street and hton Street on County Street um there is access currently access off of Earl Street on

the North side and an access that's currently blocked off but there there is a curb cut in an opening on hton Street um what we're looking to do is to take this property and divide it into two lots the property itself is located again in the general residence uh zoning District similar to the restaurant uh um the parking lot was purchased by the owners of oils in 1995 which was 5 years

after the restaurant so uh as the restaurant got busy and and they had a need for expanded parking they they purchased this uh property um from the I believe it was the funeral home that that we had a previous application earlier tonight on across the street that was in control of this um I think it was schwi on funeral home so uh again they purchased this in 1995 us for

parking um you know business at the at the restaurant has slowed down quite a bit there is no real need for this um it's it's it is still used on occasion from what I understand but it's primarily used by the commercial uh auto repair facility across the street they use it to uh to park cars more so than the restaurant does at this point so what we're looking to do is to create

these two lots um the two lots themselves uh Lots one and two are would be considered conforming Lots uh lot one would be a conforming 6, 6700t lot with uh legal Frontage of 99.33 feet on County Street which would exceed the the frontage on ear Street of the 68.3 n and then lot two would be a conforming 5,000 foot lot with 50 fet of Frontage on Horton Street where a single

family house could be built um so since the lots are conforming the reason we are here is that we're seeking a variance to allow a third unit to be constructed on lot one um given the size of the lot the 6700 square feet uh that would be sufficient for a two family uh style house which is allowed in the gzone um but what we're looking for is to add an additional unit a third unit

on that lot uh for a structure that would comply uh to the zoning setbacks um on that property and the reason we're doing this is we we feel we have a hardship uh given the shape of this lot it's it's such an irregular shaped lot that we we're losing uh you know some value on the the single family house lot lot two it is rather irregular shaped um in an effort to uh rather than just put

a straight line going across the back we um shifted that line8 and a half ft to the north to in order to get the 5,000 s f feet required for the lot but by doing so uh it is a very odd-shaped lot um but it does again comply to zoning um so lot one again would be sufficient for a two unit but because of the uh the high ship that we're dealing with with the shape

of the lot um as opposed to if we had you know an 11,7 700 foot lot with you know 78 ft deep uh 78 ft deep which both both these lots are we'd be able to have more conforming Lots we'd be able to have like a 65 foot wide conforming single family house lot and a like 85t wide conforming two Family House lot but um you know there is quite a bit of loss

that the value of the Lots uh especially the single family house lot due to the configuration required in order to uh to bring that into compliance with zoning so that's the reason we're here for uh requesting this particular variance uh the other thing we're looking for here is uh relief on lot coverage uh the lot coverage currently uh for the entire property is around 90% so it's well over

the allowed lot coverage in the in the gzone um what we're looking to do uh based on the uh designs that we have before you is is is to ask for an increase in lot coverage requirement which would be a drastic reduction in the lot coverage from where it stands now lot one would go from 94% down to 69% uh with this proposed design and lot two would go from 86% down to

45 um both of the Lots would have the required off street parking spots based on the number of units on them uh so that would not be issue the the the structures themselves would comply to the zoning setbacks um the only dimensional relief that we'd be looking for again would be the the lot coverage um issue but again starting at 90% and dropping it down drastically on both Lots uh it's still going to be an

improvement over the existing condition so I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board might have I have a question about lot two yes and this is in regard to the retaining wall yes that runs through that mhm and I know it's high in in some sections I don't know how high it is on the Horton Street end that you know where where the house is going to sit so you have a an 11t

setback from the from the edge of the the building MH to the property line correct but how big is that concrete retaining wall along the side of that house and then how much space is left between the house and the retaining wall well there'd be about um I can tell you exactly but it would be about four or five feet which would be sufficient for a walkway um I'm showing it it would be right

around four and a half feet um in that wall that concrete retaining wall tape is down to zero basically at hton Street yeah um then it rises as you go north towards Earl Street and then where it turns 90 Dees and runs parallel to ear Earl Street is where it's at its highest okay and then it tape is back down as you get closer to ear street so you get beyond the house before this thing

starts blocking Windows BAS basically yes correct okay correct and the idea would be to to keep in place if possible without having to relocate it because that would be a considerable expense as well uh in order to gain I mean it would there's sufficient land there um so it may be worthwhile but well what's interesting is is the is the owner of uh what number Horton is that I'm sorry that's yeah 98 are they

are they just you know are they happen are they using that land up across the top of the wall no it's all vegetated it's all overgrown and stuff like that yeah now they have a pretty decent sized parking facility on that lot uh because there were there's nine units on that particular lot yeah okay so and and again I mean with the three units that we're proposing um when you look at the

previous application directly across the street they had earlier tonight and the number of units that they were requesting um and also when you look at the surrounding area um you know it's mostly multif family dwellings in excess of of you know two units anywhere from three and above on these properties so we don't think we're out of line with the neighborhood by requesting that additional

unit there some there's some townhouse s units further down ear street that are similar in nature to this y the garage under type situation if I'm not mistaken um and the parking makes sense so you've got so you've got single opening on uh Earl Street single opening then on County Street yeah we're going to utilize the existing curb Cuts we're able to utilize those to get four parking spots off at

Earl and then uh the same on same thing on Horton Street we'd have to put a new um curb cut in off a County Street to get those two parking spots for unit c um the multi two story housing units I yes yes so each the building layout is similar to the one on Spring Street the uh townhouse style yeah y compact but nice okay uh before I turn to the board for

questions Dan what do you think I I have no issues with it at all um all the way down to technically I mean lot coverage relief isn't required because they uh you're reducing the lot coverage so I thought that was very very well done very well laid out yeah I'm loving the triplex lot that's that's super well done very nicely done even the the single is was nicely done so having said

that and I know this was part of the ear discussion to um penth house are we the helicopter P you are bound by the footprint shown on these plants period well but if we're not asking for Relief on lot two no no lot two no okay no and that's that's the only one I the lot coverage yeah we can we can certainly be hold to the was which shouldn't be unlimited anyway

45% no but it's it's technically 100 well no it's Tech technically 86 so we're held to 86 I think we're going to be fine okay no that that was the only thing I want a clarification on because it is a conforming lot and we are conform at the setback so we're really not asking on for any relief on that particular L yeah no my only problem with that I just needed to understand

where that whole retaining wall situation was so sure it's a little odd y all right lot that's more that more has happened in that neighborhood tonight than I know an upgrade right in the last 17 years good thing we didn't pave all these streets may be ripping them up so maybe now we can get them cleaned up you don't have to break an axle driving up County Street any questions from the board

guys I'll ask it because it's the law anybody here in favor anyone here we should speak against okay all right the wake is requested in the plan second God we give away variances man we're so cool um we have a motion second on the motion any questions then on the motion Ricky Sahar yes Dana Pier yes Jim Caulkins John Frank yes Jam per yes thank you very much good luck with it guys that's

awesome all right eight was gone citizens input approval of minutes I heard we have no minutes table them I need I need a motion to table though motion to table motion to table on the minutes so can I get a second second on that motion to table in the minutes by simple vote all in favor I opposed I will take yes you didn't say I I'm sorry motion to adjourn motion to

adjourn I'll take that as a second all in favor I I thank you everyone that was fun thank you thanks for coming out tonight