4.20.2023 Zoning Board of Appeals

worlds good evening I'm Joseph Pereira chairman of the zoning board of appeals for the city of Fall River it is 6 p.m on Thursday April 20th 2023.

we are meeting at one government center and the first floor hearing room pursuant to Massachusetts General Law chapter 30A section 20 subsection F I hereby notify all persons in attendance that this meeting is being recorded with both video and audio devices Fall River government TV Craig Salvador is recording both the video and audio version if anyone desires to make an audio video or

combination recording thereof of this meeting please notify me now and I shall make a public announcement of your intention there being none our recording clerk this evening is Nina Krueger sitting to my immediate right present this evening our permanent members John Frank Jim Calkins Dan De Pere Ricky sahady and myself as chairman we also have two alternate members sitting this evening John Sylvia and Eric Kelly

uh present also from government are Dan aguiar at the my far left our director of engineering and planning and Chris Perino our assistant um planner at my extreme right it's quite the roll call isn't it yeah Nina have all petitions to be considered been properly advertised and all interested parties notified in accordance with the rules and regulations of the zoning board of appeals in Massachusetts General Law

chapter 48.

I declared the April 20th 2023 regularly scheduled meeting of the zoning board of appeals open for such business as shall regularly come before it I will remind all persons presenting before the board including petitioners of Butters anyone in support or opposed to the petition that your presentations should be limited to three minutes questions and responses must be directed through the chairman

the board's rules and regulations excuse me direct the board to specifically look for information which supports the petitioner's claim as such petitioners should identify and factually support the basis for the petition I hereby advise petitioners and all interested persons that this board is the zoning board of appeals and the board's Authority exists pursuant to Massachusetts General Law 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 River additional permits licenses reviews and or approvals may be required for the specific development and or the use which is the subject of your petition before the zoning board this evening the clerks in the building planning engineering and Licensing departments

are competent in the discharge of their duties as clerks they are however not attorneys and not competent to give legal advice the action taken by this board has a real and Lasting effect upon the title of your your real estate I urge all petitioners to see competent legal counsel before filing your petitions and after the decision of the board has been made for example there is a city ordinance

25-11 section 10-11 requiring site plan reviews a copy of the ordinance is available at the city clerk's or office or from the planning department I remind everyone that the building inspector is the zoning enforcement Authority and you are here this evening because the building inspector has determined that your proposed action is contrary to the city of Fall River zoning ordinances

the city Charter sections section 9-18 mandates that all multiple member bodies develop and adopt rules for public I'm sorry our policies for public comment we have adopted such a policy which in short provides for citizen input on zoning board specific matters at the end of the meeting if you wish to uh speak before the board at the end of the meeting there is a sign up sheet on the

table just outside the the doors to the room I disclose that an official copy of the zoning ordinances is available in the city clerk's office one cannot rely on the online zoning ordinances with that if there are no questions we shall begin I shall Begin by starting my new notebook all right we go straight do we have no old business so into new business item number one David paveo care of attorney

Arthur D Frank I believe attorney Joseph Macy is uh is representing this evening the property in question is 1000 Blossom Road map w-15 lot 30. the applicant seeks a special permit to construct a 40 by 40 foot by 80 foot garage exceeding height and area requirements in the r80 single family zoning district with a wwd water and Watershed and water supply overlay District good evening Mr

chairman members of the board the record my name is Joseph Macy I'm appearing in conjunction with Arthur Frank's appearance we have an office at 209 Bedford Street I represent the petitioner David Pavo who was here in the front row and his son Derek who is the resident of the property in question um the request tonight is to erect a 40 by 80 garage on the property maximum height would be 20 feet

other than the area the building would conform with zoning because it's got plenty of setbacks that's a large L-shaped lot and to Grant the relief requested the board has to make a couple of findings under our zoning and the single families owning to Grant the special permit the board has to find that the proposed structure is consistent with neighboring structures and it will not impact the use and

enjoyment of the abutting properties that property is located on Blossom Road which I would characterize as a rural area the Lots there are big some of the houses are fairly new and some of them are quite old uh the house next to the subject property is an older dwelling with a large barn and most of the people up and down that street have large Lots good setbacks some of them have

farm implements on the property some of them have trucks but basically it it it's quite rural particularly for Fall River it's a budding I guess the reservation which brings me to the fact that we also need to in order to receive this special permit that the board finds it's in harmony with and consistent with the intent and purposes of the Watershed and water supply Protection District

it's appropriate to the national natural topography it won't have an adverse environmental impact on any aquifer and it won't affect adversely any existing developed or planned water supply and is consistent with existing a probable future development of contiguous areas as I said the area is rural the houses are well kept fairly substantial most of them appear so I my eye and by measurement to be about an acre

with respect to the Watershed our property which has the existing house and you see where the proposed garage is is L-shaped be kind I'm going to call it behind our property is vacant land a power easement and then west of the power easement you come to the what I would call a watershed although I know it's all Watershed and the north what's up a pond I suggest that the building in question which I we

submitted Plaza is appropriate it won't take up an inordinate amount of space it is going to be used solely for his personal property now he does have some equipment which he will store inside he has a construction business but the construction business has a location uh off of Brayton Avenue near the beginning of the uh quicker Sharon rail trail so any concerns of what might have

about this building being used for his construction business Derek is here and his father is here and I can tell you on their behalf that they have no intention of using it or anything other than their own property now if you go up and down that road as I did you'll see the personal property in that area can be a little bigger than the average wheel barrel and lawnmower but um they they have a substantial

amount of land and I guess you could see the proposed garage from the street but I think in keeping with the neighborhood and the protection of the Watershed it's it's an appropriate use so at this point I think we are able to satisfy the requirements of both 86 466 and 86 435 and I'd ask the boy to Grant the request I think I said this but I'll repeat it Derek payroll lives there and his father David

owns the property they're both here to answer any questions you might have if I can't answer them very good thank you um it's it's true most people that don't know Fall River or even if they know Fall River Drive down that uh that that road and into that section and it's hard to believe it's uh it's part of the city it's actually quite nice out there and you're right very rural uh so this

is specifically non-business for the garage absolutely so this would just be for cars ATVs equipment and possessions similar to what you see in the other yards almost everybody seems to have a truck or two somebody's got a whole idea collections house right next door which is oh there actually has probably more possessions and property than anybody else but it actually fits in with the neighborhood but um the reason

Derek wants to build the garage is to store his personal property and um keep it safe and away from the elements make sense um it's just a small thing on on the application I noticed that variance was not checked off on this but variants a reason for variances is specified no hardship was was brought in just checking boxes at this point we're looking for a special permit which I think that's why we cited the uh the

ordinances and we comply with the exception a special permit we comply with the exception of the size of the building the setbacks are at it more than adequate you're correct although questions from board members at this point yeah your honor you're referred to section 86 435 as the second criteria second why you referred to me I don't see that exception appropriate for the natural photograph

topography yeah well well I I what exception are you that's 86 345

of it under 466. yeah 466 special permit at least that I mean um 446 is 466 is a separate section right and if it weren't in the Watershed Protection District we it would only be applying on the 86 460 sales it's going to be a single story yes but eight 18 feet it's to do you said no more than 20. ordinance requires or specifies a maximum of 18 feet this

will be a 20 feet at the peak and access to it uh what side is the driveway going to be on if um along the tree line oh from Blossom Road if you go up and paved driveway um yes and then you take a right left back L is gravel that will be the access to the uh the proposed garage so there won't be any necessity for curve Cuts although there's no curves out there anyway right

um

yeah the circular driveway already exists so you're just going to come off of that anything else John bathroom are you are you going to put a restroom in the garage no he said I don't think so no it's simply storage and the they have the pool and they have uh the house there's no separation so the the answer to direct answers no anyone else except one question you had mentioned earlier that he may bring

equipment home from his business site it's well number one that's not the intention and number two um but you had mentioned it previously I just want to get confident I just want to you're right I just want to make sure the board understands there's no need desire or necessity to do that because they have a separate I call it the staging area a separate location for their construction equipment so it

actually be counterproductive for them to bring some of it home I'm not saying they won't ever bring a pickup truck home but that's absolutely a barn for personal this is the property near you said near the quickest hand is that the area that they're building up now it's across this is across the street it's where the big Ledges at the beginning of to get on the real Trail you'd have to take a right off Brighton

Avenue and just once you get on the rail trail this is to the left okay so they have they have a decent amount of heavy equipment in that area fairings things down enough room he rented it and I think I just want to reiterate he lives there so he's not interested in bringing his work home having a roll of backhoes across the back of the property yeah I get it any other questions from the board

uh anything from planning on this Tim um first I'll offer that the board can only act on the request with regards to a special permit to 86 466. no request was made with regards to 86 341 Watershed and water supply Protection District so if you grant a special permit on the 86 466 the applicant will have to comply with all regulations of the water Watershed and water supply Protection District we

we know that we intend to do it you said you wanted another special equipment from that section I was citing both sections aware that we comply with both sections we understand we're in a waterfront a water CAD development district and we understand that there are special regulations which apply to us right including 345 which deals with special permits just for that section I just

want to make sure that you're getting the relief you need and you may not have to come back again but if if you're ashamed that the fee under that section so let's say you can't Grant a special permit unless it is in compliance with uh well there's that section but but in the application and yeah it doesn't have that now they did not so you're not looking at this division four at all you're only dealing

with the size of Destruction tonight anything else in the zoning by wall he needs to comply with so when he submits for site plan review the response will be do you comply with sections division four 86 341 through three whatever it is 51. uh 351 which is all of the different requirements of what's allowed in that overlay District none of that is being waived tonight so just to be clear I want to make sure

that they feel that they can comply with all of those sections and then also under 86 466 that that you're moving I would call out that the proposed structure is 3 200 square feet 40 by 80.

um and when you read 86 466 really the only sentence that that matters having to do with the issue in such a special permit States the zombie board of appeals May Grant a special permit for the construction of a garage or shed in excess of the maximum size provided the board finds that the scale of the proposed structure is consistent with neighboring structures and that the proposed structure will not impact the

use and enjoyment of the abutting properties I don't know what other structure this 40 by 80 garage is consistent with so just it's very simple with what you need to look at so you need you need to make the determination that it's consistent with structures in the neighborhood neighborhood there are barns out there there are you know other right but others because we want the 40 by 80 because it's bigger

than the 750 square feet but if if you when you go out there it's more than consistent with other structures in the area so there are there are structures that are 3 200 square foot garages and barns in that area the house right next door um well there's a plan that shows a barn next door doesn't seem anywhere close to the size of this one yeah may not seem that way on the plan I want

to assume that they drew it to scale however it's a typical old I would call it a Westport Barn because you don't have a lot of bonds well I understand but the Bible says and it's consistent with abutting structures and if you take the two stories and get the square footage and the cubic footage it's bigger it's higher than this it's not bigger across the street which doesn't show on the plan uh there's a

barrage pretty sizable that looks like it straddles to um two properties but farther up the hill um on this side there's a very long fairly low structure I'd say the structure probably has a roof of 16 feet so there this size particularly in that configuration on that size lot which is I think almost an acre is consistent with other properties in the area okay if the boy feels comfortable with that then

that's for your all determinations thank you anything else oh and then I also don't see in the application anywhere or on the advertisement what the height of the structure was to be we're being told 20 feet tonight but I didn't see that as part of the application I think you can still deal with it but it might have been fair to people to possibly understand what the height of the structure would be okay

we got a complete set of plans I I no there's no where we have a site plan that says a 40 by 80 garage it doesn't say it's 20 feet high no it doesn't yeah that's why I said it to me so it should have been in the education it should have been in the advertisement it should be in the public notice well it can also and we would have no objection

to the boy putting it in its findings not more than 20 feet which which based upon testimony I would hope when when the motion is made that that be included difficult so anyone here to speak in favor of this petition if the owner and um it could just be recorded in favor anyone to speak in opposition to the petition take the gentleman on the hat first if you could stand and get too close close

enough to a microphone identify yourself with your address please Castle I live at 1025 Blossom Road directly across from one thousand Blossom Road um Mr Franken Brazil sorry Joe Macy okay Mr Macy mentioned that uh I have a long building in the back of my property it's eight feet high it's 25 by 60. it's on my deed it was back in the 50s and 60s it was at literally a dog kennel

so you know choose to obviously for lawn mowers and stuff like that you know um you know nothing personal obviously but uh you know it is a watershed area growing up in that neighborhood I've lived there since 1968 and you know it's always been water protect you know watershed protected area to this day now they don't even put rock salt down out in that neighborhood being a diesel mechanic

I work for the city I know what it's like to see um hydraulic spills I see equipment there's construction equipment on the property construction equipment rules out at any whiz between 4 30 and 5 o'clock every morning I know the gentleman here mentioned that it's not going to be used for construction purposes there's a lot of construction equipment on this on the property I do recognize that I've seen it on

Brighton Avenue on my way to work every day but it is kept on Blossom Road there's a lot of equipment there my concern would be a spill um this proposed building is perhaps between 500 and 800 feet from the right from the edge of the pond I know the area very well I was brought up there excuse me you know it's nothing personal I'm probably one of four houses on

Blossom Road that actually has a view to the pond in this particular building right here takes care of that and we will never see the water again that being said gentlemen young lady I yield okay I appreciate that thank you and the other gentleman I think there was just two of you good evening this is uh with my comments my name is Mike labos here I work at 2929 Blossom Road I'm the city of Fall River

water department Forester the reservation our church I speak tonight on behalf of the what's up a water board and the community Department of Community utilities we wish to express opposition to the application seeking a special permit to construct the 40 by 80 garage on the premises of 1000 Blossom Road property is presently not in compliance with Rd residential zoning the property has not been in compliance

since Fall River Building Inspector Glenn Hathaway received numerous complaints from Neighbors in 2019. at that time inspector Hathaway visited the property and spoke to the owner present use of the property also exceeds the intent and purpose established within city ordinance chapter 86 division 4 sections 341-351 The Watershed and water supply Protection District regulations the parcel is within one thousand feet

of the city's primary drinking water supply Reservoir what the Northwoods up a pond um continued use of the parcel um for storage of large numbers of vehicles as well as construction materials presents an unnecessary burden of risk of contamination and other environmental degradation addressed within this ordinance neither the city Norwich resident should be asked to accept this risk when

ordinance specifically prohibits it issuing a special permit for this building will only serve to sustain and promote expansion of a non-conforming use this represents a nuisance to neighbors and a risk to the city's water supply we respectfully ask that you deny this request very good if I may miss the chairman yes we could have addressed on site many of Mr Liberty's objections if we

had known about them nobody contacted us secondly um we are happy to live with any restrictions the board puts on with respect to construction equipment now um if the board wants to take the site visit we'll make that available to the board I would point out that I didn't point out in my original presentation between the back line of this property and the pond which I'll take his measurements I thought it was farther

away there's a very wide utility easement threat with I'll I'll say huge Towers they probably the standard size high power line um that uh probably sits on a 40 or 50 foot wide easement area generally they take a bigger reason those lines I'm sure are inspected from time to time by Vehicles if there's any repairs necessary heavy equipment has to go there I can understand if they thought were

going to operate construction vehicles there why they might object but as I said they're gonna they're not going to be there they're going to be inside there might be one truck on the property today that I don't think is going to stay there but I'll just repeat myself he has a construction site off site where he stores and operates his construction business Mr chairman I've heard several times of training me

so you mentioned this on personal property owned and not business property um listening to Mr ASCO listening to you um I said this I'm sort of confused what is the Nuance that separates personal property from business property because if there's something stored at the business and it's brought home isn't that personal property now does it not become personal property so I'm not sure what the what the nuances that

separates it to well I'll tell you what I mean and the blog can debate it as they will in that area including the house next door not Mr castles there were a number of houses properties that have farm implements um plows rakes that's personal property but it could also be used for business what I understood what I understand the objection might be or would be is because he has a construction business

people might legitimately be concerned that he have road graders backhoes construction equipment stored in that Bond or in that garage which is why he's not building it so the difference between business property and personal property I understand what you're talking about and if I have a car and I use it for deliveries that might be a business purpose but I suppose I could say construction

equipment and that might have made a little made it a little more definite but um I don't know what else to say other than uh welcome to come out if you want to take a view well uh welcome to uh restricted however you want to do and and with all due respect my biggest problem is the fact that although you mentioned division four in the criteria as pointed out by our planning director it's not

even included in the application itself so to me the biggest issue here is the fact that it's in the Watershed overlay that it is within a thousand feet of the pond itself and that wasn't even fully addressed I mean at this point in time you know again as as Mr agaya pointed out we can't even address the whole issue here so I don't know how you want to proceed we can we can proceed

and act upon the application that we have based upon the presentation tonight but it's not complete in my eye well I mean it would be complete for the relief that was requested right but that that may not get him to a building permit he may need to come back at another time may may or may not they may be able to submit site plan review that shows that they're in compliance with everything in

the in those sections I didn't look at those sections for compliance because it wasn't part of the application but then it's a fine line because it whose purview is it under so as far as planning Kim oh no it would end up to the zoning enforcement officer determine whether or not he's applying that section of zoning and as you read through that section the level of Permitting that needs to go in

place to go it goes to a number of different agencies for permitting anything that that's allowed in that zoning District so there are other eyes but he would have no relief from anything listed in that section unless unless the building inspector just issued the permit a disregarded zoning which I don't think that would be the case yes let me suggest that um the table this matters so we can look at

it with respect to what we have to do after the fact the other regulations would have to satisfy that's for a different time and a different board and different regulations as I said before tonight we didn't have a chance to even hear from or talk to Mr labashi and after we talked to when we we may not have a conclusion anyway but I'd request that the matter be tabled so that we can

address the concerns raised by Mr Agnes and the other board members and that I don't and that'll be up to the board if they want to issue that in all due respect you pointed out that what would be needed in in your presentation would be the effect on or the consistency with the neighborhood and the consistency with basically division four and division four in in if not in whole in parts does fall under

the purview of the sport so we would for you to have a complete application we would have to act on division four as part of this so it's my opinion I leave it to the board somebody wants to make a motion to the table until next month I would make that motion Mr chairman I think that's the fair thing to do that you have a motion in a second any discussion on that is hearing none

um uh John yeah sorry is is a society on this is Mr sahadi on this yeah one two three four five no no it's all the city members are always he's not an alternate anymore okay sorry he's not an author anymore wow new digs see you fall asleep for one meeting that being the case on the uh on the motion John Frank yes Jim Coggins yes yes and chairman Prairie yes thank you very much thank you

item number two civitex PC fun meeting certain through the table or can they just be an openness all right I'm sorry

I'm sorry item number two Civics PC care of Attorney John J Coughlin the subject property is 472 Walnut street map m28 lot 57 the applicant seeks a variance to change the use of a structure from a single family residents to professional office building and an A2 apartment zoning District chairman members of the board Attorney John Coughlin of 57 North Main Street here on behalf of the applicant civitex

PC we're here tonight to request the variance to change the use of the structure of 472 Walnut Street from this residential property a single family to a professional office despite way of background civitex is a small family business operated by Michael and Ann Keane husband and wife and is here with me and Michael is sitting behind us they currently have an office in the city of Fall River and they are seeking

to relocate from their current business location to the Walnut Street property they're professional architectural firm most of their work is done in the city they do a lot of historic preservation projects um in this case they have no plans to change the structure of the building or the footprint of the building they're looking to restore this property and use it for an office use

they've received letters of support from both the historical commission and the Historical Society the business hours a normal a typical business hours Monday to Friday 8 A.M to 5 P.M they have currently three full-time employees two of them commute together to work they are not looking to expand the number of employees at the business this property does have a driveway for off-street parking to accommodate those

employees and due to the nature of the business most of their client meetings are off-site either at the client's office or online they very rarely have clients at the office they will be the only business located in this building so this is won't be multiple business it'll be just theirs this location in the past has been used as a business continuously since the 1980s there was previously a catering business and a

bookkeeping business at this location there are numerous single-family dwellings in this neighborhood that were constructed between the mid-1800s and the early 1900s they've been converted into multi-family uh residences or businesses so it's typical in this area of town to have this kind of conversion there's a business located across the street from this property and there are other businesses located on

the same block as this property the irony in this application is that currently in a commercial business location downtown which is being converted to residential so they're seeking to move into this historic building it's a nice project for the city I think it'll preserve this historic property without a tremendous amount of impact on the neighborhood and based on all of those factors we

would respectfully request that the board grants experience and will questions you can email very good it's one of my favorite houses in the city it's very unique architecturally and it would be great to see it restored um the catering business and this is just a curiosity because that was that was approved by this body actually not all that long ago 1984 there was a variance to operating a

catering business out of the basement kitchen of a single family home okay so still a single family there was no changes since 84.

2008 there was a special permit to operate a bookkeeping business from a single family home a variance sorry special sermon home progression for home occupation still it wasn't we were getting rid of the single family home conforming uh portion of the project where if this was a petition for living in the single family home and operating a business and meeting the requirements of that section limiting

you to the amount of square footage and everything else for the business part of it but that's not what's before you this is to convert the entire structure three full-time employees there is there is a driveway that can probably hold three or four vehicles I'm not sure um you consider your parking adequate for your needs at this location for the employees that you have now yes I will agree that I'm chasing those

architectural firms and engineering firms it's on site very subtle I have Engineers I've worked with for decades and I've never set foot in our office space um questions from the board at this point my concern is that we Grant a variance to right now we have a business that has very little uh customers coming in but if unless we put the proper restrictions on and that business gets sold at variance

applies to any business it moves into that property it would have to be a professional office that helps us the applications but the professional office could be a lot of professionals you know Law Firm accounting firm people coming going especially tax season trying to find places to park on the street it gets powered to put that protection into any consideration very good point Jim anyone else signage

an architecturally designed sign that that's what size we're not looking for neon lights or anything like that probably something that would be you know on the window glass or yeah or something that would be wooden or something that would um building non-illuminated no we're not we have enough work we're not looking this for us the previous granted relief for the bookkeeping business was a

non-illuminated three by three wall sign may be installed which technically still exists the sign doesn't exist physically but I'm just saying if they if they ever did it yeah they ever acted on that then they still have appointments we have a guideline okay and a permit I think we go we could live with the three something beautiful three by three Mr chairman yes my sister Jim's point also

um is it within the authority of this board if we Grant this request to put restrictions on it as such because it is granted in perpetuity but is it within our authority to designate what that is in other words in other words to Jim's point where you know it could be used if the building is sold and now we've granted the permit it could be used for a law firm or anything else right is it

within our authority to restrict I do not use it so because the professional office space is defined within our bylaw it's brought off so we can't really suddenly say you could probably tie it to required parking and that if the zoning enforcement officer determined that the change in use triggered additional parking spaces other than what's being provided then additional relief could be required

there there are a number of things that you could add in that would help would not solve the problem yeah we could never we cannot a woman you can narrow it down the best we can but we can't say it can only be you know so that that's unfortunately not unfortunately maybe fortunately outside of our purview so any other questions is there anyone in attendance this evening that would like to speak in

favor of the uh petition anyone to speak in opposition a case go to the board you want to discuss hours of operation yeah or potential hardship to hang your hat on variance not a special event yeah I have something that just popped into my brain here yeah um contractual engine uh so you don't own the building we don't own the building as that as the architectural business but we do on the

property as another business okay we are the school owners of that property so you are Langley property as well yes gotcha just making sure yeah so you're gonna rent to yourselves and the hours are actually listed yeah not in the request but in the detrimental portion so just I would make that a condition so that does leave the big question what is the hardship involved because it's a use variance and we're

not seeking any change in the structure or any dimensional changes it's not contrary to the public interest and this is a property that's been used in the past for businesses and it's in a neighborhood where other structures are being used similarly to this one to save and historic property as otherwise probably wouldn't be occupied it's always a tough part where they use variants because you're basically saying

we can't possibly use it for anything else but just the professional office can you can you tell us that I'm not trying to be sarcastic it's just I I you know I I want to cover our bases your basis it's nobody here in opposition so I you know I don't think I think the pitchforks and blazing torches outside the building spot but that doesn't mean that an appeal won't come from somewhere and you need

that's correct you need to hang your hat on something office space is the best use of this property it's historical to this property I think trying to convert it to residential would not be practical

members of this August panel would say you know I'm working with the British chap all week I'll make a motion to Grant with the condition of professional office use only hours of operation was stated I'm sorry it was nine two eight eight to five eight to five Monday Friday non-illuminated three by three wall sign Al minimum of three off street parking spaces the site plan is absolutely given yeah that's my motion

what's up

discussion on the motion additions and deletions to it at this point I think we covered ourselves as best as we can the case John Frank yes Jim Calkins yes Dan De Pere yes Ricky sahadi yes and chairman Prairie yes congratulations best of luck thank you very much

item number three I must refuse myself from this this item yeah uh Vice chair John Frank will chair and uh alternate member uh John Sylvia will be able to vote on this one will be an active member on this one

can you squeeze thank you okay

foreign item number three vertek towers LLC 42 Estes Lane map d04 lot 26.

application seeks to seeks a special permit to construct a 336 foot tall cell tower in the commercials I'm sorry 136 uh High cell tower and a commercial Mill District

system here

perfect uh good evening my name is Francis Parisi I'm an attorney with an office in Providence Rhode Island representing the applicant for a text Towers LLC we are here tonight seeking a special permit to construct a radio transmission tower with the real world calls it a cell tower at 42 Estes Lane which is a piece of property in the industrial commercial Mill District zoning District

by uh we don't need any variances we comply with the zoning by on our respects we're only here for a special permit by wave introduction vertex Towers is not a wireless cell phone company that you've heard of before like Verizon or at T where what we call a wireless infrastructure developer we build Wireless infrastructure and then lease space and what what's happened in the Telecommunications world is it the

names you've heard of like 18 T and Verizon have pretty much gotten out of the real estate business and have partnered up with various infrastructure developers like vertex in this particular case we've partnered up with ATT Wireless to help them improve their telecommunications coverage in the town of in the city of Fall River and so we are building this Tower primarily for a t but we're also agnostic in the sense

that we build infrastructure that supports multiple telecommunications companies uh with we so we built it with the requisite height and structural Integrity to accommodate multiple companies so that and we've already had some inquiries from T-Mobile and Verizon and we suspect as we get farther along in the process that we will have commitments from them as well I submitted a very extensive application

package that both required under the zoning bylaw and under um some federal regulations as this board is probably aware Wireless infrastructure development has great oversight by the federal government the federal government is very supportive of Wireless infrastructure development and it requires us to make sure we satisfy certain things and put certain restrictions on the board's ability to

regulate these facilities over and above Mass general laws I don't know that I need to sell Wireless telecommunications I know we all have a cell phone here I know it all works but the statistics are staggering more than there are now more Wireless subscribers and landline subscribers 50 of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is Wireless only and they've cut the landline 80 of 9-1-1 calls are made by

mobile phones and you know over the last several years people are working from home trying to educate from home and telecommuting and mobile technology has become more and more um required it's also becoming a public safety issue as people get more dependent on wireless phones they need to be able to get a quality signal in order to make a uh a 9-1-1 call and so um you know we just need to make sure we

keep cognitive to the fact that uh Public Safety and also your own Municipal Public Safety rely on Commercial networks as well as backup systems so we need to make sure that they have adequate telecommunications coverage uh this area of uh and and this area of Fall River the southern end of Fall River the 42 SDS Lanes is down um right off of Route 24 in the commercial Middle District at the

southern end of uh Fall River towards the Tiverton border and this area is a very heavily developed residential area with small pockets of commercial and some business on the other side of Route 24. and the The Dilemma that we have in the industry is that this is becoming more and more of a Residential Technology when we first started building these networks we thought we'd provide coverage along Route 195 and

Route 24 and Route 138 but as we've seen over the last several years people using them homes and so what we're trying to do is improve coverage in residential neighborhoods while still not having them with a significant impact on residential neighborhoods um why Estes Lane you know we've done a lot of research in the area we need tall structures and I know because I've been in front of this boy uh several times

many years ago there are exactly a lot of tall structures in Fall River and there actually are not a lot of new towers because of the fact that as an industry we've been able to utilize smokestacks and church Steeples and water tanks and other tall structures for the benefit of the industry but also for the benefit of the city of Fall River but in this particular area there's really nothing tall that's

suitable to provide the coverage and the other issue that we have here is that as telephone networks get more and more developed the the gaps in coverage get smaller and way more defined so we have we can't go a half a mile or a mile away because chances are we're already on those facilities or you know we're trying to cover a very defined area whereas when we first came to town 20

years ago we were trying to cover as much of Fall River as possible we didn't have a network and now that we have a network we have to be much more targeted with where we go the area around we've submitted a lot of Graphics here as part of the original application you know there are some tall structures there's a water tank about a half a mile away there's some towers that are already

being utilized by a t along Route 195 Corridor and some rooftops along going towards 138 but there's really nothing in this mile radius or mild diameter circle that uh satisfies the coverage objective and the area itself we are it's the Huskies Lane is right in here in the middle um it's surrounded by other um I'd call them small industrial the facility itself is going to be located on a facility that's a light

manufacturing a metal fabrication shop across the street is a big staging area done used by National Grid and there's some other light industrial area and as we go farther um West I mean I'm sorry farther east towards the river they're um it actually gets into undevelopable Wetlands so we were very challenged in finding any areas that we could actually put a facility like this we identified

we talked probably a half a dozen or 12 different landowners in the area and uh um you know to try to find suitable land that land on the other side of the highway is mostly business used for Big Box retail with very extensive parking restrictions so they didn't have any land to give us the other Lots in the area were developed or wet or so there really wasn't any choice here to go

anywhere but 42 Estes Lane the lot itself is kind of odd shaped it's at the intersection of Estes Lane and a large Lane I'm sorry large street it's right up against Route 24 so the the road kind of circles around back the facility itself will be ready up against Route 24 behind an existing uh industrial building access will come off of large Street other than fencing off about a 3600

square foot compound really there's nothing being done on the lot we'll build a small foundation for the tower build some small foundations for the equipment but uh the the remain of the lot will stay intact where it's pretty much all asphalt with the existing business and we're not really changing any of that the facility itself is unmanned and passive once they're built nobody goes there something like that by

once a month to make sure the fence is intact but all the equipment is remotely monitored so it doesn't generate any traffic or noise or commercial activity it's actually very passive in nature and much more much less impactful to the neighborhood than the existing businesses that are already there the facility itself is what we call a monopole I didn't say I don't know that there are any in the city of

Fall River but there's lots of monopoles as you drive around the area it's a singular poll that uh has different antennas attached at the top stretch platforms you'll see there's antennas that ATT will put at the top that's about a 12 foot wide platform with about uh four foot to six foot tall antennas and then we've left space on it for other telecommunications companies the the announcement said it was 136 feet the

structure is actually 130 feet tall and at the top there's a very small lightning rod which actually attracts electricity that attaches to a very extensive grounding system so that it dissipates electrical so it actually creates more safety for the area by attracting lightning in the event of things and then dissipating it very safely through that thing but there's a very small lightning rod it's uh

probably smaller than that flagpole there and you won't see it when it's actually built but it technically it's there um these facilities and I know you guys all know this because there's lots of similar facilities all through the city of Fall River they're very safe they're they're very low powered facilities these facilities aren't designed to broadcast throughout all of Fall River

route all of south of the South Coast they're designed to cover a few miles maybe in each Direction and they're very heavily and featherly regulated by the federal government in a very uh um Bill well in excess of applicable FCC limits and and what we're projecting this Tower will do is provide much better coverage for that southern residential area of Fall River going to the Tiverton border and then providing

some coverage towards the Market Basket area and the residential neighborhood on the other side of Route 24.

um I submitted a very extensive memorandum going through all the requirements for a special permit here we need to show that it's the most appropriate use of land that it prevents overcrowding that it conserves the value of land and buildings it lessens congestions in the streets and avoids undue concentration of population and it provides adequate vision for transportation water sewage

schools and all that stuff this is really non-impactful to the city of Fall River it provides a great benefit by providing application telecommunications service there's no noise smoke lights odor we submitted a memorandum that shows that there's no requirement to provide FCC lighting or anything or FAA lighting so it it'll be very quiet and passive not generate any kind of traffic or have any

impact on the the residential neighborhood nearby we satisfy all that and then the last thing I got to say I'm going trying to go as fast as possible because I know you're limiting time the federal government is very involved in Wireless infrastructure development about 25 years ago they adopted laws to encourage this type of information this type of development they they want towns

to act as expeditiously as possible in reviewing applications they they don't say you have to say yes but it does basically say you can't say no unless there's sufficient reason uh and in this particular case because we're in industrial Zone because we don't require any variances because we have no impact on the neighborhood um you know I I don't see any reason why the town would want to deny this type of application

um so at this point I'd like to open up for questions I've gone very fast because my time is limited but we would respect to request that the zoning boy Grant the special apartment so we can move forward with the project and the last thing I want to say is uh um unlike a lot of dome in the city of Fall River because we're federally licensed we're also federally regulated

and we have to do an immense amount of federal due diligence on top of the local and state requirements for any kind of development we're subject to a very extensive Environmental Protection act called the National Environmental Policy Act and it requires us to do extensive due diligence to make sure we have no impact on Native American resources and endangered species and endangered wildlife and migratory birds

and all kinds of other things like that so um we're still in the early stages of development and if this board were to approve this special permit and then we have to go through a very long and extensive Federal regulatory process to make sure we comply with all the federal requirements and we're confident that we will our real estate professionals are very um competent in securing areas we don't

think there's going to be any endangered species or Native American resources or things like that but the point of that is that we still have some federal due diligence that we need to do before this facility will be built so with that it opened up your questions I try to go as fast as possible but uh one can slow it down if you'd like I have a question regarding

um you you mentioned it a few times that you have no need for a variance can you talk a little bit more about the height requirement it's my understanding that telecommunications towers are exempt from the height limits of the zoning bylaw because we are a special permit requirement so we had to come to the zoning board for a special permit but we don't need a height variance any special appointments with regards to

use that's correct not high not not high it's a structure setbacks right 84 height requirements we don't need but I know but there's the the the height limitations don't apply to telecommunications Towers why do they have if it's considered a structure in a bylaw by definition I spoke to the Sony enforcement option so we spoke very specifically about this and he said that it uh it doesn't because it's a special

permit use there's an exemption for Towers where I don't know where that exemption comes from but um I mean we'll certainly seek a variance that has required the zoning Force monster didn't think that was necessary I'm a little concerned about the timing that you indicated that there's a lot of steps after this before you can really begin and the idea on how what your minimum or average amount of time might be just

whether or not the granting of the permit would give you enough time to to execute it um we're hoping to build this before the winter it's about a four-month regulatory process the biggest um every project that we need to do we need to notify about 40 Native American tribes and they have a record of time to reply to make sure we don't have any impact on Native American resources and

and that given the the volume of tribes that say they have some activity here in polar just takes time to get responsive any other questions from the board it just so it'd be like a seven story building though roughly this Tower right well I wouldn't call it a building it's definitely building but it's it's basically a very large poll what's that 13 started 13.

I'm sorry all right so it's a poll okay it's a single poll that uh um you go back again you talked about a 3600 3600 square feet approximately site so it's but you know 60 by 60 is it it it's uh the the compound is tucked back in here you can really barely see the line but it's kind of an odd shaped compound um so it's um I took that off the the drawings but

it's it's about probably 50 feet by 30 feet by 40 feet by 20 feet so it's just a pole no utility building uh or there will be uh with power and others what's happening is that um telecommunications equipment is actually getting smaller and it fits in size like refrigerator-sized cabinets so inside that 3 600 square foot compound will be some small equipment cabinets but there's no building they don't

require cooling anymore so there's no HVAC or anything like that it's a it's a uh the the the the antennas are getting a little smarter there's more Electronics in the antennas up in the air which means that the electronics on the ground are getting smaller any other questions from the board I just have one more what would this be comparable to towers that we have in Fall River I know there's a big one on

President Avenue in that Plaza would it be comparable to that one no I was involved in that long time but that's it's not a lattice style Tower where it's um like an erector set um yeah and I think that's probably 170 feet tall this is much smaller uh unfortunately I can't think of anything that it's similar to in the Fall River um there's similar ones um I know there's one in Swansea by number

six behind the fire station in Swansea trying to think what else close by um you know we built similar types it's a it's a it's a large pole all the cabling goes up inside and there's antennas at the top so it's uh um it's much less visually impactful than the big erector set by president okay is there anyone here in favor anyone opposed Council

good evening for our purposes of the record my name is Peter salino I'm a lawyer here in Fall River at 550 Locust Street I'm here to register an objection on behalf of a couple clients of mine that own businesses in real estate at four and two Lock Street in Fall River the nature of my objection is the type of relief sought I as a lawyer respectfully disagree with attorney karissa's characterization that he just

needs a special permit I'm going to direct the board's attention to the zoning use table which specifically indicates that radio or television transmission stations including Towers related to said use are allowed by special permit in a commercial I further direct the board's attention to the definition section of the bylaw in which the term communication Tower is defined the definition of communication Tower is

as follows a tower antennas cable radio electronic and Associated equipment used by FCC licensed carriers purposes of transmitting and receiving voice and data via radio waves would be respectfully submitted to the board that what is being proposed is more akin to a communication Tower as the same is defined in the bylaw as opposed to the use of a radio tower which is allowed by

special permit under the bylaw and so I would submit to you that the application is improper because a variance should be saw in as much as the use as a communication Tower is not allowed in any zoning District in the city of Fall River let alone the commercial Middle District further I've done a slight bit of historical research and I've found that there was a project on quick Shan street that had an FCC

um license Tower is located at 600 quickashan Street and the decision is dated March 20th 1998 and that was done in front of this board by relief of ovariance as opposed to a crime um I also was able to find a similar project on South Main Street that was also done by barons and so with that I'd respectfully submit to the board that I don't think that the requested relief is proper I think that

what should have been applied for was the variance and I think that the petition should be withdrawn and refiled as a variance if I can add um in response to attorney parisi's assertion that he spoke with he spoke with the building inspector or the zoning enforcement officer I see the I see the denial letters issued from a local building inspector not the zoning enforcement officer was a different person I'm

I went to the building inspector's law enforcement office and asked them to issue the letter right but there's local zoning enforcement so they they look at what's provided to them and they give you a denial based upon hey I need a special permit I need a denial so so that's what they give you they don't make a determination upon what relief is is required that's not their job that that's that's your job as

a professional to determine the kind of relief that that is required um and again I point out to even if the special permit provision applies here it does not eliminate the need for Relief with regards to the height infrastructure so if you can build an 80 foot cell tower maybe the special division May apply but I I do have an issue with the part the application being proudly excuse me filed incorrectly

with the project itself when I look at the the face value of it but actually before we get to that you've pointed out tonight and you mentioned in some of your submitted documents about the Gap in service anywhere and you showed some illustrations tonight that I don't think are provided in your submission you do reference a number of cases where variances that were denied were overturned Reliant upon the Gap in

service many pages in many cases you reference this is not a variance so I think any of those case any of that case law is not applicable to this petition and you don't provide any information with regards to scientific fact illustrating a gap in coverage so I just want the board to understand that so the use is one thing now when we get to the actual case of what we're looking at whether

variance or special permit I would think that it's very convenient to propose the location of this monopole in that tucked up in that northeast corner against the holiday and against the street well that's great for the owner of this property if the tower were to fall I think all of the abutting properties are more exposed than than the property that's benefiting from it so if you were

to move this as a special permit and allow it at whatever height I think the proposed pole location should be Central to that lot equidistant to all of the property lines so that if it falls it does not impede traffic on that Highway does not impede traffic on SD's Lane it is a very convenient location you know for the applicant not necessarily for for the neighborhood I would also point out that

this is directly adjacent to a single-family zoning District both on the other side of the highway and on SD's Lane as well coming out to lock Street so to say that this would have no detrimental effect on any of the upbutting properties that that's a stretch I mean having to look at a 136 foot tower that does not exist now I think every one of these are Butters may have a concern with with how that

may affect them or whether that would be detrimental to to their use of their own land so it's easy to say those things without providing proof that it would not be detrimental again I I think you need to deal with or get past the fact should this be a special permit or not before you even consider the rest of that the petition that was the original question that I had regarding the height uh seemed to

fall under the purview where this needed to be a variance instead of a special permit I agree but I'll set back if there's other people I want to respectfully disagree with council's first statement that we don't require a special permit because the use is clearly defined in the zoning bylaw of radio transition this is radio transmission radio is a very broad term it doesn't mean AM radio

it means use of the radio waves which includes personal wireless service devices so and it says by used by FCC licensed providers this is being used by a t and FCC license you're mixing two things communication Towers is defined as what you're saying FCC registered nowhere does the term communication Towers show up in our table of uses correct right but it's very specific to radio and television

but this is a radio tower as I'm saying it is a radio tower so let's let's take the tower and the equipment attached to the Attalla as two separate things do you need a variance or a special equipment to install that equipment at a height of 136 feet so have every antenna in the town been subject to a variance from what I can find yes the all the rooftops no no no attached to a building

you can do by a special permit a construction of a tower that's why I'm bifurcating what you're constructing there's a tower and then there's the equipment the equipment can be mounted similarly to what it was on 20 maybe 2501 so I forget what the address is but that was moved by a special permit at I think 47 meters which fell on that building that's why it wasn't 136 feet or like the one there

quickashan street that is 300 and something feet required of variance so I believe you'll find that any Tower construction was done through the granting of variance not a special permit and I'm not saying that the case doesn't have merit with regards to a variance it may clearly it may clearly meet those requirements very particular to that would be and I would advise you if you do decide to potentially withdraw this

application and file a variance please provide the proof of Gap in service from not not just an exhibit that you've prepared but some scientific rationale or evidence by a professional that illustrates this Gap in service so that we can hang our hat on that I don't I wouldn't want them to deny you having not have that information because on appeal if that information wasn't provided at the time of the denial I

believe it will be thrown out until you were denied after providing that information during this process um I like I said the building inspector thought that not the zoning enforcement officer big difference and the zoning enforcement officer and the umbilical billing inspector is not the zoning board of appeals that's the purpose I'd like to try to find the dimensional uh table because I think

there's an exemption for Towers in the dimensional table if I'm wrong I'm wrong um live images

because you're usually right A lot of times there's height limits with respect to anything but uh

um because I can't find it and quite frankly I agree with your requirement that I have the data I probably didn't submit it with the original application I would request that we continue this so that I could maybe amend the application if I require variance or uh oh we'll come back next week and push for a special permit the next one and uh utilities trends Communications and public service radio

or television yeah that's the one he filed under that's including Towers related said use that's the one he filed okay um I'm confident that is the proper procedure I'm not confident based on the engineer's comments that we don't require hype variance but if I'm going to apply for high varians I might as well apply for huge experience it doesn't again past practice at the board I mean if I was hoping to find

one that was constructed by a special permit at least something to point I was in the right direction but I could not find one I'm not here to argue I'm here to satisfy you so uh but if I need to do more research I'll do that and go back next week okay there were a number of other uh people that were opposed um so are you asking to table the matter until the next meeting

actually I'd love to hear comments from I would like to hear because if there are other issues the engineer actually mentioned the tower he used to work full and I I mean I can submit engineering support for this but these towers are designed so that they don't topple over they're designed so that they crumple onto themselves in an extreme situation and what they're basically done is

they're over engineered at the bottom and regularly engineered at the top so they have it designated like fold point so you see Towers like this along all up and down 24 and 195 and and in in great proximity to places like State highways because those tend to be the most appropriate locations for these type of facilities we we moved it farther back on the property to get away from um the closest of butter the other

Butters our other commercial uses uh uh and they all got notified and and didn't object um and I think he represents the um individual who's the closest of butter on the other side which would probably object to moving it closer to his property so we were very conscious about that and moving in so it it's more than power height setback from his property and with no impact on the most

significant budding property which is interstate 24. so or state highway 24.

so we were very conscious about that and I can provide engineering support for that thank you okay there were other parties council do you have anything sorry uh there was another gentleman that's over here just state your name for the record please my name is I live at 83 Dickinson Street and um I've been there for 33 years and all I need now is to have a um a view of that I never had before

because where my house is will be directly in front of this Tower where he was supported I'm about quarter of a mile away but still it's part of my view then I went around I've had many signatures of a few people opposed did you get that one I did and I submitted okay so we're all opposing to it and one it's it's more of a residential area than it is commercial okay so you are

I'm sorry Carlos uh Carlos pachico yeah 83 Dickinson correct all of these politicians in opposition all these came from you okay okay so these will be made part of the record and going okay so that's why I'm here and um I'd like to keep my view the way it is don't need no obstruction because that's where my living room is I gotta there all I want to see is a 136 foot Tower and that

reminds comes out of these Star Wars what I've producing radiations that's my opinion um and there's like I said it's more of a residential area there's only like two businesses down there which is Disco and the alternative weather radiation other than that doesn't want the business there and we've been fighting to get rid of those businesses down there because it's more of a residential

area all that we want to do is bring one of these to this Zone commercial so that is zoned to businesses yes it has been yes I totally agree with that but many of the businesses that were there it's not a well it would say a milled business anymore it's more of a construction business and the other one is an insulation business but yeah let's keep the focus to talking about a towel right

the towers what it is no one wants to have this extraction in front of us uh whether on Lock Street whether on Dickinson Street and let's find Spencer Street because it's all going to be affecting all of this thing directly thank you thank you thank you okay so that uh this is Mr patico also he submitted 16 I believe different names of a Butters and addresses for all from all around

the neighborhood these will be made part of the record Nina can you send that that all of his correspondence to attorney Teresa tomorrow morning thank you thank you anyone else an objection yes sir hi my name is Mark rodericks I'll be real quick because I'm actually here for something else on the list uh but I'd be remiss if I don't mention that uh just to the right of the screen is Atlantis Charter School

and bringing a cell tower uh right next to a charter school it's within about a thousand feet the best I could tell um and I think that's something that we should keep in mind I have a daughter that's in kindergarten at Atlanta so I wanted to just mention that and uh you know get the distance and see if there's anything that prevents it from being close to a school just with the health concerns

regarding cell towers what was your name and address again sure Mark rodericks and my address is 161 Raptor Street that's it just wanted to point that out thank you is there anyone else opposed we also received a letter from Resident of Lark Street Tim Cabral to Lark Street in Fall River Dear honorable members of the board I am writing to you today in opposition of the proposal to construct a cell phone tower

on Estes Lane the idea that anyone would consider the proposal before you today a good plan for the city and more specifically for the residents that abut the proposed site of the above mentioned project is concerning the proposed site sits on a commercial parcel but one that directly abuts a residential neighborhood that is known for its Suburban characteristics while there are a few commercial

buildings that occupy space adjacent to the proposed site these businesses operate in a reason and reasonable Ventures that should with care and respect for the neighborhood a nearly 140 foot tall cell tower is located in this location is nothing more than an attempt to re I'm sorry an attempt at recurring income for the landlord was there a regard for how it will affect any quality of life for those

that would have to go through the construction process and it goes on talking more about that and that this will be made part of the record I support the I support businesses and I want the Fall River business to succeed I respectfully asked that you vote in opposition and Grant a special to Grant a special license permit and not allow this project to go forward please do not to support support this

best regards Temple Run so that is the only letters that we've received I don't know if there's anything else I didn't get anything else is there anyone else here that's why I add one other thing and Antonio parisi's narrative on page seven we've references the proposed facility and is on a large substantially undeveloped parcel and provides a substantial vegetative buffer can you

please add to your site plan what you're considering a substantial vegetative buffer we're looking at the site right here so I understand I'm not proposing any Lance maybe a buffer to the highway yeah there's also a vegetation here the the residential neighborhood is separated from the this is the commercial industrial Zone back in here and then there's a a vacant lot with that's undeveloped with trees so our lot is

yeah there's label it on the plan because that that exhibit wasn't part of your what's not and what's substantially undeveloped parcel because I thought the apostle was fairly developed the existing fossil it has a building on it but it it's impossing area some gravel developed thanks I have nothing else Mr Jim from this device Jim so the request is to well that's okay good question yeah are you requesting to

table to the next meeting sorry I thought he was raising his hand he's pointing I saw this sorry uh you're requesting a table Mr chairman I moved for clarification purposes that the petitioner be permitted to tablely petition until our next regularly scheduled meeting is seven up time um I believe serious awakened make tables for longer can we yeah you can tables or whatever date certain you you choose yeah

um no by tomorrow whether or not I have to amend the application and I'll throw in an amendment with Nina and I think we have time to advertise it for the next meeting awesome yeah you still have time to advertise if it needs to be amended yes one was when when was the deadline for next meeting deadline was last week but the advertising doesn't have and there is a fee for table do we have a second

second okay uh it was done John is on this one yes so let's talk to John Silver oh I'm sorry uh yes Rick's hottie yes Dan Dupree yes Jim Calkins yes John Frank yes that's right thank you

short recess

sorry about that left my materials behind number four 164 Elm Street LLC Carroll attorney Mark L 11.

subject property is 164 Elm Street map n10 lot 43.

the applicant seeks a variance to convert an existing four unit structure into eight unit residential building with two apartments on each floor four floors waving front yard setbacks Additionally the applicant seeks a special permit to waive parking requirements property is located in a B1 local business zoning district and an aod Arts overlay District attorney Logan good to see you good to

see you sir Mr chairman hey Mr board planner School Mr engineer and Madam clerk for the record attorney mock L Levin 138 Rock Street 4 of Massachusetts I'm here tonight representing the 164 Elm Street LLC in this request to convert an existing building that goes back over a century my client initially purchased this property before he put it in the LLC he bought it back in February of 2021 at

that time when he bought the property he did not realize that the Assessor had a record that this was a four unit building because the property was actually used for six families it had been 18 bedrooms in six units within this building now you look at the building it's an extremely large building this is an area where this vital revitalization of downtown is happening where you're having much more

of these older buildings being converted for uses that can be used today with modern requirements my client first looked at the project he was planning to vacate the tenants and make Renovations within the building that would bring it up to code as he went through the requirements of code he realized that it didn't have the requirements that meant the building code requirements didn't have fire code

requirements didn't have energy code requirements and essentially was a building that should probably not have been inhabited at the time he bought it but he bought it from someone else it was so not realizing it the first time that this was a assessed as a four family unit he thought it was a six and started going through and tearing out the building because it really was in bad shape as you see and you can see by

pictures if you look at it it's extremely large building it is its own hardship on its own property because there's not much you could do with the property it only afforded a driveway on the left hand side of the property that led to a few parking spaces in the back you'd have to piggyback to get them in and out what my client now has done and again this is an old building unique to

this district and basically historical building if you look at it it's where the bank Street Armory is it's near the the old school that's being converted over to oxen sciences and in apartments upstairs he wants to basically restructure the interior he's not going to do exterior work on the property but put levels of flaws in there so that there'll be four floors on each floor I'll have two bedrooms he basically

going to increase the the the occupancy by six extra bedrooms the uniqueness of this stuff is that the building itself is structurally sound so it's not like you would want to tear down the building you want to revitalize this neighborhood and that's what the aod district has provided for you and apart from this significance because of that there is a case Johnson bought versus the Board of Appeals of Wareham

which is the 1972 case it says when you have it older building you try to revitalize that building and itself becomes a hardship because of its condition on the property now not only is this just going to be for the code Provisions but again there was a lot of lead paint in this property it needed to be taken down and that's what finally got my client to to understand that this project was not just

a simple cosmetic project within the property that it could just paint fix up put some lighting in and rent it again he actually had to remove the Wallings that were in there because of the lead paint and to require the uh the cold Provisions to change he's completely removed everything from inside the plumbing the electrical the walls it just decks right now and he wants to renovate that so you'll have

two apartments on each floor now again because it is economically infeasible to take this building down and replace it this becomes its hardship itself and I provided you some of the case laws that are in there that provide that this Locus being revitalized and reused is itself its own hardship because the extensive changes that need to be done in this thing now this will present a

market rate apartment complex when he's done it'll be good for this neighborhood it's not going to derogate from this neighborhood because that's what this neighborhood is changing you've have the bank Street Armory that's going to be changed over to residential you have the old College it's almost complete for rental for residential and what is what my clients also providing that isn't

here now isn't as much necessary parking as he can provide again he's restricted by the area had he had a larger area I wouldn't have to come for you for any of the numbers of units because the aod district allows so much more units within this District but my client what he has now is a one way in or one way out as you see in the design what he's

doing is he's getting a curb cut on the right hand side of the property he's going to create a couple spaces as you come into it but this will have access to create eat parking space in the back we help pave in and add the additional areas for striping for these and you'll be able to come in one way in and go around the building come out right now there isn't this this and as it existed

it probably was more of a hazard not to have some one way in and out for the number of people that have this now by providing this although we don't have all the spaces that we would like to have we are now providing a much better access for emergency uses in vehicles and the ability of these people to get out of the property if they really had to I think if you look at this and

you're trying to look at the neighborhood in the homogeneous necessary needs to this neighborhood and to bring vitalization downtown which is the big point of the aod district you find this property is probably going to enhance the Vitality of the Central Business area bringing people down here who will go to the local stores who go to the local uh restaurants and they'll have good access

down to the T once it opens next year I think that's about all I have to present thank you okay thank you um okay so it was it was on the books is a legal for you and a four unit operated as a six uh it's obvious he's done an extensive amount of work thus far I mean we're looking at her shell right now that's correct he so it had to be done I I no I

I understand but to say that architecturally this unique feature is going to come back would would probably be a stretch well but it it's its own feature itself and it's an old building so he's he's not really doing exterior work to it it's all within the building itself it's self-contained and all we're doing is adding a few more bedrooms that was there already so we're talking a total of 24 bedrooms now correct

and we're talking how many how many parking spaces there were 10. there were only three before I'm seeing Subs there's two others on the drive itself yeah this is going to be eight three bedrooms yes that's what it says I think you said oh eight three bedroom units two you two units on each floor but three bedrooms at each other three bedrooms technically now by the assessor's office it says

there's 13 bedrooms in the house we understand that but physically when he bought it they were here I understand yeah we my client found this out with the building inspector much later and it might be a surprise why didn't you try why didn't you move this as a special permit in the ass overlay District rather than seek a variance you would not have needed to show hardship for the creation of a multi-family

building in October Lake District I felt that because we had the lack of area in a specific case the zoning board of appeals shall after a public hearing Grant a special permit to waive lot areas height block coverage percentage yard requirements so multi-family development decided in this code unless the opinion was only board of appeals such a waiver would be detrimental to the area and not if that's interested in

the city those are the development and Redevelopment standards 86 376 under the outsole of the Lakers all right I mean I did apply for both special permit for apartment yeah for parking I'm just saying you may want to amend it and it's a much easier lift for this board with no hardship being required but I don't know that that would be fine that probably is a smarter way to do that

as it stands it's six spaces short uh yes yeah yeah okay right you said so I'm not clear on the unit size is it they're two bedroom units they're going to be three bedrooms but two two apartments on a floor so there's four stories it seems like it's within the building yeah that's four four levels the basement okay it's got a basement side of basements one level it's it's ground level oh it is yeah

it has its own walk way out in the garage it's garage door yeah but that's around yes that's gone I'm surprised it's four stories yeah yeah otherwise he wouldn't have well done if he couldn't so the four story would include the attic of what was the original house that's buried under there someplace yes so is he changing that roof line up from her picture roof line to it little flying's gonna stay the

same so the truths within the building if you look at that the street view of it yeah basement set of hash berries is that where you get here I was looking at a street view picture of it I don't know if Chris can bring up the street view on Google um I just don't see it being a four-story business me neither that's what I was trying to figure but I hear

it looks like there's a garage door in the old right so it might be like a basement like half units is above grade so I believe that's what the council is saying is an additional story however um the the first floor the basement level was where there was never the additional two units so that that fourth story that story up there yep is where the two units were okay so where the

garage door you see in the front there was never any units there was no unit there so that's what you would be adding too so that's where okay yeah and building code wise like the light you know I know you're going to deal with that stuff later but no issues with creating livable space in that I'm not no sir and um just just for the record you know initially when when I purchased

this property I did reach out to the city officials to the building department and asked them to come do a walk through okay um inspection with me because I know there is some law that you know if these units existed x amount of years ago they could be grandfather and grandfather for fire protection theoretically yeah maybe in at the time the inspectors didn't feel comfortable even walking the property okay

um when I purchased the property in 21 I'd pull my my full intent was to go in there and renovate this property yeah I got activated on Military orders and was gone so that's why there's such a gap to where we are today gotcha um yeah

was it occupied when you purchase it where the residents and that's also part of the reason why I didn't understand the extent of disrepair of the building um because there were tenants in place and we were not allowed to walk the property and I don't want to say I was naive but you know I'm I'm a general contractor on the side that's not my primary occupation from firefighter I'm

in the military but also I'm a general contractor my mother's family lives in Little Compton Ireland so I thought I had this bright idea I would go into this building renovate it and get some supplemental income so that I could help pay for my mother who lived there that went completely 360 when I found out that this building's an absolute disaster um so when I got home and wanted to

proceed with work I did reach out to the building inspectors it was 110 transparent was never trying to pull in tricks or anything like that and I had the discussion several times with Eugene Frank and ultimately Glenn and I said hey look like I need to get this thing rolling can I stop building from within and what we did was we all we did was we put new floor systems in the building

and then we framed you know Sister the exterior walls and kept going up so like those Dormers and stuff like that I never went higher than the existing Peak but instead of having cut up nasty ugly looking Dormers I just went up with a rectangular building and a flat rubber roof right you know to maximize that that top story and that's what all right yeah yes yes if yep correct

all right so the so the peak roofs on either side the remnants of the 19th century building those Peak roofs are going away the slow Crews four store I figured as much when I was out there the other day yes sir um and from my understanding that was approved on the building permit applications so yeah I didn't know that there would be an issue with that because I did submit for a building permit to

essentially do four units but they're going to be bi-level units so two stories each unit um obviously like worst case scenario that's what it's going to be but realistically like money wise that isn't feasible at all yeah but the parking becomes a concern in the area going to that many units especially that many bedrooms because then you know it's going to be downtown the short distance of the rail to the

rail station you may have you know two adults living in the in in each apartment or more that are going to be you know moving down to the train or working within the city that type of thing and obviously you've got parking for the old Academy you've got parking for different businesses you're not going to be able to utilize that and on street here is pretty bad it's pretty tight already so because of

the development yeah except for the the front of the the boat which is meter they're not mistaken what was in those what was what was in that garage door like when you when before you did that just like basically utility yeah it was just a basement like the chimney would have a garage door like people you couldn't drive in it no no I don't I'm just looking at the pictures yeah I don't think he there's

no way you could drive so the request and I asked this before is it's eight threes yes yes sir yes sir I don't know well like I said there was 18 bedrooms before so yeah somebody so we've already done rough Framing and the um some of the units right because we submitted the building permit application as a four unit building so I I understand the square foot but if you guys actually walk the property the

the units that are rough framed with three bedrooms they're actually really nice like they're I even said the same thing wow that's that's kind of tight like when the architect came into it's a party it's the pocket yeah yes sir and in a number of bedrooms usually relates to the number of parking spaces you're gonna need yeah I mean that's that's a tough spot going back to Dan's point

we could be looking at this as the as a special permit only simplifies a lot it simplifies a lot it simplifies a lot everyone goes you know working with you know the hardship is the building itself I get that well you know it's the renovation I mean they cited the cases for you so you'd have them but so I think I do have the Hydra but that's all

right I I would I maybe it's a way to step back and uh would that take a re-notification yes where to change the application yeah it has to be a new advertisement but yeah if it sometimes if it's going the other way you know again it's for grounds for an appeal you want to make sure that it was advertised correctly yeah done correctly but it seems your audience has to say before you guys decide thank you

almost 11 do you want to chat with your client before sure commit to anything you want to see what any anybody in favor or opposed before yeah that'd be a good idea at least they can understand what though any other questions from the board at this point is there anyone here to speak in favor of the the application is there anyone here to speak in opposition to the application sir step forward

identify yourself with your address please I'm Alan Mcenroe at one Hope Street Westport Massachusetts I'm here as the developer and owner of the property across the street the creative class 55 Apartments and uh three current uh businesses retail businesses the um I commend the the developer for taking on this project it was an eyesore in the neighborhood it's nice to see something done uh parking is something

that we wrestle with every day we purchase two ancillary lots that weren't part of the creative class and we've gone out and found other sources for parking so to say that we're going to be able to absorb three eight three bedrooms worth of parking on Elm Street especially with taking a curb cut out of it is um I just don't see it as being feasible there's a lot of other activity to be

looked at in downtown Fall River and I think the biggest concern that everyone will have is the amount of parking that's available there's a lot of commercial buildings that that are being evaluated to be turned into residential units and I think it's a delicate balance for the board of appeals here on how you grant this one of the concerns I have is the uh the amount of perimeter that's been

added to this particular project for instance in the back there does does that footprint include the Canty levered four stories out over the um the the parking area yes sir it does okay when I was down there it looked like that was the porch and then you have about a 12 foot extension can't do levered out over the porch from the porch so the candy liver portion that you're talking about is in

the back rear of the property yes yes that is the candy lovers section that you're talking about okay visually it just looks different from there but uh when I look at this I just don't see how you're going to be able to access two of the spots that are right there where you have what an 11 foot clearance to get into it I I don't know how you would pull into a space with an 11 foot

aisle so basically you kind of have less than eight spaces which which one is the well if you look at where the porch is in the back at the north east corner right there yes sir okay show me how you back out of that particular spot right there how I would show you that but I would imagine that you would just swing to your right if you're backing out and

then if there's a if there's a car on each side I I don't think that's feasible I just normally they required aisle width for pulling into a 90 degree space like that would be 20 feet okay yeah so you know but they are asking for that to be weighed okay I understand through the special apartment I'm bringing it to the board's attention it's not 10 spaces it's something less intense spaces um so with that

I'm all for four apartments in here and however they want to be put in to put 24 bedrooms and and uh once one area with uh limited parking is um I don't know a challenge and I think the applicant should do what's in the ox overlay district and look for uh contractual parking elsewhere yeah so again mark under 86 376 section e your parking can be provided in a number of different ways

it can be on-site but not located between the street and the front of the building off site by contract and public or private Austrian parking facilities and parking may be covered or uncovered so I'm sure Mr McNamara has secured all of the available parking in the neighborhood so I don't know if I don't know if you could find any enclosed proximity I will offer that um that I think the board should consider

the uh counter-cyclical nature of parking with businesses and Residences and uh there are businesses in that particular area that I have not approached I don't know what okay what would it be okay okay I mean maybe we're and understand we've had a number of applications before the board for downtown locations and parking parking parking and they've all gone out contracted for parking figured it out

you know I'm doing it for for an office for for my company up in Jamaica Plain right now the we just don't have on-street parking and we finally found somebody that's you know going to take you know the five cars that we have so you know that's fall River's growing up and we're realizing that we need more residential space which you know therefore I agree with you know what you're what you're doing what you're

proposing but we got developers in here for 30 unit buildings and and bigger in some cases that have had to go hunting for parking case in point yeah and I agree that there is the cycle of business not business but there really aren't that many parking businesses immediately adjacent I mean you and maybe you've not talked to them all but some of those businesses don't have parking either yeah

I think as a developer I've wrestled with the same thing that this gentleman is wrestling with and uh I appreciate it I don't want to stop the project I just want it to be done so that it's going to be asset to the neighborhood and I think I mean the bedroom count is a big deal so if they were twos then you know then a waiver of spaces maybe a little bit

more appropriate normally to get down to one to one they're usually one bedrooms or some twos like a mix of that but to go to all threes that's and only provide eight spaces I I can't see where that's been been done in this area yeah and you can you know just as a suggestion I'm not an engineer I didn't sleep in the Holiday Inn last night but um you know even maybe looking at

diagonal spaces across the back because at least that gives you a little bit more in your and your passageway around so people are pulling in at an angle backing out of there at the same angle and driving out it's an idea you know I mean that's I I think it's I think what you're hearing here is this may need to be rethought as as for a number of bedrooms maybe

number of units and leave that up to your discretion um we we gotta soften the blow on the parking somehow that's my biggest thing I mean I mean I agree cool I think uh Logan just ask a question go ahead by the way the building is looking great thank you very much it's nice to finally see something happening the whole neighborhood seems to be activating it's nice yeah it's wild it's really it's really stuff

gonna give it a shot thank you John says wrong

here yeah

my daughter as well

I think what we'll do is we'll ask if the born will let us table this until the June meeting because we'll probably modify our application that would require an advertisement we're not going to have that done and my client's gonna talk to his neighbor who's behind him that owns the lot next door to see if any of that space is available right now it's vacant they use some of

it but I don't know how much they use so that's the only I don't know if you've ever talked to them I have not no so that might be an opportunity to contract but obviously on his way there right now

all right he has some ideas too so my question then is if we table but it's going to be a new application and a re-advertisement should we draw withdraw without prejudice the neater way to do it that's fine it just the only issue with that he would lose the filing fee which is substantial on a multi-unit building so I would like I would hate to see that happen that's a

big one um we could I guess we could time wise I think it does the same thing but if you want to make it cleaner I don't have a problem with giving credit to the already fee that was paid and then just pay the difference in the special permit if you if you guys vote that to be the case I think that would be appropriate so

no no no well yes we're going to make it that way yeah okay yeah yeah to make it cleaner legal wise yes so we're going to ask that the board allow us to withdraw we're also going to ask that the board allow us to apply the application fee to the extent that we there's a difference in the new application to the current application I think it's 50 difference right so I think yeah that

was it's good recommendation Mr chairman I move that we Grant conditioners request to the table second to withdraw out the petition and apply the second difference is at the coin show applications

any discussion on the motion no John Frank yes Jim Coggins Dan De Pere yes Ricky sahadi yes and chairman Ferrera yes thank you so much thank you thank you for your help develop as a developer I like it all righty number five Maria Fatima Silva care of attorney Mark L Levin subject property is 153 uh rathgar street map p08 lot 71 the applicant seeks of variance to divide the parcel into two lots containing one

pre-existing non-conforming single-family dwelling and another containing a proposed single-family dwelling waving area Frontage and side yard setbacks for both lots and front yard setbacks for the lot with the pre-existing dwelling the property is located in s single-family zoning District chairman members of the board attorney Mark L 11 138 Rock Street Fall River Massachusetts representing Maria Fatima Silva

uh the property itself is located in an S District it had been located in a g district and subsequent to my client's purchase the SE Parcels were in the G District containing approximately 5 000 square feet of land if you look at the plan that we provided you will see that many of the single-family homes that are abutting around that area are all on the similar size that we were asking the

board to allow the division of the property so that it will allow another home to be bound my guess and without information because this was an existing house when when my client bought it is that the house as you see it is pretty well set to the um the East I guess of the property and with that I believe someone probably bought the two lots so that they would have an additional lot and some time to

develop it so my client's asking you now to say that you know you're looking at a character of the neighborhood where many of these are similar size and had been designed at the time when the property was in a g district and unfortunately due to the law of merger the two lots merge and can no longer be separated or built upon so we're asking you to allow the ability of the owner to utilize all

the property instead of having this latch lock that they really don't use like I said if you cut that down they're going to use the east side of the property that they're using now the rest of it is just vacant land so we're asking to allow the character of the neighborhood to remain a single family and also allow it to have a another house slot on it than doing something else to make it a duplex

or something thank you so one question comes up right off the bat is that unless I was in front of the wrong 153 there's two mailboxes and two meters on that house my client's using a single that's all I know the property card says right because it's the same that I can't I have no idea

so we have a lot currently that doesn't qualify by itself as a single family lot were to be built upon new for dimensions area Etc and you're asking us to break it into two substandard lots so we have a substandard lot that we would turn into two substandard lots that's correct he's trying to use the original two Watts that are on his deed to build that and again my guess is at one point uh people

were buying these things and then selling off pieces but once the zoning changed s it merged and no longer could be used that way

any questions or comments from the board on this

see Dan talked to us from uh the planning's perspective please um when I look at the plan and the application I don't see a request for a lot coverage really on the plan it references lot coverage really but then it also provides a coverage calculation basically stating that existing buildings garage asphalt and concrete 84-56 square feet 100 percent coverage this lot exceeds ten thousand square

feet so I don't know where they can calculate that 100 lot coverage or that that request was even the listed in the petition um we have it's pre-existing non-conforming Lots due to merging so the fact that it doesn't meet the S District probably helps the argument a little bit but I I would offer that you would need to decide what subdividing this make you know when they make lots more non-conforming

so the lock coverage issue a two a 2.8 foot side yard setback it's not something that you guys normally entertain some of the Lots in the area are around oh I see one on this plane 49.89 so there's a couple of a budding lots that a single families that 5400 5108 so then I don't think you'll find I don't think you'll find a conforming lot in the neighborhood give that some thought

they show no Provisions for parking or how that would play into the lock coverage issue again I keep getting site plan reviews that come in and they don't handle all of the relief needed to construct what's needed to be in compliance with zoning by those items not being covered when it comes before you and it makes them happy to come back again for other relief with regards to if if you feel that the

home is being used as a two-family structure you can make it part of this provision that it be converted back to a single like I said it wasn't an empty meter socket they were two meters two meters live meters on the side of the house so and two mailboxes so that kind of and it tells me it's a two-family house right now whether it's legal or not is another question so

are you a single story or is it just times it's true story it's two-story wood frame it's not a it's not a gigantic structure no really last century I'm sure it was built you can make it a condition that an affidavit be recorded that it's a single and at an inspection of the assessors department and the building inspector to confirm that it is and that has to remain that all right so you if you honestly think

that that's that's the case yeah that's all I I would want some Assurance on that I think I think that's that I think that's owed the city well that would be agreeable I mean I agree with you so what my client tells me they're just using it for themselves and I know that would be parking they he understood that of oh I do see they didn't put it on the plan so

so well intended to be to Broad Street parking per unit per building okay a lot coverage here provided to me that he didn't so I didn't ask for it because he wrote it on his plan on the planet it asks for a waiver of Lock Company oh but you didn't get that but then even on the plan when it provides the calculation halfway down the plan it references eight four five six square feet divided

by eight four five six square feet equals 100 a lot of coverage giving the presentation to the board that this law is entirely impervious right now no it isn't it 456 if that is the existing lawn coverage divided by the lot area which is probably so that calculation needs to be straightened out if you're going to hang your hat on not increasing the existing a lot of coverage on the aerial I can't I can't tell how

much of it's popular now or driveway or well what's interesting going by there the other day some there is no driveway there is a curb cut that's in the area between the two houses and somebody was parked on the grass between the two houses okay so clearly not 100 lot coverage oh no 8 456 square feet of coverage no I think that used to be resolved there's grass there Etc that that figure is bad it

I'm just thinking out loud yes it it would still end up somewhat conforming with the balance of the neighborhood I have a hard time turning a non-conforming lot into two non-conforming lots well the side yard setback's tough inside you had setback's a killer on that one they try to maximize as much as they could to keep the last one I understand yeah they were trying to keep the the

square footage square footage somewhat balanced Etc but you know the next guy comes in buys the house next door puts up a stockade fence now you can't even you know get down between the fence and the house foreign

well I mean I'm you know I'm one I'm one guy so that's why I'd like to hear some opinion from from my peers here as far as how people feel about that type of division the chairman yes that aside we're just looking at the property and you see the two meters that you're talking about um somehow we have to come to terms with that for this to be resolved somehow yep you do take pictures

what'd you get on the street view that's yeah yeah that's that's exactly it so I got the funny feeling it's first and second fourth thank you for that clarification you've got to come to terms of that well we can I mean you know they're gonna they're gonna have to have to agree to use it as a single family and and file an affidavit the same audience is there anybody here to speak in favor of this application

anybody to speak in opposition okay I'll take you're blocking the aisles I'll take the big guy

I'm Mark rodericks 161 rathgar Street in Fall River Mass um I am one house over from 153.

um you know the big thing that I'll talk about is parking and congestion in that area uh you guys are right the 153 currently there is a curb cut out and there's a small patch of dirt that they Park on uh one one car does but looking at the plans here I don't imagine they'd be able to continue to use that because uh the the other uh parcel would be going into that as well

um there's not a lot of parking to begin with on that street uh if you throw another house in there it's going to be real tight we had a small family get together at Christmas and you know there was 10 source of tension between us and the neighbors already uh so uh that are at 153 now so um I would say the parking is a big issue um additionally when we first moved in

there was a gentleman that lived across the street he recently sold his house but he said that uh the the first day that I met him the first thing that he said is you know they tried to split that parcel into two before but we fought them on it so I'm not sure I didn't really know of a way to look into past uh issues but perhaps the board the zoning board could

look and see if this has been requested before certainly I'm not familiar with the um the the S and the g grouping but this was before the date that you're talking about so uh even in the the past setup they tried to split it and and um that wasn't allowed so I just thought I'd mention that as well excellent thank you very much anyone else to speak in opposition gentleman the white sweater

hello board um Justin Brown of 164 after Street I just made a couple notes the most obvious thing is space I mean if you drove by this property you know they make this look pretty even but it's it's no more than a backyard where they're trying to put this house um it's a nice piece of land but I see no way that you could if there was a house that you think wow that's really tight

um parking will definitely be an issue the current resident of that house has no more than no less than three cars there at all times and often four cars and that is already spans the length of the curbing on the property um second there is an aesthetic to the to the neighborhood where all every house is is 70 years plus old putting a new structure there a new house would definitely disrupt that and like Mark

mentioned this this did come up before Jeremy is my neighbor or was my neighbor before I sold the house and he mentioned this as soon as the property was sold he said I bet they're going to try to split that and here we are five or six years later and they're trying to split it and like I said if you drove by that it doesn't pass the eye test on where you'd put a house

um so with that um thank you thank you for the input can any of the neighbors know if is it being used as a multi-family or has it ever as a true family I don't think it's currently yeah thank you there are two adults that live there but they see they live together okay lady in the back row

a structure um my entire life this entire thing has only been one family one person owned okay um there was not enough room to the east of the existing structure which would be by your home to the west where you could put a driveway the other driveway would be absorbed by the lot that they want to develop okay or a portion of it because there's a space where they do pull off now to

park by their west side of their house but if you take that parcel from home you're kind of taken away any advantage of off street parking there's no room for parking on these streets at all come winter time they all get a pop on the North side so the plows can get through and that becomes a another issue as most of Fall River is anyways um I think right now if you were to put

a home in there Not only would pocket be an issue but you also have the noise element and as you know that every every day you go out in the summertime you have lawnmowers weed whackers chainsaws nail guns uh whatever you want to hear from a motor is going and it goes seven days a week up until nine o'clock at night so I think if you added another home in there

I'm not talking about human noise but I'm talking about static noise so that they can keep their yard mode whatever I don't know I think that is just going to add to the congestion of there's already a lot of loss of I've I've lived there for 70 years so I know that there's a lot of loss of privacy and I get that people you know we are a growing city and everybody's kind of developing into each

other but when you still add houses on top of houses you kind of like take away from a person's way of life that they've always had so that's kind of my and right now I would say it is a single family you see two mailboxes but I think are one of those belongs to the owner and one belongs to the tenant

yeah yeah it could be but it's not that thing with property that would be very unusual unless it's burning the washer and dryer or something and they're charging separately that type of thing regardless it's it's giving the wrong impression turn 11 we got a bunch of a bunch of issues is there anybody else speaking opposition sir I'm sorry

um like the neighbors before me I have you know similar concerns it's also I own that property going on six years and that lot has been empty until recently and parking was an issue before you know the um the building became occupied it's also we have a one-way on Charlotte which they put in that bike path that nobody uses which limits parking on the other side of my lot which really leaves just

wrath God Street we're also next to a school is uh extremely large amounts of congestion during school hours during pickup and drop off there's also a ton of kids that live in that neighborhood I worry as a father that when my son's playing in the yard cars can't see if you know God forbid a ball runs into the street and he you know he's he runs out after it there's

so many cars on that street as it is that I think adding an additional home and adding you know more Vehicles without Wall Street Parking um you know should be a huge concern I don't even know how they would fit that second house in the lot um I'm not an engineer either so um and really that's it that's all I wanted to add okay appreciate the input thank you anyone else to speak in opposition

members of the board anything else anything else from planning so we're at the magical moment I asked my board for a motion to approve or a motion to deny I want to make a motion motion to deny made by Dan De Pere do we have a second I'll give it that to Rick second by Ricky Sahari discussion on the motion then on the motion John Frank yes Jim Calkins yes Dan De Pere yes Ricky

Society yes and chairman Prairie yes thank you thank you good seeing you sir

uh item number six Carlos Estrella Kara the attorney Peter a celino 655 President Avenue as the subject property map M20 lot 3.

the applicant seeks and after the fact variance to maintain the existing structures chimney and deck waving front and side yard setbacks as well as lot coverage requirements and an S single family zoning District attorney celino good evening I hate after the fact of everyone says so it's a great way to start the year uh thank you so Peter celino on behalf of the applicant Carlos Estrella the site is

located at 655 President Avenue uh if you're going up President Avenue in an easterly Direction you would remember it as a vacant lot before you get to Highland Avenue Mr Estrella purchased the lot built the house on it and it was through site plan review that these issues were discovered so the variance request relates to front yard setback side yard setback and lot coverage and ultimately the hardship to me is that

the building is built the deck is there the chimney is there and the paved area is there so to drill down on the exact issues on the west side of the house Mr Estrella built a chimney and as a consequence of that we are now at a side yard setback of 13.2 and the requirement is 15.

so sure the front yard setback is supposed to be 25 feet and we're at 21.25 as a result of the deck that faces North Park on the front of the house a little balcony oh yes yeah and then lastly the lock coverage requirement is supposed to be 25 percent and it's calculated at 27.8 in this instance so to recap uh in the front yard or approximately four feet uh over the side yard approximately two two and

a half 2.7 and on the lot coverage 2.8 over and so as a result we need a variance in order to keep the structures as they currently sit I have the authority to tell you that this was an innocent mistake Mr Estrella did not understand that he was going to violate the zoning regulations like I said this was caught in site plan review so so if it was caught inside plan review how did this get built

it was quite insightful interview after it was built so site plan review did not indicate these deficiencies so site plan review everything was in complete conformance with the bylaw when they do a final as built you can provide how things were built that's when it gets discovered and you have to make sure that the owner has no issue with financing or anything going down the road Relief really should be

sought and hopefully granted so that this would not Cloud anything with regards to title and showing compliance with Zone I understand entirely I'm trying to figure out where this fell down it fell down at at some point in time the owner deciding to build something that was not shown on his site plan or shown on and his building plans I guess so that that balcony and the chimney were add-ons they were not showing us

they were not part of the original plan and most likely the driveway the size of the driveway was not shown but was not built in accordance with the plan either and that's why the wanted coverage is over okay did did the so so the plans were modified as the house was being built is what I'm kind of I don't know what the plan was modified I mean he was building it so I

don't know that the plan was modified I think he built something that wasn't on the plan and then when they went to do site plan review they said geez that's off in these respects which is why we're here okay and and it is all minor someday they're not going to be minor and you know it's it's a different thing it's a brand new house there was no reason for this to happen

we we had it happen in one of the subdivisions that somebody built a deck that was actually on somebody else's property it's like it's a brand new subdivision how did you manage that that's okay that was a long story I was the Council on it I think you win

um okay questions from the board at this point so Dan if I understand what you're saying then a safe plan was approved but then after they have to go back is that right after this when everything is built they have to provide a plan showing what was built and were they in compliance with the site plan that was approved okay this is a minimal change sometimes we see great changes in what shows up on

the site plan review hopefully those great changes don't have to do with zoning non-compliance and then we can handle them in-house this one we cannot handle in-house because we're not the zoning board of appeals they can grant relief and say this building can stay 13 feet off of the sideline yeah I'm just looking to clarify the timetable so the site plan was approved yep everything

was in order correct and then when they came back afterwards yep then they they quite the uh oh yeah okay all right thanks anybody else anybody to speak in favor of the petition anybody to speak in opposition um opposition yes sir I live next door your name and address please I never met two people who worked harder on anything in my life these two people and my question who make mistake here I don't even know

I think it was Mr Strauss mistake I think somebody should appoint them out that this thing was being so too close to the property I was told the other day it was five and a half feet short or like uh too close and that was by somebody in the office I'm not gonna rat out anybody here but I was told it was five and a half feet or and it's a very beautiful imposable

building five and a half feet going the other way would have been a lot nicer especially since they had the room on the other side I just think that in the future you know I'm here to complain to the city not to Mr stroller and this is the stroller that uh you know he thinks should be taken care of before they put a stake in the ground you know that's always the intent yeah

that's always the intent But please understand at the same time that the officials in the building department can't be out and look at every stage of every project yeah well they are to do inspections yeah but they're not out there if they're not provided with the information that says we're not in compliance with zoning how are they to know that they're not land surveyors right so until that takes place which

the land surveyor is provided this plan illustrating that it's two and a half feet whatever it is short not five right that's what we have to rely on doesn't matter if we go out there and measure it with a tape and try and determine where it is we're not licensed land surveillance this gentleman is that said this is the exact Dimension that's what this board can act upon it's not up

for the building department to babysit people that get a permit based upon information that they submit and then want to go build something else in clear violation of what was approved to be built oh you're also the driveway it was clear I thought it was I was told by yard the building department I'm not in the building department okay but go ahead well your other employee of the city

that was supposed to be a 13-foot driveway and I believe it's like 34 35 feet uh why wasn't that core it is when they submit the plan that shows this is what we just poured for a driveway it is getting caught it's not just that it's it's the curb cut it's the full width of it no they did go for a curb cut extension to the city council for it could be greater

than 16. they did do that and we made sure that they did that because actually when I was out speaking to you about the drainage issues I made sure because they went and they cut the driveway without the permit I told them then you can't have a driveway that big you need to come in so it that was caught at that point in time we don't stand there when they're pouring concrete for their driveway to

make sure that it's in compliance with their site plan that's what the site plan review is that's what the process does it says you can have a driveway of this big they decided to build it bigger we find out when they submit this plan and then tell them your lock coverage is too big okay at what point did you get an occupancy permit does not have he doesn't have them might have a temporary but he

doesn't move okay so you're not in the house yet no he's living in a tenement right now because he can't move in okay it looked it looked like somebody was was in when I was out there last weekend that's all but I ain't go back and forth there because I have tools I have I have to take care of the garden and you have some water there they are and all that

no one else in our position

that's the difference I understand the matter at hand I see it it's in this case it's minor I leave it to the board at this point to make a chairman and I moved that we Grant the variance requested a second any discussion then on the motion John Frank yes Jim Calkins yes Dan De Pere yes yes I'm sorry um and uh chairman pero no but it passes so you're also thank you all

item number seven Around the Clock Services Inc also attorney Mark L Levin I knew you'd be back 280 and 282 Ridge Street is the subject property map g-07 lot 52 applicant seeks his special permit to divide the parcel into two lots leaving the existing three family dwelling 280 Ridge Street on uh proposed lot one and he exists and an existing single-family dwelling 282 Ridge Street on the proposed lot two

according to City Records both dwellings were built around 1900 which affords the property the opportunity for subdivision by special permit per 86-423 B of the city of Fall River zoning ordinances the property is located in an apartment A2 zoning District Council Mr chairman members of the board again for the record mock l11 138 Rock Street Fall River Massachusetts as I promised an easy award this matter is a

special permit it's provided under the bylaw we have two structures that were built before zoning occurred I'm asking the board to vote that this is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood or the district than it would be leaving two houses on one lot instead providing two separate lots for two separate buildings as provided under the special permit by law there's no

changes to the buildings the only thing that will be is across easement for the the walkway there's no parking now it's not changing anything we're not adding to it it's just putting a line around the building in the front and leaving the building on the back with access to the frontage just a very simple project that you know it's there and the parties want to just have them as separate ownerships for

finance purposes well if I had a dollar for every one of these that we've had everybody a great dinner luckily some people left so the dinner is better for everyone else was this property just recently bought within the last six months or a yes so they knew before they brought the property it was one one parcel yes I I the only thing and I you know the board probably doesn't have control of this

but when I look at these kind of things I look at you're going to have two separate owners now so if there's fights between those people the owners are probably not going to live there they're going to call the police and as of February 28th of this year there have been 12 980 calls for service to the police so I look at something like this that we're adding on to Services here

that we don't have right now that would be a concern of having two separate orders and them fighting well you're gonna have peop separate people in the units whether you don't have one owner that's going to deal with this you're going to have two separate on it's not going to be fighting well you know the and we have that happen here in Fall River numerous times we've had that so

what happens is they sell the house they move on the city of Fall River and the other taxpayers are paying this that's that would be my concern with it not that I can vote on this but well it's my concern with a lot of the three family things here we get two separate owners and you get that fighting city council gets this all the time they get people coming in and the city's got to do

something they can't you know well it would be no different than the owner at you know at 270 with a three family fighting with the neighbor there I mean the Bible always provided to allow these to be separated without a variants as long as it's not going to be causing more of a problem than it does now and whether you have tenants or owners in there you're still going to have

hotties in a neighborhood anyway I mean in its to say that these people are going to be the worst people in Fall River as compared to something no I don't know what I'm saying I'm just saying I know you're not but when you have to especially 900 square foot Lots with two separate owners the owners are probably not even living there they're going to be like you guys handle it yourself they don't handle it the police

get involved well my assumption the single family you'll probably have an owner occupier there that's my guess the one in the back I mean that generally what happens the three obviously is an apartment building whether someone who's an owner moves in and has all the tenants there you know that's something that could happen too I mean I I understand what your concern is but that's a general

concern about any uh multi-family neighborhood any neighborhood yeah well I just think that we always come before and we're singing this is uh not going to change or hurt the neighborhood that is a detriment to the neighborhood later on well I mean it may improve the neighborhood yeah I mean you can't say that just because you're putting the Lots in separate its own separate lot itself because you know then you never

have subdivisions you'd have everyone owning large pieces of tracks one big house and I'm not what's wrong with that well well I'm saying but the the specifically the zoning bylaws among the city council voted in the with the support of the zoning the department to in planning board to create this Niche to take up property that has multiple families that have been there forever and allow these just to be on separate

Lots it we're not changing the property the buildings are the same we're not eliminating anything from these Lots they are going to be the same um you know you're not changing I mean if they were our four families living there now there'll be four families living there once they're split up um you know we're not taking parking away because there's no parking in this unfortunately I would have liked to seen

some myself but you know that you know 12 feet I don't know if gives enough uh for anyone to you know talk there but the shape of the lot doesn't allow for parking you'd have to cut in and build your retaining walls so all um easements will be put in place there's going to be an easement there for that one just for the walkway uh separate utilities separate utilities no offense

no no fences along the new Interior right new materials you know the exterior that people might want to have that themselves and just so that the board knows 86 423 B the reason why that was implemented because the non-conforming zoning condition of having multiple structures on the lot was determined to be a greater non-conformity than having them on smaller separate Lots so it's really

what what non-conformity do you want to get rid of so this this gets rid of the non-conformity of having two structures which would not be permanent I get it understood any other questions from the board at this point anybody here to speak in favor of the petition anybody to speak against I would ask the board to render a motion Mr chairman I find that there is no substantial uh move that the

special permit be granted closes one so no substantial detriments no yeah uh discussion of the motion conditions sorry we can do two yeah no no bye bye for kids

itself but um and still seconded on the on the motion John Frank yes Jim Calkins yes Dan De Pere yes uh Ricky Saidi yeah let's do it all the time uh chairman Prairie yes and then on the special permit that we Grant the special permission conditional Upon a instantly been on record and that uh utilities separate utilities and that no division interior division along the property line being create

we have a second on the motion second discussion hearing none on the motion John Frank yes Jim Hawkins down to Pierre yes yes chairman Pereira yes thank you well it happens Rick I'll tell cousin Steve I'm going to change his last name yeah I'm gonna call him get it right yeah that's okay I get it wrong too okay we are at Timothy and Tiffany long item number eight subject property is 6677

Meridian Street map uh v03 lot one applicant seats of variants to demolish existing non-conforming single-family dwelling and construct a new single-family dwelling on the property waving side yard setbacks and an R30 single families thank you good evening Peter fellino on behalf of the applicant Timothy long with me tonight is Timothy long uh the site in front of you is uh the long

family Homestead is that a fair way to characterize it I'm sure so this was my wife's great grandma's property who passed away beginning covet okay and I purchased this property last July okay and the proposal includes demolishing the existing structure which if you've driven by or gone to the site it's close to Meridian Street and it's only about 6.75 plan to the north property line

so the proposal is demolished that structure rebuild a single-family structure on the existing non-conforming lot the two waivers being so would be side yard and because of the orientation of the site we're talking about seven feet to the north and 15 feet to the South what is required in the r-30 district is 25 feet so the waivers again are side yard setbacks to the North and South we're

okay front we're okay rear and again the lot is pre-existing non-conforming you got a long narrow lot you've got uh Wetland to the to the south of you so interesting lots of too certainly so I think that the hardship here is the long narrow shape of the lot and ultimately I think Mr long is bettering the lot but with this proposal by removing the dilapidated structure and constructing the new property

and the intent for what it's worth is that Mr pachico is going to build the house if there are any questions specific to the to the house I will add I think it's it's good to know that the current structure has accessible and I'm going to hook into public source so significantly improving the Watershed and seeing that we're right on the reservation I would think that that is a deal okay questions from the board oh

whatever anybody here to speak in favor anybody to speak in opposition they're hearing none the no questions board from planning no I'm the only the only thing because I pick um the only thing I would have proposed was to split the side yard setbacks um but if the board's okay with it it is further away than what the current structure is and pushed further back the abutting properties are owned by the

water department did not stay to oppose so no this is quite a bit Yeah I have nothing to uh nothing really to critique on this there's no lock coverage issues there is no lock coverage requirement for the zoning District so right no in full support of it and if I could I'm sorry all the existing there's a couple ancillary structures all around that says it's going to all be demolished sheds and

garages and all that yeah that's like something in the back Farm or whatever there's an old garage and an old leg where I used to keep coach stuff okay okay you're not going to keep coach

the uh request for variance in the conditions I just as stated that they obtained connection to the public sewage system is it connected to water or is have a wall it's connected to a lot of eyeshadows a few months ago because I was paying a bill for no reason so it is on its own City water now correct okay we have a second from Dan uh a discussion on the motion on the motion John Frank yes

Jim Calkins yes Dan De Pere Yes Rick Ricky sahadi yes and chairman Ferrari yes congratulations that's really cool you're keeping the family property I like that

subject properties 327 Chicago Street map E17 lot nine the applicant seeks of variants to subdivide the existing parcel into two lots of leaving the existing two family dwelling on one on lot one on one lot I'm sorry while constructing a new single-family dwelling on the second lot waving all zoning requirements in an R8 single-family zoning District Council good evening Peter fellino on

behalf of the applicant and owner of the property Brian tixera Brian is here with me along with his wife um by way of introduction to the project itself Brian lives in the two family structure labeled on the plan as 327 Chicago Street Brian would like to build the single-family house that is labeled as proposed one family dwelling on parcel 2 on the plane The Proposal was before the board

previously with this exact plan and was granted pursuant to a variance decision that was a stamp by the city clerk on June 20th 2019 and ultimately what ended up happening was Mr texera was shipped out he's an Air Force service member and he was shipped to Abu Dhabi and he could not perform or exercise the variants so he is back obviously he is now in the Air Force Reserve and he is a

firefighter in the city Fall River he wants to build this single family house and live there with his family so the request for the variants or the variances are as follows as it relates to parcel one on the plan the requirement for the side setback is 15 feet and as you can see from the plant if you're looking at the Eastern Orient the Eastern side of 327 The Proposal is five feet in the rear

the requirement is 20 The Proposal is 10 as a result of the jog to keep the square footage accurate and then on parcel 2 the request for waiver would be Frontage because you need 80 feet and there's only 60 on proposed parcel 2 and the side set back to the west of the single family dwelling is proposed to be 10 feet and the requirement is 15. so those would be the requested variances

the square footages are appropriate front edge of parcel one is appropriate I should also know for the record it should be should the board be inclined to re-grant this there were certain conditions which I'm assuming you're aware of in the prior decision which Mr tixera is certainly amenable to and agrees to be bound by

when was this variance approved the first time uh June 20th 2019.

it was one of the was one of the conditions because I don't have it in front of me no further subdivision of process one parcel one conditions no building permit issued until site plan review must provide four off-street parking spaces must provide landscape screening of parking area along the west of the paved area so so no Mr Frank my only concern is the way it's being carved out eventually parcel one

could potentially be carved out now you're leaving a three family two family on a small postage stamp understood and historically these were three merge Lots I think those were the original Lots um but I mean so what they're saying is parcel one sort of the left side they don't want you to be able to divide it in the future they don't want you to come back and say okay so my client

agrees to that condition that's what the board just so there's enough of the four parking spaces to the side of that correct since I have to ask the question anybody here to speak in favor I figure you already are hey Buddy's speaking opposition that's covered I kissed when when you read your initial waving all right that's the publication but I don't think yeah I I just don't like that word

because that means we could go 20 feet or 200 feet high or yeah you know I I think that I have absolutely no question I I certainly would never penalize somebody who was called back to 50 hit death uh but I I it's just that waving oh I I would have Grant without doubt those as requested are those variances as shown on the map or or on the site plan okay that that I haven't

done no problem but yeah do you no I get it and it's just we see it all the time and it it makes me Twitch somebody comes in and asks for five variances and it's you know because just wave everything all right any other questions any discussion I'll accept the motion we already look we already have

I like that just one thing please good looking plan good looking plan yeah you don't see him like this anymore okay it's getting late at one motion please it's getting late chairman I move approval of the variant uh conditional on-site plan review and no further subdivision of barcel one the other conditions from the original program nope nope yeah oh there were multiplied in there

street parking if it would be easier we can just stipulate to the conditions in the variance decisions 2019. yep sounds good okay you have a second on that I'll second very good discussion on the motion hearing none on the motion John Frank yes Jim Calkins yes Dan De Pere yes Ricky sahadi yes and chairman Ferrera yes thank you all right good luck thank you for your service all right

you see the correspondence item 10 are you and discuss notice of uh adjudication and public comment hearing for petition filed by National Grid and the Department of Public Utilities to modify existing electric transmission line rights of way that exit for National Grids Pottersville switching station and Somerset crossing over the Taunton River and into Fall River and continuing easterly to Sykes Road and substation

and Fall River move Acceptance in place very good so the item that never goes away oh yeah do we need a second it's just receive a correspondence yeah you might as well just a second on the motion John Frank yes yes Ricky's yeah here we are discussion review and discuss proposed updates and Zoning Board of Appeals rules and regulations so board members um what you see here is cleaned up version

of what when someone comes to the office and asks for what are the zoning boards rules and regulations for filing and all those kinds of things we hand them a number of documents of different fonts text sizes everything under the Sun so what we've done is made a concise clear singular packet that contains everything that someone could need it's revolutionary so by all means do you do not have to

act on this this evening but take time to read through it go on this on the website and you can see the various documents and how they float around so this is just an attempt to make things simpler and more concise so when we get plans submitted and there are missing items a b and c and they said well we didn't know well it's in the rules and regulations well we didn't get those so

they're there now whether somebody looked on the website or not and found the various different documents this now puts it all Under One Roof so there's no excuse for not knowing how things get handled before this board and in the proposed revision do you up the number of vacations to 25 from our 15 that we had voted on a couple years I mean by all means I mean those are the kind of

things so read through those and whatever we haven't been close in a while um so if I mean just knowing how I feel after the numbers that we went through tonight I would not want to go through another 16 or whatever well you know it's interesting uh true that some boards a lot of boards will not necessarily set a number of petitions to be heard but they'll put a time limit on the hearings yeah

we have that most boards do not get a decision the night that you are that's correct first present you could be at six hearings before you get a vote that's not historically how this board has acted so you are correct you can give you know I I've been in front of boards and had one big monster come in and it just takes up an hour and a half two hours and you're sitting there

knowing they're going to cut you off at 10 30. and you know you've got a half hour presentation yourself so it's like well I guess I'll try for two hours next month yeah one just just watching reaction from people that come in and they've stayed for two hours or whatever your time and their project did come up and they got to come back again even though it was scheduled for the night

but that's my some boards also need twice a month right depending on you also have the option of scheduling and ideas I'm doing a ton of work up in Maine right now and all these tiny towns of Maine it's it's twice a month first and first and third Thursdays of every month and that's all boys here everybody's just singular so what I would recommend is especially with the time of day that it is yep read through

these mark them up I mean this is a fluid document by no means is any of this really locked in although it's something you want changed or addressed now while we're creating this it would be the time to do it it's a great effort thank you for the whole staff that's awesome sorry it took so long to get it to you but it's okay a couple other things to do citizens input somebody

actually signed up and she is not here uh uh approval of minutes from March 16th 2023 meeting motion to wave the reading of the minutes second second you're tired we have a motion and a second discussion on the motion hearing none on the motion yeah Jim I'm sorry John Frank yes Jim Coggins yes Dan De Pere yes nothing to table the um you can just stay on that because it was only off the discussion discussion

but before we end I'd like to acknowledge Nina and Chris's hard work with the whole iPad program that was singular trip to their efforts it takes a lot and they're doing this for planning and conservation so it's it takes a lot to get all of this information creating the new summaries all the different things we're trying to provide you with information to help you do your job

on out we're going outside the norm all in favor