4 23 2019 Planning Board

thirty we are going to we're gonna open the meetin but first pursuant to the Open Meeting Law any person may make an audio or video recording of this pub with me and I'll make transmit the meeting through any medium attendees are therefore advised that such recording so transmissions are being made with a proceed or unperceived by those present and I deemed acknowledged and permissible and now we're opening the

meeting of the floor of a Planning Board 5:30 April 23rd 2019 and item number one we're going to continue the street acceptance of Brookside Street thank you ma'am chairperson you have my memorandum dated April 11th at the last meeting I needed some additional time to do some research to find out because based on the assessor records there's no right of way from Highland Avenue through the st.

Vincent's property to where the these two houses and that the four Lots are I've worked with the assessor I've looked at the deeds I've looked at the old assessor maps all the field cards and unfortunately there's no evidence that a right-of-way exists from Highland Avenue through the st. Vincent's property to the house you know that the petitioner 122 Brookside the physical address the physical access as I stated

is a gravel driveway and there's also in looking at the st. Vincent's property appears there's no report an easement either could be a prescriptive right but there's no easement over the gravel road so since there's no established right-of-way there's nothing that we can legally recommend that thing because it doesn't exist so therefore the Planning Board would need to recommend the City Council not to

approve the street acceptance request because there's no there's there's nothing that can be accepted correct I know that one of the property owners is here I know he was not here at the last meeting I think your mother was if you wanted to come down yeah if you wanted to come down I just wanted to did you and I know we've we spoken on the phone I think yeah yeah yeah I just wanted to clarify

did you understand that what I mean by there's no right of way yeah and so unfortunately my recommendation the Planning Board is that they have to recommend denial because it doesn't exist yeah I think that we could that's the formal part but if you wanted to you could work with my office the engineering department and maybe st.

Vincent's to try to establish if they would be willing to establish a right-of-way through their property they may not yeah if that's the case then I think that you could I know that there's been some periodic maintenance and and you may want to talk to the DCM for to do the periodic maintenance okay no how would I go about that to try again anyway you'd have to reach out to st.

Vincent's property yeah and talk about if they would be willing to dedicate a right-of-way over the gravel way okay and and you know if you wanted to set a meeting up with them you wanted myself or the city engineer to be there we're more than willing to help you with that okay to go over that process unfortunately yeah nice there's nothing to accept so that's my recommendation to the board all right

I went over to the area that checked myself or won three times for a fact then that ain't exactly what you were saying that in other words we recommend for the city to accept that Street we're not just any industry to accept right in you know like we have the famous streets or something or no acceptance of a will accept it but the city and full responsibility but isn't this a bill

said there's nothing really much for us to work with okay therefore we would need a recommendation for code to recommend to the City Council not to approve the street acceptance treatments I make there cuz there's no right of way because there is no right of the place I'll make the motion to recommend to the City Council who would not accept any Brookes high street because there's no way Oh

all in favor yes hey don't invite laws Amendment for the kennels there's a post modification to chapter 86 out of co2 definition and chapter 86 - 36 table of uses the amendment proposes to modify the number of dogs for a kennel from three to four thirds which will be consistent with state law okay I'm just gonna read the ad for both of the public hearing items notice is hereby given

that the following the Planning Board will hold the public hearing on Tuesday April 23rd 2019 at 5:30 p.m.

first floor hearing room at City first hearing room and the to hear persons wishing to be heard on the following proposal for chapter 86 of the code in Fall River where as it relates to zoning to amend the following section 1 by inserting in the table of uses the following districts wind energy industry research and development wind energy industry processing fabrication manufacturing assembly wind energy

industry support services and those would be in the WTO d and they would all be yes second section by striking out section 86 nine terms and in its entirety and replacing it and it's replacing not more than three dogs to stew to say not more than four dogs and to replace the section for the kennels in its entirety and replaced the following KenKen locating containing four or more canines

three months or older and then the definitions would also pertain to for canines four months or older anyone have any questions concerning the need these matters may contact either the Planning Department or City Council and it gives the address so the first one on our agenda is the kennels I think it's pretty straightforward the Building Commissioner met with me and asset I prepare a amendment that would strike

three and have four dogs because that's compliant with state law and that would be in the definition section and under the table of uses so therefore I would recommend approval to recommend approval the City Council the bylaw amendment as proposed recommendation

4:42 for do i have second all in favor all right the second bylaw amendment is I've been working with the mayor's office and the offices and looking at we've been getting numerous inquiries into the waterfront regarding wind energy industry not windmills to save it for the fact not placing windmills on the water but it's the support services for offshore wind there are any number of there's cable

manufacturers there are manufacturers that that or places that do assembly of the various components they also have there's right now they're looking there's a company that services the windmills and they have a lot of parts and things and they need the water they have to have a boat you know they get these things shipped in whatever is broken they take out so that's a support service so to better position the city

because we're being told a lot of things is is that even though a lot of the stuff is gonna go over to Brighton point that that's not nearly big enough to service the potential of what they're going to be looking at on offshore wind so in order to position the city for future uses and economic development that would be coming with this wind energy industry in our region we're recommending an to

better suit to get the city in the position the WTO D zoning district is the district along the water and we would recommend adding three uses to the use table 86 36 and that would be wind energy industry research and development so any business that wanted to do research and development related to wind energy wind energy industry processing fabrication manufacturing assemblage or packaging a lot of that would be you

know people companies that would be having the various parts shipped they assemble them preassembled then they put them on barges and they send them out so that's that would be what that type of industry would look like and then the support services you know that I I mentioned you know that that do the maintenance and and repair of the thing so it's a fairly consistent with our zoning bylaw in the

wording the way we've used them and so my recommendation is to is for approval to recommend approval of this to City Council and I'm available for any questions ok I have a question for you as usual okay bye strike ready chop 286 36 at this open up the entire waterfront in a city or follow the end and what I mean by the entire not just a call from what the area this anyone who could have come

in which is I want to fund up there is that fits the way it's good for the city on that it's a negative about it but it's only within the WTO D zoning district which is along the waterfront it would be the area oh that's in yellow that's in yellow that's along the waterfront okay it's only that existing zoning district so because they need water access and since some of the areas

obviously you know aren't going to be conducive to it they're going to need larger pieces of property depending on what they need and and sometimes they would need the water access so it's it's strictly it's strictly the WTO D is the yellow and I've highlighted the city pier and the parks so those are that's the only areas so it's just so long it would affect everything along just the water

yeah it's and it's animation yeah so and as you move further down like the area that's in and around the sewer treatment plan that's already zones that's already an industrial zone which would allow some of these uses but the WTO need is not okay the other question I ever did this completely we strengthened the windmill in other words if I changed this somebody can come in and says how you'll

go about restricting windmill maybe putting a windmill up well we have a separate bylaw for when for wind energy facilities this is wind energy industry not oh we have women's separate by law for for windmills thank you so that regulates us that was my question Johanna phone okay do we have a motion a second this is just a notification you can just to place on file chapter 91 and the 401 Planning

Board and Conservation Commission get these notices and then this is just a this is just a courtesy notice there's no action necessary you can just vote the place it on file they're looking at doing a new transmission line underneath the harbor from one side to the other it's been a big project that that's been going on and they have to do dredging and filling so I'm just recommending

that you acknowledge it and place it on file okay have a motion to vegetable I should put it on file is that correct and we have Oh all in favor aye

item number four we have the appointment of William Roth at Planning Board's representative to surface Commission I think motion for that one went to smile you don't want to get away from I make motion to point the closing route to the Planning Board represented and information correct yep yes sir as the planning notes representatives a serpent okay all in favor raise your hands congratulations

we have application for adjustment of plan snap believed not to require approval form eight plants in the first one item number a is five number nineteen fourteen thirty one owners applicants ground to earth incorporated located at two thirty two Lance's straight f-14s fifteen and twenty nine what they're looking at doing is they are taking numerous existing property lines and consolidating them into two lots

and you can see the old lot lines like f-14 lots fifteen and fifteen through 29 you can see all of the old - lot lines the new perimeter lot for parcel two will be a fifty-five thousand one point two acre parcel fronting on Jackson Street and the parcel number one will have frontage on Lapham and on Arlington Street and so it is not a subdivision and I recommend that you

prove it okay do I have a motion to approve the motion do I have a second - a second dilution all in favor aye I'm gonna post

5c is file number 19 - 14 32 on an applicant squeeze cheap real estate trust I say that right location 83 that's 95 Clint straight assess this lot okay 13:17 this is and you've done several of these this is a division of property it's under state law under chapter 41 section 81 L it talks and it's on the plan and clearly this plan clearly states this is a two structures in existence prior to subdivision

control law they can be subdivided and it is not considered a subdivision they can be divided so therefore I recommend that this does mean approval for approval not required they have added some note that we're not making any determination to compliance with zoning and I would like it stated for the record that any future building permits or construction or anything necessary the state law does state is clearly

states that they still if they were to move forward with doing anything in the future they would need to get a variance for the not any any nonconformity that this creates but they under state law allows them to do this so I just wanted to say for the record that to advise to put it on on record that any any future work through the building department most likely will require a variance to

make them conforming so I recommend that it does not constitute a subdivision and you can prove it under approval requires no one opposed negative number six we have a turbo of the March 26 2009 teen minutes of the meeting special meeting Charlie was in tears of joy can't move on okay now so it on that shelf yes so we have a second all in favor or all those in favor and child's bonus will extend