5 18 2023 Zoning Board of Appeals

good evening I am Joseph Pereira chairman of the zoning board of appeals for the city of Fall River it is 6 p.m on Thursday May 18 2023.

we are meeting at one government center in the first floor hearing room Chris went to Massachusetts General Law chapter 30A section 20 subsection F I hereby notify all persons in attendance that this meeting is being recorded with both video and audio devices by Fall River government TV Mr Craig Salvador in both video and audio if anybody decides desires to make an audio video a combination recording thereof please

notify me now and I shall make a public announcement of your intention our records our recording clerk this evening is Nina Kruger sitting to my immediate right uh present this evening are our permanent members Mr John Frank our vice chairman Jim Calkins our Clerk and repair uh Rick uh sahadi myself as chairman also we have alternates John Sylvia and Eric Kerry Kelly also in attendance this evening is

the director of engineering and planning Mr Dan agiar sitting at the fire my far left and uh Chris uh Perino I always mispronounce his name our assistant plan is sitting at my far right Nina have all petitions to be considered then probably 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 yes

I declare the May 2023 meeting regularly scheduled meeting of the zoning board of appeals of the city of Fall River open for such business as shall regularly come before May 18th I'm in the time warp I remind all persons are presenting before the board including the petitioners of Butters anyone in support or anyone opposed to a petition that your presentation should be limited to

three minutes questions and responses must be directly directed through the chair the board's rules and regulations direct the board specifically to look for information which supports the petitionist claims as such the petitioner should identify and factually support the basis for the petition I hereby advise all petition is that all interested persons that this board is the zoning board of appeals and the

board's Authority exists personally to Massachusetts General Law chapter 4 PA 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 or use which is the subject of the petition before the board this evening the clerks and the building planning

engineering and Licensing departments are competent in the discharge of their duties as clerks they are however not attorneys and are not competent to give legal advice the action taken by this board has a real and Lasting effect on the title of your real estate I urge all petitioners to seek competent legal counsel before filing your petition and after the decision of the board has been made

for example there was a city ordinance 2015-11 -section 10-11 requiring site plan review a copy of the ordinance is available at the city clerk's office or from the planning department I remind everyone that the building inspector is the zoning enforcement Authority and you are here this evening because the building inspector has determined that your proposed action is contrary to the city of Fall River

zoning ordinances the city Charter section 9-18 mandates that all multiple member bodies develop and adopt rules or policies for public comment we have adopted such a policy which in short provides for citizen input on zoning board specific matters at the end of the meeting if you wish to make such comment there is a sign up sheet on the table just outside the door I disclose that an

official copy of the zoning ordinance is available at the city clerk's office and that one cannot rely on the online zoning ordinances are there any questions before we begin they're hearing none let me call case zero one Davido care of attorney Arthur D Frank Jr being represented this evening by attorney Joseph I Macy property located at 1000 Blossom Road map w-15 lot 30. the applicant seeks a

special permit to construct a 40 by 80 foot garage exceeding height and area requirements in an r80 single-family zoning district and a wwd watershed Watershed and water supply protection overlay District this was a tabled last month attorney good evening Mr chairman members of the board as stated for the record my name is Joseph Macy I'm an attorney with an office at 209 Bedford

Street in association with Arthur Frank we have submitted a letter A requesting a continuance and I do that for the record now um when we last met and the boy tabled this matter the main objectives seemed to be from the water department we have reached out to them and to him Mr Frank has had a couple of conversations with him we're waiting for some photographs that Mr labashier said he would take and

get to us and we were also looking to meet with the water board who haven't scheduled a meeting yet so I think it will be productive for all concerns if this will continue again so that we can do some further work we haven't not done anything was just taking more time than we thought Attorney Mason do you want to ex do you want to continue until June or would you

like to go further just in case I think it'd be safe if we could go one meeting past that because when I the water board hasn't scheduled a meeting yet when I check with him today they didn't have one schedule so if it could be continued to July that will be good so the request on the table is for a continuance on the case of 1000 Blossom Road until our regular July meeting July 20th July

20th thank you discussion on that any comments concerns Mr chairman I move that the request be granted that the petition be continued until the July 20th meeting do we have a second on that second by Dan De Pere any discussion John Frank yes Jim Calkins yes Dan De Pere yes Ricky sahadi yes and chairman Prairie yes thank you just uh a little bit of addition for the record in our letter we waive the time requirements

but I'll do it for the record now if that's necessary I can think it's the last line I can I can read it in this is uh from the office of uh Lara offices of Arthur D Frank to the Supreme Court Appeals uh agenda item zero one David alpaveo 1000 Blossom Road dear chairman Pereira I hereby request that this matter be continued to your next meeting in June 2023 which we've changed uh we are

currently in discussions with representatives of the watapa water board to address the concerns raised at the April 20th 2023 letter to the board I further agree to extend the required time limit for the board to take actions on this petition is set forth in general Mass General law section 48 chapter 48 section 15. I would suggest we do get us a signature waving at the time because

that's a June and we're going to July so that letter doesn't really cover the extension that we just granted if I change this to July and have them initial it without the satisfactory I've done it for the record I'll do it any way you want to make my clerk happy I will be thrilled if I can I have your autograph now now I have answers

foreign

Vice chair John Frank will uh share this particular item and um John Sylvia will stand in as the fifth member

okay we're calling uh item zero two vertex Towers LLC care of attorney Francis uh 40 Estes Lane map p04 lot 26.

count um good evening um the board recalls I was here last month seeking a special permit we continued it to tonight and in the last month Miss Kluger and I have spent an immense amount of time trying to figure out um how similar facilities were permitted in the city of Fall River and also with the help of Mr aguiar it appears that most of the similar facilities were done by Wright without

coming in the zoning board however certain facilities were done with the grant of a variance from the zoning board so just this past week I applied for a variance which I assume will be on the June agenda so what I would like to do is continue this to the July agenda it would be my hope that at the June meeting the zoning board granted the variance but in the end like the event

that they don't I'd like to preserve the right to argue that a special permit is necessary if the board were to Grant the variance in June than we would withdraw the special permit application I have no issue with that we're doing two separate that are tracking for the same item the only reason why I spoke with Miss Krueger today and what she said was that um uh if I file the zip variance

application it will be heard after the continued special permit so there's no reason to continue it to before the variance so um I just thought it would be better and it's my goal to withdraw it assuming there's only boy to Grant the variants uh in June but I just want to preserve the right in case things don't go as planned members of the board any questions can I get a motion promotion to approve second

actually you submitted a letter as well or you did not I did not but I can certainly do one for the record okay if you if you can even not a piece of scrap paper same with extension and waving the time to act so I'll do that and let's give it to you okay that's fine thank you so I have um second James okay uh John Silva uh yes Rick sahadi yes Dan de Pratt yes foreign

number one Brian Rue of care of attorney Mark L Levin this is for 41 Crestwood street map p25 Lot 23 the applicant seek some variance to construct a garage with a living space above it waving side yard setbacks and a single family s zoning District good evening attorney lover good evening Mr chairman members of the board Madam clerk attorney mock l11 138 Rock Street for Massachusetts I have a

modest request tonight uh basically my client has a house then when he bought it is set dead in the middle of the property uh he would like to add an additional bedroom at the same time because of the way the configuration of the house is where the bedrooms the in the bathroom was at on the second floor of the house he's going to put a garage underneath so we'll forward an additional parking space to the property

also the either side of the property we have the same problem because it was dabbed straight in the middle so to design something that you could have a proper sized garage with the bathroom and bedroom up above it is about five feet closer than it should be the sideline setback was 15. he's 9.9 I I call it five just to make it to take care of a mistake if they go either way he would

have or could have put it in the back of the property except for a Suey easement that runs through the back that serves the houses not only his but through other property there so that's not available for him to do so it would be a hardship to have to have him dig up the entire backyard and change the sewer line if it could be done properly for engineering purposes with 90 degree

angles which probably is not a smart thing to do so we're asking that the house that's pre-existing since 1965.

back then this conformed later on the zoning change from the 10 000 to 12 000 square foot that makes this non-conforming but it's a pre-existing non-conforming house and he's asking you to waive the sideline requirement of five feet on the left side of the property as you look up Crestwood Street in order to have that he's met with his neighbors and they have a petition for them where they all understand what

he's doing including the directive butter and no one had any objections to him uh making this variance think this will enhance the property itself and also be a benefit of the neighborhood because it again provides another off-street parking space to the property and my client obviously the way the design would be so that he wouldn't have a bedroom on the first floor and everything up on the top floor is to

have the bedroom in the bathroom on the same floor and the garage on the in the basement area see that's about it a couple different questions this is not a separate living unit correct nope so this this bedroom attaches to the rest of that's correct in fact I have my client provided me the design if you would like that shows how the house here is maybe they're just this existing residence the bedrooms

here the closets there are just part of the the unit itself so I am curious are they going to need a separate curve cut permit because there is already an existing driveway and garage under the house you wrote me back that's to go to that board yeah questions from the board chairman I just uh for My City uh engineer any concerns um so I had a few notes one was first it

is to remain a single family yes two I would like a plan that illustrates the seweries the attorney 11 reference should be added to this plan so that you have it to see and can hang your hat on the reason why this couldn't be constructed somewhere else if it's a five foot easement along the rear property line then it has no no issue with putting in addition somewhere else so I'd like to see the addition the

easement on the plan the calculation provided for lot coverage bringing us to 21.8 percent the plan does not illustrate a new driveway um and new asphalt so I would like to see what the proposed driveway and what impact that would have on the new proposed lot coverage to make sure that a lot coverage variance is also not required as I stated before what ends up happening is we get these

things to site plan review and some of these little items have not been handled by this board because the plan presented doesn't necessarily provide that information so I would like to see that information added to the plan to make sure that additional or I mean attorney 11 can can say okay yeah we're not going to exceed 25 but then you may not be able to build a driveway to access your

new garage door so yeah I I can't and where we and where we need to add the easement to the plan anyway I would recommend that you you require that information be added to the plan and the crib cut yes he will need another crib cut not only from the engineering department but when you're in excess of a 16 foot curb opening on your property that requires city council approval so there's no guarantee that

that happens as well but again that's not that's not for this board to to determine so there are other permitting steps that need to take place after the specific zoning relief is handled by this board was it a matter of the layout of the existing house that made the owner go with that side as opposed to the opposite side you could have got away with no additional curb cut just by modifying the driveway that

already exists I'm guessing by the existing floor plan yeah that's where it made sense to put sure that's probably a kitchen on one end of the house and you want to walk right in yeah that's the problem everything else is set such that this was the more convenient area and the reasonable location than the other side I still need a waiver to come before you anyway no I realized I um

I figured that was the case I just wanted to hear do you know what the sewer easement is oh how wide it is I couldn't find one I was told but you know yeah so the sewer line runs back there so that doesn't mean there's an easement I could not find that answer do you know what they used to do there's no reason it's awesome so where's Joshua connect to

it's connected in front of the house but it goes out in the back of the house and comes out I don't know why they did it that way but so can we get that shown on the plan as well yeah all right I misunderstood I thought the other question on the uh wave that side the other side has two bedrooms there and I would have had to give one of them up and just made no

sense do you know if the lock coverage would be more than 25 percent if they currently only have a one-car driveway and I only expect to have another one-car driveway on the on the other side yeah the building covers or something yeah over the driveway be if you added again for lots of both times so the number that's provided from the engineer that says existing lot coverage I don't know what that included

I don't know whether he sometimes they just include just the house so you want to clarify existing lot coverage to be all impervious surface do you have the number what it is though he says he says it's 18.3 but without giving specific square footages of each item he says the proposed coverage is 21.8 with the garage but you're right I don't see your driveway put in the plan so I can't tell you I wouldn't be the

right guy you would be yeah you had to tell me when our driveway would be the right way yes uh I mean if that is something that can be postposing before issuing the decision to have that provided and that provides us under the 25 percent and we put the easement for the oh sorry well no there is no easement so you don't have to show an easy man so the

board just needs to look at the location of the exist you know where it even leaves the building is it like the sewer line out the back of the building it leaves out the back of the building which like which Edge you'll wear along the back of the house probably about one third over from the looking at the house on the right side okay so it's it's so it's over behind like where the existing

garage is towards that side correct okay yeah it's actually just outside the garage of Youth there's a like a uh utility room if you would of course yeah I mean if the board wants to act and and not Grant a lot coverage variants just understanding that at site plan review they won't get a building permit and they'll have to come back here if it's an exceedance of 25 it's up to you

whether you want to wait a month or potentially three or four months by the time you submit site plan review and find out you have an issue so talk to you it's up to you uh in in my own opinion and I'm one of five yeah I I would rather see it try to get try to get your engineer to update the plan come back in next month sure that's for continuance

come back in rather than as director of planning has said get all the way down to site plan review and have to come back in because maybe you're a 20 25.4 percent yeah just it's I wouldn't want to guess I wouldn't either so we'll ask to uh withdraw it and put it on no just table not don't withdraw I mean to continue it put it on for the next month

the picture I'm looking at the street was like 10 years old so this hasn't been done the road hasn't been improved since hasn't been improved since other than they they put all the they did putting gas lines down right last year so it's all it's chopped up the road looked brand new but it says it's in good shape so I just want to make sure because if they go for uh

right no there's no more time no no more time all right so we have a request to continue the matter until next month in order to uh complete these plans so that we're showing a lot of coverage including the new driveway we're showing the new driveway as well as showing the exit point of the sewer line from the house just to ensure ourselves that we're not permitting a garage that's going to drop

on top of the sewer line so we request to continue until the June meeting pending a waiver of the time frame or required time frame yeah because if necessary we have to modify if we find that the lock coverage is different right that gives you that gives you the adequate time to do it I would think so if the if the lock coverage does need to be ways for that we'll have to advertisements

you know what to do yes all right so the uh promotion made by Jim Calkins second place second second by John Frank any discussion on the motion they're hearing none John Frank yes Jim Calkins yes the underpear Yes Rick sahadi yes and chairman Prairie yes thank you very much

item number two if I murder this first name I'm sorry glacy Kelly Boza Freitas 379 to 381 Robeson street map M15 lot 43 the applicant seeks a special permit to convert the existing ground level space into a retail store waving zoning requirements in a g General residence zoning District good evening please identify yourselves oh that's my mom glace and I Thomas so we're here today to pay for a

special apartment so she can open a business at our house the business ain't gonna be disruptive at all because it's only going to be open from nine to seven and it's gonna be bringing people to that place to their place of the city I was like it's a lot of people likes to buy hair clothes I'm sorry I'm not quite sure what's going on sorry about that okay what's the nature

of the business again oh it's a clothing store clothing store yeah 9am not six seven six days a week uh probably five money to Friday Monday through Friday yes I like to shop on Saturday so you might want to extend those days oh no she says sad and some money so Saturday actually my bad okay you're in nice I have to be in this building every day now yeah what were the hours of operation again

6 p.m this was a business at some point do you know how long ago that was on business I think it was only 30 years ago I think yeah that's a long time well beyond the limits if you have any questions from the board in that case do we have a motion with any conditions I'm sorry probably comment anybody here to speak in favor of the issue uh I had a question about the zoning changing the

zoning on uh flavoring so what's being asked is that they'll be allowed to open up a retail facility yeah in the G District the general zoning district and that that retail use is allowed by a special permit so that's what they have applied for is a special permit to allow this activity to take place is there anyone to speak in favor anyone in opposition if you're hearing none I will accept is this a bifurcated boats

5K to vote they're just asking for expansion permit that we have to find that it's not substantially more detrimental yes than that so Mr chairman I move that we'd find that the proposed use would not be substantially more detrimental to the area and that's the first part so we have motion by Jim Calkins that the we find that the desired application is if granted is not substantially more

detrimental detrimental to the neighborhood thank you we have a second second by Ricky sahadi income comments discussion hearing none Ricky sahadi yes Dan De Pere yes Jim Calkins yes John Frank yes and chairman Pereira yes okay I moved that we uh Grant the uh a special permit as requested okay with hours of operations uh specified yeah Monday to Saturday uh right Monday through Saturday nine to six nine a.m 6 p.m

do we have a second on the motion seconds interfere discussion hearing none John Frank yes Jim Calkins yes Dan De Pere yes Ricky sahadi yes chair and Ferrari yes congratulations good luck thank you

take up in care of Attorney Peter a celino 580 Pleasant Street 583 Bedford Street and 584-594 Pleasant Street map M12 Lots 34 35 and 40. the applicant seeks a special permit to demolish two existing buildings in order to construct a one-story 55 022 square foot Edition and another 2053 square foot Edition the existing building one as proposed the applicant also seeks a permit to reduce the required parking

number of parking spaces to serve the establishment for 86-445 a of the Fall River zoning ordinance the property is located in the CMD commercial zoning District Attorney's email good evening good evening for purposes of the record my name is Peter solino I'm a lawyer at 550 Locust Street here in Fall River I represent the petitioner the engineer on the project as Jeff Tallman of Northeast Engineers who's here with

me this evening as Mr chair read The Proposal is to demolish portions of the building the gross expansion is approximately 57 000 square feet and I will turn the presentation over shortly to Jeffrey and then he can go over kind of the nuts and bolts of that but the impetus for this proposal is because Taco wants to stay in Fall River they have looked multiple times at other locations but they like this location

for those of you who don't know what they do they do heavy metal Machining and Fabrication their pay rate is very competitive for this area they have a five-year plan for this site that is forecasted to create approximately 25 to 30 jobs over the next five years at a very competitive wage and so they're trying to make this site work and so the impetus of relief tonight is that they want to stay in

Fall River so there are two requests here for special permits one is in relation to the demolition or extension of the building and the second is in relation to parking and so with that intro I'll turn over the presentation to Jeff to go over the expansion what it is where it is and the parking calculations good evening as you can see on the planets before you tonight the expansion

to the building is going to be on the south side of the building and it's going to be in the same general location as buildings number two in three those two buildings currently total about 22 000 square feet gross floor area so what we're proposing to do is to demolish those buildings and expand the existing building building number one further to the South the reason we need the special permit is it

is an expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming building in the sense that building number one does not meet setback requirements along Bedford Street excuse me in 14th Street the new addition is going to meet the required setbacks that would be required for a new building in this zone so it's just because of the existing building and adding on to the existing Bill and that we need that special permit

um the other request that we have is for the parking this is a manufacturing facility and under the city parking requirements with the expansion of the building it would be required to have 230 parking spaces on the site given the gross floor area now they know having operated at this facility for a number of years with the with the park and demand of the facility is currently um they currently work in two different

shifts there's a morning shift that I believe runs from 6 30 to 2 30 and then they actually have a gap in shifts between first and second of a half hour so second shift would be from 3 P.M to 11.

so with those two shifts their current demand based on employees they have now in you know with the facility uses is 85 parking spots for the first shift and 54 for the second shift with the expansion they projected it out and with the increased employees that would be brought along with the expansion they're only going to be up to 99 parking spots on 99 yeah 99 parking spots required for

the first shift and 60 for the second shift so to require the 230 parking spots under the zoning ordinance seems to be a bit of a Nova kill so what we're requesting here is uh would ultimately be a 41 reduction in the amount of required parking and that is solely based on what they know their needs are now and what they anticipate they will be in the future on this plan you can see we have

identified 78 parking spaces on the North West part of the property that's currently where the existing pocket is for the facility now the um currently I mean the the the mocking that's out there now in delineation of the parking spots isn't all that clear but I estimate there's about 60 existing parking spots in that area now so we believe we would be increasing that from 60 to 78.

in addition to the on-site parking they own Apostle of land across 14th Street on the opposite side of 14th Street that is solely used for parking it's just a parking lot and that provides an additional 58 parking spaces so the numbers that I'm giving you uh the 136 future well total parking spots that would be with the parking across the street and the honestly excuse me on-site parking here

um you know it does factor in those two parking areas also shown on the plan we had in dash lines further to the South we have identified an additional 24 spaces that could be added to the uh added to the site if necessary if in the future we you know if their estimates are off um and they need to provide a little bit more parking they do have the ability to

expand the reason I don't want to commit to those right now is that with the addition that area was going to be used for truck maneuvering and stuff like that so I'd rather not impede that at this time if we don't need it so other than that it's it's a pretty straightforward project it is a big addition um it's basically going to double the size of the facility but again we are

taking away two of the existing buildings that are on the property um and from an engineering and traffic circulation point of view um it's about it okay so if I could then jump back in relative to why this proposal is not substantially more detrimental than what's already there um for me it makes the site better having the buildings connected I think does a lot in terms of bringing things

inside uh keeping employees in-house and opening up more of the parking area as Jeff has depicted on the plan um as Jeff had indicated I don't think there's a parking detriment here because of the split shifts with the half an hour gap in between um and the use is not changing and it's not getting much more intense either so I don't think you're going to be feeding more traffic into the streets whether

they be 13th Street Pleasant Street or Bedford Street so I'd submit to the board that I don't think this is more detrimental than what's there and as an appropriate use of the property to keep a good business in Fall River foreign as far as right now deliveries and coming into the building materials Etc we have the existing overhead garage doors on the 13th Street side of the building is that where all the docks are

are they loading docks or just ground level there are some loading docks in that location and there's some additional overhead doors um like if you look at building number two on the south side where axis is provided there is a means to get in from 13th Street but also that site can be accessed through 14th Street as well okay and part of the new building will also have a have additional overhead

that's correct so that eases congestion for materials coming in materials going out by having I would assume by having more available spaces that way very sound questions from the board yeah they on your account of current number of use spaces is that for how many employees is it a one-to-one ratio about or is it a half of space per employee or how many current employees are there in the first ship

y 80 and you said how many spaces 60.

with 68 with 58 on the other side of 14th Street yeah so yeah 118. then then you're using less than a one-to-one ratio so adding 30 employees doesn't mean 30 cars it might mean 20 or correct yeah okay now they're projecting on first shift with the changes 99 employees on first shift 60 on second shift um could break down the 60 spaces or something like that any questions you're talking about right

she's never with um if if the 99 employees and the fish yes yes if the lot itself was not adequate which is how many 58 58 correct yeah so total love uh 136.

and you already have employees parking in that area correct that's good additional one from engineering and planning a couple of comments um just so that the board is aware this this property was granted relief in 2008 for this this used to take place and there were a few conditions in that variance that have not necessarily been adhered to um so this gives an opportunity to reinstitute some of those policies and

those conditions so that we get this site cleaned up I do think the proposal will allow them to meet some of those requirements such as no outdoor storage currently now if you if you look at your aerial you'll see there is quite a bit of material that is stored on the outside of the building so I would recommend that that condition be continued over into whatever new grant that you allow specifically where

we now have limited area other than being right on top of any of the streets where this material would be stored now it's a little bit interior to the site that would necessarily be viewed by a passerby or any type of traffic so I would I would like that to be considered as as part of it um Mr Tommy when you calculated the existing parking is any of the building used for storage

or warehousing because that's at a much less intense parking requirement that's 1500 square feet rather than 500 per space so if if you can make the argument I'm I've been in the facility so I know that there is product stored in product shipped so I think Mr Tallman's calculation would even or existing spaces required a proposed spaces required would be even less than what he's calculating because you are doing

it 100 by manufacturing yes I agree 100 um that there is a warehousing function to this but ultimately it is a manufacturing facility and that's why we requested the um the special permit for the reduction in parking just to cover that well I think you still need the reduction yes but it may not be as great as what I think what's being presented is the worst case scenario I mean I

don't know who has a manufacturing or processing facility that doesn't have some warehousing component within it enumerating that by square footage at this point I don't think they could they could provide that but just when you're thinking of it understand that this is not 100 a manufacturing and and processing facility where we've got hundreds of people online putting together widgets uh it's all custom

fabric there's a lot of different space and machinery and everything else that eats up space interior so um I don't have a real issue with with the with the reduction in the spaces a couple of the items I'd like to be considered as conditions these are separate Parcels of land so there should be an a r plan submitted and endorsed combining all the land together um you wouldn't get a building permit

without it but I would still make it a condition um I'm assuming somewhere along the line there will be some curb openings closed on the site and maybe the need for some others to be opened like I'm not quite sure on 14th Street how those Overhead Doors may be accessed with with vehicles maybe it's just pedestrian or forklift I don't know yeah I anticipate there could be some tweaking on 14th Street as we move

forward with a site plan if this does get approved then we could certainly take a look at that but just to backtrack um one minute the the the combination of combining these slots could potentially be an issue because several of them I believe a land Court which as well you don't have to go to Lam Corpus can still be separate so just like any singular parcel of land for zoning purposes they can be merged

um but there are land parcel lines that not going to still exist that that's understood sure um the height of the building of the Edition so I'd like to introduce Andrew digiamo who's the project architect yep he could probably address that question the including hike is not to exceed 55 feet okay

and that's that entire Edition the the major 55 000 square foot Edition yes that would be the highest appendages that would be on the building the the district allows for 80 feet so that's no issue I want to make sure that no relief was needed for that um site plan review I I think there should be so this this use was allowed with a couple of conditions one there should be no

outdoor storage two site plans shall be submitted to the planning board for review and approval there was no site plan review in place at the time but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been complied with prior to the issuance of the building permit and then lastly part of that was there shall be a minimum of five percent landscaped area with the goal of 15 all work shall be performed inside the building

so I don't understand the condition of five percent landscape area I know with a goal of 15 but I I do see potentially carrying over that five percent um would be recommended it would be nice to get some green space on this parcel and I do think they have some room to do it especially where you know let's look on 14th Street behind the gas station that's over there there's a little triangular piece of

land there now which I believe is asphalt um there would be no ability for outdoor storage over there it doesn't look like there's any parking being proposed there no reason why we couldn't provide some green space um to Shield that part of the building from from view on Pleasant Street and maybe some additional little islands that you see that are hatched out um maybe we could make those Landscapes

to some degree not not intense Landscaping also along the intersection right out Pleasant Street and 13th the radius corner where really nothing is happening to me that would be the most important corner to provide some some green space at that intersection it's apparently not being utilized for anything and that would be the corner that would be most in view of anybody traveling on Pleasant or 13th and that

that's currently out there now that's not being used for parking so I would recommend that you you still Institute the five percent where it goes we can deal with that site plan review We Were adamant about that at the last uh time they came in something along that corner and then along either the 13th Street somehow some way we can get the five percent if you take with the 24 foot

Dimension is over on 14th Street at the South End of the Edition where Dan had mentioned go behind the gas station all that area going around there until you get to the first dash line where the 11 potential future spots are that would get us at the five percent okay okay that's all for me Mr chairman and just consider it out of the corner and and again you mentioned it no fabrication

outside none of the words are good I don't want to see cutting and no work outside no storage or material outside anything else from the board yeah uh 14th Street the uh the overhead doors is that a dock or is that something you can drive in is it ground level that's going to be ground level I believe so exactly

yeah any large trailers would be coming into the loading areas out on 13th Street okay anything else from the board before we go to the floor anybody on here uh wishing to speak in favor of the project anyone here wishing to speak in opposition we're hearing none if there's nothing else from the board I would detain a motion to approve uh bifurcated bifurcated motion Mr chairman I find that the proposal

will not be substantially more detrimental to the area and that's a first so the first part of the the first of the bifurcated motions are that we find that we find that the proposal is not more detrimental to the neighborhood the episode discussion hearing none John Frank yes Jim Calkins yes yes chairman Prairie yes and take a second I know that we Grant the special permit with the conditions that uh

all work at the site be performed inside that a minimum of five percent Landscaping be uh our Green Space be provided you know what no storage oh and not no storage outside and uh that it being subject to a work site or site plan review yes and an a r form filed for the combined combining of the properties second you want to make any condition tying in um parcel m128 where they're relying on that blocking

theoretically there's nothing tying to that property they could sell that property tomorrow they may not be able to function but if they decided not to stay here then that property would not be going along with this one you could make a condition that it remains um deed restricted to provide parking for the for this parcel normally I mean it should have been part of the petition if you're relying on those parking

spaces well that's up to you make a requirement for the maintain the off-site parking maintain uh a minimum of X number of spaces yeah 50 spaces off site yeah that's 58 I think he said right because trying to a r a non-contiguous property no no have nothing to do with the a r your decision of of zoning relief yeah I am aware of those are if they sell that they got to find another 50 parking

spaces right so it doesn't have to be specific to that but that they need to provide that total of whatever you're saying what do you have 36 136 provided now somewhere they need to provide 136 off street parking they could find another piece of land somewhere else yeah I I just think that's the proposal so yeah that it's included in the proposal that we're approving so it is so but we're depending on an additional

lot so it's not part of the application so by deed that possible will not be encumbered by the zoning decision so if you just want to do it by spaces but if we do it by spaces then they have to find something somewhere somewhere exactly yeah yeah okay that that total parking space there's a total available parking spaces be no less than a hundred and thirty six six to set up better myself

not specific to this parcelon anything else we have a second on now second by Dan De Pere discussion in that case yes Dan De Pere yes Jim Calkins yes John Frank yes and chairman of prairie yes glad to stay in the town thank you thank you thank you thank you item number four Scotty viveros and Jennifer in vivirus Attorney Peter 15 Anderson Street map d06 lot 16. the applicant seeks a variance to subdivide

the subject Parsons to law itself leaving the existing single-family dwelling on one fully conforming lot and constructing a new single-family dwelling which requires parking with required parking on another lot waving Frontage and lot area and the single-family districts good evening for the record Peter celino in this matter I represent Mr beverus this is Scott Rivera's you probably

recognize him because this is back to you after a repetitive petition so factually what we have is Scott and his wife live at 15 Anderson they've previously been before the board with a proposal that ultimately created two non-conforming lots they went to the planning board with a new proposal and that's how and why we are here so to reiterate the new proposal is that the lot line was moved over to the east

which keeps parcel 1 conforming as you can see it's got twelve thousand square feet in a um s zoning District you can see that the setbacks are all appropriate so the non-conformities relate to parcel 2 which is intended for Mr Rivera's parents who are looking to move to a single family home um the waivers needed by way of variance would be square footage because we need 12 000 we have 6286 per the plan uh and

Frontage you need to have 100 feet of Frontage in an S District as the board knows and as you can see parcel 2 as proposed is 74.93 um when I look at the hardship argument here I think it's got to be the shape of the the piece and the fact that it has Frontage on three different streets and a huge side yard um ultimately again you know the proposal here is that Mr Rivera is

looking to relocate his parents there and I know the board constantly hears this type of thing and says but what about when the parents leave um and that's why the new proposal is here to make it better um and to leave us with one conforming lot and I'd submit to you that Mr beverus has certainly been through a lot and I know that's not a legal burden but he's been through a lot he's gone

through the process he's come back before the board to request this variance so that he can divide this land and build a house for his parents I've submitted to your clerk a petition signed by his neighbors indicating their support of the project I don't think that the use is inconsistent with the neighborhood the lot sizes are similar I know there are two gentlemen sitting behind me who are

here in favor of the project and when we get to that part of the presentation I'm sure we can hear from them but ultimately I would ask the board to allow the variants to enable my client to divide the land and build the house for his parents to say anything Scott yeah okay one's my dad okay beautiful house beautiful piece of property wonderful addition to the neighborhood I commend you it's lovely

um I don't have any questions at this point I just noticed that you do have a nicely constructed shed that falls on the property line not a problem when Mom and Dad will live in next door becomes a problem when you know the house is sold um at some future date just a consideration and my clients indicated he will move that if that needs to be moved or it's a condition I mean at some point it's

gonna at some point it's going to have to be moved agreed I'm just curious about the fence line on the back of the property that's that's running at an angle and seems to be inside your property line yeah is that a neighbor's fence or no that's that's technically my fence so the reason why so her house is actually a foot and a half from my property line so if I put

the fence right where my property line was she couldn't get into her house so I told her I don't know if I can give it to her or just let it it's like eight feet now 10 feet so it's technically mine but it's technically hers because she's been cutting it but that's something that we did that in the beginning when I first built the when I first moved over there I told her I wasn't gonna

she bought the house and moved in I told her I wasn't gonna leave a foot and a half away from my property line you're a good guy because there was no point in doing that to her for a little piece of grass I wouldn't give it away because you're giving up sideline setback that's yeah that's that's a freebie at this point um from engineering and planning um how long has she been using that

space for you know I mean Rick three years ago two years ago she bought it the house but I mean even private partner right now four okay since we have a lawnmower um just so that you don't have an issue down the road with an adverse possession claim at any point in time even with past use you may want to discuss with your attorney about granting a license for her to use

the property you'll still own it what I would hate to see is that we're granting a variance to create a lot that's 6286 square feet that theoretically could be a thousand square feet less if if through the court system that land was taken from you so you may just want to do it has nothing to do with with this board voting tonight but you don't want to create an issue for yourself down the

road if it wasn't about splitting it because I have to split it by law because my parents I would just own the whole thing and just put a house on their forum and I would give her that place I would sign off and give it to her just because I'm not going to move that I wouldn't want to move it but obviously no no one's going to be living forever but

a couple of other things I'll add is that technically there is 81 feet of Frontage on is it dupus yeah is how you spell it so a little bit more than the 74 that attorney celino had had mentioned so um really less than a 20-foot waiver in Frontage the area of course is a little bit more building setbacks will be compliant to the district um I I know and as I represented at the

last meeting this is an area of flooding um that the city has great concern about and we've had complaints from another neighbors as they should be complaining yeah what I and I know this was mentioned at the last meeting what I would like is a condition that both Parcels be subject to site plan review and potentially requiring some improvements to the single family home recharging some of that roof run off

into the ground if we could especially since this new proposed home is downhill from the existing single family room so and I think that was offered at the last meeting I think by the previous Council I think so just so my property we already have that okay obviously willing to do it on the second one it's not a problem that's not a palmetto of course um and then one other thing there's there's

no proposed deck on this new house no no deck anything would be a patio in the back again only because theoretically you could look at Anderson Street as a side yard and if you slid the house forward then there might be some room for a deck yeah in the back so we were thinking about going to duper's front but there's literally nothing over the besides woods and I don't know if they wanna finish

with the parking spaces if you chose to yeah that's fine okay anything else from the board anybody here to speak in favor of the petition we have sir just identify yourself no you're right there two fingers I wanted to go now if it develop at the Anderson Street uh I'm definitely in favor for it ever since they moved in they've been great neighbors and uh you know his parents are really great people so it was

definitely improved the area um but we're real um type of your PM you're renting neighbors you know so we always get together you know um we never have arguments like you said he goes in cuts of grass I go up there and I clean the snow for them I go you know we we all help each other out you know so um another addition will be will be great to the neighborhood okay

appreciate that thank you anyone else to speak in favor anybody here to speak in our position to the petition and we also have I will State for the record and this will be part of the record we have signatures from six Neighbors all within all contiguous or close to contiguous so I believe there's only one that is contiguous that we don't have right because it's just it's well into something it does nothing now okay

sounds good okay uh there's nothing else I'll entertain a motion to contain certain conditions if we make a motion to approve

make a motion to Grant yeah with the staged conditions of the city engineer yes one thing that I do want to just make sure is when we put this line in the shed is going to have to be moved one way or another um yeah because that could fall into a problem down the road so just get it get it done now uh condition that the shed be put on somebody's land

or you could make such a foolish lot line that you would stay four feet off of the shed and wrap it around but keep the areas the same so it would probably be easy to keep it on your on your parents a lot yeah that's up to you whatever it comes down or if you want to move it just move it and considering the drainage situation we know about site plan review a site

plan review given yeah it will have its own separate utilities that's okay the second the motion okay motion made by John Frank seconded by Jim Calkins any discussion on the motion they're hearing none John Frank yes Jim Calkins yes Dan De Pere yes yes and chairman Ferrera yes thank you very much thank you wish you the best item number five Durfee trust limited partnership care of Attorney Peter isolino

uh 80 to 84 North Main Street and zero Elm Street map ten lots of 47 and 75 the applicant seeks a variance to convert the existing office building located at 80 to 84 North Main Street into 22 residential apartment units the applicant also seeks a special permit to waive parking requirements in a CBD Central Business zoning District uh and aod arts overlay district and an HD1 Housing Development overlay District

Trifecta the application proposes to use zero Elm Street for parking good evening for record purposes Peter celino on behalf of the petitioner applicant the Durfee limited partnership The Proposal here relates to a brick office building on the corner of North Main and Bank Street be the northwesterly corner uh directly across the street from Bank five's main office at 79 North Main

The Proposal includes converting the existing structure into 22 Apartments all of which would be one bedroom apartments family owns a lot a vacant lot on Elm Street which is also depicted upon the plan it's n10 lot 75. and based on the engineers analysis they can fit 22 parking spaces in that area so the relief ultimately is twofold here first the we need a variance because the bylaw indicates that if you are between

Pine Street which if you know this area we're right near Pine Street but if you're between Pine and Morgan on North Main you can't have residential on the first floor so as a result I've started variance I've cited the section of my petition that requires that so speaking to the variants first to me clearly the hardship is the odd shape of the lot and the pre-existing structure on the lot

itself when you look at it's not Square it's not rectangle the back of the building is more narrow than the front of the building as it fronts on North Main Street so ultimately I think the hardship is the structure itself and then speaking to the special permit component we don't have two spaces per apartment um as indicated there is an off-site lot albeit not contiguous right next you

know right in the neighborhood that houses 22 cars um but I think you know you look at the prongs of how the board can determine what's more detrimental Etc uh on the parking component um and submit to you a couple of different things when you talk about the peak hours of the site you have Fall River five across the street and you have the library to the north of the

site both of which are not open at night when residential people are coming home from work to the South you have Attorney John Mitchell's law office which is basically street parking and I would submit to you that Bank Street North Main Street at night and then Bank Street going across North Main to the east would also have a lot of parking um I don't think this is detrimental to the neighborhood I think that we have

lower demand for office space in this post-covered world we have an empty building that could be repurposed and it's consistent with the downtown development plan so I think it's a good use of a vacant building it's a nice building but it needs some work and the proposal I think is suited well for what the city's trying to accomplish with new housing units market rate yes all one bedroom all one yes

questions from the board do they own that lot they don't know they do yes tie it in anything else from engineering planning what I can offer is in an overall planning view not just specific to this piece is we're finding that as we are dealing with these historically commercial use properties of Office Space um we're finding that as we convert them to residential use specifically low bedroom count residential uses

we're finding that we are we're actually creating on-street parking during the daytime because you now have a building with x amount of square feet of Office Space and when you calculate that out and how many people of bylaw says one space per employee so when you figure out square footage of a building and you make a rough calculation you come up with how many spaces commercially this building if occupied

really with no permits they could occupy this entire building with professional office space right now the demand that that would create in this neighborhood far exceeds in outweighs any impact that the much lesser required residential use at a different peak time would have so where we're changing the use we're not constructing a new building that currently does now not eat up parking we're taking a use that has

great demand for parking when occupied and doing away with that and putting in a less intense use so I know in years past we didn't necessarily didn't think that way but we're finding out as some of these now are now implemented these streets are empty you know for a good portion of the day other than like specifically around this building there's always a demand just for the employees here we're finding in in

patches the availability of parking so we're actually alleviating an existing parking demand commercially during the day by converting these commercial uses to to residential um on this parcel on this petition both Parcels are listed as part of the application so this zoning relief and this grant will encumber both possible so that n1075 is married to 80 North Main Street um for for title purposes

um at some point in time if other parking became available if additional Municipal parking was constructed in the area the applicant would have the ability to come back and say Hey listen there were so many other parking opportunities they could see another type of relief to deal with with the with the piece over on Elm that piece on Elm was actually created by a variance um I forgot what year it was in but I

actually did it to create two different parking lots if you remember that that was part of n1027 to the north and they broke and they broke it up so that this parking could be could be allowed for a different use the part the Apostle to the north is dedicated to another apartment building which I think is the one right at the corner of Elm and North Main chaletsky um that's his parking facility back there

for that use up front so I I have no opposition to the proposal and it would be great to see this building occupied and having some life in in that neighborhood during the the off-peak hours of the businesses interesting observation that we're actually gaining parking spaces it's happening when you you know when we're getting rid of the the high demand now again these buildings aren't 100

occupied but any one of these Property Owners if they could find the tenants could occupy them without any zoning relief or any increase in parking demand so so the neighborhood's kind of fixing itself with regards to parking anything else from the board thank you very much is there anybody here to speak in uh favor of this proposal yes

development Consultants I like to offer uh testimony and support of this project I think uh attorney celino and as well as Miss dag yeah have actually crafted a very succinct and intelligent rationalist to widen the projects have approved it's interesting you know we've been working years to try to repurpose buildings in the downtown right and we'll get into the point where these

buildings are starting to be repurposed for mockery use and we would quickly understanding how that as we're repurposing these buildings for residential use their parking is an issue right because we got all these upper floors to these buildings and that typically are not being utilized this particular building is just you know vacant uh it's on a historic register it's nice to breathe

some new life into this building it helps stabilize the neighborhood it's you know it's an investment in one of the most impoverished census tracts in the entire city and it's on our main street it's you know it's a signature property so the the repurposing of this building will now Breathe new life into that cold neighborhood you're going to be bringing people that you know will have

disposable incomes typically what we're seeing with the mockery units is that it's sometimes it's empty nesters but a lot of times it's also young professionals that are using Fall River as a jumping off plane to work in the city or elsewhere so I think this this particular project I think is uh giving its viability where it is and it also complement complements the proposed Bank equipment

um 12 million dollar enhancement today building across the street as part of their corporate headquarters so again private investment taking place on two corners of North Main Street in Central Street and that's bank right nothing yes yep so you get pretty two significant projects there and you know you get the library uh the people's University immediately to the north there so again

I just think this is bodes well for more and you're gonna you're gonna see these things coming at some point we're gonna have to figure out if there's parking I don't know how to say that tonight's they get but a lot of communities are eliminating parking requirements right because you want to get some of these buildings done so in this one here I just think I'd just like to offer support and it's in keeping with the

urban renewal plans and the overall revitalization it's in the historic district and it just you know these are the types of things we've been working on collectively for years to try to accomplish thank you excellent thank you Kim anyone else to speak in favor of the project anyone to speak in opposition to the project I would accept an emotion on the uh the variants our variances to basically to allow

residential units on the first floor of the building between Pine and um Pine and Morgan is the district yeah um and that's the only relief that's being sought

most into grant and conditions or a motion to Grant on the variants yes we should separate those yes um so the variance to allow residential units on the first floor in the span of Pine to Morton streets which would not normally allow that again with this stipulation on all one family one bedroom and um all one bedroom and pocket well parking's accepted issues yeah I could read also yes okay very good

thank you Ricky have a second on that please second second by Dan De Pere discussion permit

to allow reduction in parking and parking to be is it 22 spaces to be provided on uh zero Elm Street Lots specified is n10 Lots I mean thank you move granting of the special permit

so special permit to allow a reduction in parking with parking spaces at in 1075 for 22 parking spaces at zero Elm Street is there a second on that second by Dan De Pere discussion none John Frank yes Jim Calkins yes Dan De Pere yes Ricky sahadi yes chairman Prairie yes item number six Troy Street LCC um attorney theater Ray celdino 66 Troy street map in zero three lot three the applicant seeks a special permit to

convert the existing Mill building and to mixed use with commercial tenancy on the first floor and 36 residential Apartments apartment units on the second third and fourth floors the applicant also seeks a special permit to waive parking requirements the property is located in the B1 local business zoning district and AOC Arts overlay district and an HD one Housing Development overlay district attorney

thank you for the record Peter celino on behalf of the applicant 66 Troy Street LLC the building in question is sort of out the door here on the East it says Merrell building on the top it's an existing Mill building currently the second third and fourth floors are not fully occupied historically there have been commercial tenants in there the proposal is 36 Apartments the count is

35 one bedrooms and one two bedroom on the second floor and it's all by special apartment so the argument from my perspective is as we just talked about on the last petition what could be done here without permits and without zoning the building measures approximately 35 000 square feet so even if you were to take away some area for common areas stairwells bathrooms Etc there's a lot

of usable space and in the district professional office space is allowed so I would submit to you that mathematically probably you could have you know a significant amount of employees requiring as many I would say as 170 parking spaces for that use without permit and so I think similar to the last petition I argue to you that there is less detriment than that by going with a concept like this and more

specifically when you look at 445 it says that the board can grant special permits for reduction of parking and the board should consider things like Peak demands at different times the age of the occupants in their characteristics and the availability of on-street parking and nearby parking facilities so hitting those in sequence first Peak demand so the building is immediately to the east of bay Coast

Bank People Incorporated owns the parcel to the West you have the fire station and America the former American wallpaper to the north you've got a Bristol County Savings Bank and you've got this building government center and the peak demand in my estimation for all of those places is probably eight in the morning till four or five in the afternoon The Proposal again is mostly one bedrooms here and so as a result I'd

submit to you that mostly one bedrooms are occupied by probably not even empty nesters but young professionals and those people I think are going to come home at five six seven o'clock and leave in the morning to go to work so when we're talking about the prong entitled Peak demands I would submit to you that the peak demand for a project like this is opposite the peak demand for this

neighborhood and I think that bodes in our favor in terms of the argument as to why this would not be more detrimental next age of occupants and characteristics um again you have one bedroom or studio type Concepts here um based on my clients other projects in the neighborhood the data tells us that we're going to have single people or young couples in these in these apartments and as a result of that I'd

submit to you that based on the age and those characteristics that again it's appropriate I think young people use Uber young people take the train I I think it's not very likely that you're going to have a lot of extra traffic through a project but this type next availability of on-street parking so before I came in I wandered around 6th Street Troy Street and Pleasant Street at about 5 45 and Troy Street

other than the fire departments of the north was empty the street which I believe is called Seneca Way right out here from Second Street to Pleasant Street was empty and again I think that illustrates the peak demand concept I walked through the alleyway to 6th Street and other than near Scotty's Pub that was also all vacant in addition other Lots my client has a relationship with people Inc and has six parking

spaces in there a lot across the street you have the flat lot on Third Street which again Peak demand it's mostly court and city employees that park there and I think on the weekends and at night that would be open and that should also be taken into consideration and lastly I think the proposal is consistent with what's happened in the neighborhood surrounding these types of conversions

looking at the police station for example and some of the other projects locally so I would submit to you that I think when you really look at 445 you look at the use of this building and what it could be without permits that the proposal is respectfully submitted that it would be less detrimental than what could be there what's the size of the bedroom how many one bedroom from me too uh yeah it is 35

1 and only one two and just because of the shape of the building I guess they can put the two in there questions from the board we're an interesting juncture as Mr Fiola has pointed out as pointed out we've been scrambling for parking spaces and they're showing up I mean if you go out there and you go walk around there now and it's what we're hoping you know in the planning department in the Redevelopment

Authority conversations uh with the administration something has to come first that the mindset always was okay if we if we permit commercial users whether they be restaurants or office space or we we've done a lot of that and that keeps these restaurants busy during the work day um so we're now hopefully taking some of these commercial spaces we're going to hit a balance at some point in time

where the amount of residential units put such an influx of population that the demand for additional Commercial Services restaurants bars anything in the vicinity they will we're going to be creating a need kind of opposite if you build it they will come this is we let them all come and then we're going to have the ability to build around them and provide the uses and we'll have entrepreneurs of business

Acumen that want to provide services to these tenants because they are they're going to demand it we haven't hit that Breakneck Point yet where where we're seeing a problem so in the planning department we will be looking at different types of zoning mechanisms for existing structures and the change of use of commercial structures new construction where you can't make the argument of

well what we're eliminating the higher intense use those will still need to meet Department demands so we're crafting some zoning that allows them until that happens we can't impede progress to to that extent yet so I understand attorney celino's argument I don't disagree with it I mean I've seen it with my own two eyes a very similar petition to what the police station offered and again every

petition is different but but I think it's clear in the vicinity of this era I mean if we had let's say the Ben Nathan building or Third Street and some of those other projects that weren't required well sorry were required to provide on-street parking at a rate of one to one maybe we'd be saying maybe we'd be seeing an issue but because those have come in the dust is kind of settled and we

understand the use a little bit there's nobody parking on our streets at certain times of the day so so rather than trying to force a high intense commercial user that's going to create a problem quicker for us I think this would be a more appropriate use for the building that's all thank you yeah anything else from the board before I go to the floor anyone here to speak in favor of the petition yes

once again for the record current Viola executive EPS DC EBC again very similar to what we just discussed in the previous uh applicant and in many ways you know the chickens are coming home to roost right because when you look at the zoning here you know we have um local business we also have a knots overlay District which was designed to accommodate commercial and residential use and then we have a Housing

Development overlay District done is we've actually encouraged residential uses of these properties maybe not with you know thinking through how well the parking is going to to be handled but clearly you know this is this this project probably represents somewhere in the vicinity of a nine million dollar investment the market in the private Market itself they're going to dictate whether or not

these Pro these types of units work without parking right if you get a developer that's will and put nine million dollars in with the belief that he can sell these things with on-sury parking the private sector is going to either prove that to be false or true and they're gonna either they're going to be occupied or unoccupied but at the end of the day you're still going to have a 9 million dollar investment there

and I think you know this is you know again not to to jump on a dead horse here but this is what we've been talking about about doing an essential business district area the center of the city is bringing in mockery units bringing in people with disposable income bringing in people that are going to support the establishments in their hopefully more people will create more establishments

and we're going to create a new quality of life and it's going to be vibrant and it's going to bring in arts and culture and different types of activities the parking issue will take care of its place as attorney celino said at night you can park anywhere during the day it's usually you know employees of some of the businesses including government centered epoxy side Treats but it's a

reverse curve most of these people will be out working themselves and they'll come home and they'll utilize those parking spaces at night and on weekends there's plenty of parking here so you know if you look at you know the investment that's taking place you know around it between the Nate the Ben and Nate building um the Third Street Building um as well as the ilgwu you're looking

at private investment in excess of 15 million dollars there and in all of these buildings including this building here it's underperforming you know the there's no demand for that type of office space for commercial use and the return on investment of trying to convert it for commercial use is no longer there so I think either we're going to have a lot of empty buildings if you don't stop repurposing these

things and repurposing them for residential use I think is in keeping what the city has always wanted to accomplish and you know with as we you know now we're working on a plan to include south of the academy building in a historic district so that those projects themselves could be eligible for federal and state historic tax credits and we're going to be having the same discussions here about what happens

when we fill those second and third floors of those buildings right so I think we're at a juxtaposition here but I would hate to thwart development when we're worried about parking when the real risk of this project is the developer taking the risk because he's going to test the market to say okay are these units marketable with entry parking and limited RC parking and I'm hoping that the boy can uh move it

forward see how it see how it moves you know along and you know if it's successful then we all achieve the objective that I think we wanted to achieve thank you thank you anyone else to speak on behalf anyone to speak in opposition to the petition you're hearing none I'll turn to the board this is a special permit we're going to school bifurcate and address the detriment or lack of detriment to the neighborhood

and then the granting itself so I would entertain them motion at this point and it just to reiterate just to make sure you all understand there will still be a commercial component to the first floor of this building which well we'll still feed will feed the area but again there are off few parking spaces to accommodate the existing use that that they have there now with no problems during the daytime foreign

special permits that are being requested correct yes yes so which one are is your motion pertaining to the um I know it pertains to both ultimately but yeah well we're separating on separating both special permits yeah so very special permit Mr chairman is for um mixed use some emotion to be that that makes juice is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood I'll second that we had a second let's go

on the motion John Frank yes

on the special permit itself for the Mixed use foreign I'm sorry I think we just did make shoes and we're talking about parking now well we we just did the verification technically four votes so I moved the granting of the special permit for the Mixed use motion speaking I have a second please second second by Dan declare discussion they're hearing none uh Ricky's hiding yes yes Jim Calkins yes and Joan Frank

yes chairman Prairie yes on the parking matter which is also a special permit we need to bifurcate that one you might as well okay so is the kind that the special permit waving parking will not be more detrimental to the area we have a second every second um discussion hearing none John Frank yes Jim Goggins yes Dan De Pere yes Ricky sahadi yes chairman Prairie yes the special permit itself for the

reduction in parking or waiver on parking Mr chairman I moved that we Grant the special permit uh waving the big parking requirements good enough seconds this is awesome we're going to John Frank on that second discussion very no discussion Ricky sahadi yes Dan De Pere yes Jim Calkins yes this is John Frank yes yes thank you all right item number seven don't even stand up parallel production solar energy LLC

care of Attorney Peter a celino 109 Howe Street uh map b-201 African seeks a special permit to converse convert the existing Mill building complex or Mill complex into two separate Lots creating a multi-family development containing 40 residential apartment units on one lot leaving the existing Mill building on the second property is located in the CMD Central Mill District good evening for the last time for the

record now on behalf of the um okay for the applicant parallel product solar energy LLC the engineer on the project is Farland fort with me is Christian Farland as far as the proposal The Proposal is pretty interesting to me so we have an existing Mill site the property address is 109 Howe Street the existing Mill is there I've driven the site and walked around a little bit and then off of Crawford Street there's

a big parcel of the land that's contiguous to the west of cook Pond and so our bylaw allows in a CMD district for more than 20 units by special permit so the request here is to divide the lot the Lots if you will are the housing lots to the north um I'm sorry that would be to the East and the mill lot to the west to divide them so they'd be separated that could

be done via form a plan and to have a multi-family development consisting of 40 units of housing on the parcel to the top of the screen orientation on your plane which is to the east the unit mix includes triplexes as depicted in the picture single-family homes and duplex units the intent of my client in this case is to have a private road that would not be a city road and it would be maintained by an association

um each unit would have sufficient parking for its occupants and would access city streets back on through Crawford and how to self-made so the only request here again to reiterate is a special permanent variance is not required for the proposal I would submit to you that when we talk about detriment here I think again what could be done there by right in terms of manufacturing noxious uses

noise smoke shift work is a lot more detrimental than what this proposal would be I think this proposal is very consistent with what Mr kfori is doing a little bit to the north I think that's working well and I think that the city should really adopt more projects like this because we have these Mill sites that are tucked into neighborhoods throughout the city that are empty dilapidated and something

like this I think is a really viable project and the fact that the developers willing to maintain the streets you know as private ways I think is also a boom to the city because I've had other projects where we talk about you know Road acceptances and a variety of things so I think this it's a unique proposal um but I think it's a good proposal and I do not think there's detriment here I

think it's less detrimental than what did happen there as a mill site and what could happen there as a mill site happy to take any questions the board would have about the proposal and again Mr fallin's here he's got some nice color drawings if anyone wants to see something other than what's up there but we're happy to answer any questions until these will not be Condominiums the

intent right now is to condo yeah so the ultimate intent ions what's the use of the mill building uh right now it's empty and it's not really there's no viable use for it unless we can do something economically with this piece there's no relief being there's no reason we're not asking for any relief not just as if we're dividing the property they could yeah so they could have divided the property prior to coming

here right um just to try and bisect the project so in order to enter off Crawford you're going to get rid of that ramp that rolls up to the um up to the mill building currently I think hey Mr chairman uh for the record Christian following principal engineering president O'Fallon that is correct trespassed when I went in there but you need to you know I'm just wondering guys you said the intent is

yep that they would be condos they're going to be marketed as such yeah yes yes so they're not going to be marketed as apartments with the conversion to condos eventually marketed as condos absolutely any question about parking now you've seen the adequate parking are you counting the interior of the garage as a space as well or is there going to be two spots on the outside is it like a double garage

um yeah so on it depends on the building you're talking about but the duplex style which is in the top of the plan I don't know if you can see it so there's two spaces outside the garage and two in right correct yeah it's gonna be four yeah total all right and they're actually those are actually double garages too so okay that was my concern and then on the triplex you have the you

know similar but three and single family my reason is usually when they when they call that out they say one's going to be inside one's going to be outside you go by and then all their stuff is inside and you can't like go with Stevens without behind the Cumberland Farms yep it's you can't get down you can't get down the road make some guys are outside so but all the streets are going to

conform to you know for fire apparatus safety equipment absolutely yeah you've got the drain achievements of the pond not our purview but I was just kind of curious because it is wet back there at the end of the cul-de-sac okay um any other questions from the board you're right it's an interesting that man that was a very new project what were the questions anybody here to speak in favor of this petition yes

exactly the vice president of the CNBC um obviously this we don't have a parking issue here so this is a you know something different than what we discussed earlier tonight but I think the real point that we're talking about here is you know the mill itself has sat vacant for a number of years the developers are taking on this this uh this property to repurpose it and you know create residential use on this

property condos you know this is all going to be new taxable value and growth for the city itself and again there's going to be a market for these these types of units within the city and it also opens up you know one of our greatest assets and it's an underutilized asset of cook Pond like if you look at cook Pond and you know the the aesthetic and the environmental um you know portions of the pond itself

it's going to you know allow the public to really utilize that that pond for fishing and other types of recreational assets and eventually you know there will be a plan that comes forward for the ReUse of that Mill that's going to be in keeping with the overall development that this uh this particular project is setting the stage for so I think you know again it's it's a very well thought out project here we just

gonna there isn't demand for this it results in growth and it's going to provide opportunities for people that may not want to own a house but would rather own a condo less maintenance lock it up and move on right you don't have to worry about those things you know um so and it's in the South End of the city where we don't have a lot of development you know a lot of the balancing on the

waterfront and again you know the repurposing of a mill property for this use I think is is obviously more and more of this coming forward as some of these other Mills are in the process of being sold right now so it's going to be a busy season for the zoning board over the next few months as you're going to see more repurposing of these types of properties I'm going to speak in opposition sir

I reside at 56 Howe Street directly across from the mill parking lot the economy resides there I have no um qualms against responsible development in the area my concern really is based upon the volume of the traffic that's going to be created there all Street ends and it takes a shop right onto Crawford that's a major cut through for the city because it's the first street that wraps around cook Pond so during

those peak hours of morning and evening there is a lot of traffic that comes through there additionally back in December Mr Fiola announced that that Mill itself might be another 100 units so when you factor in all of that development there I'm not sure that that street commonly constructed would support all that the other thing I'd be concerned about if you have Mitchell apartments right at the corner

of Howard South Main a lot of elderly people are walking in this area Additionally you have Nicks hot dogs so you've got plenty of people talking on South Main a lot of pedestrian traffic in that area and I think I would wish you would take a look at the number of traffic accidents that have occurred on the corner of Southeast so it's a pretty busy area okay thank you uh anyone else to speak in opposition

sir I'm not necessarily opposed but could I see them that the code that is that sure you can sure that's you know I I look right near there I've been on house Street since 1979.

when when that Mill is actually uh when people were working there and now it's abandoned and I've seen it all uh I agree with Eric said there is a lot of traffic there more than you think but do I understand this correctly the parking lots here the Mills there the housing is going to be on the opposite side I don't know yes going closer to cook Pond okay and how many acres is that you

know what's the points I know it's uh it's probably like it comes out to be about 20. for the Residential Group and six acres for the mill building I want to make sure right I I heard it all correctly now I don't I don't oppose it I have a couple of concerns but you know anytime there's a change people wonder you know who's your neighbor going to be what's your name and address for the

record 31 Howe Street h-o-w-e Tom Lawler l-a-w-l-o-r ank you know we have to I have to say on Hound Street I've been there since 1979. my neighbor is 84 her father-in-law was born in that house Mr pilot I knew his uncle and his aunt that own house before him and on the corner uh is our paper boy he's 54 years old so every you know whatever happens it might be something in the water people come

there and they don't leave yeah thank you for your room for everyone else is speaking opposition okay the hearing none I turned to the board this this is a special permit um people have to address and we'll bifurcate this one as well we'll address the impact of the neighborhood and then the special permit itself I'm sorry yeah anything I don't have much to offer just that this was all

Zone industrial land number of years ago and because the lack of Need for industrial space new zoning was put in place calling this commercial Mill District that allows this type of use by special permit to create these kinds of opportunities with regards to the traffic aspect of it this site is not only accessed by Howe Street you know there is profit in the additional streets that that come

running off of it that traffic will disperse in different directions if if need be and we're not talking about multiple hundreds of of homes that'll be out in this vicinity so just like any other city block that would provide for this number of homes you know yes you will get traffic associated with it however if there was an expanded commercial use what could be the impacts to that site

as well yeah if you had shift personnel and that type of thing that's and again just I mean if you don't know the neighborhood this is directly adjacent to the Fall River Ready Mix facility gravel operations so for someone to take on a property like this in that vicinity that doesn't come along often for sure so now we have an area that does not a huge land mass where Ready Mix operates

out of that isn't being utilized for residential use so again offsetting Peaks and offsetting demands for traffic so I don't see a concern if there is a need for upgrade to any of the streets during site plan review we'll address that and try and get the applicant to provide some additional sidewalks or roadway improvements and stuff like that and with site plan everything will have to

come in front of you for absolutely welcome and Conservation Commission right a private way yes designation yeah a question Christian maybe consider Fallen Wade Chase Circle stop filing Circle we can't he's a New Bedford boy I don't think he gets the reference you wanna no he knows he knows it anything else from the board before we're at the point yeah the motion regarding the camera

I'll make a motion that's not more detrimental second second by Ricky sahadi discussion none John Frank yes Jim Calkins yeah yes uh Ricky sahadi yes and chairman Prairie yes I'll make a motion to approve a special permit providing for 30 40 residential Apartments residential 40 residential housing units housing units

and conservation are a given so it's gonna happen so second on that by Ricky sahadi any further discussion

yes thank you had a great night thank you thank you very much best of luck we'll get him next month

good to see you yeah yeah all right discussion on the discussion review and discuss proposed of appeals rules and regulations so as I mentioned previously what you have in this is really just um putting on some lipstick and organizing what was already existing there's nothing new for the for the most part um but I did want you all to take the opportunity to read through it because now would be the time to add delete

or revise the way that we've been doing some things um so hopefully it's a little more legible I have a problem with documents multiple documents that you need to deal with one one technical application different fonts different presentations so that's really what the intention was of this creating a more usable application information that's valuable and directing the applicant in a more

efficient manner to provide you with a little more detail of what the specific relief is that you're acting upon so that was the intention everybody have a chance to go through these I did lightly I did yeah Dan did we change or did you look at the number of uh I did not I didn't know we actually had a conversation about it because last next month's meeting we had what like 11 petitions in one day 13.

and 11 came in with So currently now in the rules it allows for what did we figure out um currently it's 15 you changed it on here to 25. okay it might it might have been a typo so I mean that that was one so if you want to hold it to 15 so it's got to be a typo yeah yeah that's funny kenpai always said it's going to get really busy and

son of a gun there it is and again you don't have to vote on it tonight if you haven't had the opportunity to look at it there's no rush on this so I'd rather get it right and get it quick I mean that they're unless it's changed since the last time I haven't changed it since many times last January when I started yeah so there it was mocked up for typos and

stuff like that but no no edits have been made yeah I just wonder if one thing we might want to include is what is a alternate who is not filling in on the night allowed to participate that we stayed in there that they're allowed to just participate in the discussion so we can engine so that's Mass General law but but we can put in we can put in there specifically and reference what Mass General law states

that that person is allowed to yeah I mean where would you define the others wondered about that well let me put it this way if we haven't looked at it because everybody hasn't taken a read through it and made notes on it there's no sense I was voting on it tonight no obviously input from the from the alternates is very important because you guys are sitting at any moment

I may take June off if we got 13 percent it's right around the time my daughter's having a baby I thought so so do we want to pass on this but I I we're all going to do pinky promises that we're we're going to read through this and make some comments on them and if you wanted printed versions just come by the office we'll print them that way you guys can mock them up in red or

however you want to deal with them get them back to us or get them back to us at the next meeting we can incorporate those changes and that way when we get down to it if we've got changes we can we can share them get them around via email get them into the planning department and even though we've got 13 position petitions and God knows how many continuances um

we may be able to just bang this out question is one thing that drives me crazy when you go into a town whether it's a bylaw rules Etc are are all the boards are we shooting for all the boards stuff to kind of look the same format-wise Etc of course well don't say of course I know what you're shooting for well no but and luckily right now I'm I'm in

charge of all of them you're in a position so Now's the Time to strike Now's the Time because it is insane you open up one thing and it's you know done in 1986 and it's got margins and I know eight point helvetica whatever it's like junk I hate it looks like the town doesn't know what it's doing we can fool them with good uh I've fooled people for a long time good

craftsmanship we need a motion to pass this off until next uh to continue this it's just a discussion you're right we don't need a motion on that that's fine all right promises all around we have citizens input none there's no citizens uh approval of minutes from April yeah okay I'm gonna table that we have one piece of Correspondence I think everybody got it maybe not yes oh that's it's me really just an unknown yep

it's okay it's a very it's it's a thank you now and please do this for me I think well I wonder if that might be I mean if that's something we won't go would that even be included and yeah yeah other well what happens is it doesn't they're not forced into site plan review technically is what he's stating yeah if you would like all of them to have to go

to site plan review then that would be you know any one of those subdivisions of multiple multi-unit buildings you can just make it you know utilities have to be separated subject to site plan review and you can make that be your standard conditions on all of those from now on yeah we discussed earlier the possibility of just almost getting a list of standards and you'd say Okay I

want condition A and B that's what we do for the Conservation Commission it's I mean we can give you a list of what generally what your deal is you have the standard just a cheat sheet so that you know okay it does would this apply but you would have to

sheets are a good thing we do oh yes an approval of minutes we need a motion to table that motion Dan de Peres made a motion to attack the motion of the table second by John Frank yes discussion none John Frank yes Jim Cook yes Dan the Bear yes Ricky Sadi yes Joe pereiri yes

thank you very much