5.8.24 Planning Board

good evening pursuant to the open meeting law any person who make an audio visual video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any media attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or Transmissions are being made whether perceived or unperceived by those present and are deemed acknowledged and permissible the city Charter section 9-18 mandates that

all P that all multiple member bodies develop and adopt rules or policy for public comment we have adopted such a policy which sure provides for citizen input on planning board specific matters at the end of the meeting there's a signup sheet at that is located at the back of the room for anyone interested to sign up good evening my name is gor Pico I'm standing in for the chair uh John Ferrera and um this is

the uh the um public uh hearing of the FL planning board uh roll call Mario Lolo here Mike farias here Beth Andre here I am Gloria Pico and as I said um uh absent today is John Ferrera we also have present with us Gary Le from FGTV as well as Dan agar the director of engineering and planning as well as as well as Chris pirano assistant planner and Nina of course thank you very

much okay so uh we are beginning new business we have foret application for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval anr plan of land file number 24-1 1573 the applicant is the north Congregation of Jehovah's Witness Fall River Massachusetts Inc uh there are three property addresses here uh the first one is property location 100 nor Eastern Avenue assessor map l-09 lot to 84 owner is the north congre uh

Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses Fall River Massachusetts Inc second property location is 142 North Eastern Avenue Assessor map l-13 lot 9 owner is Roy Lorenzo and Michelle El Costa the third proper location is 141 seavoy Street cessor map l13 lot six owner is John P laru all right so you may recall looking at a plan similar to this at the last meeting which we denied endorsement on

um because the attorney and the surveyor had not provided us with the additional information I had asked for prior to the meeting so after speaking with attorney gany and the surveyor Alan Nelson we were able to get this revised plan in that pretty much responds to all just about everything planwise with which we could be asking for and what they've shown on this plan is you see off to the

left hand side where they have it labeled existing that is the existing ownership of the rights to the private way known as London Street so if you remember on the original plan London Street wasn't even labeled whether it was private or public so the first thing we we made them do was label this as private and with that being the case and with the research that the attorneys had done um

specifically with the darl Fe statue of private ways the ab budding land owners for the length of their Frontage would own the fee in the way to the center line of the private way now again we talk about all time we have fee in a way which is the ownership of the actual land but then there are rights for passage construction utilities everything else that is that's a separate issue on this plan we are not

dealing at all and again this is under anr endorsement we are not dealing with people's rights to the way um anyone who has rights to the way are not affected by this plan this plan only deals with the underlying ownership fee in the portion of the way so what what's brought us here is that the Jehovah's Witness um facility at 100 North Eastern Avenue had constructed a parking facility which on the plan you'll see a

lighter dash line that shows the limit of their edge of pavement and that parking facility extended beyond the halfway mark of London Street so so they went beyond with their fee ownership in um London Street would be so through um through the court proceedings this basically responds to an agreement between three different parties which would be the Jehovah's Witness Hall the Loreno Costa family at

lot 09 and then also uh Mr laru who was here this evening with regards to 141 SEO Street and so if we look to the right you'll see let's take parcel B for instance that you see on the left scenario where we have 259 Square fet we look to the right what they're proposing to do is to cut out parcel B1 which would be 277 Square fet so that area of B1 would be conveyed to Jehovah's

Witness and what that does is that allows you'll see the underlying dash line for their parking facility their parking facility would now fall within within that new limit similarly to the next lot which is at 142 Northeastern Avenue there's a much larger encroachment there we they would be creating parcel C1 which is 852 square feet excuse me conveying that oh here okay sorry thank you thank you sorry so

conveying that part so what what this basically does it eliminates encroachments normally it's not as this convoluted to eliminate encroachments because we're dealing with just normal L lines not private way lines and so this has gotten muddled a little bit because of private way and statutes that that accompany that but for an anr purposes this plan meets the requirements for such um we've asked him to um add notes

to the plan with regards to the ownership and the fee also that the parcels being created um which we're only creating two Parcels B1 and C1 they're labeled as being deemed unbuildable Lots uh so those Parcels will get conveyed parcel B will stay in the ownership with who owns parcel B now the remainder of parcel B and parcel c as well so at the end of the day this the intention of this is just to

eliminate that parking area of encroachment for ownership purposes um let's take someone who's not a party to the subdivision for instance which would be Mr Reese at the end of seavoy um the end of seavoy and London if you see that M L9 lot 74 so his lot is unaffected by this he has rights to this way for passing and repassing and other people that were on this subdivision at some point in

time may have rights to it as well that is not being affected if Mr Reese decides I want to run a sewer line and I want to construct London Street from seavoy it's at Northeastern Avenue he has the rights to do it as does anyone else who has rights to this street above and beyond what we're dealing with today this is strictly just property line issue with the ownership fee in this

private way we are not dealing with anyone's rights U whatever the Agreements are between these three parties with potentially relinquishing rights is beyond the scope of the planning board and and that's gone through the normal jur Prudence process that that's already G through so that's all I can offer on that okay so did you you said the purpose of this plan is not regarding ownership no ownership not

rights okay we're not dealing with with rights we're dealing only with ownership the fee in the way uh on the left hand side the fourth paragraph the purpose of this plan is to show ownership of parcels B B1 C C1 and D yep so ownership not rights so it's not saying that it's eliminating anyone's rights right and conveying parel right and then because that was a private way we're trying to

figure out ownership even though the statute does give give them till Midway of the street you have to go to court still if if they want to do anything with regards to the rights in the way that requires land for right so right and then I got the letter from the attorney yep so the docket number is wrong did you look up the docket number no well I did and the way the letter is

drafted it appears as if quote um previously okay um the refence says quote as a result of the Judgment by the land court and The Quiet Title action that's in continuing on MAR on April 25th there's a motion to contain that was allowed there's nothing going on there's nothing gone on at not resolved yet nothing so what there was an what my understanding is because I've spoken to two attorneys Mr L's attorney

as well as Jehovah's Witnesses attorney Jehovah's Witness filed an adverse possession that's the court adverse possession or uh position to AC Quiet Title I was told adverse possession is what started this process okay paragraph two on the letter through that process again this is what Warren explain through that process this settlement agreement is what came out of it whether or not Court Cas is finished

or not I don't know to be honest I don't care I really don't think it has bearing on an anr so I think it does matter because once we get this reported with either my signature or John's signature um people are going to reference reference this to me this is like us approving um a plan to be submitted to the CBA before they've approved it before the owners who are extinguishing any rights have had a say

before the judges had a say before there's an agreement signed by all the parties that be even if all the parties at be have signed an agreement they still have to go through the land Court to to to figure out all this stuff I I disagree but all three applicants have submitted letters of consent for this plan that there one that's in default Y what do you mean in default there's one uh owner of

123 140 123o street they're in default they did not reply what 123 123 he's not a party of this they're not touching his L right but there yeah there's just a lot of stuff going on here so there is and and and if if you more time to look at it than so be it again this is this is an an anr very narrow in scope of of the questions you should be asking yes and

what what we should be looking at so I can only explain but B1 is in the the private way right partial B1 is in the private way paral partial B1 yeah is coming out of parcel B which yes which is part of the the way and that's my my issue my issue is the private way we cannot we cannot determine ownership even though there's a statute for it they have to go

through the land court process so 141 seavoy Street his fee in London Street is parcel B which is to the center line the projection of his Frontage also parcel a but parcel a is not being subdivided Mr Reese owns this piece which is not being touched so it's not even labeled so a nobody's touching that parcel B they're cutting out this little area parcel B1 to cover the parking lot and

then that would be conveyed so my issue is this private way yep it's still there is in theory owned by the person or persons or entity who created this subdivision 100 years ago the attorney's assertion is that it's the deric fee statue that overrides this right but it has to be given proper notice and has to go through land court and once that gets signed up off then we can say that they

own till the Midway until then they have other parties then so so you don't have to endorse it again yeah so I so the ownership thing I know about that statute I I explained to him specifically what your concerns were last time and I asked him to come to the meeting yes and the other thing was I did look up the case and I thought because I was going to say I want a copy

of that agreement or that decree recorded like we we do for the zba we have that recorded and then we sign off on the plan like gets recorded okay uh so I looked it up wrong docket number nothing's gone on there been just an amended complaint filed and been continues with all the attorneys being notified so I do not feel comfortable with this at all to me this would come

back to us once the land court has shot a decree or then at that point like the zba has given um a variance then it comes to us and we then it's an anr approval not required in my opinion uh although well I'll hear from the parties that are pres or any board members any questions obviously you know well again this is this is this is complicated oh I

know I know but um that's I had I did this in duckberry for yeah so um Sirah could you say your name and you want to come up any address please uh the name is John laroo um I'm at 142 Sao Street um and I just uh just bring up the date here the reason why the Reese family at 123 SEO is part of this is because the adverse possession document U that the Jehovah

Witness um filed they wanted Parcels a b and c for some unbelievable adverse possession is that why the doc numbers I messed up that's what I told you started as an adverse possession because I I have here me to verified complaint to quiet title ah okay so this and I mean folks I've got over $10,000 in attorneys and Landscaping fees fighting this thing because I'm protecting SEO Street no so this is again um

it's this is the same complaint I have thank you very much thank you sir um so I'm sorry so you were saying that there were not a part a party to this because I parcel a has nothing to do with Jehovah Witness property right but right doing nothing to their part but they it it's just shown here as showing your rights your ownership rights or at least with your attorney and what your survey

appeals are your ownership rights in civil absolutely that's why POS a is shown and that Mr Reese's is just not involved at all but Mr ree may have been involved in the initial adverse possession claim because I what my understanding was is that um Jehovah's Witness wanted to take all of London correct I do not know that all I was all I was made aware they wanted um ab and C

yeah again I again I my advocacy is I don't want a driveway put into emptying their parking lot on sub Street sure that's why I'm F fighting for here um so I just want to be sure and again that little sliver of asphalt 20 years ago when I bought the house we noticed it my attorney Bill Kenny at the time since PW Little Bill nice guy he asked me John is

matter to you and I said no it's a church what do I care it's fine I don't really care I'm keeping an natural buffer in there and we are fighting to keep a natural buffer you drive by the house you take a look to see what we've done back there what we've maintained for 20 years I want to maintain it I don't want concrete and I don't want asphalt so I just don't want a road put

this voice Street all right sir but to your knowledge there's been no decree issued by the court in this matter correct it's this this is continuing there's a motion continue that was doed on April 25th GNA find out I don't have a I don't have any signed documents yet I know we've all signed we've all agreed and I'm going to give up that little piece of asphalt and they got stakes in the

ground we're going to put a little Post in rail F there and Jazz it up a little bit and hopefully the judge will approve the agreement and then you guys can come back and we can approve it having a conversation with Mr lar and the board trying to figure out where this is at had a question about where does this stand in with the court proceedings has there been a decree issued yet or is

this still like in a no man's land and we're just trying to now resolve it through

agreement okay no you can keep it y

okay Bill K's okay okay I was like I just spoke to him thank you all right right so the core who was that which is Mr L's attorney um tomen okay um the court is waiting for the endorsement of the plan then the agreement can be signed referencing the plan to be submitted back to the court so it's basically just it's pending now that this information can get resolved and be submitted back to the

court so I looked at the docket this afternoon con Grant I was a little bit dizzy um all there were was appearances uh motions for entry of default and motions to continue well there are motions for default yeah from people who didn't respond right which is what attorney Garen said so I would think no land courts going to wait for planning board to approve this plan typically what would happen and things you know

maybe I'm I'm wrong um the parties would agree the the judge would sign off on the agreement issue a decree and they would have as an exhibit this plan and then it comes before us as an anr because the courts has already agreed that parcel a ownership rights this exist or doesn't exist or whatever it may be I'm surprised Tom once is saying that the court needs this that's just

what he told me said that he said he said they're waiting for this information to submit back to the court the signed land agreement between the three parties and the signed plan that the agreement can't come until after the plan is is endorsed and again this is what attorney Cen said and I asked attorney Delane it's not attorney cen's issue to be here uh he just happened to

call me to let me know that and I read the letter from uh Delany yeah which seems to indicate that it's already been quote uh extinguished as a result of the Judgment of the land Court in the quiet action title and there's no hearings like there's been nothing going on so I thought that was very misleading um so I do not feel comfortable at all again and in the letter it says

although you said it's just about not rights not extinguishing rights in the letter says um quote agreement for judgment and boundary line agreement that will extinguish each of their respective rights in a private way that's the agreement yeah so without even seeing the agreement you're not asking to review the agreement we're not you're not bound to review the agreement whether it's a good idea whether it's

legal or not looking at my contention is they don't have till the Midway until theyve distinguish everyone else's rights to then they have to the mbody but Mr laru for instance through through an agreement which I think is what the agreement is can be done with his rights to London Street and this par you can voluntarily eliminate your rights that's where that's where you and I are off I am saying my premise

is their rights to the Midway exist if and only if there are no there's no one else with rights to that section so for example if you subdivide an area right then and you you leave you leave a section 100 by 40 ft where it's going to be the road but that road never gets built and then you Canvey all the Lots around it you technically own that landre absolutely well that's when

that's when a lot is is constructed or or designed and permitted after subdivision control which this is not this is a private way so right so theoretically whoever sold these Lots or own this land still owns it theoretically and I think the Court's going to give it to them because I don't think anyone and they still have rights and their rights aren't being touched by this anr plan so that's my issue let's say the

person who who has rights still wants their rights I just told you that Mr ree could build a road down here if he chose to yeah or anyone who has the rights to it yeah I I don't feel comfortable and I would think that the judge is the one who's going to sign off on this make a motion not to end once it's like the zba Thing Once the zba approves it then an

anr this is too fuzzy for us so once the judge or all the uh neighboring land owners agreed to something now it's an anr now we can record it but why would the judge be waiting for the planning board's approval on something that's doesn't make any sense the judge is waiting for the agreement between the three parties what you're just saying is that if the three parties deal with

it so once the agreement so that's what triggered this right but on I I see no agreement so I'm not going to sign off on anyone's ownership of B1 or yeah no to me London Street until they've extinguished everyone's rights to it I'm not I'm not going to sign off at the purpose of this plan to show ownership parcel B1 and C1 that's where my contention is that Midway area the B1

and C1 we don't know exactly whose rights those who who who the owners are of those until the court says they've extinguished all the rights so they've obtained the by adverse possession then there's a decree now it's an anr so so I don't know if I'm want to table it till next week and have John or have more information table it you can't table it because they have be table for next

month and 21 days will be up and they can just take the my on so you you would have to deny endorsement again like you did last time yeah yeah and I and I I know you spoke with the attorney and I read the letter and again when I looked at the number I I looked at the docket number and he said that he could not be here so and I don't know what to

say you're not comfortable no I don't vote it's your job to make the dec I don't know how theard feels I would I would just have this denied and then this situation rectified and they can improper portion of it I I I I know exactly what your the dilemma and you are an attorney and I usually work with attorneys but they've had to explain to me on several of these occasions as well

and every case is different maybe they have all the ducks in a row but without me seeing it I feel funny because but maybe there is all this stuff that's in place already no I asked him regards to ownership and fee in the way yeah if he doesn't want didn't want to provide any additional information then you can only act on what he submitted to you if you're not comfortable with it right

because if if we we needed a court decree otherwise they would just do an agreement and not file in wi for right they all the neighbors get together and sign off on an agreement that'd be so convenient um but the reason it goes to land for is to give notice to all these people has anybody denied signing any typ of agreement for this no because they they're not no one is being asked to sign on to

this for rights in the way just the ownership of the of the area the land are yeah which is generally to the center line of the way y but but yeah but that's a statute but you still have to go to L Court just to give everyone notice and all that fun stuff but the way this is here for the sake of moving this along not if you're not going to endorse it

make a motion a motion not to endorse this until we get further no not further deny it so that it's done because there's there's no okay there's there are time frames associated with not acting on an our plan so you have to act definitively like we did last time I'll second and what we do is we send a decision to the clerk saying that it was denied endorsement Case C

otherwise they can go over the clerk and say if nobody filed an appeal regardless of whether you sign it or not take the m and vote have be denied action filed with the clerk ADV the applicant again if this again a new filing again hopefully information but I I would ask that that you make a determination of what information specifically you're asking for so that he can provide it okay so uh Mike Farris has made a

motion to deny and seconded by Mar Lucho um so I would think once there's a a court decree then then it's an anr approval not required because it's already been taken care of with the land court and the neighbors and we just endorse it anr so then right what happens when it's determined that someone may determine that a decree is not Reed so now your approval is we're not acting until we

get a decree supposed decree never comes because one's not required the court May determine that one's not required so think about the motion and what information you're looking for whatever means that is to get to you in this particular case with a private way we need a court decree okay but in another situation maybe all we need is all like the land owners all agree to swap land

in in another scenario and again I read the attorney's letter that you asked for for and it was misleading and that was even more upsetting okay so thank you Mike and Mario agenda item number two oh sorry but now understand that you're not just waiting you had you didn't ask for what what the decree is to is to show so you're questioning ownership and fee in the way they don't yeah they don't get own

ship and C until the land Court says no one else is has any ownership in that land so just be specific with with why you're denying it not what you're asking for why we don't have to give a reason to deny it so I'm not going to give a reason to deny it on record however this is we are here for so so somebody appeals it yeah and they ask what's what's the what's the purpose

for denial because the statute doesn't say automatically own that to the C that's what that's what needs to be said here there has to be a reason that's why they went to land court and got this action took no they went to land court because it was adverse possession claim that started this but I listen I I don't want this as much as you don't want I'm not reading this again

yeah same this is the same thing so quiet title I understand that that's the same thing he showed so what I want to make sure is the same reason you don't want this to come back on you yeah it's not coming back on me because the vote was taken improperly right so we're not losing this on a technicality good gooda the motion for denial you have to deny it for a reason

yes and to resolve that reason you're asking for a decree that provides that information right what is that information the plan the plan says here paragraph number four purpose of this plan is to show ownership of parcels B1 C1 and that's where that's in a p that's in a private way and that's where I have an issue but so Nina's Nina has to write a decision and file it so it needs to be

in a specific sentence whether you want to write down exactly what you want her to write in the decision or as part of the motion I don't want her trying to formulate a decision sure out of the general conversations that we're having there be a formal motion based on a specific reason and then everybody can act on that Mike it would be beneficial if you withdrew your Mo motion at this

point and and submit another one hold on can I once we get the conditions up yeah I want to know exactly what the conditions that you have an issue we can amend the motion once you come up what you want us to read

so I I did not this was the complaint was long as you know it's like half an inch thick right the complaint sorry the complaint that was filed is like half an inch thick I did not print out all the exhibits because in in the two-page complaint or three-page complaint he references all these exhibits about the land and he asked the court to issue Judgment of of the plain of his is the

fee simple owner and parcel B and C which I think is going to get denied this is the amended complaint I believe yest is uh none defendants have the right to use the land and exhibit I Parcels g b and c um ctive has adversity possess the land described as proces BC and exhibit eye which I don't have and its use of land is exclusive and not subject to the rights of any of the

defendants so again the reason this complaint was filed was to determine who the owner of this land of these Parcels that's why they go into court so until the court has issued a judgment or decree stating that the plaintiff is the fee owner or the plaintiff and defendants share ownership we cannot consider this an a INR plan because someone else has to work on it like the zba this is not by Statute

automatically let's narrow it down in scope of what's in the motion of why it's being denied okay so I would pait that writing there let me just yeah I'm GNA make a motion I think I need to know how to do this it could be simple as that that that clear ownership in the way has not been determined or provided exactly right and there's a pending action in Port for it doesn't matter

pending action yeah you you don't even need to know that there's pending that's that's not part of our record right right this is an anr you're not endorsing ing it because you haven't been provided proof of ownership of fee in the way exactly period yeah okay if if it has here a reference to a court order make a motion then that's when I'm going to make a motion to to deny this

um on the purpose of the plan as shown does not show ownership of parcel B B1 CC1 in accordance to the boundary agreement uh and then um that it needs to go into land Court for ownership to understand who the ownership is of those parcels and then all you need to do is say why you're not endorsing it not what they need to do to rectify it so the ownership of the

private way has not been defined yeah yeah or provided information ownership rights so would you like me to Drew that again I you okay let's do it all right motion to deny based on purpose of the plan as shown U ownership ship is not defined for Parcels B B1 C and C1 have a second on that motion a second on motion um we do a roll call Mario yes

uh Beth Mike yes I vote Yes and John Ferrera is absent thank you I'm sorry position thank you and you can advise everyone that plan was not endorsed we tried very hard and as long as I'm not going to get fight Tom killer I don't think they were very happy no no no no I spoke to try Karen and he was he was more than fine with you coming um I I emailed attorney

Delaney on multiple occasions asking him to be here and asking for this information this is going on a couple of months now so we'll we'll respond again tomorrow to attorney Delaney of why it didn't get endorsed again and specifically for the reason of denial and um I can include attorney Clin on the PS John didn't cuse any ter no oh no no thank you for coming thank you for coming sir no we appreciate it like I

said I'm trying to protect stre sure this critical matter then the's attorney should have been no I agree and I told attorney cin that today he said well attorney Delany doesn't doesn't think there was a need to come plan actually attorney Delaney's exact words were the plan speaks for itself that was in the email response to me after and I explained I went in my conversation with

attorney Cen as I said the most simple of an anr plans I always made sure that I attended the hearing in case there was a question if it was that important to my client and a simple question came up and it got tabled and now whether real estate can be conveyed or not and it costs people money and interest rates and everything else because you decided not to show up to a 10-minute hearing

that's not how I used to do business but I can't tell everybody how to do this but again not attorney Karen's issue to be attorney Delaney is the one that that has signed this and has tried to Usher this through so we'll we'll pass it along thank you very much thank you will there be another one of these in the fut not not until they file a new plan so hopefully they'll they'll let you

know they won't I have to ask okay um well we did ask bless your heart we did require them to get an updated signature from you with regards to the new plan so about four or five days few conversations with my attorney about it and didn't really care for some of the word but got it thank you very much thank you sir thank you thank you a good day agenda item number

two form a application for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval and our plan of land file number 24-1 1578 owner applicant contral Investments LLC property location 1313 d 1321 South Main street accessors map G24 Lots 3 and 16 n do you have in the file I've got what appears to be two copies of the original plan does everybody have the revised plan remember what that says

propos area oh um he he only changed it on the myar I sent it's on the on the iPad is the scanned in one we need toint of the copies of no good okay all the paper copies need to be what the okay cop how about the on on the computer those are those and it's just it's a small issue yeah so this is um just a small lock conveyance between two

separate properties one fronting at 1313 South Main Street and another property that fronts along Griffin Street both owned by the same entity this uh ultimately the same as the quintal Investments LLC and then Daniel Quint Senor and Daniel Quint J um that owns the other parcel so if you look at the very well actually you can see it on the larger inset but on the plan that you see there you see that odd little

crescent shaped parcel so they' be cutting out what's labeled as parcel a from 1313 South Main Street conveying it to the Griffin Street property and if you look at the larger detailed inset which is up in this corner of the plan it tells you what the are so was 228 ft being conveyed from one fossil to the other straightforward no zoning variances involved um it's basically to allow the construction of a building on

the Griffin Street property and meet the rear yard set back but you don't need to know that the uh one question Dan yep it looks like is there an easement that's going through yeah so there's two things because these are being developed simultaneously for for residential uh housing the drainage from the Griffin Street lot as the existing condition runs through the South Main Street lot so as part of site plan

review we required them to Grant an easement from one to the other it's fine when they all own it together now uh but if they do ever get conveyed we want to make sure an easement was in place so this plan was just a good placeholder rather than to file a separate easement plan to show the easement on this plan as well okay any other comments from the board there's no presence I'm not GNA bother

asking anyone else in favor or oppose I'm in favor I approve want to make a motion I make a motion to approve I'll second thanks Beth uh roll call Mario yes Beth yes Mike yes I vote Yes as well um forever being absent agenda item number three form a application for endorsement of plan believed not to require a uh not to require approval anr plan of land file number 24-1 1579 owner

is Bank Street Properties LLC applicant is r a dice LLC property location 2436 and 2492 South Main street accessors map b23 lot 7 20 and 21 so this is as you're heading south on South Main Street and you come up to the the Y intersection at show street where the gas station is you Bear right directly across the street from what was the AY school it's now actually back to the Fall River School Preschool across

the street that Town San Hill apartment building that's that you see shown here as 2436 the existing building which is on M 23 7 there was a church onel and then you also see the city of Fall River parcel up on South Main Street which is where the water to 6 now so when when the the Roman Capal Church own these properties Lot 21 and lot 20 uh were actually separate fossils so

one thing that this plan does it combines those two so they're not subdividing these they're just combining those two and if we go up to the further Northerly lot at 2436 you'll see um there's a dashed property line labeled as existing lot lines being removed what they did was get rid of that odd Jog and that configuration and create a more linear line um in between the two separate posets again all owned

by the same entity now getting rid of that odd shap combining the two smaller parses again there are a number of easements on this plan really nothing to do with the anr endorsement but it again it's just a good placeholder to have a plan that they can reference with their easement documentation so that's it on this one combining two parcels and adjusting the lot line between that and the existing fossil for the

north no zoning variances involved any questions or comments from the board a motion a motion that motions to endorse the plan to have a second a second motion Mike second um roll call Mario yes uh Beth yes Mike yes I vote Yes and John Farah is absent okay um agenda item number four form a application for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval in our plan of land file number 24-1 1580 owner applicant

Divine Development LLC property location 5543 Street s is map I 11 lot 13 another one of everyone's favorites we have two existing multi family dwellings on one par land 554 um Third Street which is a three story multi family dwelling and then also 58 third street which is also a threeory multi dwelling this par went through the special permit process for the zoning board of appeals and they had

granted uh special permit allowing the subdivision to take place the subdivision lines shown on this plan mimic what was approved on that that Z Varan plan basically what you see is lot of it dwelling at 558 would now have 15 ft of Frontage which provides access to the existing binus pavement driveway and then that lot line snakes around in between the two buildings and then heads in the assuming North is up y in the

East Direction creating a parcel of 37 44 square feet and then that would leave Lot number one on the remaining parcel with 3,120 s ft minimum setback shown of being 4.6 feet to 554 is in conformance with the zoning variance as well as the minimum setback of 5.6 ft to 558 that's all thank you Dan any uh comments or questions just quick question do we know why this was table last go around this was last

month's no this one wasn't TBL this wasn't tabled no you have there is a revised plan because they were missing a frontage Dimension and a building set okay yeah so maybe that's yeah yeah that's all yeah I remember was talking about it and when the revised plans came in this morning this morning and that's what's on the computer right now okay and they're in the folder yes they I motion to approve Mike motions to

approve is there a second second B second uh roll call Mario yes uh Beth yes Mike yes and I also vote Yes okay agenda item number five approval of the minutes um I haven't had a chance to review um April 9th or April 10th minutes we can just table them I don't know if if you guys want to table it or if you if you guys have you read the minutes you want to

table it it's the one with the Joint City Council you can take your time and do it again next meba right that we didn't do last time this yeah nobody else has no it's it's fine we'll just T can I have a motion to table uh the approval of the minutes for April 9th and April 10th please a motion to table it thanks Mike do have a second a second thanks Beth

roll call Mario yes Beth yes Mike yes and I vote Yes as well number six citizens input um I only have a question is if we could put on the agenda for next month maybe the the the naming of the U the naming of uh Street foot Jean Batista page if you could put down the agenda item so that we could have a public hearing on that do do we have a

loccation but you mean for just for discussion yeah and to get the input or because I know they had petition to name rename third portion of Third Street I know it's been like nine or eight months just so you want an update on it or uh well we we've tabled it definitely so should we get the petitioners back in should review the Route 79 project what are your thoughts I don't I mean my I can't tell

you what to put on an agenda or not but we're not ready to tell them where we're going to put it yet but okay yeah it it's it's um a very slow and arduous process um I don't have authority to I know what like we would like to do but I don't have the authority to tell you the nimportant so you have all what to do um but I think so we have we have two

separate processes to get that done when the land gets conveyed to the city the city can do whatever they want to do with it yeah if you want to do that now then the state has to to do it so if you want if you want to move forward with asking the state to proceed with it and that process whether it's an act of the legislature or whatever whatever process

that takes we can stop that process well I know the family members wanted to rename a portion of Third Street we had discussed a viable option would be this new card at that again with no time frame Associated to this and today we still have no time frame mon you want us to send them a letter just telling them that that they're still in our minds and we're still working towards it but be

nice I I yeah I I agree with you there is a lot that has to there's a lot as you imagine we're just conveying a little piece of land um the one that we denied this is going to be it's a long process tedious process I think ultimately and I don't know this as a fact eventually if it gets conveyed over to the city I think the city would probably would most likely

um see it through and do something in honor of the of the uh of the family um of the fallowing hero and but I think if just a general letter from the city would just be oh it would have to be all you can do is yeah send a letter from the planning board okay so Dan the petition they filed is there an expiration on that I don't want it to

like Fall by the wayside because it's been a year or something like that so it's still being tabled theoretically still on the table we we'll look at whether it's was it was it Ted or I thought we had tabled it I believe it I believe it was table the family understood at that point that it would take some time because of the Route 79 project and they were okay with it and

the original petition did not come from the family it came from private citizen oh outside of the family so just maybe a letter if you would like I can arrate it send it to everybody and oh I think Nina can do it right just whatever you want I don't I understand your point as a city because they right now we don't know whether how the how that land's going to be conveyed from the from from the

federal government to the state to the state to the city that the street spot is easy yeah the Land part is difficult the Land part is difficult but the street be yeah right now my understanding is you guys that's your overpass and that road is your road and when they complete the discontinuous plan they haven't done yet they haven't done that yet and so um yeah I I would

suggest that uh I think that would be a good faith effort to to write him just a letter and just say you know we haven't forgotten about you it's still on the process this project is not going to be done until 2026 so am I writing this letter to okay okay the petitioner that it was I believe it was col submitted it and then if we have the contact information from the family I

think one or two persons spoke and so the people who spoke maybe if we could just give them an update so they know it's still pending and it's not denied nor yeah and and again there is I agree there's a can of Warr because that's already that's already dedicated that pass through that overpass that's the new one now is dedicated to somebody new to some old one was yeah the both

there's two people actually a little bit of a different so no so this one's going to be named I think after a few people yeah I think different locations underneath above yeah could be you know a general veterans that have a certain pla with certain people's name so that that hasn't been determined but it will be acknowledged yeah so they so on the the spaghetti ramp portion just south of

here they've done this historical Forge that I don't know if you've seen it or not but it's near the bus stop there and the I think we have I'm sorry to interrupt we have to be careful about the discussion the open meeting laot because this was not on the agenda okay yeah I was I was yeah C input I just mentioned that she asking for it to be put on the next

agenda put it on for the next agenda to discuss sending a letter yes thank you thank you very much okay so I'll put on the agenda and just double check there's an expiration on that petition that was filed by car so that no one has to jump through hoops again any other no other citizen input comments so item number have an adjournment a motion toj motion to thanks b a

second it's my CH Mar you second second all right all in favor tonight