6.16.2022 Zoning Board of Appeals

stop craig you all set out there okay good evening i'm david assad the chairman of the zoning board of appeals for the city of fall river it's 6 p.m on thursday june 16 2022 we are meeting at one government center in the first floor hearing room pursuant to massachusetts general law chapter 38 section 20 subsection f i hereby notify all persons in attendance that this meeting is being

recorded with both video and audio devices fall river government tv craig salvador is recording both a video and audio version if anyone desires to make an audio video or combination recording thereof please notify me now and i shall make a public announcement of your intention hearing none our recording secretaries this evening are nina kruger the lady to my immediate right and patty again aggie on the lady to

nina's right um present this evening our permanent members jim calkins joe pereira vice chairman dan duper alternate member ricky sehati and alternate member john sylvia the gentleman the gentleman center next to jim carkins also present this evening is the city engineer and acting overseer of the planning department dan again the gentleman to my far left nina have all petitions to be considered

and properly advertised and all interested parties notified in accordance with the rules and regulations of the zoning board of appeals and massachusetts general law chapter 48 as amended yes thank you i declared the june 16th 2022 regularly scheduled meeting of the zoning board of appeals for the city of fall river open for such business i shall regularly come before it i remind all persons presenting before

the board including the petitioners are butters anyone in support or anyone opposed to the petition that your presentation should be limited to three minutes questions and responses must be directed through the chairman the board's rules and regulations direct the board to specifically look for information which supports the petitioner's claim as such the petitioner should identify

and factually support the basis for the petition i hereby advise the petitioners and all interested persons that this board is the zoning board of appeals this board's authority exists pursuant to massachusetts general law chapter 48 and is limited in scope and deals with the use of land as regulated by chapter 86 of the ordinances of the city of fall river additional permits licenses reviews and

or approvals may be required for the specific development and or use which is the subject of the petition before the zoning board this evening the clerks in the building planning engineering and licensing departments are competent in the discharge of their duties as clerics they are however not lawyers and are not competent to give legal advice the action taken by this board has a

real and lasting effect upon the title to your real estate i urge all petitioners to seek competent legal counsel before filing your petitions and after a decision of the board has been made for example there is a city ordinance 2015-11 section 10-1 requiring site plan reviews a copy of the ordinance is available at the city clerk's office or from the planning department i remind everyone that the building

inspector is the zoning enforcement authority and you're here this evening because the building inspector has determined that your proposed action is contrary to the city of fall river's 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 this meeting i disclosed that an official copy of four of his owning ordinances is available at the city clerk's office one cannot rely on the online zoning ordinance i believe there's a sign up sheet in the back of the room or on the door if anyone would like to take part in the citizen input at the end of the meeting are there any questions before we begin

hearing none we'll start with agenda item number one jose guzman 491 division street lot g529 this is a variance request to convert a pre-existing non-conforming structure into two residential units creating a second floor space waiving all requirements in an a2 apartment district

good evening board members my name is jose guzman i am the architect of record on the 491 division street property that is located at the intersection of mulberry and division this property is a pre-existing non-conforming lot as it relates to lot area front side rear yard setbacks and lab coverage um my client what he wishes to do is to have a change of use from a bus to uh well who's your client i was gonna

no no i i oh i see him waving there but on your petition we've got you named uh and you're the only name that appears what i don't see in the petition and i'm gonna ask you to fix it is faza management inc correct and they are that's the entity that owns the property yeah but it's not you no so your so whatever the petition itself says you are the petitioner we don't

have somebody supplemented the book and page of when they acquired the property uh but the petition itself is not signed so we're going i don't know whether it's del costa i did not look at who fazza management is yes that's correct so are you tell sir i'm down all right so you can sign the petition and put your name as the principal of faza management inc and so god keep going i just wanted to make

sure that you're authorized to be dealing with this piece of property for the entity that owns it good all right so the um we don't believe that this uh change of use is detrimental to the uh neighborhood in fact it's in it will be in the character of the building will be in keeping with the existing uh neighborhood character uh consisting of uh four to two-story buildings uh that are ranged from two to three family

units uh we are building a second story directly above the existing perimeter of the building it's not going beyond the existing outer walls and the second means v grass will be at the rear of the building we are we will have we do have room and there is currently uh eight parking spaces which is what's required for two for this uh two family actually it's it's less it's four but we're providing eight um

and i think that's pretty much it in short if you have any questions i'll be glad to answer any questions you may have so just to be clear the perimeter or the four walls of the building that you're strictly going up vertically correct and what i'm seeing in the back of the building that's going to be the second means of egress that's correct the distance uh from that rear from the two

the two family number 487 to the side i don't see that in trying 5.2 right it's um 5.2 feet no it's 4.7 feet is that what i'm looking at where the stairs are uh you're looking at uh 487 that's to the 12.7 is the side of the stairs eight point yes to the property line to the property line correct okay and you're providing what is it eight off street parking spaces there are

eight in total and those those eight will continue yes okay okay members of the board joe one question to you at this point the fact the fact that we don't have the the owner identified on the advertising etc does that constitute an advertising issue no i think the um the property address 491 division street and lot g 529 is adequate it satisfies the the requirement so i think we're fine there

i was just concerned about the petition because i was searching the registry to see where mr guzman came from uh and i don't find him having title i found it in the name of the corporation and when i looked at the petition i looked like two different signatures and then i see this del costa as being uh just the application wasn't correct so before they leave they're going to have everyone say who's going on

who's doing that to him so procedurally does that answer your questions okay any other questions about this particular petition access to the parking is access to the parking is via the existing curb cut uh which is off of division street directly where it says concrete walk correct if that already exists it's not yours that's right for renew okay so there are eight parking spaces that currently exist yes okay

anything else jim ricky no okay on this particular project is there anything that the uh that dan you want to think we should know okay thank you is there anyone here in favor of this petition is there anyone opposed to this petition well we're getting uh so what's being presented is um the non-conforming structure into a two residential units um two do you know how many bedrooms each one is going to be um let's see

it's been a while since i looked at yes i have uh it's uh one two bedrooms so per floor two four total two bedrooms those are my schools

okay so no one here in favor no one here opposed can i get a motion to grant motion to deny do we have any conditions move to approve jim cawkins moved to approve no conditions it's like plans i think i think we should make that um you could i mean there's no construction activity uh with regards to storm water that's being proposed but the parking lot's already there but if you wanted to

go through the process you could okay so motion to grant right no further conditions okay jim cawkins motion to grant no further conditions do i have a second second who's that ricky ricky sahara ii any discussion on the motion hearing none ricky sahara yes dan duper yes joe pereira yes uh jim aside yes okay that petition is granted thank you thank you uh excuse me um what do i speak to about correcting the

application you're good well why don't you yeah so fatty again we'll take the petition outside you can sign up we'll get it corrected all right thank you thank you very much

agenda item number two mass number one llc care of attorney mark l levin 1476 pleasant street lot k 12 3.

this is a special permit this is several items so we start off with a special permit request to establish to re-establish the non-conforming use of the third floor of the building pursuant to section 86 428 of the zoning bylaws and then convert the third floor pursuant to section 86 425 of the bylaws to change the use in the interior to a non-conforming use pursuant to section 864 26 of the bylaws

to create five apartments therein and leaving the pre-existing non-conforming 11 units on the first and second floor to waive all dimensional requirements and parking requirements pursuant to section 86 441 and 86 445 of the bylaws and finding and defining that there is no ability to add parking beyond existing two spaces available on this lot with a building which existed before zoning okay

this is tim and the members of the board mr aguiar madame clerks my name is attorney mark levin i have law offices at 138 rock street four of massachusetts and i'm here tonight representing mass number one llc all of you probably know this area this is the heart of the flint it's a mostly business area but does have many residential uses in the bl district you are allowed to have residential uses but this building is

back the turn of the 1900s and has been used pretty much what it has been for a long time which is on the first two floors residential uses and until 2015 there used to be a karate school on the third floor this building is very long it's 120 feet by roughly 50 feet wide the third floor before my client bought it the tenants moved out my client purchased the property last year

and i'm just going to give the assessors just to see what the assessor has still most of it they tax for residential but they do have a small area which is commercial because this area also allows commercial and again my guess is that's the third floor that they're still taxing as a commercial use even though my client knows and we represent to you that it did end uh previously and it's been beyond the

two years so i'm asking you because of this very unusual project and the unusual area in what where this building is i mean the building takes up most a lot other than with the two parking spaces my client tells me anyone most of the people don't have cars that live here but anyone that does parks in the public lot which is on cash street just a block away so there's available parking in the area

for these people and that's what they do now now the top floor unit again not to just re-establish and use it for commercial purposes because it was being used during the day and in evenings and weekends when there was a school there in fact my sister reminded me that i was one of their failures at that school where i couldn't do well so so i know the building myself wasn't that emo's hardware

they had been on the first floor too at one point and there was also a luggage company one time there yeah rns luggage long time ago but i mean the last use mr sardine was the top floor which was the the karate school so what i'm what basically we're asking for is the rest of the building's residential the third floor is just a very vast empty floor of about five thousand square feet

we would like to have utilization of that instead of the building sitting there it becomes five apartments it gets used i got circumstances for this building that already exists on the ground and what i sought is the easiest in the the proper method was to reestablish the non-conforming use because it did expire and then just change that over to five bedrooms and then i'm asking you obviously to wave parking because

i have no ability to provide that and under the special permit you're allowed to make a finding that there is no more availability parking than i can provide and there is nothing i can do on this slot so the but it's in the bl district it is in the bl district which allows residential uses that's all three units right and you already have 11. that is correct on two floors so i'm just asking that the

rest of the building be used in conformity what the whole building is used for and that's really in the nutshell right so let's take my clients obviously non-hardship for him is that obviously it becomes a financial burden to heat the thing you have to keep it heated because you got flaws below it that need to make sure that there's insulation and he's got an expense to maintain the building

he's good i got it right it's a special permit that's cool and i want to go through the several components because i think the language is so under 86 428 abandonment or non-use so it's in page 8658 a non-conforming use or structure that has been abandoned or not used for a period of two years shall lose its protected status and be subject to all of the provisions of this chapter

that's paragraph a correct paragraph b notwithstanding the above a non-conforming structure that has been abandoned or not used for a period of two years may re-establish its protected status upon the grant of a special permit by the board of appeals what your what i'm hearing you say is let's get the non-conforming use re-established correct and then immediately abandon it and turn it into a

further non-conforming use correct that's right i just want to make sure you understand that's absolutely correct and then from there under 86 425 you want to go to the non-conforming structure other than single and two-family structures paragraph a the zoning board of appeals may grant a special permit to reconstruct extend alter or change a non-conforming structure in accordance with this section

only if it determines that such reconstruction extension alteration or change shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming structure to the neighborhood the following types of changes to to non-conforming structures may be considered by the zoning board reconstruction extension or structural changes alterations to provide for a substantially different purpose or for

the same purpose in a substantially different manner or to a substantially greater extent section b paragraph b the reconstruction extension of structural change of a non-conforming structure except non-conforming single and two-family residential structures in such a manner as to increase in existing non-conformity or create a new non-conformity shall require a variance provided however that the extension of an

exterior wall at or along the same non-conforming distance within a required yard shall require the issuance of a special permit from the board of appeals and then 86 424 non-conforming use of lands may grant the board may grant a special permit to change or extend a non-conforming use in accordance with the section only if it determines that such change or extension shall not be

substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming use to the neighborhood so you're you're using and i think let me just make sure that's what you've got your petition yes yeah correct me if i'm wrong yes 86 425 so it's a use change yes it's not a structural that's correct okay yeah so i don't know how you fit that into and then 86 426 not well 86 426 is non-conforming single and two family

structures i don't know how that got in there 86 426.

to a non-conforming use pursuant to 86 426 to create five apartments and then when we get to the 86411 of pocket i'm just trying to wrap my head along with this no no it's a little bit complicated i understand all right

86 441 gets us to multi-family two spaces per unit uh that's on page 8659 and then when we get to changes 86 443 the changes in use of an existing structure building prior to the effective date of this chapter shall be permitted without meeting the required number of parking spaces provided the building inspector makes a determination that that the number of existing parking spaces if any is not being reduced the

use is permitted as a pre-existing non-conforming use in the district and additional pocket cannot be provided in a reasonable manner i don't 445 not 445 four full references 445 445 special permits any part i know but i wanted to get to let me get to the park okay 86 445 any parking or loading requirement set forth may may be reduced or modified by the issuance of a special commit by the zoning board of appeals if

the board finds that the reduction or modification is not inconsistent with public health and safety or that reduction or modification promotes a public benefit such cases may include and i think we'll go to the use of off-street parking which is sub paragraph e availability availability of on street park in the park and get nearby municipal facilities uh peculiarities of the use which makes

usual measures uh of demand invalid uh major characteristics of the occupants of the facility use of a common parking i was trying to find where it's said those are my concerns that i i don't putting all those component pieces to make this work in this bl district where you already have 11 units and a dl maximum three units right but good and i believe that the 426 reference is a typo it should be 427. it

was just a typo when i gave it to the building inspector and we just copied it should be 427.

okay no i we understand that we're asking to use the entire building for what the other two floors are being used for but there had been along with those uses in the building a third floor that was a school where people came in five days to seven days a week days and nights and we have a building that's pre-existing it's non-conforming and its natural tendency would be not to put another business back there

that was there before but to change it to residential like the rest of the building that's really the gist of it it the the neighborhood is such that there are pardons all around and businesses they're not going to know whether there's 11 apartments or the 16 apartments there's still going to be an apartment building no matter what it would be instead of my client coming back and say let me reestablish it to be

what it was which is a commercial use and then asking you to put some type of business up there but wouldn't that business use under the local bl district be a permitted use yes yes you're right it would be a permitted use but we don't want to use no no i couldn't but i'm just thinking if it's a committed use then what are we re-establishing a committed use for right well i'm reestablishing the non-conformingness of

the whole building i mean i i'm re-established because it doesn't meet the area and all the things like that so that that's why i would question the number of units you have in there makes a building but it's non-conforming that's correct we don't have to re-establish it as non-conforming well no no not the humans aren't we no no he's expanding yeah what once was a non i don't know why it was a

non-conforming use the school of whatever number yeah yes school is not part of the bl it's not i mean you could have a business there but i've had the experience with a building inspector recently on a on a bank telling me we couldn't put a music school in there because it's not an accredited licensed school from the state and that was that's his interpretation of what you can have so my school technically wasn't

a licensed operation by the state it was a non-conforming use even though it was some type of commercial use yes we could put a furniture store up there if we wanted or i don't know some type of retail business but that very inconsistent with the use of the building and it again just brings more disruption to that area having people coming in and out all the time than just coming home to sleep and

leaving in the morning to work so it becomes good one of the questions i have goes right to the beginning of this at 86 428 if a portion of a building is simply shut off and not used does that constitute abandon it's not like the whole building was shut down and has been sitting there empty so i think that that act in and of itself that portion of this application may be superfluous okay

okay ask some more questions members of the board before we who's in favor who's opposed what you want to do it's a special permit um just to be sure there is no use of the third floor right now it's empty you get five thousand square foot of empty space how long has it been empty from what my client was able to figure out was from 2015 yet the assessor records that i gave you saying it's

still a commercial use up there yeah 2015 my client's honest he says listen i know it's been abandoned i know it it's not being used for what it was he just bought it december that is correct but he knew the person before that had it and they eventually made a deal last year no deals are good and we didn't get a determination from i didn't see one in here that the building

inspector said you can't do any more parking yeah i had asked him and you know that's kind of not it's a little more complicated than it's worth to fight sources no no i'm asking because specifically the language said yes he could have done that i wouldn't have had to ask you and he just didn't want to get involved i said just go to the zoning board okay can i ask how long have they been 11

apartments or let me let me rephrase that how long have there been more than three apartments in this building oh from what i know all the apartments but two on the first floor have been apartments was that assessors how big are excuse me how big are the apartments how many bedrooms uh on what we're proposing or what's there oh oh so so the assistant they were a myth what my clients doing is one twos and

threes there's a mix room on the fifth floor of my clients proposing he would have one one bedroom one two bedroom and three three bedroom because it's just huge these living areas are the three bedroom or a thousand square feet basically they're just huge units even the smallest units 500 in the two bedrooms 700.

it's just a very extremely big building i mean it's you know historically been there forever and again other than two uses that were on the first floor that sometimes disappeared and turned to apartments i can't tell you when that happened uh well from 2004 it was still being it was being assessed both as commercial and residential usage with the majority being residential uh right abortion

correct so whoever asked that question on my right side from 2004 forward it's been there's been that mixed use of commercial and residential units it says on the assessor's map that there's nine units um so i don't know why there are physically eleven greater than eight styles on the bottom the narrative says with nine units show me that oh yeah see with nine units 36 yeah an exterior entire gravel roof

cover with nine units 36 rooms 18 bedrooms nine baths two and a half yeah i only know physically they told me there was 11 in the building i i you know i pulled out the assessor's record to show you that there was commercial use being assessed to i can't tell you what the assessor has or not they might have to go out there and recheck it and that's you know one thing they should check

mr chairman so we're uncertain as to how many apartments exist there now well i know there were 11 there now so physically there are less there let's let's adopt that there's 11 units in that building okay so they're looking to increase it by five which is going to make it up to 16 residential units

and they're looking to increase by five so we're going with 11. well i think i think if you start with if you start as that given factor they're saying there's 11 there's 11.

you've got a building on pleasant street with no parking with 11 residential units in it um do we want to expand it do we say yes adding five more units would not would be less detrimental not more detrimental to the neighborhood than saying no it's an nbl district maximum of three you've got 11. it's pre-existing non-conforming what do we say yeah that's fine let's and again the standard for a special

permit is such that's that's the standard it's not like the variance talking about shape topography soil condition hardship the standard is is this particular project not more detrimental to the neighborhood than what exists and then if we're going to expand it does that expansion if we say we're going to expand does that make it uh is that detrimental to the neighborhood so basically whether it's

nine or eleven it becomes a moot point because it's more than three it's more smaller than three exactly i just got a question yeah so if there's nine units i mean there's it says nine units on here there are 11 somebody should have came and got a variant so i notified the city before they did that right well i my client didn't do it they he bought it this way

so that's what he's told me based on the going through the building at the time i you know i pulled out that out to show you there was still commercial use i can't tell you if the assessor didn't miss calculate it or they looked at they only got to go into nine units and the other two are locked for some reason i don't know that i can't tell you i mean once this gets if it gets

through obviously they'll have a variance to then reassess it to 16 units since it's not conforming to what the assessor says um you know maybe they want maybe you should come back then you know settle this first because it's not conforming to what you're you know i mean i'm just oppo you know questioning synonymous i got it but i'm saying if they're saying there's 11 then there's 11 units what

the assessor's records have and whether they've done uh yeah i can't that happens a lot i can't remember yeah i'm just finding that somebody did something they shouldn't have did i mean they shouldn't have done so it's kind of like i don't i can't tell you how long it's been well it's actually that's the way it's if there are 11 units there and there's nine on the paper we know that someone put extra

units in there that's all i'm questioning yeah i can't tell you my client only bought it recently and you know he didn't add any units this is when he bought it and that's what his bank did an appraisal line now you'd say that there is off street parking near here yes cash street is up uh i think it's what two blocks away is on the south so the south here and that's where the tenants park now

that's where they always parked i mean there's some but it's a public lot yes that's right it's where this they've always parked other than the people coming to school they're parked on pleasant street yeah but what we're trying to determine is that that additional units will make the parking that much worse and then and if that bar has a capacity well that's i don't know it's not exclusive i mean yeah

and again going back we go back to the the regulation concerning uh parking it's two per unit yeah so i have one question yeah just just just to be clear you don't know at what point in time it went from three units to more than three i have no idea i i did not do any background for that and i think the key question then becomes i'm sorry because it just weighs into it is

was that pre-zoning well from what i can have been told when what i actually remember there were apartments in there when i used to go there as a kid so it might have not been pre-zoning when i was that young but you know but i my my from what i'm told these are pretty older interior apartments they there's nothing recent that was done in the building right and you don't know how many how

many uh bedrooms there are on the existing and the ones i did not ask i only know what's mine you know what i have i'm told there are you know consistent with this type of plan so there's ones twos and threes

i mean presently no from what we're told and what i'm told there's no difficulty with those people that live there to access the property or park where they park i'm told that many of them don't that's that's the that's de facto what's going on we now have the zoning ordinance and this is what we're trying to deal with and apply it and does this special permit request what you're asking for

does it rise to the level that this change is going to be substantially shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming use to the neighborhood so you have this non-you have this pre-existing non-conforming with either 9 or 11 and you're making the representation 11 units in an area that has zoned bl with 3 with a maximum of three units which is the addition of

five additional apartments uh does that and forget about i'm not even taking into consideration the component pieces of the parking that the board can grant a special permit to deal with that component of it so those are the things that i think the board has to wrestle with and more particularly there's nobody here in favor or opposed to it so now the board is looking and i don't see

anybody here from the flint neighborhood association but yeah well you've gotta like i said you got a neighborhood i got it yes i did i didn't know his favor anyone's opposed there was i did but let me ask again is there anyone in favor anyone opposed to this petition no i pretty i know i went farther down the line asking about 11 and 12 but good so that's where we are members of the board um

it's basically allowing the utilization of a building to a full extent than putting some type of business in there i got it but the the the ordinance no no i understand i understand what you want but when you every time you say that other than this is a permitted use we want a business we want local business no we're going to do residential and now i've already got 11. now you want to increase

it by five more correct but the board may say that that's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and if that's the case we'll get that part done then we'll go to the parking so what do you want to do members of the board motion motion that says that this particular increase is uh going to be not more detrimental to the neighborhood than what um currently exists and if that's the case

we take care of part one then we deal with the parking issue and say whether or not we grant a special permit to reduce uh or say that we can't there's no parking available therefore you don't have to comply with the zoning ordinance that deals with the uh two parking spaces per unit yeah so yeah that would be my concern that parking is the thing i think that would make it potentially more detrimental so that that's

to me my decision revolves mainly around that the additional units isn't going to change that grade of uh impact yeah what the pocket would be but but if the part i bets but if it's adequately provided it's going to be probably more nighttime than daytime and the downtown area would be daytime parking it didn't might offset that concern so with that in mind and to move the issue uh i'll move to uh grant or i did

not find it that it would be more substantially detrimental to the area so part one you find it not substantially more detrimental and you say yes for a special permit yes okay so that's jim carkin's motion to say that it's not substantially more detriment two parts to this thing so first can we increase the number to uh five more units that that's going to be not more detrimental to the

neighborhood than what's there jim carkins motion do i have a second second second ricky um any discussion on the motion hearing none ricky sahatti yes dan dupaya no no joe pereira no no yes jim corkins yes jim and assad no so the special permit that it's substantially not detrimental was defeated so it's not hearing so there's nothing thank you thank you thank you for your presentation

agenda item yeah

gender item number three uh jonathan vasquez care of attorney joseph f patelo 95 north 7th street lot n210 variance request to waive all dimensional requirements for a two-story edition with decks constructed on the east side rear of the existing single family dwelling and convert to a two-family dwelling in an a2 apartment district good evening good evening mr chairman members of the board my own clerks

um i'm attorney joseph patello i have an office at 901 eastern half here in fall river massachusetts i represent mr vasquez in this matter this is a little unique situation i am asking you for a variance on construction that's been completed um this was brought to my attention by the city board and we've been diligently working to try to address this matter and this area is essentially behind the um

salvation army building off of bedford street across the street is already a two-family building and it's surrounded by multi-family buildings of three stories or more so for that reason i'd be stating this is not going to affect the area additionally this was already a two-story building to begin with essentially all this young gentleman did was raise one wall to lessen the pitch on the ceiling on one

side by three feet the main addition was in the back he went back about 19 feet this property has if you can see from the assessor's map an extremely large backyard this really did not in any way impact any of the neighbors any of the butters or reduce the value of said other properties also even though this is a two-story building that had bedrooms up there it was his intention to turn it

into a two family to be able to rent the second floor he does already have a paved driveway and is going to put off street parking in the back further not impacting this area what i'd like to stress is that all the buildings around here are higher than this building with more floors also the building's size has not dramatically changed from the front it essentially looks like the exact same building as

the height the tip of the roof line has not changed only on the right side it was raised approximately three feet to reduce the pitch on one on one side of the building the major change really was the going back by 19 feet and putting a deck on um and we're asking that this variance be granted for a number of reasons one mostly being the tearing down of the structure would be financially in unfeasible for

my client and would actually put him in a position where he would have to allow this building to be foreclosed upon and then if anyone were to build it they would have to pay off the mortgage and then do all of the tearing down and then construction to put it back to conforming and ask for something you understand that the personal hardship is not a hardship for zoning purposes understood okay

my point that i was going to get to is this could all actually put this building as an abandoned building that's actually what i was going for that financially what it would cause to the client and then the hardship it would leave on the building itself remaining unconforming may make it that no one would purchase this building and it would remain empty let me ask the question i don't understand how we got

to this thing being built and the building inspector you got a building uh no he did not your honor that's that's why i'm saying that's why i'm saying this is a different situation i've never been before this board requesting so he went there he did some construction did not pull it submit no no sir done by a licensed contractor or a cell phone

he did it although the inside is not complete it's still stuck it's all just studded up on the inside no the electrical has not been completed so if we go down that road it's going to be a requirement of inspections yes anything to complete this we would be made conforming to all building codes going here on out so this this additional space will be intended to be bedrooms kitchen yes sure yes sir

so that's going to be the second floor upon yeah actually the first floor and second floor were extended back extended that's the point everything's the whole house has gone back by 18 feet yeah no i got that but i'm saying the second floor yeah the use in this eight in this apartment district is a permitted use you can have multi-family the lot is too small to to have it but so now he's done some work

he's expanded it now what do you do uh i guess that's my question if at least it got stopped before other things happened so proper inspections and he'd have a much bigger problem all i'm saying is it got caught in time so inspections can be granted or if we say no then tear it down um just to be clear good no electrical no plumbing no what no it's else a shell right here

the vinyl siding has been placed so it looks okay from the outside in this interior nothing's done upstairs it's just been torn out okay i understand mr patel necessarily doesn't appear before this border maybe with regards to these matters but when i when i look at this all components could possibly have been moved through a special permit we're starting with a non-conforming use which is a single family home in an

apartment district so we could expand the existing non-conforming use to a conforming use to the extension or reconstruction of a two-family one or a two-family structure can also be done even by a finding yeah so that's not the relief that's but that's not before the board but yes it may be more appropriate to allow the applicant to withdraw and refile under 86 424 and 426 um at that point no hardship would have

to be shown and that might be the more appropriate way for the board to find a way to approve this for them okay let me see anyone here in favor of this petition anyone here opposed to this particular yes sir you identify yourself with the record please hello my name is chris riley i'm the manager for the brooklyn touch naturals i'm in butter to 95 north seventh street

so what can i can i have the name again uh chris riley i got the chris riley but you said your golden touch to naturals within the llc golden touch and what do you do there with golden touch nationals it's it's just a holding company for our real estate oh okay so there's no it's not a ongoing business at that location so i also on the new england alpaca fiber pool which is

which is two facilities yes yes we have a dress for is 101 north seventh street and the building that about that is 115 on the 7th street okay so the the first issue is is that 95 101 and 115 are all built very close to one another so they're about 18 inches apart recently there was a fire in the back in the backyard of 95 where the applicant dug a hole brought in

took building debris lit it on fire the fire department came to the building put out the fire but when when that happened i realized a lot of issues with the neighborhood one is that there's very little off-street parking available so when the fire apparatuses were coming down the street there was no place for them to go at 6 30 in the morning they had a very difficult time getting getting to the fire secondly

the property 95 has very little frontage and it's very narrow and so the fire department had a had a hard time moving in and out of that property to put the fog to put the fire out my concern is is that is is that a fire an existing fire because these buildings are so close to one another that it would spread throughout the city block as you have zoning with

so so that that is one of my concerns the other one of my concerns is the additional burden of bringing four more for more car requirements on to that already already for the neighborhood okay thank you mr right okay thank you is there anyone here opposed to this petition okay so let me just play off what dan was saying i don't know what the board's thinking but your petition is for a variance experience requires

shape topography soil condition hardship you have to prove those items and it has to be for the public good if you brought this as a special permit then the standard is lower and we could do not that we can do it but the board can consider that this is an expansion of uh the current use uh the standard is less than a variance but that's up to you if you want if you're

definitely a presentation or if you want to make a motion to withdraw the petition that's something for you to consider and come back at another meeting with the special permit if not the board will go forward and decide whether or not to grant or deny your request for invariants your honor would i be sorry sir

um if this variance was denied will i still have the ability to request those special permits or does one preclude the other so the request that you are doing is a special permit whether any coming in as a strike that is a variance and i think coming back with the special clinic with the same may require a special hearing before the planning board and the zoning board to say that the relief you're

looking for is the same i i don't think i think the cleanest way would be to withdraw the petition and come back with a special permit if that's what you're thinking of doing i'll let the board decide but uh i can't i'm not gonna give legal advice nope not just as to whether or not it was just that it was just would one preclude the other i think in favor

and i'm not an attorney and i didn't sleep on a holiday inn last night but i think that if there's a denial yes for a for a variance yeah let me read and the plan that comes back in is the same that's that's my history

i do think that potentially the ability because he was not denied a special permit he was denied the variance that you could deny him and there's a chance that it could come back as a special permit because it's an entirely different application process so let me read section 16. wait wait let's let's read section 16 instead of just no appeal application or petition which has been unfavorable no appeal

application or petition which has been unfavorably and finally acted upon by the special net granting authority or permit granting authority shall be acted favorably upon within two years after the date of final unfavorable action unless that special permit granting authority or permit granting authority fines by unanimous vote of a board of three members or by a voter board of four members

of five members four a five-member board or two-thirds of a vote of a board of more than five members specific and material changes in the conditions so you go back to the introductory sentence no appeal application or petition which has been unfavorably and finally acted upon by the special permit granting or permit granting authority shall be acted favorably upon within two years the

language doesn't say if it was a variance or a special permit i think they're stuck in section 16 that they've got to go through the section 16 process if we deny the variance he can't just free file with the same plan and say i want to do a special that would be the safe way for sure yeah okay then i will then members of the board i will take

the safe way i will withdraw this and i will apply for the special permit it seems that that's the better option at this point okay so we have a motion by attorney to withdraw the petition before we vote uh we have that authority under 16. that's the second power here any petition for a variance or application request from it which has been transmitted to the commitment granting authority or special net

granting authority may be withdrawn without prejudice by the petitioner prior to this so we already published we have to grant his permission to withdraw without without prejudice if we wanted to come back with a special commission so we've got that motion if we grant permission to true without prejudice second jim okay for motion made by jim clark in second by joe ferreira joe pereira any discussion

on the motion hearing on rick sahari yes dan du pere yes joe pereira yes jim carpenter chairman assad yes okay that petition is withdrawn without prejudice thank you members appreciate your time

number four all right susan repose the care of attorney mark levin 494 bowling street

listed then convert existing garage into a separate one family dwelling leaving the other as a one family waiving all dimensional empowerment requirements in the r-4 two-family district mr cameron remember the board again attorney mark 11 138 block street for massachusetts i'm here representing susan raposa susan raposa purchased this property on bowen street a few years back the existing

lot is basically a larger size lot for what the neighborhood is that they have now combined we're in a two family neighborhood i'm sure 900 feet rough more or less from what would be allowed to be a conforming lot to have a two family the difference with this is that it does have two buildings on this property and with that they're in such places that it doesn't make sense to make changes to

putting new structures on or adding on to the property but to use the existing garage without going my client's personal needs for why that single unit is she desires to have a one bedroom single unit building converted to this uh garage space uh we're short 900 feet uh the district would allow two families and mostly our two families in this neighborhood the parking requirement to go from three

cars to two is again personal on her part which is a special pyramid being that she wants to keep as much land that could be used by her family in using this property uh the uh the she's not she has no personal view not to add the extra parking space other other than she doesn't believe it'll be necessary uh to have any more than the two parking spaces for two single family units especially if one of

them is just gonna be a one-bedroom unit uh it can be added to a third the board wanted uh how are you getting a third of the two two units you're gonna have three one and a half per parking spaces per uh unit am i missing some two spaces for dwelling unit one two one family two family multi-family two per unit two per unit so it's it's three two i'm missing sorry yes

so you need four i know we need four sorry i don't know i just have i was thinking it was three for some reason so it's four spaces we're waving we're asking to wave two of them so that they'd have the land uh you know my client lives there and knows what the accuracy is for that neighborhood uh many people just pocket their streets they don't have any off-site parking because they have small lots and the

placement of their houses this allows her to have some off-street parking uh instead of using the garage just displacing it and again if the board wanted to that could be added extra pocket uh it's a it's a simple project just to convert that garage over uh like i said i'm i'm less than 900 square feet uh around 900 square feet the density is still below what i the needs are i can

go to 30 percent she's only using 22 percent of that but where you have this lot which is which is a large a lot in this neighborhood and you have those structures pre-existing on the slot that can't really be moved anymore we're asking that this be allowed to have her use that garage as a one-bedroom unit

okay

questions members of the board

you know there is a petition with some of the neighbors of the the butters that there's a favorable petition okay is correct yeah i know oh i got it right here so let me ask before i read the petition is there anyone here in favor of this petition is there anyone here opposed to this particu okay anyone opposed none so i got this petition that's signed by the undersigned hereby states that they

are in favor of the variance application applied for by susan reposa to convert the garage into a one-bedroom dwelling located at 9 40 494 bowen street four of the mass waving all dimensional requirements and additional parking for the apostle raymond solomon 455 charles street uh looks like mr tell me 508 bowen street margaret brooklyn 439 charles street uh fred putri maybe 298 charles street so one two three four

okay brooklyn beaudry or maybe that's i don't know what that is so a couple of the director butters have signed the petition but they're not here okay the garage currently is not being used she isn't using it right now but two two-car garages yes yep so she's just giving her the two parking spaces anyway again if the board wants more she can add more just go out there but she was

trying to preserve it's not so much that green board wants you i got that we got the greenery uh and i'm not telling you that it has to be with an impervious uh encoding but at least it'll be inconformed that's one less thing that you need to ask for permission that's no problem we can add the two pockets basis the tenants don't want to use the four but at least you've got the four that's

required and then we're not looking for a waiver well then uh we will ask that you no i'm just asking the question if there's something that really that needs to happen because yeah you've got this both as a variance and a special permit the special event i'm assuming what's for the parking the variances for my client's here and she has no problem adding four spaces so we can just make that as a part of the

if you would prove that it contained four parking spaces and that way i don't need a special person okay let's let's see what i mean frontage you know it's again it's just these no you're the houses the structures themselves on the lot and where they are and that garage was right on the property that's right whoever stamped this chris kelly didn't really show that was four tenths of a

yep it's right there i mean it's right there so all right members of the board any questions anything that questions with no further subdivision would be a great thing to put in i i noticed on the video on the but we haven't gotten it oh yeah sorry no i'm sorry but i also wanted to mention that um across the street is sunset hill yes and when you look at the video there's

extreme there's a lot of cars there looks like the people are parking on that street so um and with the wintertime you only park on one side of the street and we have this issue with the plow trucks and trucks going through so the four parking spot thing i think is is a great idea if not more okay sorry no no no your input is needed because you know with everybody's thinking about

something different more input is good it gives us something to think about but yes the uh no further subdivision may in fact be uh if the board gets that fund that may be something that one of the board members may want to add to their petitioner grant so no changes in the height of the building no just interior work okay she has a particular need yeah handicapped child and but that's personal but that's where

this can be used for the child all right members of the board what are you going to say we're down to just on the variance uh yeah that's remove approval of the variants uh with no uh further subdivisions go through the subdivision okay and four parking spaces in four conditional four parking spaces um okay so that's jim okay any discussion on the motion hearing none rick say howdy yes yes joe pereira yes

jim cawkins yes chairman aside yes okay that petition is granted with those conditions thank you very much thank you thank you okay agenda item number five hugh megwin in q d dipped chair of attorney mark l levin 172 stewart street lot s 671 variance request it's a variance request to reconfigure the non-conforming two-family dwelling to convert the second and third floor apartment from what used to be

a seven-room apartment to create a two-bedroom apartment on the second floor and a three bedroom apartment on the third floor waving area front and side yard and lot coverage and waving the parking requirements of six spaces to five spaces and retaining the existing two bedroom apartment on the first floor in a g general residence district okay again attorney mark l 11 138 rock street before the mass again uh

members of the board uh my client purchases property and it is what it is they they want to move in and live it for themselves and they said well gee you know i got this huge apartment on the second and third floor that basically has five bedrooms i would rather divide those so that there would be five bedrooms two on one floor and three on the off floor so we're reducing the

number of bedrooms should i say that would be in in the building itself we're an area where they're all multi-family homes except for some single-family homes in the area that the property exists as it is on itself as a non-conforming prior to zoning it has garage spaces currently and they would add three additional parking spaces to the property to add more parking spaces as it goes

back is tandem and it would be as a practically non-use because you would then be burying cars people would never be getting in and out it would be impossible to do that but we're basically asking you to allow us to do interior changes and this would have been allowed if we had the proper area in the zoning but i'm basically taking maybe i'm missing it is going to stay a two family it'll be a

three family there so you're adding so you're adding well we're we're taking the the second and third floor which is one big apartment of seven bedrooms and breaking it up so there's a three and a two so it's currently a two phase two family so you're going to create another unit so it's now going to become a three phase it'll be a three family but less than the insert the interior configuration is beyond the

scope of the board well it'll be less density because there'll be less bedrooms no no i got that stuff i don't know the configuration inside right that's not something that's absolutely correct okay so it's really getting down to what it is you're looking to yeah there's two families with three families that is correct okay but this is not going i mean this is a multi-family neighborhood allows

multi-family units and i'm saying that i already have three floors being occupied by people and i just want to separate the second floor and third floor to be in an individual unit each and so let's deal with the components the components is a g district yes as a matter of right you can have three units yes the issue that's deficient is the square footage that's correct and because you're making the change we

got a parking issue that's correct there's right now only a garage for two cars so they're going to have three additional parking spaces that are usable parking spaces and adding them along the garage in the back because then you'll never get out i mean it it would be foolish to tell you that we're giving you more parking spaces and didn't make sense i would do that to the board yeah six spaces to five so you need

relief for one space yes you're not doing anything to the existing structure at all so those the structure itself remains the same that's correct so when you're asking for relief of waiver of area front and side and lot coverage and waving the pocket so the area you need a variance from the area to go to the three units right front and side yard is not an issue because you're not going in there no it's existing but

yes the components of your yes you're right you're right you're absolutely i just want to make sure because if the board's going to grant let's be specific in what we're granting and i go back to you know you and i go back 40 years when we say yeah wave everything let's go it seems we're getting much more sophisticated these days in getting what are the specific grants of the variants

lot coverage it is what it is and waiver this is really the parking requirements and getting the second the additional unit on the two family correct correct okay may i ask uh second and third floor existing apartment yes how many bedrooms does that consist of at this point seven no seven rooms but how many bedrooms seven bedrooms it's a huge that's what he was saying yeah it's a huge building

all right because what it says here is seven rooms so seven room um yeah seven remote pump is a seven bedroom oh all right i meant seven bedrooms sorry some it's a seven bedroom apartment wow and it's going down too so first it's two floors it's two full floors so so tell us now what's going to how many bedrooms on the second floor uh the second floor he's looking to have a two

bedroom so second floor is two bedrooms in the third floor of three a three bedroom because it's going to allow a car to come through the second floor for the third floor right access so it eliminates the ability of having more apartments on the second floor because you need the separate engine what's on the first floor first floor is a two bedroom two bedroom okay so although it's three units i've net down

two bedrooms yeah yeah okay and my client when they bought it they said you know must have been a very big family that had this before and they said you know it didn't make sense to keep it because it was more than they needed so they said well we'd like to make it smaller and we'd rather just split off the two units to make them separate all right joe anything else dan ricky no john

yeah you john sorry i was thinking that john franklin that's why you had to sit there anything we should think about no is there anyone here in favor of this petition is there anyone here opposed to this petition oh we've boiled down what uh attorney levin's request is uh do we have a motion to grant motion to deny as they met the standards um well i guess we have to do two things

the variance and the special permit for the pocket um

we can certainly do that so yeah i i i think that in essence we're cutting down the potential density by eliminating a bedroom so i don't think it would be more detrimental not that that's the issue here but that it the impact on the change should not be that great on the neighborhood it should be a beneficial to the neighborhood if anything so i i moved granting the variance uh condition which allowing uh uh only

what are we down to how many parking spaces five five five instead of six five spaces with the permission for only five spaces okay do you want to commit it to the number of bedrooms first floor stays a two bedroom third floor second floor is a two bedroom third floor is a third bed three bedroom okay yes that's a friendly amendment no i don't know i'm asking yeah that's what you want to do

what it is okay so that's jim corkin's motion do we have a second arm of motion joe pereira second on the motion any discussion on the motion mr chairman yes it's one point of clarification please so with along with the special permit interesting so what jim carkins did is that rather than go through the special permit requirement for the reduction from six that are required to find he put it all

into his motion for the variance and say we're going to vary uh the square footage that's required for the number for a three bedroom it's like that three units in a g district and rather than grant a special permit we'll do it as a variance and say for this particular project instead of six that's required we're going to do it in the variance and say five is the number of pockets so the special permit would be

unnecessary not special that would be unnecessary correct okay thank you you're welcome okay so let me see motion by caulking second by joe pereira ricky sahady no discussion on emotion other than that ricky sahara yes dan repair yes joe pereira yes jim corkins german assad yes okay thank you very much have a good evening i promise i have no more see you in august have a good summer

melon properties llc 125 rodman street lot i 1045 this is a variance request to convert existing commercial building into a handicapped accessible apartment waiving all zoning requirements in the cbd central build business district good evening we identify yourself for the record please good evening for the record my name is jeff coleman from northeast engineers and consultants here representing mellon properties llc

the petitioner for the variance application for 125 rodman street the subject property is located at the southwest corner of rodman and 3rd street it's shown as map i i'm sorry lot 45 on map i10 on the assessor's records and it's located in the central business zoning district historically the property has been used residentially there was a six family or is a six family dwelling that was built in 1879

located on the northwest corner of the property then on or about sometime around 1972 a second structure was added to the property which according to the assessor's records has been used as a commercial building since at least 2004.

the client purchased the property in or the petition i should say purchased the property in 2005 at that time there was a chiropractor that occupied the commercial building uh shortly thereafter within six months or so the chiropractor moved out and that building has been sitting vacant since so what the petitioner is looking to do with this application is to convert that commercial building

into a residential structure make it ada compliant and uh just make it a single a one bedroom ada compliant apartment um there's plenty of parking on the site um if this variants were to go through uh that the the property would need 14 parking spaces with this being the seventh unit there's currently or there will be 17 parking spaces or currently is 17 parking spaces on the property now

i'd be happy to answer any questions that the board might have at this point jeff what do you have for the date he says i own the property date of acquisition may 8 2017. i didn't do independent research you said 2015. yeah so that was it was privately bought in in 2005 then uh converted over to an llc that that the owner at that time manages is the uh the manager of the llc so the

reference to the d 39 page 218 that's a 217 that's a 2 000 that's a 2000 2017 d yes that's correct declare what you were saying okay but he has in fact owned the problem since 2005.

i just wanted to be clear that the application ties into what you were saying so okay so you've got this other building that exists you want to make it handicapped accessible access is going to be is it going to be off rodman street to get to the back are we getting a curb cut on third street it would be off of rodman street would be the same access that they currently use yes

you know ramp obviously would be constructed off of the entrance on the west side of the building an ada compliant parking spot would be put in that location for easy access in and out of the building there's no proposed changes excuse me changes to the exterior of the building it's just going to be strictly interior renovations there may be a new roof that gets put on but the building itself is going to remain

as is so there's no extension to the floor four walls of the building that's just going to get renovated to be correct getting rid of the commercial use to a residential use that's correct okay did you say how many bedrooms just one one bedroom and the ada parking would be within that lot it's shown on the plan um if you look at on the south side adjacent to the ramp yeah it's right next to the ramp

okay ricky anything no dan okay joe no i don't john no dan anything we should know no just that the existing six family is a no it's an existing non-conforming in the central business district so changing the mixed use of the property into entirely residential probably better off for the parking situation and and use for the property in general good is there anyone here in favor of this petition

yes sir identify yourself with the record please todd mellow yeah can i have an address please don't wanna do mortgage street for mms okay 180 morgan street melbourne properties llc okay you're in favor of this petition absolutely i think you're the principal of melbourne properties yes sir i am thank you is there anyone else in favor of this petition is there anyone opposed to this petition okay so this is a variant

has mr tallman met the requirements of shape topography soil condition hardship uh to grant the variance if he has then we should have a motion to grant if we think no then it should be denied motion to grant motion to deny motion to grant motion to grant ricky sahara do we have a second second jim cawkins any discussion on the motion hearing none ricky sahady yes dan duper yes joe pereira yes pardon me josh yeah

jim cawkins yes yes okay thank you you know um well it's too late i was going to say no further subject but that's okay thank you agenda item number seven jeremy p and amy m krueger corvo care of attorney peter a solino 146 elizabeth street lot k 16 107 and 13. this is a variance request to construct a 1 210 square foot edition on their existing home located at 146 elizabeth street k16 107

to increase the size of the deck slash porch on the existing dwelling by 390 square feet and to relocate the existing garage from 146 elizabeth street k16 107 to k 16 13. the zoning is an s single family district the proposed construction and or relocation is not permissible in an s district with waiving setback requirements okay attorney soldier yes good evening tell us what you'd like to do absolutely

is it okay if i don't call you your honor good evening for the record peter celino lawyer 550 locust street here in fall river i represent the petitioners jeremy and amy corvo they are here with me tonight the subject location is 146 elizabeth they live in the location they want to stay in the location and raise their family in the location so the proposal before you is to build an extension to the existing

house the square footage on the extension is depicted on sheet 2 of the plan 1210 square feet as well as to enlarge the porch north of their property the as chairman assad alluded to the zoning is in s district and in an s district 12 000 square feet is required uh as you can see lot 107 is 7834 square feet the front yard setback needs to be 25 feet per the plan on the addition we

have 16 and a half feet the side yard should be 15 and depending on how you look at the existing structure it's 0.3 in one spot 1.1 in one spot and give or take five in one spot and the rear yard setback is supposed to be 25 feet and we're showing 13 and a half per the plan so the waivers all relate to dimensional requests and submitted to you that the

hardship here is the very unique shape of this lot i noted in my petition that the lots were acquired at two separate times the lot that fronts on marnock street was purchased subsequent to the lot that fronts on elizabeth street the existing garage which is labeled garage to be relocated is shown as moved to the lot 13 on monarch street the byloa permits the garage to be located in the rear of the yard to be

only four feet from the setback so that's why it's shown that way on the plan if anyone did any independent research as the chairman likes to refer to there's a gate up on marnock street so that's why we believe the rear of the lot is where the relocated garage is depicted so effectively at the end of my submission here what we're really asking for is to authorize the extension or enlargement

of the current structure which will be deficient in terms of setback and to relocate the garage to the abutting parcel which is owned by them and i think it's important to note for the record that there's a letter of support in the file um which i'm sure we can read into the record at that point i'm happy to take any questions um or comments from the board so tell me if you would please i think

you have it written down each item of variance that you need on this master uh okay so i think area because the main lot which is lot 107 assessors wise yes it has 7834 and you need a variance from we need 12 000.

no i know you need 12 000. the amount of variance is the difference between 12 000 and 7 830 that is correct okay the next variance next would be front yard i'm looking at the dimension labeled 16 and a half on the elizabeth street side yes 16 16 and a half yes okay so you need 25 16 and a half okay and the side yard uh the the structure that's existing labeled existing two-story single family yeah

728 square feet as it currently sits is right on the line as you can see just about touching it yeah yeah but that's the existing because that's interesting all right so the size so the side yards are 15 feet that's correct so well i guess we'll say as shown on the plan that here i don't know 15 foot because it gets right down to the tangent from i

know it was at 0.5 yeah it's 0.3 so it's right there okay and then rear yard is 25.

and so for instance on the proposed edition uh 13 and a half i got it 13 and a half on this side over here yeah and then on the porch side 4.6 is the plan 25 13.5 and the porch side was 4.6 4.6 that was a real yard too that's correct

okay 4.2 so those those are the four items of variants that you need that is where you're from yes okay all right so we're going to reclaim good job no what about the placement of the garage

uh not at this time mr pereira um but is that that eliminates the problem were that the case that would eliminate the problem of the garage um i don't think we have a problem with the garage in the yes district you can't have a stand-alone garage on a piece of property all by yourself on a piece of property ah i see what you're saying an independent lot with the garage that's

correct so let's talk about merger of title for a minute let's talk about mergers all right so did they the assessors haven't merged them but for the purposes of zoning and we have to have continuous frontage right so that's going to be your argument not continuous and it's back-to-back is that is that what i think i'm going to hear from you attorney selena yeah i mean yes uh the dates of acquisition are

march 28 2007 and november 17 2014.

so i think you could make a seven year argument but i don't think you have the frontage no but you have elizabeth street and the other parcel the other other land of owners map 1613 adjoins only at the rear boundary it's not contiguous frontage that's correct and then what's the definition of a joint 64.20 let's take a look at definitions but i think 86 420 today

non-conforming lots of record any increase in lot coverage uh or maybe it's not a division so it's going to be 423 non-conforming lots of record is that what you wanted well if you continue reading down through section a yeah um what they discussed lots of for the purposes for the purpose of this five thousand square feet that are joined only by the real lot line would be deemed not merged well that's

that's where i was going so it's in that section that refers to that yeah but that gets back to dan's question i don't understand no no he's not that's what i'm saying he's 100 correct and i'm saying if the locksmith when the question came up is on the plan it's shown as a singular lot yes with a relocated garage on a singular lock label two different assessors lots the common adjoining line is shown

differently than the bold perimeter boundary line so if they were being submitted as two separate lots they should be shown as two separate lots i also believe the lock coverage calculation i didn't delve into it too quickly but make sure that the lock covers calculation isn't including both land areas we're either dealing with two lots or one line moving forward um so it has to be

decided now what before you can make any action what is the situation is is it the intention to merge them or keep them separately and then you need to act appropriately with that plan was unclear the square footage of the garage because if it's in excess of 750 square feet now it's not 200.000

selena you respond to the engineer yeah certainly um i'm gonna start calling dan your honor though okay um my clients are okay merging the lots if that is what the board requires i don't know if you can condition that though really right no they could they could yeah it could be a ground condition but you truly want to combine these lots you're sure i don't think has to ever have anybody

ever built something on that real lot later if you ever wanted to sell it right in the other i don't think we plan on doing so right now the goal is just to expand our home so if it benefits us right now yeah i'm not against merging the lots if that's a condition okay so they're not against merchant lots that's fine all right okay okay well if they're well yeah i mean certainly variance of the area

disappears that's

which i think is what the intention of whoever drew the plan i think that's what they were thinking um but i can't speak for them but merging the what's understanding the future ramifications yes okay so that takes away the issue of area correct takes away one of the setback issues yeah what was formerly rear yard yeah so it's left with front yard in the side garden climb and then the garage is on well the garage is

not going to be on water so it's not stained alone actually could they move this part of the house to the back then maybe right on top of that neighbor so oh right there yeah so the specific relief is what's showing up on the plan yeah as even though we have one of the great western minds for engineering here i mean it's not his job to tell us how to best do it so

if we get with the merger issue then those two components are gone they now have these two merged lots and now they just need a couple of items of relief which is the front yard and the side yard if that's what they want to do if they want to come back and reconfigure that's up to them but that's what's before us let me see if anybody is is anyone here in favor of this petition

is there anyone opposed to this position and i'm walking through literal support here we go we are carlos and lina francisco at 150 elizabeth street jeremy and amy have shown us their plans and have discussed with us the auditioning thoughts that they would like to add to their home force they would like to build on the back side of the house would not affect us in any way we have no objection to

their plans signed carlos amina francisco uh it was received on may 16 2022.

the two neighbors if you don't have it i can email it in the morning no i just want to get into the record i probably

the northwest uh neighbor so it would be this this neighbor and this neighbor you're too close okay thank you all right so those are the only people in favor um members of the board what do you want to motion to grant motion to deny uh have they met the requirements for the variance petition mr chairman yep the the motion to grant would be uh contingent upon merging watts is that correct that's a condition absolutely

yeah without i mean you can cert you can say no emotion can be made and say no we don't want to do that but we and again that would be a vietnam dan raised the issue about you can't have a garage on an independent lot and that so the general consensus seems to be it is better to merge them make that issue disappear it's not one lot you've got the garage on it so you can

make the condition if you're thinking of making the motion that the lots have to be merged into one long does that answer the questions ability to move that garage to a different location on that one i know it all depends on what we vote can they get well i think i think it's a grand appearance i think they're they're either st we can say as presented or we can yeah i mean

we're not giving any variances on that garage

i you know that's the main thing right yeah it's probably there in compliance with the distance the garage was a consideration given at any point to keeping the garage elsewhere on lot 107.

but i think so mr pereira but there's really not much room for it um right we had to talk about here um and just for record purposes mr corvo's advising me it's more or less a big he doesn't intend right now to do you have a ride on lawn mower what do you think right tracker and they are tools things they're not putting cars right okay that's why i couldn't figure out we

didn't we didn't want to necessarily reduce it we like the size of it that's why we would like to just the language of garage gets these images of right right yeah if it was a shed the shed too has to be located all right you know the only reason i ask that would preclude the the idea of virginia yep

granting of the variants subject to the merging of the two logs and in the coordinates would be constructed in accordance with the dimensions given okay is that uh let me think if that's adequate enough to write the decision as shown on the plan so the variance as long as your front plan yeah we'll reference the plan which is going to be the front yard variance and the side yard variants as shown on the planet

really out there right yeah well we got rid of that i thought the reason is the back there's still the portion as you head westerly that's still thirteen point five jones where the old garage used to be located there's still a very odd set back there that doesn't mean it's at thirteen point five so that's the state yeah okay three yard 13.5 doesn't this require whose motion was it to make it gym okay

yeah so you're gonna get site plan review right i i thought that's automatically no it it is the written decision would have all the components in there so there's no confusion right which let's try to streamline it so we're good okay so that's your that's your motion as assisted by other members of the book okay augmented yeah so we have a second on jim's motion a second second

joe pereira any discussion on the motion hearing on ricky sahari yes dan jupiter yes joe pereira yes jim cawkins yes tim and assad yes okay thank you thank you thank you

agenda item number eight abbott in front of llc care of attorney thomas p killarney 100 weaver street lot t 315 this is a variant slash special permit request to demolish the existing structure and construct 160 foot tall 346 unit multi-family dwelling in a commercial mill district waving front side and rear yard setbacks and building height along with parking requirements for the record please good evening mr

chairman members of the board for the record attorney thomas gallarant officers at 350 north main street in florida massachusetts i would actually like to ask the board if we could table this matter or continue it until the board's next hearing date the applicant would like to gather some additional information and have that for the board for our presentation so if it would please the board we'd

like to table this to next month's hearing okay is there anyone here that came out this evening in favor of this petition is there anyone that came out this evening opposed to this petition yes i hear yes okay will you identify yourself with the record please i uh all i'm asking for is yes or no but who are you so we know who you are i'm not i don't want you to do your

presentation yet oh okay alexander slova okay member of the board of directors of the preservation site so we got these two letters from the preservation society right david which was today was there a vote because they're unsigned that i was going to ask the question uh whether or not there was a vote of the preservation society that authorized the can you supply that to the board please

okay so you're so you've heard the request from attorney khaloran that they're looking to table this matter until do we have room on the july agenda to the july agenda so that's the request that's being made we haven't taken any evidence on it so nothing has really happened uh so i'll ask the board uh if we want to entertain or act on attorney killoran's motion to table it so he can get more information

and submit it to the board you want to supplement the to supplement the petition or just to provide us with more information just to provide you with more information so the request is to go forward to give us more information i think there's a fee for the there is a fee for the table another thing he knows that we'll certainly make sure the fee gets paid okay so that's um so that's that's

attorney for lawrence motion do i get motion to allow grant that motion or deny the motion and

any discussion on the motion hearing on ricky sahara yes dan duper yes joe pereira yes jim cawkins yes chairman assad yes so we'll do that we'll put it on for the july meeting and the july meeting date where everyone knows is is july 21st 2022.

great thank you very much thank you yes okay so that's agenda item number eight agenda item number nine 439 pine street llc 439 pine street lot n527 this is a variance request to convert the former school building to 24 residential units and one commercial office space waiving all zoning requirements in an a2 apartment district identify yourself again please yes absolutely uh good evening again mr

chairman uh members of the board for the record attorney thomas callaran appearing on behalf of the applicant i think you can see my name is not on the agenda as being attached to this petition i was did not file it however i've been asked to make the presentation tonight we're dealing with the uh former lincoln school 439 pine street this matter actually came before virtually an identical petition came

before this board back in 2018 asking for the same relief effectively seeking to maintain the existing structure of the building but repurpose it for residential units and have one commercial space the proposal is to have 24 apartments and again a uh have one commercial space uh the plan provides for 27 parking spaces um effectively what was proposed back in 2018 um is exactly what would be proposed

here today we have 28. uh i i did note that the decision said 28 i went back i looked at the plan i counted the plan i could only find 27 i looked at the legend on the planet said 27. if the requirement of the board is 28 spaces we'll find a way to find to get another space on there but i did go back and look at the plan and counted the

spaces and the legend said 27 i couldn't find that 28th space space but i would agree that the decision of the board did say 28 spaces and and will certainly make it work with 28 if uh if that's the pleasure of the board if we're making the representation it's the same thing that we did before then let's do the same thing we did before that's correct that's and that's no problem

um from a so let me just read what we did before the motion was made 24 apartments waving requirements in the a2 district the lot size hasn't changed 29 818 square feet the conditions where the development shall be limited to a 24 24 units the development shall provide a minimum of 28 on-site parking spaces uh and that was the extent to what we did that's the same thing you're looking for

tonight that's the standards same thing that's correct okay obviously i know the uh the board has changed at least for certain members um i mean if there are any any questions i just make the that this is what we're doing it's not we're not re creating the wheel it's already been created this is where we're going times have changed i think so that variance that was granted then has expired yes

i apologize right that's that was from 2000 so this one was granted on may 17 2018. so yeah and i guess what has happened there hasn't been i think there was some work done inside of some engineering work or studies or something but they didn't actually start creating to say that they've acted on the variance did they pull a building permit i don't know the answer to that asked lauren

i don't believe that i don't believe that a building permit has been pulled i see headstand let me know so the answer to that question is no no it's it's the here before the board but that was the question that in anticipation so i think there's been some internal work done in terms of studies figuring out what's there for asbestos what needs to be cleaned up there um but i i as i understand it

there certainly hasn't been anything done to demonstrate that the variance that was granted in 2018 had been exercised okay uh so we certainly in my opinion i think the building department's opinion uh would need to breathe a new life back into the variants that was was granted previously and that's why we're here before this board same ownership still i'm sorry same ownership as an 18.

the the current owner is the same owner that appeared before the board last time there that's that's not going to be the individual that ends up developing this property though title 439 pine street llc correct the individual who's signing is a gentleman by the name of uh david hebert manager he shows up as both applicant and owner that's correct okay at the time the petitioner was hanover

properties llc which is also yeah no i'm just i'm just making clear who the who the parties are and i don't know no i was just if it is continuing ownership i think then we need an explanation of why it was not acted upon and why we should do it okay oh tony colar can certainly if you that's something you need to hear but you're not going to answer those questions i don't have all the answers

as to why that variance was not acted upon mr calkins i think a lot has gone on over the past four years with the current owner of the property and the plan is is that it will certainly be developed by somebody else and they're working in concert with the city in terms of getting this property transferred to a new owner and that's going to be the person that develops it okay

any other questions members of the board okay from the public i'm going to ask is there anyone here in favor of this petition kenny fayola hi um ken faviola fall river resident executive vice president of bristol county economic development so is um good evening um so as uh trainee miss uh attorney colorado has indicated uh we've been working very closely with the city the current owner and another

party for the purchase of this property to redevelop this property for for market rate residential use the current owner will not be the developer of the property it will be transferring to a new owner the property itself will also be in concert with the tran with the transfer of the historic tax credits that were previously secured for this property um the new owner will also be securing a

tax increment uh exemption for the property itself uh so we're looking to make sure that the property moves forward so that it becomes productive so that it becomes you know utilized as opposed to remain and abandoned and a lot of it it's obviously contingent upon you know the the securement of the previously approved variants and what we're looking to do is bring it online you know with regard to the

parking as you know there's a lot of other projects that have been recently approved by the board that that you know equate to less than the parking requirements this is an area where it has ample on-site parking as well as now we're going to be a couple street parking spaces that will be uh necessitated but i think the bottom line here is that you're going to have a building that's going to remain its uh

remain in it's in its historical context being repositioned and repurposed for market rate residential use and taking a property that's currently you know paying x amount of taxes that's going to probably represent a 5 to seven million dollar investment for this uh for the overall investment purposes and becoming a much more productive component of the overall neighborhood this is a neighborhood that has a very

high poverty level and so this type of private investment will enhance the overall uh economic level of the city and hopefully experiment some additional development in that neighborhood so is the prospect to be all uh market rent or is there going to be it's all it's going to be all market no affordable units at all you know it's just taking the previously approved plan as submit previously approved by the

board and now it's just transferring it to a new ownership the city has been part of the negotiation well i'm asking i want to ask that question about the city i'm not privy to it but my recollection from the deeds that were granted when the city was selling the properties there were these rights of reverter if they weren't developed and i'm assuming that just a guess on my part that that's

where the city is involved in this particular part of this transaction that's correct so the city has now reached an agreement with the prospective new developer so as to satisfy that and you know allow the project to move forward so again the projects will be receiving both federal and uh state historic tax credits as part of this so it maintains its historic character it will be under new ownership and new

development and become a productive timeline when do you think if if this is granted uh i would say i would think it may be attorney claude if you want to comment today i'm not trying i'm just asking the question because yeah well i think you're going to see construction begin this year okay yeah right since there's this is the the hang up that's yeah now we get to the point where we're

ready to move it's all contingent upon this so those other two transfers and are automatic or yeah that's they will pass through i think the way it's going to be yeah yeah it's a contingency agreement we've got to get the yeah again i don't know i'm just asking questions about the way that they were issuing they were writing the deeds with that contingency right exactly that's what that's been alleviated it was the

illusion by attorney that the city's involved which let me tell you that maybe the city there'll be performance deadlines with the new developer that they have to have they have okay thank you thank you thank you um is there anyone else in favor anyone opposed to this petition yes sir once again alexander silva 263 pine street um on the board of directors of the preservation side speaking for the

preservation society or for yourselves yes we also took a vote on this letter and you'll get that too to supply that vote that authorizes you to speak on behalf of the president tomorrow okay go ahead i'll let you speak okay uh members of the zoning board of appeals the preservation society of forever supports the redevelopment of the former lincoln school at 439 pine street but stresses that the city must safeguard

the best interests of the neighborhood and the historic building itself with any future project the variant's request to waive all zoning requirements for the 24 apartments and commercial office space proposed by the applicant raises concerns of density and parking for the area these concerns grow more with the fact that the owner david heber has already broken multiple weekly bonding contracts with the city

regarding the redevelopment of historic properties including the lincoln school hebert acquired link billington school in 2017 for 10 000. during a time of admitted criminal conspiracy with then mayor jasil correa and has violated multiple conditions of sale included in the purchase and sale agreement such as a set project timeline is mentioned and a hundred thousand dollar performance

bond another concern is the owner has already listed the property on the market for seven hundred ninety five thousand dollars in september twenty twenty what would be close to an eight thousand percent profit even advertising the tif attached to the building as well as the variances previously approved past precedent shows the danger of accepting the applicant is acting in good faith alone and demonstrates that

vigilance is required when granting special zoning exceptions on this property waiving all zoning requirements on lincoln school should accomplish more for the city than just maximizing the applicant's profits any variants must take into consideration the neighborhood and legally protect its residents best interests for years to come sincerely the preservation society harvard board of directors

thank you just wonder if after hearing uh mr viola's presentation whether a lot of those concerns are mitigated by the fact that it would not be that speaking for myself because this wasn't voted on by the board um we're we've always been supportive of the redevelopment of the lincoln school and as housing density might be a little of a room on what we agreed to our main concern as just has been

displayed with past contracts and not just this owner but with a lot of the disposition of historic schools in this city is just that protections are legally made in writing for these structures because owners change hands ideas change papers get lost and we just need to make sure we really cover our bases with these assets and resources especially for the neighborhoods they're in you just you

understand some of the things that you're talking about are beyond the scope of the zoning board absolutely it's really up to the yep the small department and okay i just want to be i want to be clear about the extent that's tonight i'm your honor i don't have the authority the board doesn't have the authority i just want to be clear what the extent of what we can do yeah so but what we've listened i've

listened to i've listened i'm sure the board has listened to things that you said ultimately you're in favor of a variant it's just we just want the appropriate protections and density requirements built into them thank you very much thank you for coming out this evening don't forget those letters tomorrow thank you um all right anyone else opposed to this petition right dan do you have any comments on

this no um again i remember when this i did not was involved in this project so i will speak on it no i think it's a great project it has waited too long like many of these school projects have the city has learned through this process of how we dispose of these buildings i i can say on the city's behalf i've been involved with this procedure and it's a much different procedure than has

been the past practice so i think there are a lot of eyes on this everyone wants to see it done well uh and i think moving forward we'll see that very quickly okay thank you okay so we've had everyone's input do i get a motion to grant motion to deny what do you want to do members of the board motion to grant motion to grant jim calkins any disc do i have a second

second second ricky sehati any discussion on the motion hearing none ricky sahari yes dan duper yes joe pereira yes jim cawkins yes chairman assad yes so did i miss someone no that was i got everywhere i heard dipping in yapping over that no i said anything oh no we have 28 28 pockets the same conditions we had on the previous variants so if you want maybe goes uh motion to amend the vote to say that the

development previously uh 24 units the development shell provided a minimum of 20 28 on-site parking spaces and those are the only two conditions so ricky if you seconded the motion do you second this amazing yes okay so let's go through the process so nobody complains rick sahatti yes yes joe pereira thank you very much have a good night everyone thank you i'm going to put these letters as part

of even though i wrote on top of it sorry oh you have copies

okay agenda item number 10 mount hope condominium care of mhbc llc 919 b street lot h18 11. this is a variance request to subdivide a portion of land into three single-family house lots from the lava lot age 18 11 waving all dimensional requirements in a wtod district kate good evening uh you identify yourself directly please my name is joseph caballo and good evening i'm sorry give me an address 919

uh unit 51. okay and i'd like to say good evening to chairman assad and ladies and gentlemen uh again my name is joseph cavallo i am the trustee and president of malto condominium association and we have decided uh not to build any more condominiums at that location we were going to put the last one on base street which was going to consist of a four plex and they decided seeing that it's not

going to be in the gated area that it wasn't feasible for us to build that onto bay street which would be outside of the gated area so the board and the association decided to take that small section of land and put it up for sale and that's why we're asking for a variance to make it into three single-family homes you're asking for a variance because single-family homes aren't allowed

but in terms of meeting the dimensional requirements you meet the dimensional requirements yes and there is a single family home uh that abuts the north side of the property that we're asking the change and also there's a single family home that's on the south side that are butch the property in the south side and there are a lot i wish that had more detail especially along riverview place

uh but anyway we got a plan it's uh i wish there was more detail to it but go ahead keep talking i didn't mean no okay so that's why i get and there's a lot of other single families that aren't bay street so that's yes there are i know that but the plan doesn't show it and that's what i'm complaining about that you showed me this one little thing and you've got anyway go ahead

so that's what you want to do yes well that's what we're coming here to get the variance you know to ask the board to give us the right to have the variance with the three single family homes on bay street do you know no i'll leave that to a little bite right members of the board any questions as part of the mother want it's being the babies are getting uh emancipated one two three

yeah out of the mud a lot i believe there was 12 acres and uh yeah but those have all been developed that i don't know i see the buildings drawn but i don't know whether they're one story two-story three-story how many units there are there i wish i knew that um i could have on the whole complex there there were 60 uh condominiums so there are 60 units okay so my my question then comes down to

what dimension what dimensions are you looking for variance relief from the lots are larger than they would need to be they need all the all the they're not looking for the the relief now listen to me the release the single release is just three lots of this dimension and if they get it they have to comply with the wtod dimensional requirements so their their building envelopes are going to be governed by the

front yard of 10 feet minimum side yards of 10 feet minimum 3 out of 10 can't be greater than 80 80 feet or 60 stories whichever is greater and a minimum walk coverage of 80. so you're going to have a small single family house on a 5 000 square foot lot meeting those dimensional requirements if we grant uh if we say yeah you can do it but the the issue and the singular issue before

the board is single-family homes aren't allowed in this district right so but that's another is we're asking for a dimensional variance here and it's not that's there's no there's no dimensional variance required yes wait a minute let's see one which well i know it says weaving all dimensional requirements but i'm assuming that's what you're you're not looking for dimensional so i got a five so let me just draw it

out again so i've got this thing with 50 56 foot frontage and a hundred and let's use 100 foot depth if we do what's allowed in the district so we got 50 by 100 and thirty we take 50 we got the 50 foot minimum side yard 10 feet so that brings it down to 30 feet and ria yard and rear yard and front yard of 10 feet yeah 30 by 80 foot building envelope

that's uh that's cool good size so basically well joe's concern is that we don't want to waive the uh no no i guess we don't i mean it says that but we don't we want to grant permission to build single-family homes but we don't want to waive dimensional requirements there's no that's correct that's correct there's nothing before the board so if they so if somebody wants it that's what the application says i know

that's what the application says but this is that we're going to make sure that that's not exactly because that means that somebody buys one of these lots and decides they want to put up something that's but the condition is going to be has to be in compliance with the wto dimensional requirements only the only grant if we're going to grant is going to be the allowance of single-family dwellings in the deal

that's it that's fine but if if we granted it i'm going to have to no no just for future reference if we granted it as it was presented waving all dimensional requirements 30 years ago we ran into this because this is i was referring to attorney 11 and i think arthur frank is here too we used to do that all the time on our positions waving all dimensional requirements and

then we'd walk in and say hey you waved all dimensional requirements no your plan didn't say that hey you said all dimensional requirements were building right on the lines so i think we got smarter after a while and said no no no let's find out the what you're actually granting so okay so your point is well taken so let me see is there anyone here in favor of this petition is there anyone here reposted

you're opposed to this petition yes sir you identify yourself and tell us why your opposed to um right crofton permanent property at 85 riverview street just let me find you for a minute sir 85 riverview okay you're up on top you're one of the ones that i show go ahead tell us um originally before they built the condominiums we had an agreement we retained an attorney everybody on the south side of riverview street

that they would only have a set amount of condominiums there was no is going to be built there with height restrictions and a 40-foot buffer zone between our property okay so that's why i'm opposed to it because have you seen the plan no and that was one of my complaints about the plan that riverview riverview place yes street river view street let's find river view streets i think it's just written wrong

i don't know last time i told somebody to come down everybody so i'm assuming this is your river view what they call a place so what they're showing are these these are the buildings of the condominiums they don't give me the distance from here to here but i suspect based on what's shown up here this is greater than 40 feet away and these lots are showing up over here

on bay street which is off to the side and way off this river oh there's a joe is that the access uh in between river view and the back of those units this is there a road look is there a road here is this the access into the condominiums yes yes there is yeah so you've got that but so if there was an agreement i guess you've got the 40 foot

or whatever away from the fence yeah yeah so this so nothing's getting built in here it's down here on bay street where there's this piece that isn't developed right okay so your agreement so you if you're telling me that you think they're breaching their agreement you should hire that lawyer back and so on yeah no i mean i don't know what to tell you but what's before the borders in this district

uh the singular issue is that you can't have or you shouldn't have single-family residence districts they're not looking for any other relief other than that the dimensions of what they can build that's with the calculation we're just playing with we end up with a 30 by 80 foot building envelope to put a single family house okay got it all right thank you so now that i said all that you're still opposed to it yeah

the answer to that was yes even now that i've showed you and you've seen it you're still opposed to this development um i'm not trying to put you on i just want to be clear i don't want to so if you're still opposed i want to say you're still opposed i'm still involved okay thank you okay so that's what we've got members of the board we've got this uh piece of land that's

uh part of the mother lot that's being uh emancipated with watts one two and three each lot uh greater than five thousand square feet each greater than 50 foot of frontage along bay street i agree that the plan should have had more detail to it so what do you want to motion to grant motion to deny have they met the burden mr chairman yes just to be clear um so what's before us this evening

has absolutely nothing to do with any type of agreement that might or might not have been agreed to that's correct that's strictly personal between and then it's up to them to seek relief if in fact that's correct okay thank you you are correct okay thanks there's a very limited thing before us which is here you go can i do it all right so given that any other questions would be owned by the condominium association

and they are the ones that have voted that they would like to dispose of some of that yes that's true and have it subdivided so that where we're not uh or the impact upon those who are most no the petition is by the closest are willing to grant that and so i'll move that we approve the creation of three lots of family size lots as shown on the uh shown on the plan and that anything

built on those layout lots shall be in accordance with the dimensional requirements okay okay so that's jim corkin's motion that i'll say oh yeah joe for a second okay any discussion on that motion hearing none ricky sahari yes dan dupia yes joe pereira yes jim cawkins yes chairman assad yes so that petition is granted thank you gentlemen thank you and ladies thank you and if you need to talk to your

neighbors you should talk to your neighbors because i will stop putting uh yeah okay that must happen in like 2006.

no zoning board of appeals beyond the scope of what this board does thank you again okay agenda item number 11 uh weathersfield llc care of attorney arthur d frank jr 158 bedford street lot n442 special permit request to develop 35 residential units without the placing of 70 parking spaces off street and on-site as required by 86 441.

that's randy frank before you identify yourself on the record certainly mr chairman for the record my name is arthur frank i'm a lawyer with an address of 209 bedford street florida massachusetts and with me tonight is mr mark leaderman he is the principal of weathersfield and i also have with me mr richard graham of prime engineering who prepared the in-depth plans for tonight's meeting

i think everybody's familiar with the project it's the old police station and mr lederman's company bought this from the city last year and there's a private restriction in the deed that says he has to develop at least 30 market rate apartments but if one looks at the lot it's not going to support 70 parking spaces according to i think it's page three of mr rams plan he is able to show you that we have

room for two handicapped spaces and six regular spaces that was discussed in a meeting in april with mr hathaway that he at least wanted the handicap spaces on a lot and we are able to do that and it also have a loading space but the problem obviously with any old building old historical building in fall river that's going to be converted to units we don't have the parking on site

so i'm trying to avail myself of the provisions of 86 445 which gives this board the authority to grant a special permit by reducing or modifying the number of spots uh with a finding that the reduction or modification is not inconsistent with public health and safety or that the reduction or modification promotes a public benefit i will suggest to you that doing something with the old police

station after all these years would definitely confer a public benefit on the city of fall river now what mr raymond has done on page two is he's tried to show you in accordance with 1886 445 d the availability of off street parking at on street or nearby municipal facilities and he tells us in his legend that he has sighted 37 on streets parking spaces within 220 feet of the structure and 160 within 420 feet

we also had conversations with members of the traffic department and while i can't say for sure they're going to do it they have plans to increase the parking in the third street garage within the next two years uh if everything goes according to oil that means that i'm going to have spaces available in a municipal lot and i'm going to have spaces available on the street all right where did you get that no i'm

looking at mr rio's plan i don't see this this is the legend yeah it's on page two up the right upper right right hand corner yeah i got it i got it it gives you all the parking right there so that's on street so you're competing with everybody else in the neighborhood for those streets no no i'm asking the question if i understand they're they needed spots no they're all not all muted okay maybe

mr brain can explain his methodologies to the spaces we'll get okay i'll listen so so basically we went along the street and located actual parking spaces uh obviously a lot of them are occupied so actually as you're talking that's correct referencing sheet two and we show with little dashed lines on the street where the spaces are and we put a circle number on how many spaces there are on that particular

section of the street and as you go north east a lot of those spaces are not metered when you're getting closer to city hall government center you find more immediate spaces but they don't require um payment after hours so that when the people are home they're basically able to park there all night as i was telling you mr chairman i had did have discussions with the traffic department

they do have a plan to increase parking at the third street garage they obviously can't say yes we're going to do it but that's what they want to do because they want to have more off street parking four businesses four residents there actually their timetable i think dove's tales with mr lederman's plan because we're under the guns with the city we have a a time schedule he has to get

all of his permits by the end of this calendar year and i think he has to have his construction done is it next year mark i have to take a look at the uh yeah we either have to finish the construction by the end of 2023 or into 2024 so if the if the city does expand their municipal parking that's great because that means there's going to be covered parking

and that's what a lot of people want but the singular issue for the board tonight as i understand it is strictly a special permit for parking correct that's enough nothing else mr hathaway has reviewed the project he agrees with me that the 35 proposed units are allowed as a right in a uh arts overlay district and we're not touching the exterior of the building just the interior of the building can

you secure by lease or otherwise the number three we tried we went to all of the large land landholders uh within i forgot how many block radius we spoke to people incorporated um obviously they owned the lots that used to be used by the police department right across the street we couldn't secure them we've tried uh we this is this is the best um plan we can they don't necessarily have to be all together i

mean can you we i think i think i'm not telling you i'm just asking the questions he did he did it within a five or six block we did a survey we spoke to uh five or six of the different uh property owners including people incorporated who owned the majority of the lots that again were once used as part of the parking for the property so we spoke to them they had a board meeting

they could not commit to rent against any spots in fact he even told us that they were trying to stop renting to some of the abutters including the bank and i think the post office which had a long term lease they were trying to get out to uh of their commitment with them because they wanted to use the property for their own purposes so they were non-committal um there are a few

private parking lots with uh that rent by the spot uh you know as needed at an individual basis but they the number of spots that were available uh you know we're uh few and far between come and see us when you're ready and we'd be more than happy to rent you if we have some spots that was the answers that were here that we really got so our only option were

the municipal laws i think there were two municipal lots which we got a uh a commitment from um uh miss uh is it when you talk about the third the one uh next to the court that we do is that what we're talking about the the uh yeah the parking garage the parking garage they'll be looking to put they're looking to put i think two more floors on yeah no no but i'm saying i'm just

trying to think of the area yeah where we're all so next to the webster bank yeah yeah that their their plan is to add some more floors no no i mean that's that's pie in the sky so they're going to read they're going to rebuild that garage because it was condemned back in well the upgrades

there's no way we can fulfill the in the city's that talked about compliance there was no separate no separate agreement with the city when it sold it made it contingent that you're getting the building and you have to comply with zone you happen i'm just asking the question because it was a it was a given the building is what it is no i i'll read you the paragraph the grantees development and you did you

write the messages were you involved with that no shell shall conform to existing zoning restrictions of the grantor for the premises and said development shall be completed uh as according to deadlines set forth therein so i have to mr leaderman's got to do this project no no he's going to build him indeed the deed had that language yeah exhibit eight to the deed it's a writer yeah okay

i think one of the difficult things is we've had other redevelopments that have been approved in the downtown area not far from here and in all of those cases they had worked out use of parking spaces elsewhere so a number of those if you'll recall they had x amount of spaces right behind the building and then at work something i think what happened is everybody get to the parking spaces before you came to the game

is is what it seems to be i would like to see nothing more than this this building redeveloped but that paragraph can i see that if you want to show it to me if you don't but that was my recollection reviewing the deeds from the city on a couple of times they had that language in there and i was just wondering whether or not it was interesting all the pages no it's okay

here's the deed proper and then this is yeah this is this is the language that i wanted to do you have a count of um the units how many bedrooms you just lead them yes so the number of units that we are proposing to develop there are 35 units um they are spacious units 34 the units are two bedroom units how many say they're going to be 34 units

are two bedrooms 34 one unit is a single bedroom single unit is any of it affordable um no it's all market rate of course exhibit a says they have to be market rate we designed a few of the units to be handicapped accessible with the handicapped parking spots um on site i believe there were total what are the section

are you even afforded the ability to request relief that's see how smart you are right both well like a special permit it's still really it's zoning relief but when you get your granted when you're in compliance with zoning it's in the code if you're granted if you're granted a variance clients you become compliant you have the same compliance with the zoning by law it says zoning so

zoning is our book allows you the book allows you to ask requests they're saying in compliance with zoning like the zoning requirements not the zoning viable if it's zoning viable then yes you have the right to because the the ability to appeal or request a special permit is within the bible it's poor word and if you hadn't brought it up i wouldn't ask the question the grantee shall develop the premises

into 30 market rate residential units and used the premises in accordance with his proposed proposal received by the grantor on april 24 2020 and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the green tour's request into it says 30 market rate you go yeah there are there are changes that matt thomas no no i'm just and i have already agreed to i'm not trying to stir it up i'm just

trying to get to the point where i can answer the question because i was curious if that language map but the and i then i remembered it was recently so you were at corporation council at the time developer proposal proposed the president's minute so it's a paragraph may the construction of the project we shall not require grantors prior approval any mortgage sold absolute discretion

this was provided here in the shallow side it's probably easy if you just picked it on instead of me reading the whole bloody thing the transfer of the majority of the total of the assets total control no that was the right of entry that we talked about where did you find it after page

a development writer the grantees development and use of the premises shall conform to existing zoning restrictions of the grantor for the premises and said development shall be completed uh deadline set forth herein satisfaction of this requirement shall be evidenced by the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or a certificate of completion by the inspectional services department of the city of fall river so b

the grantees development and use of the premises shall conform to existing zoning restrictions of the grantor for the premises comma that's the the promised versus the property the building itself is in conforming but it's the parking lot the development and use of the premises shall that control not properly yeah i mean so that condition would be unneedable uh if you you wouldn't know the whole agreement

because it did it so let's see if there's a definition to be in compliance with that under the terms of the existing that's where i'm going to go configuration you just said he would be setting us up to fail that's where i'm going listening to what dan's question was about if it had to be and the passing of the word premises versus parcel is the uh and the success is an assigned hereby agree

so we're trying to decide whether or not there's even any legal standing to apply for the special permit is that is that what's the question that's what that's what i'm looking to see what the restriction was actually in the d and the language in exhibit a numbered paragraph one subsection b says the grantees development and use of the premises and premises is an uppercase p and i don't know if there's a definition

in the deed somewhere shall conform to existing zoning restrictions of the grantor for the premises so jim corkins makes the issue that the premises or the building as it exists was not could not be couldn't meet it because it was a pre-existing existing structure right and this uh whether it's this developer or any future developer it's impossible to meet the standard correct without the special without the

special permit for the parking i have one to one but i'll ask dan what no no i mean if there was i was just asking the question because i hadn't just went off the road no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no i'm looking at you to say have you

have you run into this has this been raised but no no never it's very unique you know maybe not whether there's any discussion about the police space about the police station or the pocket nope is there a definition the premises no that's what i'm i was thinking maybe there was something in the deed the way it was written right i mean the definition of whether premises are wise theoretically theoretically you could

demolish a portion of the building to comply with that well that's the they had the garage the original property had owned parking across the street and they sold off all the parking no no got that but the city granted you a meets and bounds description which is the police station proper that where it begins and ends actually there's no meets and balance description in there they just refer to a deed

a non-land use lawyer drafted that deed and those restrictions because they're right okay i got it no we don't have the debt we have a lot we have a definite we don't have a definition of premises yeah i'd look for an extension to get a legal opinion on that but they're under a time refrain uh yeah so they sell that well look we would prefer that the board have all its information

in front of it and uh i have until the end of the year to get all the permitting i have to keep matt thomas um informed as to how we're progressing have to keep a lot of people informed as to how we're progressing with this project so but if the board feels that they'd like some additional guidance i'm all for it i'd like to know if we have the authority to grant it without the error

variance to the corporation could we grant it subject to a legal opinion could we grant this subject to um being in compliance with any any applicable laws as determined by the law department i think we need to i think we need to get the clarification before you prove it with the condition that doesn't give you the ability to handle it if it's exactly nothing if the answer is no then there's no way

to now deal with the situation that it may or may not be exactly so the cleanest way would be to get the legal opinion before listening to what jim is asking and whether or not we can't because i don't know the answer to this this is quite an esoteric whether or not what was the i don't know author with you i don't know whether you were involved with the negotiations or what that meant or

whether or not it was just i was not his exhibit a buy it i was i was not i didn't get involved until um i was asked to do so at the end of 2021 and i've been working with the city to try to push this project forward i'll also mention mr chairman i can't avail myself of 443 because that would require the building inspector to make a determination that the number of

existing spaces well that's why it's not being reduced the use is permitted as a pre-existing non-conforming use it's not it's useful out as a matter of right so i i can't even use 443 in any of my arguments because it's not it's not a pre-existing non-conforming use it's a change of use but it's it's an allowed use attorney frank as to not lose time with your permitting you can move forward with site plan

review without relief being granted so that way i just would prefer i would prefer everybody to have as much information as that as they need to make a decision because it's a big expense for mr lederman and his family and if if an opinion comes down that says they can't do it then maybe we have to give the building back to the city didn't you indicate to us that a lot of those uh amendments were

all the time agreement i mean can it be adjusted

you're working on an amendment now from the 30 to 35 yeah that was my question and the original deadlines weren't met and so matt thomas is going to rewrite a lot of these things i think maybe i think you're on the right track i think that's the best way to do it because we shouldn't be doing without having all the facts on the table if this aren't going to go i'm

agreeable in this and and getting it back over to uh the attorneys who have to uh quarterback this project in city hall okay i'm surprised one minute yes sir uh jim saul uh i'm the president but not representative president didn't have a chance

so i just want to mention we're actually we would be in favor of this this is an important historical structure that we've advocated to save for uh for over a decade now without some relief it's probably going to be torn down uh we're afraid of that or i'm afraid of that i'm concerned about that so i hope in consideration you take that and uh thank you if i may add one thing

this building is falling apart it has been for quite some time okay every minute that goes by we're losing more and more of the roof and we're losing more and more of the interior structure and we're almost at a point of no return so we wanted to start this project uh a year and a half ago but you know we're unable to do two permitting props purposes which is why

we're in front of the board here today so i mean we can keep tabling it but we're losing time i'm losing my financing and it ain't coming back if you've been looking at the uh current uh state of uh uh affairs so please keep that very sensitive to what you're doing everybody on this board i think everybody in the city wants something to happen with that but this is the zoning board of appeals and we're

confronted with a certain set of facts that we need to deal with and if we don't have the information i think it would be foolish of me as chairman of the members to go forward without having that clarification and i think it would be uh i don't know my free my free legal advice is you want to make sure you get it nailed down before you start spending the big bucks doing it exactly so

uh that being said good job good now i thought he had a question oh i'm sorry so jim jim's motion i believe what you were talking about was refer it up to the um the water content to get an opinion either and i think it has to be from the law department i don't think matt thomas can unilaterally say that so i think it should really come from the legal department uh as a

practical banner they're going to consult with matt i know they are yeah i don't think no that's correct the unilateral authority to bind the city on this i think i really want it to come from alan rumsey or from here yeah i think i think that's the right chain of comments i mean that's the yeah that's how it should be because if we act on it say yes we can

or no we can't the city he's going to be defending it not matt thomas that's my opinion that's the chairman's opinion about that so i'll make the motion that we refer to the question of the allowability of zoning changes under the reverence or a special permit yes zoning yeah uh okay to the law department uh and that the matter be continued uh without prejudice or cause without prayer of course yeah okay

may i recommend one addendum to that yeah a written opinion from the legal department yes yes yeah versus a telephone call yeah right important they don't they don't issue written opinions anymore no that is okay so jim corkin's motion sends it up to the law department for a written opinion do we have a second on that motion i'll second who's that yes second any discussion on the motion

until the next meeting but if we don't get an opinion hopefully um but but we will why don't we schedule it yeah i don't know we'll put it on no put it on all right we don't get it possible yes that's fine and if you need me to sign the waiver if you don't get to it that month yeah

yeah can you please uh give us that in writing if you have a form today you can sign it today if not scribble it on if you see yellow paper newspaper okay you don't have other other accounts yeah we used it we used to have it we used to have the pre-printed formula i would i would prefer i would prefer to have a one that that's printed okay so for the record for the record attorney

frank you're you're you are acknowledging that you will file a waiver tomorrow over 100 to to stay the 100-day countdown thank you and you'll have it filed tomorrow morning in court in court i like to stay out of koi yeah i don't blame you so if we go to the registry that's going to be part of the deed that we see yeah uh we downloaded it so it was electronically recorded i didn't give

you the no no all i'm saying is when we send it up because somebody upstairs is going to be looking for where's the i'll i'll make sure that gets dropped off a copy of the deed and the waiver and i'll get that over tomorrow thank you okay okay

okay do we have any citizen input there's nobody on the page there's nobody on the paper so okay uh approval of minutes from the june thank you thank you good night june 6th we don't have the june 6 2022 meeting minutes they have not been done yet can i get a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn dan dupia second on dan's motion jim calkins hearing no discussion ricky sadie yes dan duper yes joe pereira yes

uh jim cawkins yes david asset chairman yes the floor of the zoning board of appeals uh for june 16 2022 is hereby closed thank you all