6.18.2026 Zoning Board of Appeals

Good evening. I'm Joseph Pereira, chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the city of Fall River. It is 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, June 18th.

We are meeting at one Government Center in the first floor hearing room.

Pursuant to Massachusetts General Law chapter 30A, section 20, subsection F, I hereby notify all persons in attendance that a video and audio recording of this meeting is being made by Fall River Government TV, Mr. Craig Salvador.

If anyone desires to make a video, audio, or combined recording of this meeting, please notify me now and I will make a public announcement of your intent.

Our recording secretary this evening is Felicia Parker, sitting to my immediate right. Present this evening are regular members John Frank, our vice chairman Jim Calkins, our clerk Dan Duper, uh Ricky Sahady, as well as uh alternate members Alexis and Sal Malo, and uh Eric Kelly.

Also present this evening is Mr. Daniel Aguiar, director of engineering and planning, seated to my far left.

Felicia, have all petitions been cons- to be considered been properly advertised and all interested parties notified in accordance with the rules and regulations of the ZBA and Mass General Law chapter 40A as amended?

Yes.

I thereby declare the June 18th, 2026 regularly scheduled meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the city of Fall River open for such business as shall come before it.

I remind all persons presenting before the board, including petitioners, abutters, anyone in favor or opposed to a petition, that your presentation or comments be limited to 3 minutes.

The board's rules and regulations direct the board to specifically look for information that supports the petitioner's claim. As such, the petitioner should clearly and factually support the basis for their claim.

In the case of a variance, a credible hardship, as defined by Mass. General Law Chapter 40A, must be presented.

I remind all present that the authority of the ZBA exists pursuant to Mass.

General Law Chapter 40A and is limited in scope, dealing with the use of land as uh regulated in Chapter 86 of the ordinances of the City of Fall River.

We require that all comments made in this hearing be limited to the scope of our authority. Additional permits, licenses, reviews, and/or approvals may be required.

The action taken by this board has a real and lasting effect on the title to your real estate. As such, I urge all petitioners to seek competent legal counsel before filing your petition and after the decision of the board has been made. A copy of the ordinances 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 were here because the building inspector has determined that your proposed action is contrary to the City of Fall River Zoning Ordinance.

The city's charter section 9-18 mandates that all multi-member bodies develop and adopt rules or policies for public comment. We have adopted such a policy that provides for citizen input on zoning board specific matters. There is a sign-up sheet on the table just outside the door if you wish to speak at that point in time during the meeting.

With that, we have no old business.

So, we go to item number one of new business. The applicant owner is Jesse and Molly White, care of Advanced Engineering Group PC.

Subject property is 1170 Watkins Street, map uh RO8 lot 0027.

The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following. One, construction of a 1260 sq ft garage requiring a waiver of size requirements as set forth in section 86-466 of the Fall River Zoning Ordinance. The property is located in R-30 single-family zoning district.

Just identify yourself for the record.

Good evening, Scott Adams with Advanced Engineering Group representing the applicant on this matter.

For those not familiar, Watkins Street is an 11-lot subdivision and this lot [clears throat] is located at exactly at the dead end of the cul-de-sac adjacent to Route 24, which would be be just to the west. Uh it has a shared entrance driveway with it and it's direct abutter at 1170 Watkins Street.

The applicant is proposing to install a 1260 sq ft garage approximately 4 4 ft off of the existing property lines. It's a slight skew to it. 4 ft is the narrowest point to the property line.

Um you should see in your packet the the only abutter directly abutting this basically area uh would be the same abutter of 1170 that has supplied a letter of support for this applicant. Uh should be in your package. They abut to the east and to the north. They kind of wrap around and they're part of the shared driveway as well.

They would be the only abutter that would be physically able to see this proposed structure. So, we thought it particularly important to have them either gauge the level of support or uh opposition to the project.

Mhm.

Um the applicant wishes to ins- to store I guess he has an antique vehicle. He has some antique motorcycles and also an RV that he's looking to store in here in the future. That's the size limitation.

[clears throat] It has some site constraints specifically due to the wetlands.

The home was built in about 2015, so roughly 11 years ago. Um the garage he initially wanted to present was actually larger than this and we convinced him to make it smaller to keep it out of the buffer zones and avoid having to go to conservation.

Um the driveway exists pretty close right up to where the garage is going to be. There's a small extension of a gravel driveway off the existing gravel driveway to get to the proposed garage location.

Again, it's up against Route 24, so it's really not visible from that side. There is there is significant trees along that that corridor as well that will remain cuz they're within the state right-of-way.

Pretty straightforward. I'm happy to answer any questions from the board.

Yeah, the so the extension of the driveway will come into the buffer zone?

Nope, everything will stay outside of the buffer zone.

Okay.

Yes.

Very good. You stay out of conservation that way.

Yep.

Didn't we have something on this property or the property adjacent to it not that long ago?

I don't recall. I know we have another one on Watkins Way coming in next month.

Really? Okay.

All right, interesting.

[clears throat] Uh any questions from the board?

This is very straight one story, two story?

One story and there is a note on the plan making sure that it will not exceed 18 ft in height, so that it will conform.

And it will not be used for an ADU. I I specifically asked him that ahead of time.

And he will your client will be amenable to um no commercial use.

Correct.

I don't want him to start restoring cars back here and showing up on you know TikTok or something or whatever.

Unless they're his own vehicles.

And yeah, if it's his own, that's fine, but uh you don't need a custom car shop down there.

Uh we do have one letter of support that came in. It is from uh the direct abutter, uh Lawrence Westgate at 1150 1154 Watkins Street um stating he's an abutter to the property at 1170 and he is uh strongly in favor of the issuance of the special permit. With no other questions from the board, I'll turn to the general public.

Is there anyone here wishing to speak in support of this petition?

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

They're hearing none. It comes back to the board.

Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to grant with uh conditions that uh there be no commercial use and also no uh ADU conversion or future ADU conversion.

Second.

And then uh I locate the map.

No.

Oh yeah.

No, no, no, it's all by special permit.

It's all by special permit. So, the only bifurcation would be the not more More detrimental. I'll make it a combined motion in one.

Okay, but you had one other, no commercial, no ADU.

And then just site plan review as part of that, which would it doesn't happen, it should happen.

Second.

Motion and second. Discussion on the motion.

They're hearing none. Ricky?

Yes.

Stan?

Yes.

Jim?

Yes.

John?

Yes.

And Chairman Pereira, yes.

Thank you.

Go home, get out of the rain. Have a good night.

Thank you.

Item number two, the applicant owner is Geo Management LLC. Uh Guillaume La- uh Lapin, manager, uh care of attorney Peter A. Selino.

Subject property is 1190 uh Stafford Road, map D02, lot 0043. The applicant is requi- requesting a variance to allow the following: to modify an existing mixed-use building by converting first floor office space into three residential units consisting of two two-bedroom and one um studio, in addition to three existing studio apartments on the second floor, and one studio apartment in the

basement, uh for a total of seven residential units pursuant to 86-425 of the zoning ordinance, the property is located in a BL local business and R4 two-family zoning district.

Thank you. For the record, my name is Peter Felino. I'm a lawyer in Fall River. I represent the applicant owner, GL Management LLC. Uh to open the presentation on this particular file, I was in front of the board in 2023 on this exact uh file relative to creating units on the second floor and in the basement. My client is a dentist and the intention was to have a dentist office on the first floor and

that has not panned out. And as a consequence of that, we're now seeking to add three units to the first floor.

The site is unique in the sense that it's in the BL and the R4. Um the zoning line, I would say, is about 2/3 1/3 uh in favor of the BL.

So, the proposal here, uh as you can see on the plan, um so, ultimately, the proposal here is to take the existing structure and convert the first floor to add three apartments to it, uh which would be two two-bedrooms and one studio. That would make the total building seven units. There's no relief sought for parking. The parking table on the plan, we can provide sufficient parking and therefore, really, it comes

down to use because seven or more units is not allowed by right in the BL.

And so therefore, it's submitted to you that this should be a variance and the hardship arguments need to be the shape of the property, the two zoning districts, and the structure already being there.

I'm shocked that dentistry couldn't make it.

I just I think It's like pulling teeth together.

Oh.

Oh.

Oh.

It was a little jujitsu. Um I don't really have any questions on this.

You hit the parking and it's on here and we all know that that's always the hot button issue.

Any questions from the board on this?

Mr. Chairman, just to be clear, you're here attorney Solano requires this would create seven units, which is in excess of what um Correct. This is that multitude of units is not allowed in BL.

Right. Okay. And there are already four existing units.

There are four existing units and you can see from the plan that it's predominantly a multi-family neighborhood. All the surrounding pri- it's, you know, I suggest it to you in the petition that's consistent with the uses around it.

Thank you.

Yeah, there's a couple mixed use in the neighborhood, but by and large it's multi-family.

Any other questions?

Anyone in the audience wishing to speak in support of this petition?

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

Yes sir.

My name is Paul Lopes. My dad resides at 507 Anthony Street. It is two houses down Mhm.

um going east. Um my dad has been living there for almost 60 years.

He's 89 years old and um he walks up the street every day and goes to Liberty Bakery, which is directly across the street from Mhm.

1190 Stafford Road.

And also there's uh AS Letourneau School with that is within 500 ft of that corner.

That's down on Anthony Street, the opposite side of Anthony Street in Fall River.

This is a very, very highly trafficked area. Okay?

There was only three crosswalks. There's one that goes from the corner of that building to the bakery.

There's another one that goes off to the right. There's another one that crosses the other side of Anthony Street.

This is a very, very dangerous intersection.

Okay?

My dad got hit by a car over there last last October walking across the street.

Because people drive so fast through this intersection.

Mhm.

Okay?

And I think by adding I have no problem with there being apartments in this building.

Okay?

But I think by adding another three apartments in that building, I don't know how many cars are going to be in that parking lot. I know there's ample parking there. Okay?

Mhm.

But I just think this is a bad idea for this to to put seven apartments in here.

It's a very very dangerous intersection.

And further up Stafford Road where Holy Trinity church is, where my son goes to school, is another bad intersection.

There's not enough crosswalks on Stafford Road.

There's not enough flashing stop signs on Stafford Road to cause people to slow down.

And in light of your dad's situation Yeah, my dad's eight What's that?

I said in light of the situation with him getting hit Yeah.

last year.

I mean, that's something to get in front of city council.

Um you know, Traffic, City Council.

Police Department, Traffic Department, City Council.

Okay.

I I've I've made calls to the city.

Okay.

It doesn't go anywhere.

You got to keep on.

Okay.

Don't be shy. You weren't shy. You showed up here tonight.

That's right.

Don't be shy. Don't be shy with any of the departments in the city until you until you feel that you've exhausted everything you can. Did you have a problem with the dentist office going in when we approved that and that's not a problem at all.

Probably had just as much traffic with the dentist office in there. I'm just saying.

So, okay. I appreciate that.

Yeah or no. Yeah or no. I disagree I I kind agree and disagree with that.

Okay.

Anything else?

No.

Okay. Thank you very much for coming out. Anyone else wishing to speak uh in opposition?

They hearing none, back to the board.

Last time for questions.

Just uh Dan, do you have any or anything to say?

The only thing I would add would be that what you should really be weighing is what would be the difference when you're looking at three apartments or the dentist office or any other commercial use that could be in there by right.

I would offer that. I would think that the three apartment units would be a less intense use than any because it's a BL zoning district. So, you could open a a cell phone store, a salon, I mean, it could be anything commercial that I think would be of higher density and potential more traffic than than what three apartments would be.

That's all I have to add. They they they've met every other requirement for parking. Beautiful building.

And it was a fire station at one time years ago.

And then it was maintained by the city as a traffic department.

Yeah, nice building.

I think I think that we need some a stop sign.

Okay, we don't do stop signs. But we don't do stop signs. That's outside of our purview, okay? We don't do stop signs crosswalks.

Well, I that could be added to this.

No, it could not. We do not have that authority sir.

What you can do is call call the engineering office or planning office.

That's where I am. And I [clears throat] can put you in touch with the right people to address traffic concerns on the street. That would be the traffic department and the police department.

But I can help force that through if this goes through. Even if it doesn't go through, it's something that should be addressed and that they should be aware of.

seven apartments is a little too much.

No, it's it's not. It's three more apartments. It's four there now.

This isn't a debate. We're adding seven apartments.

This isn't a You had your chance to speak. This isn't a debate. Okay.

All right.

Mr. Chairman, in light of James' comments, I would make a motion that the variance be approved as requested.

Second.

Motion and second. Any more discussion on the motion?

There hearing none.

Yes.

Jim.

Yes.

Dan.

Yes.

Ricky.

Yes.

Chairman Ferrera, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number three, applicant owners Charles J. O'Gara, care of attorney Peter E. Salino, subject property 33 Higgins Street, map B19, lot 0008.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following.

One, uh to demolish the existing commercial garage on the property and construct a three-unit townhouse uh consisting of three stories uh with each unit and consisting uh and containing a three a two-stall garage, waiving the NS2 to each unit. The requirements of section 86, attachment one of the Fall River zoning ordinance as it relates to lot coverage, side uh yard, and front yard uh

setback requirements. Property is located in the A2 apartment zoning district.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Peter Salino on behalf of Charles O'Gara. Immediately to my left is Mr.

O'Gara.

The subject property is at the end of a dead-end street. It is in the A2 district, and as you saw from the street view, it does contain garages. So, the proposal here is to demolish the existing garages to build a triplex. The triplex would have two-car garages underneath each unit, so that parking from the off-street parking requirements would be complied with.

The units are proposed to be three bedrooms. The waivers are three. They are front yard setback. Uh the district requires 12 ft, we have seven. Side yard setback, uh district requires 10, we're at five. And lot coverage is supposed to be 30 and as proposed we're at 40.

As you can see from the plan that's on the screen now, the hardship absolutely has to be the existing ledge outcroppings in the property when we talk about soil shape topography and that's what's pushing the proposed building up towards the street.

I would suggest to you that when you look at the map but for the church to the left, it's mostly a residential neighborhood anyway and these are sort of out of place so I think the use is appropriate for the neighborhood and consistent with the neighborhood.

We're happy to answer any questions. Mr.

Tolman did the plan, he's here. Mr.

O'Gara is here. So we're happy to answer any questions the board may have.

[clears throat] Yeah, I mean from from an engineering standpoint Yeah, you got a you got a hell of a ledge behind this.

Dan, do you have any comments on this particular No, I I know this site well.

Looked at it many times in in my career and and the ledge outcropping has always been a concern.

There is no water or sewer in the street so so there are is great expense that'll be incorporated into constructing this building already.

So they're going to have to pull water and sewer all the way down?

Whatever the the Department of Community Utilities requires them to do which will most likely be that.

Where's the Where's the closest connection?

The connecting street to the north which would be Laroche.

Laroche.

There's there's a bit of a stretch that that they've got to get to but no but clearly the topography the ledge still may encounter ledge even going where you're going but at least the garage may still be sitting on ledge but you don't know until the garage is gone but as far as lot area it meets the area requirement, meets the frontage requirement and as Attorney Seleno stated it's really front yard, side

yard, and lot coverage on it.

I have I have no concerns with it or or not.

I'm just going to have to wait till tomorrow.

So, it looks like it's it's basically the same footprint.

That was the design, Mr. Frank. The idea here was to try to keep that consistent.

If we're getting further away from the southerly property boundary, which is about 1 ft now.

Um it was 5 ft before. So, the garage is right on top of that property line now.

I would be I'd be interested to see what the abutters have to say. I would like I never realized the Baptist Church owned that much land out there.

It's all ledge.

Yeah.

We'll build upon this rock. Any other questions or comments from the board at this point before we go in public?

It's an unusual one. I I hope everybody got a chance to drive by there. It's tough piece of land. You you're you're taking on a you're taking on a beauty.

I really like this street view thing.

Hm?

I like this new street view attribute.

Okay.

He's good.

I think this three-unit town house is Okay.

Going to members of the general public.

Is there anyone here wishing to speak in favor of this petition?

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

Sir.

Well, I live on 180 Concord Street.

That's my trailer right there. My thing is I work on cars in my yard, my personal cars. So, that's my back entrance. I don't have a front cuz my front is one is Concord Street. So, I just want to make sure that I don't get it blocked.

And I ride ATVs, too.

So, I would my trailer up and we go right me and my son and my daughter. So, I just want to make sure whatever they're doing, I I in and out anytime I want to. That's my biggest thing. I don't care what they do. Once I can get in and out of there in the back with my cars and my bikes as well I can.

Cuz our back entrance is right across from the That's my vehicle right there in the trailer in the front.

So what what's the address of of your property?

181 181 okay so that's your back.

Yeah that that's our My vehicles go in there and everything.

I work on my cars in there, my personal cars.

I rent ATVs and four wheelers so and the bikes. So I need to go in and out whenever I want to.

is your frontage on Crawford then?

Yes.

Okay.

But I cannot get my gate I cannot take a four wheeler out of there and I cannot bring my cars into there. So I work on my cars in the back.

open and we just go right in the back.

Yeah more than Just so we just understand the way that you have in this picture the vehicle and that trailer parked now.

Yes.

You you can't block their access.

fine. Because nobody's there right now.

Cuz I'll I'll go right in.

Cuz I didn't we didn't know like what the layout was going to be how close it was going to be and He's going to block he's going to block over there or cuz I would I would get the the gate.

So they cannot block the street. They that's the they That's his only access.

Yeah they're going to have frontage on the street just like any other any other building.

Uh not too different from what's there What's there currently.

Yeah so basically if you put a second floor above what you see there Okay and that's mainly the reason why we didn't know Yeah and they'll have garages immediately underneath so Okay.

I'm sure everybody's going to have a an automatic garage door opener and they'll be driving right in.

All right.

Okay. And you may end up getting Higgins Street repaved out of all this so Yeah well they sure did when they did they tore it up. They blocked it off too.

Like I was stuck in the back for a I can't even imagine what they do with snow down there.

Oh it was it was bad.

Nothing? Yeah.

All right anyone else in opposition?

They're hearing none we'll come back to the board.

I mean, I I not crazy about the the the front yard setback, but knowing it will be garages immediately there, let's let's hope that they're pulling into the garages.

Well, I think what what's important to understand too is that you are you're pulling into a street that is the back of the other houses. So, the houses across the street Yeah.

that's not their frontage. So, that Right.

intermingling of constant traffic Mhm.

won't be there.

Good point.

The fact you're going to pull water and sewer down Higgins may may lead to something else on the Baptist Church property, which is all ledge, but one never knows what someone might try to do.

They don't know that.

Uh Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to grant uh considering that this is commercial use is going to be removed from that residential neighborhood and uh I just like we're going to do site plan review, no matter what.

Yeah.

Um and that's the only condition I can see.

Second.

There's a motion and second. Discussion on the uh on the motion.

They're hearing none. On the vote, uh Ricky?

Yes.

Dan?

Yes.

Jim?

Yes.

John?

Yes.

Chairman Curry, yes.

Thank you.

Best of luck.

Thank you.

Item number four, applicant owner uh RE New Realty Services LLC uh Kevin Prol, manager, care of Jeffrey Tollman uh Northeast Engineers and consu- and Consultants Inc. Subject property is 1807 Globe Street, map E01, lot 006 36.

The applicant is requesting a special permit pursuant to section 86-428B and 86-445 of the zoning ordinance [clears throat] for the following. One, uh to reestablish the former ice cream shop located at the northern north east corner of the property.

And two, to waive the requirement for off-street parking in accordance with 86-441.

The property is located in an A2 apartment zoning district.

Uh good evening. For the record, Jeff Tallman from Northeast Engineers & Consultants here tonight on behalf of Kevin Prout, the manager of New Realty Services LLC.

Um as you had said, the property is located at 1007 Globe Street, um which is on the south side of Globe Street. It's one lot west of the intersection with Plymouth Avenue.

Uh the parcel is lot 36 on map E01 on the city of Fall River Assessor's records.

Uh it is located in the apartment A2 zoning district. Um and it is a conforming lot having an area of 7,456 square feet and uh 68.1 feet of frontage on Globe Street.

There are two structures currently on the property. Uh there's an existing three-family dwelling located on the northwest corner of the lot, and then there's the former ice cream parlor located at the northeast corner of the property.

Uh which brings us to why we're here tonight. Um as most of you might remember, um this property was the former site of Berry Freeze, uh which was a popular ice cream shop that operated in that location from the 1960s before permanently permanently closing uh in 2008.

Um so what we did pursuant to section 86-428b of the zoning ordinance, we filed a petition or special permit request to reinstate the abandoned ice cream parlor use.

Uh, the petitioner is looking to operate the ice cream parlor seasonally, um, opening on May 1st and staying open until October 31st. Uh, the proposed hours of operation would be from noon um, until 8:30 p.m. on Tuesday through Sunday.

Um, as you can see on the plan, there is a large asphalt and gravel parking area located to the rear of the dwelling on the south side of the property.

Uh, this area is currently used by the tenants of the three-family dwelling.

Um, however, there is additional space that could be used if need be uh, to provide employee parking um, in that location. Uh, the petitioner anticipates there being two to three employees at any given time within the ice cream parlor. Um, there is not enough room on the property to provide uh, customer parking. Uh, therefore, as a result, pursuant to section 86-445, we are also seeking a

special permit to eliminate the requirement um, of off-street parking.

So, um, I do remember as a child going to Dairy Freeze on occasion. Uh, my father used to play softball at Father Kelly Park and we'd occasionally stop by after games. Um, however, I do not remember what the parking situation was at that time.

Um, but I do find it hard to believe just in the research that I've done on this property that there was off-street parking that was provided at that time when uh, Dairy Freeze was in uh, operation. Um, so therefore, um, oh, in addition to in the application packet, I did provide there was a street view uh, picture of the existing condition of the uh, of the ice cream parlor and we've also supplied a rendering of the

what the ice cream parlor is intended to look like if the special permit would be granted. So, I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board might have.

Um Jeff, you said there would be availability to potentially put two employee parking spaces in the rear.

Yeah, I I I looked at it um over the past week or so.

Um there's approximately eight parking spots that we could fit. Um four along four directly behind the existing three family. Um and then maybe another actually might even be nine, maybe another four or five behind the ice cream parlor. Um what I wouldn't like to see and I don't think the petition would like to see is customers pulling in and out of the private property.

Right.

Um but it would be ideal uh for the employees.

why I was saying if if we could somehow carve out or or make a condition that we have uh a minimum of two, if you could do that.

Yeah.

Um it looks like 1 2 3 4 seven maybe spots right now, eight.

Uh if you get creative, I guess.

It's pretty limited hours of operations, so having two spaces cut aside, I'm sure.

So, on the staff I want to have at least two two for each unit of the Yeah, six.

Yeah.

And then Yeah, you could we could probably get the two directly behind the parlor and then leave the back area from from where the bulk it is from behind the house to the edge of that gravel area is about 37 38 ft, which is sufficient width for four spots there.

And then we could probably get another three on the other side, but we would only need six for the existing structure. So, I I think we're sufficient in providing at least two.

Okay.

That's all the questions I have.

Okay.

I've seen a lot of remembrances showing up online and apparently this was always walk-up. Yes, so That's the other condition. That would be one of the other conditions, too.

Walk-up, takeout only, no seating or Yeah, I don't I don't believe that's the entire lot.

No sidewalk, no benches, uh No.

Strictly walk-up.

And I know the uh the petitioner has been in contact with the city about there is a um a no parking sign directly in front of the ice cream parlor um to have that, you know, to take a look at that and see if there's anything that can be done to provide, you know, a couple of Yeah, 15-minute parking. You'd probably get two more spots for customers out there, which would be ideal. So.

Anything else on the board?

Dan, do you have input on this one?

No. I think you guys have raised all of all the concerns. Just make sure you condition walk-up only, takeout only.

Question about signage.

Because it is in the A2 district, I mean, any any relief for signs will have to come back separate if it's something that you need other than what's there for a sign now.

You're going to restore the to redo the ice cream cone.

The ice cream cone on the roof?

Yes.

Yeah.

So, if there's anything so we we can, as it's submitted now, the the previous use was the previous signage.

So, if you want to do something other than signage, you might as well get a special permit to come back for signage.

But, once you figure out what you need for signage Now, let me Yeah, let me ask this. Is it going to be ice cream only? Are you going to do hot dogs, hamburgers, anything of the such?

There was a There is hamburgers and there's a grease trap there, but right now we pulled the permit just for safety. The roof was collapsing.

And then they're building officials. They want me to come back in and do a different fit-out for for uh for the use.

Not nothing. I just want to open it up as ice cream.

Yeah, and and I mean that aspect is not just not totally under of our purview, but it would certainly direct the amount of time customers would be there, etc.

etc. if Ice cream's pretty easy. You have to put together a cone or banana split and somebody takes off.

If there's If they're standing by waiting for grilled items, it's a different situation.

Um anybody present wishing to speak in favor of the petition?

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

Hi. My name is Eric Zager. I own the four family directly next door and I'm a direct abutter.

Mhm.

And uh You know, I I I have mixed emotions about it. You know what I mean? I too have good memories of being a kid. I grew up in that neighborhood and you know, people walking up and you know, a lot of kids on their bikes and [clears throat] uh neighborhood people walking up, people walking up from the park after a baseball Kelly Park after baseball games and

it was I don't know why it was it was it was a nice thing back in the day.

But I also do have concerns some concerns okay?

Uh the uh you know, times have changed.

You know, now kids that live two blocks away from school get driven to school.

You know what I mean? And nobody walks anymore. Nobody's kids walks and or anything like that. Everybody comes in by vehicle.

Um parking is challenging there already. Um but the the only little free area [snorts] of parking right now is uh restricted uh during certain times of the day. I think up until 4:30 at night uh due to the AutoZone store. You can't park on the right-hand side of that street because what happens is the delivery truck the trailers need that space to make the curve in and out. So, that from my driveway which abuts his

property, to the corner is already taken out by by that and what is needed for that auto parts uh thing to exist has already restricted parking.

Uh No, like you said, I have mixed emotions. You know what I mean?

It was It was It was a I remember being a cool thing back in the day. But, like I said, it was also a time to change and nobody walks anymore and you know, everybody everybody drives where they're going and there's absolutely zero parking on that street.

You know.

The other thing, too, is the tenants that we now have utilize the street parking.

Well, it's a public street, though.

Well, it's a public street. I get that.

And also You have no off-street parking on your property?

Yeah, I do. I have a I have a two-stall garage and I also have a driveway that directly abuts is right against his property line, okay, on that street. I'm worried about people parking there because there's just [clears throat] no place else to park them. I can't It's not being able to get in and out of the driveway.

Uh Well, if somebody parks in front of the driveway, they're breaking the law, so that's Well, we know that, but we also know what we also know what happens, okay? And uh the uh I don't know. I I I think if you maybe made some provisions subject to maybe of you know, during the hours that the ice cream joint is open, maybe restrict some of his own tenant parking uh in the back so the ice cream

patronage would have a couple more spots during the hours he's open and they could use it after those hours.

Uh yeah, I I will say for myself, my vote, I I I don't want to see patrons rolling in and out of this this uh residential building parking area.

I get that, but you also got to know there's absolutely zero parking on it.

I I understand. Well, there is parking.

No, there's zero parking.

Well, available parking.

That parking is there so that if there's no available parking, then people can't go get ice cream unless they park down the street and walk.

So, they may use they may be in parking spaces that your tenants may want to get to, but ice cream people are only going to be there for a couple of minutes.

So, [clears throat] what what what you have to weigh here and again, this this is a special permit where it just has to be deemed to not be more detrimental and this is a previous use.

Right.

This this could by right become an apartment.

That's okay. I'm okay with that. I have I have no where are those people going to park in that apartment?

Well, those it doesn't have the volume of a couple one or two bedroom apartment.

might they might be eating up the parking spaces on the street all day long and not move.

It isn't going to have the volume of an ice cream place.

I I don't disagree, but it isn't going to and I have no objection to him getting return on his investment. If you wanted to put an apartment apartment in there, one or two bedroom apartment, we could we could we could we could certainly live with that. You know what I mean?

And and that's not what's in front of us. I mean, I know, but I'm And and so the director's to the director's comment, it could be a lot It's got to be it's got to be practical for the neighborhood.

Okay.

And I mean, the parking requirement's there for a reason.

You're you're on the corner, right?

Yeah.

Yeah, I'm right on the corner. Yeah. The parking requirement is there for a reason. And like I say, if the gentleman Donaruma, if you wanted to convert that to an apartment that wasn't going to have that volume of traffic coming in and out, I would have no problem with it. I would. I want to see the guy get a return on his investment. I'm not an unreasonable guy.

Uh the uh Okay.

But I'm just Uh and it was a great thing back in the day, but it was a nice thing back in the day, but I'm not sure times Let's face it, times have changed.

People don't Excuse me, the only other comment I would make is that intersection of Clinton Ave and Globe Street is very heavy, very congested. Sirens all day long. I mean, it's a very, very busy intersection. And I don't know, I would just hate to see it provide more accidents or pedestrian accidents And believe me, I don't say this I don't say this any of this easily.

Like I say, I I I believe in the guy should be able to, you know, get return on his investment. I just don't know if it's the best application, you know, in this day and age.

Thank you.

[clears throat] Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition?

Any other comments from engineering at this point?

Comments from the board, questions from the board. It's back in our hands.

Any comments relating to the concerns?

No, I I would just say again that the the parking directly in front of this is restricted. I believe it's 8:00 to 4:00 uh Monday through Friday. Um I would imagine the majority of the business coming here would be after 4:00 4:00 p.m. Um in which case that would open up those spots directly in front. Um I can't think of this from in front of the three family that I own back

towards South East Street, there's like four parking spots there.

Yeah, they are there.

There's always a box truck there. That's not even See if they're all the time.

So by So by ordinance, we're talking about three spaces. Cuz the ordinance requires three spaces for customers.

Mhm.

Regardless of how many customers come, that's what the ordinance states.

So that's what we're talking about because they're actually they're going to meet the requirement or exceed it for the employee count, which would be three employees and one space per us.

So what we're really discussing with regards to the relief that you're being requested [snorts] to grant.

We lost three spaces.

And and we're we're seeing most of the businesses up and down a lot of the streets have zero parking for customers.

Yeah, I mean even even even downtown don't have off-street I I can't understand the concern for congestion. But but if if I couldn't park within two blocks two blocks of this place then you're not going for an ice cream. You're going to go for an ice cream somewhere else. So, it's it's a risk of of investment.

Yeah, and again, I mean it's seasonal use.

It wouldn't be an operation obviously during any of the snow bans that would take up additional spaces. So, it's again, it's May through October.

And the hours, I mean the hours closing at 8:30 at night is pretty early.

You know, where some of these places are open until 9:00 10:00 at night.

And what days was it, Jeff?

Tuesday through Sunday.

Anything else on the board?

We're up.

Valid concern from the next door neighbor.

Signage again, if we're talking about signage you're going to have to Can't be beyond what's there now.

Beyond what's there now.

Well, there's nothing there now because they took down the sign.

Well, what was there?

Yeah, what was there?

Whatever was there within the last two years would be allowed.

[clears throat] Go back.

And that would be up to the building department to make that determination.

If they determine if they can't make that determination, then you need to come in for any signage.

So, any of the other signs that you would have as far as flavors, etc., would be on the inside?

I don't I plan yet. Inside the window.

That That main sign's been there No, I I know the ice cream cone's been up there forever, so.

That and the That and the night owl Okay.

What do we think?

Mr. Chairman, [clears throat] um this is a special permit application.

Yes.

Okay, so I would move that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood, but and um moving to approve, we'll put some conditions on it, um such as two to three parking places from boys.

And signage existing as is.

Or as was.

As was.

As was, yeah.

Anything else?

The hours that were set aside The hours The hours Tuesday through Saturday or Sunday.

Right. Noon to 8:30.

And believe it or not, you should require no ADU, so that we don't add the need for additional parking in the three-family.

With no ADU, is that acceptable?

Yeah.

Yes.

All right, so that would be my motion.

I'll second it.

Motion and a second. Discussion on the motion?

Hearing no discussion on the motion, John?

Yes.

Jim?

Yes.

Dan?

Yes.

Ricky?

Yes.

Chairman Ferrari, yes.

Best of luck.

Item number five, applicant owner is Louis Gonsalves, care of Jeffrey Tollman, Northeast Engineering Consultants Inc.

Subject property 333 Durfee Street, map 011, lot 0013. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. One, to convert existing automotive repair shop into a three-family dwelling, thereby expanding the Can you guys talk about this?

Expanding the existing non-conforming five-family dwelling to a total of eight dwelling units. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following. One, relief to reduce the number of required parking spaces pursuant to 86-444 of the zoning ordinance. The property is located in a BN neighborhood shopping zoning district.

Good evening. For the record, Jeff Talmers from Northeast Engineering and Consultants here on behalf of Luis Gonzalves, the petitioner with this application.

As stated, the property is at 333 Durfee Street, which is on the east side of Durfee Street between Walnut and Locust Streets.

The parcel is lot 11 on map zero, I'm sorry, 013.

The property is again located in the neighborhood shopping zoning district.

And it is a conforming lot by frontage and area, having an area of 13,300 square feet and 133.5 feet of frontage on Durfee Street.

There are two structures currently located on the property. There's the existing five-family dwelling located on the southern portion of the lot, and there's the existing automotive repair facility on the northeast corner of the property.

There's also a small parking area located on northwest corner of the property that is used both by the auto repair facility as well as the some of the tenants on the five-family dwelling.

With the auto repair facility primarily used using the northern portion and the tenants, some tenants parking along the on the southern portion adjacent to the to the dwelling.

The parking facility is not large enough to meet the demands of both of these uses that are on the property.

So, what the um the petitioner is requesting to do is to is is to get get a variance to convert the existing auto repair facility into three residential apartment units, which would bring the total number of units on the property from five to eight.

Um the building where the automotive repair facility is located was originally a barn when it was constructed and has been converted over time into that particular use.

It is fairly large. It does have a 1,722 sq ft footprint.

It's approximately 42 ft deep by 41 ft wide.

Um as shown on the plan, we do have a unit layout. The petitioner is proposing to convert the first level into two two-bedroom apartment units and the second level into one three-bedroom apartment unit.

We're also requesting a special permit pursuant to 86-445 of the zoning ordinance to reduce the number of parking spots required from two per unit down to one.

Um the the hardship that we're dealing with here is the the topography of the property, location of the structures on the property, and primarily the mixed use of the property with the existing structures have resulted in a hardship on the petitioner.

The shared uses and the size parking lot has resulted in traffic pattern issues, parking issues, and the such. So, eliminating the commercial use on this property and and providing additional residential use um would lessen the off-street parking demand on the property and would provide uh give us the the ability to provide one off-street parking spot for each residential unit that would be located on the property.

So, it would be a it would be a benefit and it would lessen um you know, the the traffic impact that this property currently has on Durfee Street and the surrounding area. Um so, with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board might have.

Yeah, as soon as you said two two-bedrooms and one three you're going to have a hard time convincing me that eight parking spaces for the eight apartments is going to be enough.

It's because parking on Durfee Street is no prize.

That's what I mean.

Correct.

Correct. Um and and the reason I mean, that's all based upon the square footage of the building Mhm.

and and just the layout of what the buildings would be in in um the I you know, I understand that we're asking for a drastic reduction.

If this was some type of new construction, I wouldn't even considered it. The fact that there's an existing auto repair use there that does utilize and does have a lot of traffic coming in in and out of this property.

I think the change from the auto repair auto repair facility to three apartment units um would actually lessen the impact on the on the neighborhood and on the property. And providing the you know, one assigned off off-street parking spot for each unit um would be beneficial. Um the existing five-unit, I want to say the the uh I believe there's four one-bedroom units and one three-bedroom in there for a

total of seven bedrooms.

Um so, the one spot per unit for three of those uh should be sufficient.

Even you know, I don't know what the parking situation is on on the three family or what it would be for the tenants moving here, but the fact that there would be at least the one assigned parking spot, I think would be a benefit. I just think the the change in the use would the mixed use on this type of this type of a property with this small of a parking lot it really does create an

issue during the day as to what's going on there. It's kind of a free for all.

Well, I mean it depends on how how busy the the auto repair has been. I mean we just had we just had one last month the you know the Dells building and you know he's putting in what six units I think we got down to and he's got he's got sufficient And that's what I'm thinking of so you get that plan too.

If they were to take this the garage building I mean just just structurally looking at the building that should be a townhouse with two parking garages where the garage doors are now.

So you have two spaces there.

Getting rid of getting rid of the need for two more spaces cuz you went from three to two.

And is there room on the south side of this building to add two more parking spaces?

On the south side of the existing five family?

the existing five so you you you could get to a point probably where you don't need parking relief.

And the only relief you would need is residential use in the in the VN.

I don't know.

I don't know enough about Yeah, I mean like topography wise you could add two spaces to the south.

But that existing building I mean I I think it would be easy retro to to make it into a townhouse.

That's fairly level to the road, yeah.

I think I'm putting two spaces [snorts] in the in the building itself.

Yeah.

I don't know.

Parking is tight down there.

It is.

You get the condos across the street.

And right now we have offsetting peaks for use. Do you Do you know what the what the parking requirement would be as it is now if like under the operation of the garage?

That was not on the plan, so I Yeah, I believe there's three employees currently there, so it would probably be what six?

I don't know.

Three for customers and three for the one per employee.

Um so that would require six.

Yeah, so you don't have enough.

But those are offsetting even, so at 5:00 when the garage closes, those spaces are now open for people to Become open for the five family, yeah.

This Yeah, the the issue is the garage does store cars outside that are being worked on Mhm.

um that take up some of that parking.

Right.

So.

But the employee spaces and customer spaces is what comes first or should come first under Correct. I agree.

How they use those spaces afterwards is something else.

Right, so the employees are going to leave, how many cars are left in the parking lot that are being worked on, so.

And that varies.

Um But again, but this is now an opportunity, so like Jeff stated, this entire parking lot could currently be being utilized for the automotive repair business.

Mhm. Well, I don't think it none of it's being used for the president.

That's what I And that's what I'm saying is that in on Jeff's side of the argument we are creating off-street parking for the building that's not there now.

what I was saying.

But beyond that, I I I just think it's an easy sell with a townhouse and having two spaces in the garage. I think it's actually more valuable units, but I don't do that anymore.

That's up to the owner. Any other questions from the board?

You hear where two of us are at this point. One of them doesn't have a vote.

So.

Anyone else?

Mr. Chairman, I think Jeff what you hearing is my advice would be to to table and come back with a Yeah, I was just going to I was just going to request that to to table this take a look at addressing some of these items and see if it can be done and how this could be modified to satisfy the board. So, look into also the southern side of the existing five

family see if there's anything that could be done there.

On lot of them, yeah.

What what one other thing is and again So, if you look at the existing garage and if you convert that into a duplex and put two garage spaces in or or maybe more whatever lays out with the building. That's a big building it goes deep.

Yeah.

Um to make up that additional unit can you squeeze in an ADU in the existing five and make it a six cuz that would only need one parking space. You still end up with the same density.

That's something for you to talk about with your client.

Yeah.

But at the end of the day probably have a bigger a better project.

Requiring less relief.

Consider Yeah, we can we can certainly take a look at I mean what was first brought to me the the hope was to get four which I didn't you know, I thought it was a little overkill based on the parking that we could provide. You know, I wanted to get to at least one spot per unit but we can play around with it and see what we can come up with utilizing the

grade level in the garage and uh might be able to use the The most aggressive parking and we talked about this with the Dell site.

Directly adjacent to this is the WTOD district. I think it's only one street up, right? Past Walnut.

Mhm.

That's one and a half spaces per Correct.

So, even if we can get to one and a half per it's definitely better than one.

Yeah.

But the bedroom count you guys are concerned about, too. So, Yeah, well I mean you know, as soon as you hit a three bedroom you get a chance of you know, having a teenager who's got a car and you know, it's not just it's not just two people that are jumping in they're jumping into one car or two cars and going to work, so.

Okay.

Yeah, so I would request that we table it until July and uh see what we can do with it.

Okay.

Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the request to table.

Table the petition until our July meeting.

Second.

Can you just read the chapter?

Next week, sign in.

Motion and a second to uh table.

On motion, Ricky wait, you want to take public comment before you?

Yeah, we could. Anybody here wishing to speak in favor of this petition?

Anybody wishing to speak in opposition?

That way we'd know if somebody else had something that Jeff would know, yeah.

They're hearing none. We have a motion and second on the table.

Um on the motion, John?

Yes.

Jim?

Yes.

Dan?

Yes.

Ricky?

Yes.

Chairman Prue says yes.

See you next month.

What is the date of that meeting?

July 16th.

16th.

It's July 10th.

Did you say July 10th?

Yeah.

I should put it here.

I should Did I put that in the wrong spot? Should that be here?

The July.

Yeah, that goes there, that's today.

That's all right.

I can give it to you.

I'm uncomfortable with it.

Sure.

Okay, item number six. Applicant owner is June Perry, care of Jeffrey Taulman of Northeast Northeast.

Northeast Engineering and Consultants Inc. Subject property is 311 Crescent Street map T07 lot 0001. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. One, to divide the property into two lots leaving the existing three-family dwelling on lot one a conforming 11 11,700 sq ft lot with 116.45 ft of frontage on Crescent Street and creating a new 5,480 sq ft non-conforming lot

for a single-family home with 50 ft of frontage on Valentine Street with relief from frontage use and area requirements. The property is located in a BN neighborhood shopping zoning district.

Good evening. For the record, Jeffrey Taulman of Northeast Engineering and Consultants, here on behalf of June Perry, the petitioner for the application here for 311 Crescent Crescent Street. This property is located at the southeast corner of Crescent Street and Valentine Street shown as lot one on assessor map T07.

This property is also located in the neighborhood shopping district as was the last one.

However, I'm a little perplexed as to why if you look up and down Crescent Street of all the properties that front on Crescent Street, this is the only I believe there's only one property on the entire street that is commercially used. And that would be Paiva's Garage.

And actually, that's a through lot to North Main Street, although the the access is off of Crescent Street.

So, having said that, what we're dealing with here is we do have a conforming lot that has 7,000 I'm sorry, 17,180 square feet. It does have 116.45 feet of frontage on Crescent Street and an additional 138.25 feet of frontage on Valentine Street.

Uh there's a there's an existing three-family dwelling located on the western portion of the property uh with a driveway that comes off of Valentine Street uh that provides access to a parking area uh located on the east side of the dwelling.

Um So there there's uh oh, in addition, there's also uh if you look at the the plan, you can see there's a shed behind a uh behind the building and there's also an existing 5-ft high granite wall uh that basically surrounds that parking area. Uh keeps the grade, you know, to where it needs to be to be able to get in and out of there uh because as you can see the slope of

Valentine Street, it does it's it's extremely steep. I tried doing a three-point turn on Valentine Street the other day and I was afraid my car was going to tip over. So, it's uh extremely steep.

So, what we're looking to do here is the petitioner is requesting a variance to divide the property into two lots, leaving the existing dwelling on lot one uh which would remain uh as a conforming lot in the neighborhood shopping district uh would have sufficient area and frontage um and it would meet the setback requirements um for the for the primary structure of the dwelling as addition as well as excuse

me, as well as the shed uh located at the rear of the property.

Um so, we'd be looking to create a second lot which would be on the eastern portion of the property off of Valentine Street. Um that lot would have 50 feet of frontage on Valentine Street and an area of 5,480 square feet.

Um It's interesting to note that the southern portion of this particular property would be locating in the located in the general residence G zoning district Uh as are all the abutting properties heading east going up Valentine Street.

Um So therefore, this particular lot as we have it as we've designed it would meet the criteria of a lot within the general residence district. So even though it would be undersized within the neighborhood shopping district, um it would fit into the neighborhood and would not be a detriment to the neighborhood just based on the size and being in conformance with many of the abutting properties as you

head east on Valentine Street.

Um obviously the hardship that we're dealing with this on this on this particular property is the topography of the site. Um and we also have that natural and made barrier that's been existence for a long time being that stone wall.

It's approximately 5 ft high that basically separates this portion of the yard that we're proposing to develop from the main the main yard area of the existing three-family house.

The applicant uh June Perry um is a senior, her husband is a senior, and the uh the people that reside in the in the in the building are relatives and they're also um they're also um seniors as well.

Therefore, the you know, as they used to use this portion of the property years ago they're finding it more and more difficult. Number one, they don't get to use it and it's more and more difficult to maintain.

Uh so therefore, um you know, they they called me up and requested to see if there was anything we can do. Um as I took a look at it, I mean, to me I think it makes a ton of sense just giving just giving the um you know, the zoning in this particular area as I don't believe it it really fits what's going on. However, we can still comply with the single family

house and create this lot that would had that zone line been shifted 50 ft to the to the east, I mean to the west, we would be dealing with a conforming lot here. So, um with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board might have.

You only have going from from west to east of Valentine Street, you only have about a 5 or 10 ft grade change from the west side of the lot to the north to the east side of the lot?

Uh from the steeper than that.

It's about 8 ft.

Okay.

It goes from about elevation at the low point elevation 85 Okay.

where near the power pole where the proposed lot corner would be and it goes up to about elevation 93.

And then the back of the lot, too, you're going from 90 to almost 100, so.

Right.

I understand.

Back of lot stuff.

Yeah.

You got a weird yard.

We are proposing to hold the setback requirements in the neighborhood zoning district as opposed to asking for additional relief to be able to go down what would be allowed in the general residence district.

Um so therefore, I mean that's we're trying to minimize the relief that we are requesting.

Dan, what do you think on this one?

From a planning standpoint.

to find a way to get that.

Hm?

So, we're going to try to find a way to get that. All right. So, in in the BN side yard setback is 35 ft.

Yeah.

So, uh I'm sorry.

We're not meeting that.

No, I I think and I think that was [snorts] You're meeting the front yard.

Correct.

Yeah. But, rear and but beyond that Yeah, I'm sorry. That is listed I can understand the argument for complying with the G.

Yeah. No, we are we are asking requesting that the side yard setback be go down to that. That was additional relief that I missed on the presentation.

If a condition of approval was that you completely conform with the G district including lot coverage, could you deal with that?

Including lot coverage.

So you can't pick and choose what parts of the G you want to say we can be.

No, correct.

I I I believe so.

Because I know they're they're Yeah, cuz we could move.

I believe we could.

forward with that.

Yeah, we could definitely come forward.

And I think the intent would be Because there is a relative Yeah, there is a relative that that is interested in in buying it. And I think their intent would have would be to have a garage on there.

Which would you know, save some space as well. So we could and then that they'd have the ability to do a back I'm sorry, a deck in the back which is something that they were looking to do as well.

Yeah.

Yeah.

All right, so that I would have a concern that we show and maintain six off-street parking spaces for the three-family.

There's an incredible number of bedrooms in this house, right?

I you know what? I didn't even look at the bedroom count.

It says some crazy number. I forgot what it was, but I can't imagine that it's that it's many.

I didn't I didn't check the to say it's 36 bedrooms.

Oh yeah, that's going to be But it's a big building, so I don't know what's in there. But in any event Yeah.

parking doesn't go by that.

And then I have a concern about the retaining wall.

Could there be some type of well, a requirement for some type of shared use of agreement for maintenance of that wall. I hate not to own a wall that holds my land, though.

Mhm.

Or have the ability to do this.

And then lastly, no ADUs on either property.

Correct.

Those would be my only concerns. So, if you think you can address those, and whether you want to do that through tabling or I don't know if the board wants to to see it all on paper, but those would be my comments. But, I can clearly see the residential use and the size of the piece. How it gets used is I I see the residential use. It makes sense with everything else that's that's

to the to the west of the property.

how zoning districts used to be established. You would you pick a distance off of North Main Street, 3 or 400 ft, and you draw a line parallel to it.

Yep.

Regardless of what's happening in that area now, so Once upon a time.

What's the proposed lot coverage right now?

It's probably not on there cuz they didn't really have it because there is no requirement.

Right.

Um but there would be If it was an AG, it'd be 25%.

And I think you can get there even if it's even if it's using something an alternative surface for a driveway. If you need if you're stuck on that footprint.

Yeah.

Yeah, because the footprint dealing with that grade in the back of the south Yeah.

most corner of the house with pushing the house that far back.

Yeah, the other the only other concern that I see potential there, though, is the neighboring house deck is right Which one?

This one.

29 29 Yeah, he went closer I don't know if it's showing on the It's not showing on That that deck isn't showing, but it does It extends very close to that property line.

Yeah.

It It Yeah.

Very close. It may be in violation, but No, I'm just saying it's probably a violation.

Definitely in violation.

Do you want to get it on paper?

Mhm?

You want [clears throat] to get it on paper? What do you I'm already What do you think, Jen?

I'm thinking it's exactly what you've got.

Cuz the existing house is as it is would be about 20% lot coverage.

And and your driveway.

Yeah.

But we could We can make it work.

Especially if they want to do a garage under.

Right.

Yeah, that is the intent.

Right.

You definitely don't want people parking on Valentine.

No.

No, without really good parking brakes.

I want to make sure that there's that there's parking available on the lot.

[snorts] And like you said, they can have a deck, they can actually have a better Yeah, I know that was something that was important to Come up come up to the street, you can build a deck You can build a deck in that area, even though you've got a crazy grade change.

It's it's perfectly utilize it.

Yeah.

We're almost walking off the deck onto grade on the high side.

That's what I'm talking about here.

This deck.

Yeah, oh no no, I know. But what we're we're Oh, you're talking about the other neighbor.

Also we're going you know, potentially build Come a little closer here to the back, yeah.

Mr. Chairman, yes.

I think you know, rather than do this on the fly, I think what we decided some time ago is that this board can only go on what's in front of us.

I I think that we could cover ourselves just by saying that it is compliance with with the lot coverage requirement and how they adapt to that would would be their issue.

You mean give him the coverage and set back Give him the flexibility but he's going to need to completely comply with the G zoning district.

I know we've kind of got away from it, but we've gotten away from it with much more complex situations. This one's fairly straight forward that if we say meet your setbacks, meet be compliant with coverage.

Um And this one was only 5 ft.

They're not asking for a variance, so we're covered.

Yeah, and I would even consider um based on Dan's comment like shifting the the property line to the um the bottom of the wall and following that wall basically all the way out and Yeah, I think if you change the property line then I'd want to see that back down that way.

Yeah, I'm just I'm just looking because And we address this.

The way it is now it does taper um as you get closer to the street, which could restrict the width of the what they're looking to do.

Um So, I think you know, ideally we could yeah, take table it um and come back with the revised lot line.

And and and meeting the requirements of the uh the G So, we could pick up Mr. Chairman, aside you just say go try and get the zoning changed. We don't want to do that.

Yeah, I'd love to get the zoning changed. I'd love to get a lot of it changed. While uh while we're here, is there anyone wishing to speak um in favor of this petition?

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

Yes.

I live right across the street from 311 Crescent. I am Get the name for the uh the name.

Uh name, please?

Michelle Reposa.

Okay.

And Crescent Street is saturated.

I've been living in 2008 and I have off-street parking, but that's not the problem for me. It's just a saturated street. I What What do you mean by saturated?

It's just there's cars everywhere, there's houses everywhere, it's just and the traffic the traffic is heavy it's heavily trafficked. Crescent Street and the corner of Jones from North Main, you take a left on Jones to go on Crescent.

And people are coming down. We have to pull over and let them come down. People are coming from North Main. There's almost accidents all the time. It is a nightmare.

And I can't even believe they're even considering putting a house there.

You're at 308?

I'm at 308, yes.

That's the condominium?

Condominium, yes.

I rented it for a while before.

Do you own one unit, three units?

There's three units.

No, I see. Do you own all three or do you own just one?

yeah.

May I have the name of the street?

Just so you know, that building did require a variance to be built.

When it comes to my building?

Yeah.

Yeah. Well, I mean, but putting a house in front of 311, that beautiful property, which is in the historical society.

It's behind It's behind it.

But what about the front part of it?

That's not touching That's not This is going up Valentine Street.

Your Your view Your view of the big yellow house is going to remain exactly the same.

But what about the retaining wall you're talking about?

That's not going to change. The The house is going to be on top of the retaining wall.

Behind the wall in the back.

Valentine, in the woods.

Oh, no.

It's up behind No way near you.

You're not going to be able to Nothing at all about the house.

Behind the house.

If I consulted with someone, they said they were going to put You want to come look at the plan? We can show you.

Here's your unit. You're looking up the hill at the main house. That stays the same. Nothing changes on this part. It's behind it.

So what's on the So this This house is going to front on Valentine Street if it's if it's approved.

And there's nothing going to be in front No. No.

of that house. If I consulted with someone, they and they told me there were going to be I hope you didn't pay them.

I don't know who you consulted with.

So what is this two-lot thing you're talking about, separating the two?

In order to build the house up the hill on Valentine, they want to cut a lot out to be able to build that house.

And then just keep the I know they're going to keep the standing one 311.

What What you see for your for the beautiful house, that will not change. So you can see right now where there's a shed in the back?

Yes. Yes.

Behind that shed, where those trees are, there'll be a house.

Okay, see that part I knew they were going to do, but I thought in front they were going to try to put a house there.

No, absolutely not.

Absolutely not.

That That will not fly.

That would be nothing short of criminal with a house like that. That would be such a magnificent building.

Yeah, okay. So, it's only the side. It's only Valentine Street.

It's on Valentine Street.

Okay.

Feel better? [snorts] Yes. Thank you.

Okay.

See, it's worth showing up.

And whoever you consulted, never consult them again.

Okay, thank you for your time.

No, no. Thank you for being reasonable.

Are you making a formal request?

Yeah, we'll make a motion to table.

Yes, motion to table, please, until July meeting.

the motion.

Okay, I can.

We have a motion and a second to table to the July 16th meeting.

Uh on the motion, Ricky?

Yes.

I don't know. I'm writing at the same time. I can't do two things at once.

[clears throat] Dan?

Yes.

Jim?

Yes.

John?

Yes.

Jennifer, yes.

See, you get to come back on two things.

Great.

All right.

You got one next year.

Well, not anymore.

Why are you not anymore?

I got three of them.

You had one.

Sorry, brother.

Thank you.

All right.

Thanks very much.

On that, item number seven then is citizens input.

See none.

Approval of minutes from Joe.

Oh, I'm sorry.

You're our first ever.

Citizen input. Seriously.

Nobody's ever signed that form and asked to speak.

Yeah, come on up. Come on. Grab a microphone.

Need your name and Okay. My name's Nancy Zary. I live at 1012 Madison Street.

Okay.

Um and I just want to make a statement.

Uh I've been a parishioner of Holy Name Parish on Hanover Street for over 25 years. And I'm here to emphasize our need for a parking lot. Hundreds of my fellow parishioners and I are the ones who contribute our time and money to upkeep our parish in part to make our grounds so beautiful.

But the purpose of our beautiful grounds is not to serve as a neighborhood park, but as a place of worship.

And to that effect, we do need parking.

For our elderly and our young families, it's very dangerous to cross President Avenue, Robeson, and other busy streets just to be able to go to church.

Uh we have parishioners, I know, who aren't always able to go to Holy Name because of the risks and difficulty of parking far away. So, while I'm sure that preventing people from going to mass was absolutely not your purpose in denying our request, in effect, that's what it's doing.

Our plans submitted to you in February allow our parishioners to participate fully in parish life while enhancing our beautiful grounds.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, this is in land court now.

Correct.

This is in litigation, so we will not be able to We can't we can't comment.

Yeah, I just wanted to thank you.

I want to thank you for a well-thought-out, well-presented um Yeah, very well put.

For our first our first citizen's input, it was excellent. You've become the standard now. So Congratulations.

But you do realize it's in land court now?

I do.

That's not for discussion at all for the board.

Yeah.

But thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

For spending the night.

Yeah.

It was a short one, wasn't too bad.

Yeah.

Uh I'm approval of minutes from May 21st.

Chairman, I move waving of the reading of the minutes and approval of the same.

Second.

Uh okay. All in favor?

I. Opposed?

Is there anything else that was not captured in the agenda? It shouldn't be.

In that case, I'll take a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn, Chair.

Do we have a second on that?

Second.

Thank you.

On the motion, all in favor? I. Opposed can stay here.