The Fall River Zoning Board of Appeals convened a special meeting on Thursday, June 9th, 2022, at 6:00 PM at One Government Center. Chairman David Assad opened the meeting, which was recorded with video and audio by Fall River Government TV. Vice Chair Joe Pereira presided over the first agenda item due to Chairman Assad's recusal and James Carkins' need to leave early. The board addressed several variance and special permit requests. Dream Homes LLC's request to subdivide a lot at 145 Hanover Street into three, requiring variances for pre-existing non-conforming setbacks, was denied 5-0, with abutters raising concerns about self-imposed hardship and overdevelopment. Joaquim Fernandes' request for a variance to exceed lot coverage by 2.6% for a horseshoe-shaped driveway at 178 Lake Avenue was granted 5-0. The Proposanti Group LLC received a special permit (5-0) to demolish an existing building at 323 William S. Canning Boulevard and construct a gasoline filling station and convenience store, subject to site plan review and a finding that it would not be more detrimental to the neighborhood. South Coast Hospital Group Inc. was granted a special permit (5-0) to construct a one-level, 442-space parking deck at 38 Hillside Street, expanding a pre-existing non-conforming use, despite abutter concerns about noise and loss of view. Hyperion Holdings LLC received a special permit (5-0) to divide a lot at 370-376 Linden Street into two, with conditions for separate utilities and permanent boundary markers. Kevin Oliveira's variance request to divide a mixed-use property at 334 Vale Street into two lots was denied 4-1, with the board questioning the hardship. Walter Cabral's variance request to divide a mixed-use property at 17 Colfax Street was granted 5-0, with conditions for separate utilities. Back in the Game LLC received a special permit (4-1) to divide a property at 542-546 4th Street into two lots, with conditions for separate utilities, easements, and permanent markers. Finally, Attorney Peter Solino's request for a one-year extension for a previously granted special permit at 1148 DuVal Street was granted 5-0, and Paul M. Levesque Jr.'s variance request for 79 Reservoir Street was tabled due to the petitioner's absence. The meeting concluded with the adoption of minutes from April 21st, 2022.
AI-generated summary. May contain errors. Watch the video to verify.
City Officials
Public / Other
i think it's six o'clock yes it is six o'clock craig salvador are you ready to start thank you 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 9th 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
0:36attendance that this meeting is being recorded with both video and audio devices fall river government tv craig salvador is recording both the 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 secretary this evening is patti aggia present this evening our permanent
1:04members john frank clerk james carkins joe pereira vice chair dan du pair and alternate members rick sahatti the gentleman to my far right and john silvia the gentleman to my far left patty 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 in massachusetts general law chapter 48 as amended yes
1:31thank you i declare the june 9 2022 special meeting of the zoning board of appeals of 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 abutters 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
1:57the 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 40a
2:22and 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 their discharge in
2:49their duties as clerks 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 see competent legal counsel before filing before filing your petitions and after a decision of the board has been made for example there is a city ordinance 2015-11
3:15section 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 are 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
3:41mandates 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 disclose that an official copy of the four of a zoning ordinance is available at the city clerk's office one cannot ride one cannot rely on the online zoning ordinance
4:08i cannot participate in agenda item number three that matter will be chaired by vice chair joe pereira also permanent member jim carkins needs to leave so he is going to stay and we're going to do agenda item number three as the first agenda out of the uh this evening so i'll leave and i'll turn it over to vice j jo very good thank you david gender item number three dream homes llc
4:34care of joseph pachico 145 hanover street lot m 16 16.0048 this is a variance request to take partial parcel m-16-0048 and subdivide into three lots leaving existing home on one lot and two other lots undeveloped waiving zoning requirements in the g general district and i turn it over to youth council good evening my name is gloria pacheco i'm an attorney here in the city of pull river
5:09with an office on columbia street this evening i'm here before this board i'm representing the petition of dream homes llc they're a local uh contracting firm they've been doing business for almost 30 years in the city of fall river and the reason we're here tonight is but because we're asking relief because of a pre-existing non-conforming um front yard setback um as you can see on your plan a lot too
5:36there's a home there uh address is 145 hanover street it's an existing one family home that was built in 1865 and at the time there's no zoning as we all know and the house is set back 10 feet from the street the zoning this is a this this area is zoned a general residence area and it requires a 12 foot yeah 12 foot setback we don't want to demolish this home it's
6:03a beautiful home from the 1860s we'd like to keep it and for that reason we're here before the sport to get that relief which is a two-foot difference also if you look at lot 2 the current structure the current home at 145 hanover street which we're going to remodel and renovate we're looking at the rear yard so we calculated the rare yard as being 15 which complies with zoning however the planning department
6:31thinks it's better to use the 10 foot at an angle to the left and therefore we want a waiver for that as well just to be safe so just a little some background dream homes has purchased 145 hanover street it's one lot it was originally three non-conforming lots it was a merger of lots m1648 m1649 m1650 and the assessor's office and we are now subdividing it into three lots all three lots meet or exceed all the
7:03zoning requirements with the exception of lot two as i said the frontage isn't fair and we don't want to demolish this home which is you know a treasure in fall river and the rear yard is an issue how do you calculate what's the rare yard is it straight back as we thought it was or as a planning board said at that angle so either way just to be safe and avoid ambiguity we're proposing for that
7:28second relief as well so again my client is dividing this law into three lots we're going to build two brand new homes we're going to renovate 145 hanover street which is bearish which has been there since 1860s um and and then also we will be adding two off street parking spots to each one of the homes so we're going to add two austria parking spots to 145 hanover which has been there since for 150 years we're
7:53going to add two offshore parking to the two new single family homes each of the three lots will have separate water and sewer connections as you can see by looking at the adjacent lots here the proposed lots are pretty much in conformity with the general character of the neighborhood we have a lot of single family homes oddly shaped small sized lots we have a lot of two families we
8:14have three families we also have the baicos bank right there we have the jewish home right there it's mostly residential and we're going to build two single-family new homes we don't believe our proposal is not detrimental to the neighborhood it's in keeping with the general character of the single family and multi-family use and so we are before you tonight respectfully requesting that this board
8:35waive the dimensional requirements for lock two the the front from 12 to 10 and the rear from 15 to 10. we don't want to have any dispute over that my my question on that would be and thank you for a very concise presentation the property address is on hanover street the house faces hanover street so why have you chosen to not use hanover street as the front and use the side lot line as the front
9:07to be honest with you i don't know which way it's facing i don't know which way the house is facing yesterday it's facing head over street doors facing hanover street the address is hanging over the street i honestly cannot answer that question oh yes i'm sorry mr chico joel pacheco please my name is joe for 11.
9:27the reason for that because it's a corner lot and we're going for a variance therefore the frontage changes to a lot to the other street i don't know the name of the street from maple street so that was the reason that we were told that we were because it's a corner by an engineer that it could change now the pulse the house will continue to be the front of the over straight which it does have the
9:50right dimensions uh with that set of feet and the rail guards off 12. the rare yard is then if we do that like you said sir uh the ray yard is 12 you'll need a you'll need a variance for that as well because the front is not going to change it's going to continue to be hand over street with that number and the south back will remain the same so we will we
10:10were told by engineer and the planning that was that was a requirement because it was a cone of law right either way you needed a setback relief yes yes because this would be tough the rear as i see it the rear lot would have been 12 feet as you have it shown here not giving you the 15 that's required okay so either way and you're you're you're dealing with a frontage now by
10:36using maple street as you're fronting 61. six and one half of those in the other as my my mom would have said to your point you're correct we would have we would have complied with the side yard of 10 you're right you're right we would have just needed one variance instead of one one relief instead of two it's creative um i can't wait to see the shape of the home that's going on lot one
11:07are there questions from the board at this point comments john on the pre-existing setback that doesn't require because it's pre-existing but because we're going to subdivide it we want to just it's because of the subdivision yeah but still pre-existing non-conforming on
11:33whichever way we look at it there's a non-conformity yeah
11:48is there anyone here in favor of the uh of the petition anyone here in opposition sir if you come up identify yourself in your address hi my name is gary bigelow i live at 171 hanover street and my property is on the north side of of the house of the house that's right i'm not sure if i i'm against this but i i just came in to ask questions because i'm not certain of this
12:28uh situation my question is um my land that sits there's two pieces of property that i own right the house that's on 171 and then that land that's adjacent to it okay property right right so my my question is is if there's going to be there's we never had a fence there between the southworths and us we just never did it was always assumed that it was on we i'm not assumed but it was discussed
12:57that it was always a visual sight i never had my land uh surveyed but i am going to because my concern is i want to know how close a house can be built to my property line is uh it just seems like a very small spot and i i didn't i'm unsure about that so i i will i will tell you that the sideline setback which would affect lot one to your property
13:29all that's required in the general district is ten feet from the structure to your property line which they've met okay as we look at what they're calling lot three it's not even close that's that's an odd shape do you have a copy of the plan or could you just look on with council that lot three is kind of a dogleg shaped lot that's right their backyard or a piece of their yard is going to be
13:57close but the house as envisioned at this point is not even close to your property oh so i will say that this was engineered very creatively to meet the 5000 foot minimum lot requirement in this zone and to meet all the setback requirements except for one which is required because of a house that was built in 1860 right so there's there's no changing there so we're talking about the home on pr lot three correct
14:27yeah you know what do we have right and that will no longer that property will know no longer about your property okay so the the next question i have is um on what is l lot one is going to be undeveloped right at this point okay so my question about that is if something was going to be built there is that is that possible could someone build a house on that area that's that's the intention my
15:03understanding that's the intention of this where the house is going to be built so the red lines i don't know do you have red lines on yours so in order to meet setbacks although it seems like an odd shape that house would have to conform to those red lines that you have in here in order to meet setbacks now if they come forward and they don't want to meet those setbacks and want something different
15:27they will need to come in front of this board to try to get set back relief or dimensional relief that's that's not being asked for at this point there's no particular house plans right now for this uh division of property when when that does happen is there another hearing for that yes there would be yes just see what that looks like my only concern is i don't want to be a
15:53uh not a cooperative neighbor but my concern is that my outside yeah i'm just concerned area if they stay inside that envelope as mr frank is saying if they stay within that envelope that's that's defined by the red lines here yeah that means that they meet all of the setback requirements for the g general district okay and that conforms if for some reason someone buys that lot and wants to do something different
16:22they will have to come in front of the board for the non-conformity meaning lot one someone wants to lot one or or a lot of three for that matter so lot two's fairly locked in the house is there so so lot three is going to have a house built on it yes and then uh property one here is is the other spot that the house is going to be built on so it would be towards the
16:48front of my house on the hanover street side correct that's correct in order to in order to meet setback requirements it would have to buy us towards the front of the property so okay so my question to you is this but when you're switching the zoning i have no idea about the stuff i know i'm ignorant about it that's why i'm here uh in lot one if someone if someone was
17:10to buy that someone were to buy that lot are businesses a lot like if there was a portal body shop would they be able to build on that spot okay because i don't understand this stuff so i know i'm ignorant about it but i'd like to know that would be a whole use change and that's okay i'll still be here yes would still have to come here so lot one though is buildable yes the way they've
17:32broken it out this is a buildable lot if they meet these it has the um it has the minimum square footage okay it exceeds it all three of these lots do the way they've put an envelope together that's the red line is the envelope that a building can fit on the lot and still meet the setback requirements they've met the parking requirements uh you know frontage etc it's creative yeah and and well done
18:02those two uh spots will be bordering your property correct you see that on the plan there are two parking spots there yeah i see that on towards the front of my towards the front of my house yeah um i understand that and you know i don't have a problem with that i'm just um it's obviously it's in front it's in front of the house so it's not going to really bother me
18:30uh in the front and i'm fine with that what i'm concerned about is that vacant lot one and uh and what would be placed there we with something were to be placed there you would have this they would they would have to come before you again correct no no no for one not necessarily for one that red line on one is where they could build a that triangular shape red on hanover
18:56street is where they could build a home if they stay within those boats so i was talking about lot one in the back where it's five thousand eight square feet yeah so they could build a house there too as well where that red line is no no no not where it says that's one big that that's one shaped lot that's shaped like a i don't know what to say
19:28again mr bigelow as long as they meet the setback requirements they don't have to come back in front of us so the engineering that's been done gives the future owner of that lot the perfect road map if it's approved here tonight gives them the road map to fit onto the lot so they buy it knowing that if we're approving this that that's done and that's what they need to do so it
19:55would be so you're talking about there could be three houses in that area absolutely that that's that's what's been engineered at this point and where were the acts if they i i don't maybe you can tell me i don't know where would the access point to loft to that undeveloped lot one yeah i'm sure they'd have to get a curb cut that's close to the edge of your property line in order to access
20:21those those parking spaces they'd have to get a curb cut on the north side of their property south side of yours a budding that would give them access to those parking spaces and that does not fall under our purview there there's other permitting that that needs to be made so i see okay um i i we always knew that something was going to be done with that land and i think what i'm best doing to feel
20:52secure about it is i'm sorry i didn't get to ignore you exactly um is i i think i'd want to i'm going to have a civil engineer come in just for my own satisfaction to measure my property out the land that i have that's a wise idea to go about that it's always a good protection to know yeah just to keep an eye so that i have an idea because if i see things going up there
21:13if i don't know exactly where that property line is because as as we when we originally bought this house many many years ago the you know it was done by okay the line is on the side of the holly tree and it's straight you know straight down in the back that's how that's how it was done right back then and so i can see where that line is
21:34but i'm not sure is that where it is so that's why i'm saying if i get a an engineer in there perhaps that would be make it a little clearer to me i'm sorry i'm being ignorant about this no that's quite all right it's true it's absolutely your right as a property owner um and as far as the survey goes i urge anyone to survey the property especially if you've yeah it's never big
21:56time you got a house that was probably built around 1840 and um yeah yeah in your concerns you mentioned that there had been agreement with their unofficial agreement with no fences built there is is that a concern or do you do you care well my my concern would be that if there's going to be a house there i would like to see a fence that would separate that um i don't know if that's
22:28something that can be done so that there was a definitive line of demarcation so it's just my that's just the question i have that's why my concern is about the lot one area building a house there i'm talking about that particular area i imagine aesthetically they would probably want to run that fence right across the property right up to the back um uh some i mean at that point you have two owners
23:00because there's two separate lots lot one and one three so all right so the access will not be from the maple street side it will be from the hanover street side for for a lot full out yes because that only has front of john on hanover street not on mabel so whose obligation is it to to put up effects in that area if they were to build in that area is that my obligation or other
23:27well fence is not automatically required it can be made a condition but that would have to be a a decision of the board to make that this uh a condition of the variance so at the time that they would come in for permission to build on that property that would be part of the variance requirement yeah but again mr bigelow so you understand if they if this lot sold and i'm sure it will be yeah
23:55whoever is going to develop that lot and put a home in there knows their what they're confined to do their limitations in order to meet setback if they meet the setback with their design they take that to the building inspector again provided it's approved here this evening the building inspector can indeed give them a permit without sending them back to the zoning board okay so if they meet that requirement
24:23they meet the zoning setback requirements that are there they're not coming back so any condition as far as fencing not fencing etc would have to come from us now we've done non-fencing where we've divided lots but in my time here i've never seen us require fencing to be done no wait we have required definitive markings to uh identify the property the property boundaries migrate your concerns
24:54yeah my only concern is that when a house is built on that lot one they're gonna there's gonna be if there's no fence there there's gonna be direct access right onto my landing you know what i'm saying isn't that correct in other words in the back of lot one right on the drawing that i'm looking at in my thrill and and lot three for that matter way down in the back of your property
25:18right right right so what i'm saying is is that i can see encroachment as a possibility there but you have every right to put up with yourself right so it's my that's what my question is you guys have every right to do that i mean you can't make them put on the face no okay well it wouldn't be part of it it couldn't be part of that stipulation of building on that property
25:38not if they're in compliance with that right i think that would be that would be an unusual requirement to be set by this board now if if there if if this were a business zone lot it's different somebody was going to go in there i i'd say it would be much easier for us to define that the defense of a certain height etc would have to be put in in order to screen you
26:01but this is this is different you've got a residential use there now and you know it's going to be still residential use just my concern my concern was my concern was my wife's very ill and so that's the side of the house that where she's her bedroom's on that side everything's on that side so my concern is without a barrier there to mark off where the yard of lot one is going to go in
26:29back of the house right i'm concerned that things are going to end up going up on my property you know if there are children you can't you know they're not going to be they're not going to say oh i'm going on mr bigelow's property there needs to be some demarcation right that would keep them to that because i'm assuming i can't assume this but i don't know whether the house would be
26:51built uh we don't know whether the house would be vertical or horizontal in that lot drawing no this i'm not talking about the one that you have with red i'm talking of my concern is this lock that's wall one this is lot two and this is lots right all right so so you're talking about building in a house that goes here this is all one lot and the house is going to be most likely the engineering
27:19there planning it there so there is no house being built yeah no because that's all part of that one and and you're referring to further back on the lot no because they can't meet the setback requirements over there okay all right so so okay just so it's basically the way it is right now just the red lines inside the right mind totally they have they have maximum the engineer who prepared this has maximized
27:45that footprint of the house that envelope of the house in accordance with the size of the lot so the lot is five five thousand plus square feet which is beyond the minimum yeah but meeting all the setback requirements that envelope is defined in red is as far as they can go without additional relief and okay who would want to go for additional relief if you've got something that's already divided yes okay
28:11okay and that that answers some questions i'm sorry to take up so much everything that's quite all right it's a concern it's cut out that's that's that's why we have comments okay this all right thank you very much thank you mr piglet thank you gentlemen is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition please come on up identify yourself your name and address please that's where we have another
28:41housekeeping here right that's my name is thomas owen i live at 127 hanover street i'm across the street from the site i have prepared a statement i like to read tonight i looked up the definition of variance in the fall river zoning regulations it says it's a relaxation of the terms of this chapter where such relaxation will not be contrary to the public interest and we're owing to the conditions
29:07peculiar to the property and not the result of the actions of the applicant a literal enforcement of this chapter would result in unnecessary and undue hardship the applicant purchased a single parcel of land further indeed recorded in the registry of deeds it was developed with an existing dwelling from 1865 a garage and driveway subdividing the single parcel into more than two lots and not being able to meet the
29:30dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance is a direct result of the applicant's own action if the applicant eliminated lot one from the plan the existing dwelling would have adequate frontage on hanover street and meet the side yard setback on maple street the asking for a variance for three lots that cannot meet zoning is a self-imposed hardship created by the applicant's own actions
29:51and is contrary to the fall river zoning ordinance's legal definitions the applicant also states in their application that the current lot is the result of the merger of three lots that existed at some point in the past certainly it can be argued that based on the current condition and development of the single parcel that the merger occurred by use as the existing structures were developed without regard
30:11or care for any former property lines as they may have existed any new or modern subdivision of the lot should be held to the current zoning ordinances with regards to area frontage setbacks and lot coverage allowing for reductions to these setbacks for the creation of new lots is contrary to the purpose of zoning and the applicant has not demonstrated that the necessity is not a result of their own actions
30:34the application does not specifically state what dimensional variances are being requested nor does it specify exactly what the desired setbacks are to be a blanket waving of dimensional requirements is contrary to the zoning ordinance and to public interest the applicant must state specifically what dimensional setback is desired not 10 feet 10.1 10.2 something along those lines in order for the merits of the
30:56proposal to be properly weed the applicant states that the setbacks for the existing dwelling will be the same which is impossible since the lot doesn't exist is proposed to be subdivided and that the other two lots will have similar or better than the budding lots the plan does not show any setbacks on the lots for a bunting houses or to the to their property lines it appears that the abutted dwellings on
31:18the plan for budding houses on it appears that the budding dwellings on the plan are pictorially represented and are not based on survey locations for instance the footprint of my own house is incorrect i would also add that most if not all of the abutting houses were constructed prior to the adoption of zoning regulations and therefore cannot be expected to comply with zoning or be
31:37compared for zoning purposes there are rules that are in place for everyone to abide by so there can be no perception or allowance for special treatment the zoning ordinances were adopted to correct errors of the past and establish rules of development to protect the health safety and welfare of citizens the allowance for lots configured as demonstrated will tend over time to upset the peace and harmony of a
31:59neighborhood the odds are loudly are oddly configured and irregular in shape and over time it will become unclear as to who owns what and where the layout as proposed is an example of over development over property if the applicant needed to develop three lots out of this single existing parcel they should have done their due diligence prior to completing the purchase to see if it was even feasible the board is not
32:21responsible for maximizing the profit of the applicants before it the variance as requested is a self-imposed hardship due to the applicant's own actions and should not be granted i would also add that i'm a civil engineer and a a surveyor in training in rhode island i do this every day for a living for clients and believe me this is over development of the property these lots were merged by use as a as the applicant
32:45stated in 1865 this house was built at some point the lots were combined for whatever reason but it certainly has been used as one lot at least since the 1970s if not earlier so i don't understand exactly what the hardship is tonight probably probably thank you i i don't know why they were combined and it may have been for tax purposes it could have been and still by the own definition in the zoning ones is the
33:15black and white definitions of the city it states that it can't be by their own actions this is clearly by their own actions he could subdivide two lots he doesn't need three the third lot is his own hardship he's creating it himself i i will point out that the the one dimensional variance they're looking for is the quote unquote frontage on maple street across the street which isn't going to change from the
33:41house that's already there that's correct but if you eliminate lot one then the frontage on maple street becomes a side lock 10 feet which it currently meets and then he has plenty of it it can't meet it because it's it's a house it was built in 1860s but it does if if you create the lot maple street becomes the sideline you have a 10-foot setback to the existing house on the sideline on
34:02maple so he meets the sideline setback so the front yard would be on hand over the radio it's the rear yeah all right so then he's got an issue there too but he still needs to comply with the current rules that are in place it's this is a modern subdivision we're not looking at lots that were created 300 years ago it was merged it's merged by use okay so thank you for your time i appreciate it
34:25anyone else wish to speak in opposition sir absolutely yeah come on up identify yourself in your address please good evening i'm carl machado on an interside property at 781 maple street which is an abuta to the property in question i'm i'm opposing this request just basically it's a it's a single family home and lot that exists currently and we are super packing it without taking considerations
34:59for the safety of future children and i i've seen the plan of putting uh two parking spots in each of the property it becomes really unfeasible because people will need to have their barbecue place and their children to play so the cars will go on the streets to allow the minimum amount of space if a family with two children want to have it it's super congested on that prop on that property and it basically
35:28serves no purpose except for someone that is not going to live on the property has no interests in the property or or in the area per se except a a profit per se there is many ways to do profit in the city to develop plenty of lands uh not not turning a single lot facility into three lots and super packing the houses and and so that's my reason for um requesting a no vote okay
35:59thank you thank you thank you anyone else wants to speak in opposition should identify yourself in your address raquel machado homeowner of 781 maple street okay um so i am alongside with the valid and important points of mr tom owens and mr carlos machado um i have just a couple of my own as a resident and a homeowner uh mainly pertaining to the congestion of what three lots are going to cause
36:33for the street like mr machado said um two parking spots is not does not remedy um like the parking space situation um again like he said leaves no room for families with children to enjoy a yard force all the kids to be playing on the street which maple street and hanover street is already a very busy street during the day and on the weekends um dream homes llc is merely here to build
36:57homes turn them around and sell them he's not here to lead um to later to suffer the consequences of a congested area and where there will be even more traffic like i said putting the kids that play in the area at even more risk um one point i would like to make was that mr pacheco purchased this property six months ago about six or seven months ago and he has yet to take care of the
37:18property the grass is too over two feet high there's a dumpster that's completely opened in the parking spot in the parking lot um and this really just brings unwanted people into the area because they go there they hang out in the dumpster they hang out around in the dumpster and i have to call my husband at 30 years old to come get me from the car because i just don't feel
37:38comfortable walking at night so i just want to leave that there and um that's all i have to say okay thank you very much anyone else care to speak in opposition is hearing none i turn to the board attorney might want to answer any of the objections mr uh owen who lives across the street in a single family he mentioned about this martin subdivision we actually don't want to create a modern subdivision that's our
38:11intent which is why we're keeping the current existing home and we're going to renovate it to sell it which is why the relief was not something we did we could demolish that home and we wouldn't have to be here we could but that's not our intent we we are we try to be good citizens and live here and fall river and so forth so we would prefer to keep that home
38:29with the character that it has in the neighborhood if you could give us the relief of that we're going to change the front to maple street or the 10 feet because the foundation was there and then like as i said i'm gonna we request rear uh you know waving that as well because how do you measure the back i thought it was straight back planning department saying at an angle which
38:48means it's 10 feet not the required 15 but it wasn't something we're doing it's the nature of the foundation that was built in 1861 is is that we don't want to have to knock it down and make it a make it a modern subdivision that's our intent that's why we're here we want to preserve that home which has a lot of character and so i ask you to grant the relief
39:12because we want to preserve that home please do i need to step up you need to step up well based on the last comments the the main intention of this request is not to preserve the existing house you can anyone call that water house with the 10 feet setting or 12 feet and live on it very comfortable there will be no need to request i yeah anyone could have purchased this and lived that
39:42it was occupied until about six months ago the purpose of this request is to turn the lot into three different lots where it can be construction later on by dream homes or nightmare homes but basically that's what is going to happen it's a super congestion of an existing neighborhood without taking considerations for all of the other aspects this this is not a this is not a a a place where you can put multiple
40:16multiple family homes and multiple multi floors it's not it's not really designed for that and that's why there is a zoning and and the interest of of the owner is is just to divide a super packet and leave and so that's in no consideration for all of the other um for all of the other neighbors and and and the characteristics of the neighborhood per se thank you thank you now i turn it to the board
40:52we have a situation where the existing lot has been crafted into cut into three lots that exceed the 5000 square foot minimum that consideration has been given to the setbacks all but one which no matter which way we looked at the existing house whether we considered hanover street or maple street as frontage there would still be one uh variance that would be required um and it was either going to be sideline
41:33or real outline so i'll take discussion from the board at this point in time and if there's no discussion i'd entertain a motion to either approve or deny mr chairman i would make the motion to deny very good we have a motion to deny from uh alternate member rick say haiti is there a second motion we have a motion and a second is there any further discussion second was john frank there being no discussion
42:15on the vote to deny uh john frank yes jim calkins yes dan duprey yes rick say haiti yes and vice chair pereira yes the motion is denied thank you
42:57someone finds their chairman could they please send them back in might be sleeping you'll lost your identity put it backwards you want me again seriously i think somebody's getting somebody went to it the chairman left i want you to stand in there with one of those big cardboard checks
43:37oh
44:04178 lake avenue lot g6 double 0-11 variance request to exceed maximum lot coverage in an s district from 25 maximum lot coverage to 27.6 maximum for an extension of a driveway this was continued from the april 21st 2022 meeting good evening celino you identify yourself for the record and tell us what you'd like to do for us certainly for purposes of the record peter paulino 550 locust street fall
44:34river council for the petitioner with me this evening is my client mr fernandez could you say a name for the record uh joking fernandes good evening mr fernandez factually mr fernandez owns the property at 178 lake avenue he has a conforming lot he gets a building permit to build a single family house that meets all setback requirements and more or less through a construction design change
44:59he accidentally exceeded the lock coverage requirement and it was discovered at the point where he was asking for his certificate of occupancy and so literally the math is that he needs to not exceed 25 lot coverage in an s district and per the engineering he is 27.6 so it's 2.6 percent and really the cause is the change in the driveway the driveway is a concrete driveway it's horseshoe shaped the
45:30garage lends itself to a driveway that is more of that design it seemed unsafe when you started to to back out uh and so that's why it's that way we do have a site photo if that would help the board better envision it um i can certainly please could i approach yes would you like me to start down here for illustration purposes so that garage doors face this way and so as a result the driveway
46:01so it's a concrete driveway and we're asking for a waiver for three percent effectively on the lock coverage requirement all other setbacks and dimensional requirements have been met the calculation by stephen t roy was quite precise right it was two point i found that amusing mr chair yeah there was no uh rounding because the three percent and i'm saying i i got it but i particularly on the side i particularly
46:30uh like the notation that said something like just say three right well that's it well what's the calculator on the on the planet says as built coverage 27.6 say 28 i see it okay so so concisely because the last petition was long i would submit to you that there's really no hardship here it's already there what we're talking about um i think it's in the best interest of the property owner in the neighborhood
47:00that it be designed this way because it seems like the safest approach it was accidental and so we're just asking this evening for that relief on the lock coverage requirement so the change was going to the u-shaped driveway as opposed to did you have just a j-shape it would have been uh the first leg of the driveway yeah i would it would have gone in towards the garage and then to back out onto the street i
47:25would have had to back out from the garage around that lag onto the street okay uh so developing there's a new driveway instead yeah it allows me to on the first curve cut go in drive into the garage then when i need to leave back out straight back and drive forward through the other leg of the driveway i know the curb cuts was the curbing there was there curbing there yeah you've gone
47:52through the traffic process correct traffic he's gone through traffic yeah he hasn't done the curb cut yet it was pending well it went to it went to city council and i believe uh their decision what it means it was approved subject to the variance being approved so city council that's what i was asking city council to prove the curb and for record purposes he also has a certificate of occupancy
48:19and there was no opposition from the engineering department this is the zoning board of appeals so let's keep it narrow mr chairman we're trying to very much so um okay so that's what john oh good oh you don't keep talking no teaching yeah i got it so it's a teaching moment it's a teacher so is there anyone here any any questions of the board on this particular issue is there anyone here in
48:47favor of this petition is there anyone here opposed to this petition nope uh hearing none can i get a motion to grant could i get a motion to deny i'll make a motion to grant motion to grant by john frank do i have a second second dan du pair any discussion on the motion hearing none john frank yes dan du pair yes joe pereira yes chairman assad yeah wait a minute cut ricky sahati yes yes ricky
49:12i apologize ricky i should start down that and work this way back joe said yes yes chairman assad said yes okay so that petition is granted thank you thank you very much okay so that was against the item number okay so now we're gonna do agenda item number one the proposanti group llc care of attorney thomas p killoran 323 williams canning boulevard lot c633 special permit request
49:38to demo existing building and erect a gasoline filling station and convenience store and waiving parking requirements in a bl local business district good evening chairman assad uh members of the board for the record attorney thomas representing the the approach hunting companies with me tonight is emperor pereira from the applicant and phil henry who's the psychological engineer mister can i stop
50:06you for one minute oh yes certainly sorry before so i don't know what the board's going to do grant or deny but can you get a set of plans that are stamped by a commonwealth of massachusetts licensed surveyor these are stamped by mr henry as a professional engineer uh our requirements are that it'd be stamped by a professional land surveyor a registered land surveyor sure and i thought maybe it was a double because i
50:34looked him up to do it yeah you're not yet dude he only has that one massachusetts license so if you can and actually if you can depending on what we do rather than table it to another meeting to get the plan stamped by a surveyor uh let's go forward and then supplement your application with a stamped set of plans we can certainly uh do that yeah all right so you go between tommy you've got tommy
51:01yeah this is mr henry phil p phillippe henry and edward everett thank you mr chairman uh we're here before you tonight uh dealing with the property at 323 william s canning boulevard it's the site of the former grocery outlet that's been closed for some time the ultimate plan if the requested relief is granted would be to raise the existing structure that's there and construct a i don't even like to use the term
51:34convenience store but it's probably the best way to describe it but if you've seen one of these facilities it's it's certainly certainly more than a convenience store but a convenience store and filling station um the pro chrysante group um has been developing what's called a neon marketplace there was a new one built in seacock right where the 1149 restaurant previously was they have foreign operation there's
51:58three under construction and there's nine and permitting in various places around the commonwealth and rhode island uh the proposed uh development of this site would mirror the one that's constructed in c-cock if any of you are familiar with that one some of the other ones that are open in operation they consider to be like their express type of sites this would be a full size and operational one
52:21so the property at issue is located in the bl district and in order to have a gasoline filling station we're required to get a special permit from this board so that's one of the pieces of relief that we're looking for we're also asking for a special permit with regarding some of the parking buffer zones that are required under the pilot that's section 86.444 subsection b 1 and 2.
52:48if you've seen the existing set or if you're familiar with the existing site it's currently pretty much landscaped right out to the property lines as developed we're pretty much going to keep majority of the site asphalted but there will be a slight increase in some green space areas but there'll be an overall upgrade to the site itself there'll be new curbing installed new striping for parking obviously we're
53:16going to demo the building the exist i'm seriously the new structure will be constructed towards the rear of the property with the gasoline filling stations and canopy constructed towards the front along newton street there'll be point of access proposed from william s canning boulevard as well as from newton's newton street we provide 35 parking spaces we comply with zoning in all other respects again with
53:40the exception of that special permit for the uh park and buffer area it's a 10 feet requirement in a few areas i think we get down to as close as about two or three feet is that correct so we get down to close to about two or three feet but again if you go out to the site as it sits today uh there's no buffer from the parking from the from
53:59the boundaries a pretty much the parking spaces go right up against the um against the property lines uh the proposed operation um it's proposed to be open 24 7.
54:12uh obviously the applicant um once they get open and they're in operation uh they see you know whether or not there is that need to keep it open 24 7 but that's that's the initial intent of the applicant is to be open around the clock we'll be happy to answer any questions from the board if there are any um or obviously if there are any comments from any of the uh
54:41citizens that are here tonight we'd be happy to address those as well um you haven't been to site plan review we have not so we knew that we needed this relief first i think the application is pretty close to teed up getting ready to be filed we do actually have to go through the meepa process for this site as well so we're going to be going through that and hopefully we'll get to that maybe in the
55:03in the fall but we know that after this board we certainly have to go to site plan review and and i'm sure they're going to take a very close look at our our drainage our points of uh ingress egress well that's what i was that's where i was coming from whether or not i was going to be william s canning i see only only only proposed right in and out only curb cut
55:23so that's going to be off williams canning boulevard right so stupid fear of improvements on newton street right okay uh it's going to be a canopy um yeah but i don't see its commercial districts so there's not i didn't see any residences in the area no they're not yeah infiltration you know i'm glad you brought that up i mean again if you if you drive out to that area i mean it's heavily developed from
55:50a commercial standpoint you know this property sits kind of across the street almost directly from the south coast marketplace and that burger king that that sits out at the front of the or the entrance to the marketplace um and you've got the first ford uh you got the new chipotle the aldi store um so we certainly think that the proposed development fits within the surrounding neighborhood and again there
56:13are no residences that are you know close by and the only relief that you're looking for um as i is the weighting of the parking climate the parking we need a special permit to put a uh for the gasoline so we comply with the actual number of parking spaces it's just where they're situated in proximity to the uh to the boundary lines okay okay you've heard the presentation members of the board any questions
56:51oh is there anything yeah dan no no i thought you were doing some calculations here is there anyone here in favor of this petition is there anyone here opposed to this petition okay but you've heard what um attorney kolorans presented we've got a special permit and to demolish the building motion to grant motion to deny that should we have the finding that it's not less detrimental to the neighborhood that's
57:24true i would and then emotionally good that the development as uh as presented is not more detrimental to the neighborhood okay step one not more detrimental joe pereira do i have a second on that finder second second dan dupier any discussion on that motion hearing none ricky sahari yes dan duper yes joe pereira yes john frank yes and it goes to sight plan anyways and it goes to cyber but we you
57:55know yeah we get there you can make it a condition express condition if you're yeah that is this is going to be a hole yeah okay well so that's that part number two about the special permit now that we're finding that it's not just instrumental can i get a motion to grant the special permit oh that's what's special i'll make the motion saying that there's something yeah site plan review special permit
58:20okay so john francis promotion special committee second by joe pereira yes all right any discussion on the motion hearing none ricky sahara yes dan duper yes joe pereira yes john frank german assad yes okay special permit granted condition goes to site plan review and and we'll get the plans stamped by the land surveyor and get those filed with planning department i just wanted to be clear that vote for the special
58:45permit that covered the two special promises both that was the and great thank you very much
59:13so do agenda item number two south coast hospital groups inc group inc okay attorney matt burke cannot be here because he is no longer representing south coast my understanding has became a city employee now 38 hillside street lot m16 8 this is a variance slash special permit request to construct an off-site two-story 442 space parking garage in a g general district waiving all zoning requirements good
59:48evening good evening would you identify yourself for the record please and tell us who you are and what you want to do i'm phil lapolivera with south coast hospitals group what was your first name phillip olivera chair assad thank you members of the board thanks for having us uh tonight so we can present our request introduce yourself uh barry van oven from civil and environmental consultants
1:00:13for the engineering consultants on the uh project okay what was your last name i have a business card if you like that boy that would make her life
1:00:38tell us what we're doing yeah so we're here to request a variant special permit to allow a one-level parking deck over our existing parking facility in the off of prospect street in between hillside hillside street hanover linden and prospect so we will we believe that this will add much-needed parking to the area and add an additional 200 plus spots which put a total of 440 two spots in the in that parking area
1:01:08we're looking for um this in in a g zone use and we don't we believe that the proposed structure will significantly increase the parking and will be a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood and the setbacks are similar to all the surrounding structures and we also believe that the proposed use is not substantially more detrimental than the current non-conforming use of the property and i believe you all have the
1:01:42plan yeah we've got the plan uh my understanding uh is there was a building there that went right was there once a house that got demolished there was yeah a number of years ago yeah so that made you pre-existing non-conforming as it exists now correct now with that going and going up you're going to need a special commit or a variance unless and i don't i don't see anything
1:02:06in the plans that said you were having a um a building on site or a an office so what we're dealing with um is really the variance because in the g district garages aren't permitted correct so the they want to go up if i don't think it fits into the model for a special permit even though i think they applied for both variant slash special permit i think because of the the nature of this particular use
1:02:39and based in the g district because it's not ancillary to or on the lot that's being used by south coast it's just a parking lot it's correct it's not there's no building that's being this is a separate detached so i think my opinion the better way to approach it would be if we want to grant to variance and talk about shape topography soil condition hardship um what's going on there versus the special
1:03:05permit in that way we don't deal with maybe it is maybe it isn't but let me see if there's anybody here in favor or opposed is there any here in favor of this petition is there anyone here opposed to this petition yes ma'am for you guys identify as also my name is nancy jones and i live directly across the street where the site wants to be built on 29 hillside street 129 hillside 29 29.
1:03:34and could i give you a couple of pictures you can yes ma'am you can you live there it's right across from your house cause i'm the only house this is probably gonna work but my son bought this house a year and a half ago so i could retire there to get my first floor and planned on staying there so this is my view now and that parking lot
1:04:10it says right on this paper i think it's going to be a total of two stories and then the next one it's the one that exists today yeah so you got this you got this you got you got what exists and you're going one above it okay okay so god so you're living there and you're looking at it so i'm looking at this um not only that i already on the side south coast owns um
1:04:33cargo mental health so to my right i look at this building which i could probably touch so close i don't have a problem with that because i don't really look with my bedrooms in my backyard south coast i see oregon and i see a parking lot and another building that belongs to them but we're getting surrounded by all this um these buildings you know this right now i had people come on up from the plate the
1:05:02mental health agency with they allowed mufflers you know 442 cars like i'm never going to be able to sleep in my room it's noisy but just there's probably 10 of them or 15 in front of my house 11 o'clock if you sat on my porch there's a guy there it's the cars it's not his muffler it's so loud he'll fix his phone he put his music on 42 cars in and out
1:05:27that pokemon i just think it's like a big disservice for the city to approve that and you know that's my that's my life that's where you know we can't even sell now and move anywhere because things are so high do you want those or you want me to do that they're going to be part of the wreckage as as part of the uh the construction we proposed to put some shrubbing in right
1:05:57across from your house to protect a little bit so just i don't know no and i saw that and i did understand that it's just it's going to block my kitchen window basically because it's already on a six foot it's going to block it from the ground so it's like it's already got one level taken because it's so high the landscape yeah the elevations between right so there's already six feet
1:06:22and then they're going to build a two-story garage you know if i stand in front of my house that wall was over my head almost
1:06:41but how high does that go up from where you started to this light it would be one story maybe the size of this height of this room so it would be 12 feet 13 feet total elevation from the ground what is it 25 feet 20 oh from from your houses because the elevation changes right now so give us from the street level going up so how high it's on that side right i think her house is
1:07:07on that side this is corrigan basically i yeah we've got an existing uh existing wall to remain right ready rock wall which is which is right across the street from your house so that that wall will remain and then we'd be adding about 12 feet on top of that so what is that if it's going to be about 17 18 feet from ground from where you're standing so above grade that is a flat parking lot now
1:07:43regardless of the wall what's the height above the parking lot that exists to the total structure top not about not 12 not what's the total height to the uppermost part of that proposed deck from the flat parking lot that exists now from the from the street from the street so you've got the existing elevation from the street and then the deck so do you have that now so the walk the height of this wall
1:08:17varies along the langley street because the street slows down it slopes from a high point down to low point almost 12 feet right so depending upon where you are your house that height she's right here right here look it gets even it gets even higher as you go to the left as you go down towards london towards linda street so and we've kept the the parking deck is actually kept back because
1:08:44from that corner intentionally so it's set back 60 feet except that the whole deck is set back 60 feet from great edge i still have one simple question above the parking lot that's there now how much higher 12 feet thank you is it a covered deck or is it an open deck be open it will be open to start with and the deck itself just likes it slopes and follows the grade but the grade
1:09:14rather than making it level was made level we were concerned so the entire deck will be following follows the break rather than build it up and it won't be covered for now as you just said correct we do have in the rendering a potential to put solar panels on on top of the deck but we don't have that funding right now so the rendering would show the solar panels which we could forego if that that helps
1:09:45the entrance as i'm if i'm reading this correctly you're coming in off prospect street yes now you're coming in here right so yeah you're using the same the same entrance with the ramp being in the in the back where hillside street is so the ramp to go up is going to be on the hillside street no that's that's inside that's within i don't have an entrance on hillside street no you have an entrance coming in
1:10:17on prospect street yeah and then you go you enter into prospect street correct you drive around and the ramp going up parallels hillside correct but it's not direct it's not direct in front of this lady's house we have entrance and exits it's on the opposite side correct so cars will be entering and exiting on prospect street only yeah there's no way that's where it is now yeah yeah so i i just go back to
1:10:45i don't know why someone would be idling outside of your house unless unless it's somebody and i don't know whether that's where the entrance is for is that corrigan 49 hillside yeah the existing two-story office building mental health center i'm just asking i just don't know why because it seems the that use continues this parking lot i don't think they have access off hillside street they can't drive from hillside
1:11:16into the parking lot right now they have to enter from prospect street right yeah and there's no plan to change that no no i'm looking at the plan that that's the entrance and exit and the only thing that's happening on hillside is the ramp going up to the second to the first level first level which is set back my biggest concern was when i go by charlton and south coast and i see that
1:11:43parking lot that's there now the existing one i thought it was going to be something huge like that like is it going to be the same as that no it doesn't look good no it's just yeah it's just going to be one level above what's there now about 12 feet now we we do have as was mentioned a plan to put solar panels on top of that to cover the deck for snow removal and
1:12:09recapture of energy you know through solar panels but if that's a problem you know we don't have to pursue that but that was our that's our original kind of long-term plan would be to put that on there yeah but i will let's stop we'll stop with the solar panels and the reason why i'm telling you stop with that right now because if they're going to expand that that's going to require coming back and getting
1:12:30permission from the board so let's deal with what's before us tonight madam you look you live in the neighborhood you live there you look at it your input is very important to the board uh so that's why i'm listening to what your concerns are oh i sit on my couch and i look into a garage that's just never thought i would live like that but you're okay i got that
1:12:58but you're looking at a wall right now there's an existing wall that's in yeah there is but i see i can see all the clouds and the sky and that picture right there you know i my view is not and i don't mind it's all medical building but i just feel like they come in yeah no no i mean that's why they're here before the board right uh and that's a very real concern for
1:13:22development uh within the city and that's one of the problems of uh this kind of development in south coast being in this residential neighborhood so we have to do the balancing act and we say okay special permit variants if it's a variance do they have shape topography soil condition hardship that they have to deal with on this particular construction um and that's something for this board to consider
1:13:49but the ongoing action over at uh 49 hillside maybe should have their number on speed dial and say there's okay if i may yeah good so to hardship are you filling up the existing lot on a regular basis now and if so where's everybody barking people park all around on the streets around the hospital today it's very tough to get a spot and you feel how many additional spaces does this give you two because i know
1:14:30you're gonna lose some because of ramp etc etc so the net gain is 200.
1:14:36200 additional spaces uh on top of you know when you net out everything because we're going to be taking away 200 cars out of the neighborhood yeah now this also i feel will you know depreciate the house because i don't know i would my house look into a garage that's just my feeling you know we just bought a lot for it and have we known this we wouldn't avoid it but it's time to live with whatever
1:15:14i have to yep
1:15:22yeah and it's in a g district and the g district allows some of those activities g district does not allow uh if it was attached to something some activity going on there that would be interesting but it's not
1:15:52parking lot as i'm getting older you can't read the small printer parking lot private and public garages and parking structures other than those provided as an accessory used to the principal use being conducted on the lot so if there was some principal activity conducted on the lot it would be permitted but there's no it's just an existing lot by itself so i i think it has to be the variance avenue at this end so
1:16:28would you agree then that the parking lot on this individual lot is a pre-existing non-conforming yeah there's no question about that so we need a variance yeah i mean there's no question that's where i think that the special permit was an interesting approach to it but i think now that you know when you add what the grid tells us and where we are with it that causes a problem do we have
1:16:50shape topography soil condition is there a hardship balancing between that and that and the public good getting 200 cars off the street and out of the neighborhood uh but you've got this pre-existing non-conforming use and now they want to go up and expand it oh it's an expansion so is madam thank you is there anyone else here in favor or opposed to this particular project is that your son with you
1:17:18you don't right on the house 529 side street timothy jones i just think uh trying to appreciate the uh property because no one wants to it's health care workers that would be working there so that's 24 7 because in and now you've got that now though i mean i'm just trying to balance it you don't want it going up you've got the activity going on there with currently with 220 spaces
1:17:47on that lot 200 additional yeah 220.
1:17:50right now in your neighborhood where you live is those same medical workers are there and they're using spaces on the street on hillside on prospect they're driving around the neighborhood uh then you've got corrigan over there that i'm sure uh has some activity going on and i'm assuming corrigan is associated with it is not nothing to do with it i don't believe so yeah i'll have to check that i don't believe so but
1:18:21i don't want to misrepresent so i don't want to say yes or no that's true the owner that's signing off on it now as a as a let's see everybody got it on me about
1:18:45the parking supports that yes i just don't know if we do we own it that's what i don't know i don't want to represent so it's mass department of mental health 49 hillside so it's a state-owned facility i didn't think we owned it i just didn't want to miss i wasn't prepared thank you patty and we we did we did set it back uh from your your view so that there's
1:19:07going to be a buffer before the before the you know the incline so and then the cars will still enter and exit from prospect street so we're not cutting a curb to go into hillsides and again i'm just curious how how long have you had this house
1:19:34okay did you live there prior to the purchase uh it's only occupied right now i'm just saying before you purchased it no no what floor you want
1:19:52it's existing three family so the people up on the third floor have a real good view right um no i don't know so that that's where we go we have someone who lives there objecting to it we've got this congestion in the area the shape of a lot rectangular it's pre-existing they want to expand it can you make the argument under section 6 that we're expanding the pre-existing non-conforming use
1:20:25and therefore the standard is less but i think i think if if we were on the same lot as the medical unit no no i think if it was if there was something there they wouldn't even have to be here they're done do what you want to do i'm just trying to think of different ways to because my analysis before i got here was i think they need a variance and i'm thinking about
1:20:51where they need to go but maybe that's what the board that's what we're supposed to do apply it and figure out where we're determining between special current and variance well because with a bifurcated hearing we could determine if it was more detrimental that's detrimental but i'm just trying to think whether or not the special permit saying it's an expansion of the pre-existing non-conforming under 48
1:21:17section 6 as the exception and say now that if we go that route and then we say okay let's have the bifurcated hearing make the determination special permit rather than the variance and say okay this is where you're coming from that could be that could be an approach to it it could be i'm still a use variance right now so yeah no but use it not yours it's not changing the use uses there
1:21:44it's an expansion of a non-conforming use so under 40a section six that's what i mean zoning ordinance of the bible shall not apply to structures or uses lawfully in existence or lawfully begun or to a building a special permit issued before the first publication but shall apply to any change or substantial extension or such use to a building or special permit issued after that to provide for the use for a
1:22:19substantially different purpose except with the alteration reconstruction to a single it's not a single or two family dwelling pre-existing non-conforming structures or uses may be extended or altered provided that no such extension or alteration shall be permitted unless there is a finding by the permit granting authority or by the special permit granting authority which we are uh that such change extension or
1:22:44alteration shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming use so under 40a section 6 special permit expansion of the pre-existing non-conforming may be a way to get the special permit and not deal with the variance because the the variance part uh the way matt had prepared it variants or slash special permit so if we go with a special permit we can deal with it that way i guess john
1:23:16you're correct so members of the board what do you want to do do you want to go review it as a special permit under 40a section 6 as an expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming first having the finding that this pre-existing non-conforming structure having a finding that changed that this change or extension or alteration shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing
1:23:46non-conforming use to the neighborhood i'll make that motion all right so john frank makes the motion that such change or extension or alteration shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming use to the neighborhood second take it down any discussion on that motion hearing none so special permit so we have the finding ricky sahari yes dan dupier yes joe pereira yes john
1:24:14frank yes chairman assad yes okay so it's not more detrimental to the neighborhood than what's there now the special permit to grant the one store one story addition is shown on the plan for this supplier absolute condition of the special permit is site plan review that's john's is that your emotion john frank's motion to grant subject to site plan review do i have a second yes
1:24:45second second joe pereira any discussion on the motion hearing none ricky sehati yes dan duper yes joe pereira yes john frank yes chairman assad yes so we granted you a special permit subject to site plan review we had a finding that this particular proposal would not be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than what exists thank you thank you very much japan thank you for coming out this week
1:25:10no no thank you for coming because you live in the neighborhood we need to hear that okay agenda item number four hyperion holdings llc 370 to 376 linden street lot m 2612.
1:25:26special permit special permit request section 86 423 b to divide the parcel into two lots leaving the existing single family dwelling on one lot in the existing two-family dwelling on the other lot waiving sony requirements in the 8-2 apartment district good evening members of the board my name is jeff tallman from northeast engineers and consultants here representing hyperion holden's llc
1:25:54uh the petitioner for the special permit that's before you tonight for 370 376 linden street uh the properties like you had mentioned is is located in the apartment a2 zoning district which requires 100 feet frontage 10 000 square feet the parcel currently has 59.77 feet of frontage and an area of 4084 square feet there are two uh residence residences currently on the property there's number
1:26:23370 which is a single family dwelling located on the southwest corner of the property and there's also 376 linden street which is a two family located on the northeast corner of the property according to the assessor's records both these structures were built approximately around 1925 we had filed the special permit pursuant to section 86 423 b which gives the board the ability to grant a special permit to divide the
1:26:51property into two lots um it's not usual that you're able to do this and to get two um equal lots both having the same amount of french in an area but in this particular case case excuse me given the location of the structures we are able to do that so uh this is pretty straightforward 86 423 b i'd be happy to answer any questions that the board might have you showed the porch in the bulkhead on
1:27:18lot number two yes is that from there so this the existing concrete walkway stays with lot number two so they have access to walk up get to the bulkhead and i think what is it four feet uh is what you're showing me yes yeah there is an access easement that would be provided around that walkway to allow access to the rear of number 376 on this street and access easement to three yes you're
1:27:51gonna need that right yes because the dock line dock lines the property line the proposed property line and so the the line as i'm looking at it goes right up against the bulkhead and right up against the stairs is that correct correct so the dashed line is is the easement line that's the extent of the easement correct so the dotted line is going to be the easement that's going to be in the deed
1:28:19that's going to be okay yes correct because otherwise they're not going to be able to get to the back of their properties dude that is correct it only goes four feet so it goes right back so the rear of set 376 existing walkway and then it ends is that right after the stairs that yeah yes that's correct um there is a patio to the rear of 376 in that great patio um located directly behind behind the
1:28:56dwelling so that access easement would basically bring you onto that patio okay no um okay so no fences so i don't know i would think the board may which i'm trying to remember when i went by there with the hell i saw the existing driveway is that shared between the two properties currently no that will stay with lot one um i'm sorry currently i i don't believe what the use
1:29:24of it is since the property has just transferred um within the past couple of months the um it's my understanding that the pro the driveway was being used by the single family well in the 370. it's going to remain as so okay so we're not so not putting any more cars onto the street no so under b the zoning board of appeals may grant a special permit for the division of any single lot of record
1:29:57containing two or more residential dwellings existing continuously since 1954 provided that they be divided into separate lots each of which contains a separate residential dwelling building and the zoning board finds that the division is made in a way to maximize the use of the proposed lot specifically access parking and yard area so that's you're going to have two you've got some
1:30:25existing asphalt driveway whether it's used for the single family or for the existing two family so i don't know what the current parking is there's park there'll be off street parking i guess for the two family if the existing asphalt driveway goes with a single family i don't know and i i just see the size of this easement as as a problem somewhere down down the line as these two things are sold
1:30:57well i'm also thinking about fences whether offensive yeah no no i mean i just can't see that happening yes you can't no but you would want once this is if this is approved then you have to have the markers uh you have to have the line markers in there to avoid the building inspector getting called out on a saturday afternoon right so there's going to have to be a survey in order to place those markers yeah
1:31:29that's going to be a condition i think if we grant it
1:31:44yeah i don't know is there anyone here in favor of this petition is there anyone here opposed to this petition so do you think they met the requirements of 86423b have they divided it in such a matter that's provided for so we can make a finding that the proposed lot specifically accessed parking and yacht area have been maximized by this particular change i don't know how else you do it but i'm
1:32:15just concerned about that easement and in the easement i would think that the board or sight plane review maybe gets the opportunity to look at or the easement be filed with the board because that's going to be expressed condition that the access easement exists prior to the separation of utilities yeah separate utilities of course yeah it's good i mean we haven't gotten there yet but i
1:32:43would think those would be the things that you'd we'd want to think about separate utilities affidavit file yeah and i would just add that the size of the easement is just to restrict it to pedestrian use only so it's not going to be vehicular use um yeah no it's uh i wasn't even thinking about that but i know there was a comment earlier about the size of the easement i mean that was strictly
1:33:06what i'm thinking what we've done what has happened and it happened is that they did just what you did here with this line right along the right along the bulkhead guy walks out the door can't go because it's the guy so we need to make sure we have an easement that we need to get around there it's absolutely that's why i'm asking you the size of it because you
1:33:24got a guy like me that eats too much on a saturday night maybe i won't fit there that's why the easement's there and then the division line between the two lots is strictly um is basically right along the line of how the properties are used now um there's really no significant change no change at all the plan is very good it shows exactly what we're looking at doing here right yeah okay i'm gonna
1:33:47make a motion to approve okay john frank motion to grant with the conditions being separate utilities separate utilities uh does it need do we need to do site plan on this we can i think i think it's as the plan reads it seems fine the access easement needs to be filed except for utilities mark is mark is to be placed alongside no offense no no offense so are you are you putting he's making
1:34:17the motion these are his conditions of his motion i know but did you or did you not put in uh psych plan i didn't i don't i don't i don't think all right so bring that up throwing if somebody seconds it during the discussion if you want site plan i'll second it so we can get to that point okay no fences okay we have a second by joe pereira any discussion on the motions
1:34:43joe do you have some discussions i'm just again i just i see the built-in inspector getting called out at 2 30 on a sunday afternoon or a hot summer day just because there's some ambiguity over the ease but that's all so i don't know if site plan reviews is worth it or not that's right yeah i i i don't have a problem with that i just okay good yeah it's too late for me to make a
1:35:06suggestion sure could we bound the easement as well and make it clear where the extent of the easement is well that's well that's
1:35:20he makes a good point yeah so the boundaries for the easement so they'd be that'll be delineated de facto you know where the easement is okay and and and that being the case i'll i'll take site plan review off the table okay so now john's amended motion access easement to be filed with the board separate utilities no fences permanent markers to be placed on property line and easement and definition of the easement
1:35:56as well that easement to found bound permanent markers i said defining the property line and the easement so that should eliminate and if they can't deal with that then they've got a problem being land on this so john frank's motion as amended second by joe pereira any discussion on that motion hearing on ricky sehati yes uh dan du pere yes joe pereira yes john frank yes champion aside yes okay
1:36:26especially for miss grant with those conditions hey you're not are you done you got another one don't you i got uh no no i just i just wanted to make i thought you were walking out paul m levesque 79 reservoir street lot l 764 variance request to build a house edition waiving setback requirements in an s single family district paul levesque 79 reservoir street lot l 764.
1:37:04all right we'll come back to mr levesque before the end of the meeting number six kevin oliveira 334 vale street lot e150 variance request to divide the existing lot into two lots leaving the existing five-family dwelling with 3 100 square feet a lot an existing commercial building on a 3658 square foot lot waiving all zoning requirements in the dl local business district good evening for the record jeff hallman
1:37:37from northeast engineers and consultants um i'm here representing kevin aloe vera the petitioner for the variance application for 334 vale street the property is located on the southeast corner of vale and slade it's located in the local business bl zoning district which requires 50 feet of frontage and 5 000 square foot of area the currently is pro the property is currently assessed as a mixed use
1:38:05property being commercial and residential um the property size itself is 6758 square feet with 62 feet of frontage on slade and another 109 feet of frontage on bale street the residential component of the property is represented by the existing five family dwelling shown as 334 bale street which is located on the northern portion of the property the commercial component is the existing 1012 square foot
1:38:36commercial building located on the southwest portion of the property due to the commercial nature um of this property it's not the this unlike the last application is not subject to section 86 423 b since it's not entirely residential so we have filed the variance application to divide this property into two lots um one lot for their residential use and one lot for the commercial use
1:39:05this property was granted variance back in 1989 for this same division the owner of the property at that time never went forward with the a r to divide the property so it remained as a single lot so now again we're just here tonight to basically renew that application if possible to divide this property into the two lots as shown on the plan um as you can see the commercial lot lot too uh we would be
1:39:37providing for four off street parking spaces to the rear of the building uh that area is currently just used for storage and materials and whatever else is needed but that would be converted into a parking area if this application were to be approved so with that i'd be happy to answer any questions that the board might have so that's going to be in the local business district the bl lot so you
1:40:01don't know the current use now the the um the current use of the commercial well currently the commercial building is not being used it was last used as the base for atlantic home improvement um i believe that was within the past year or so they were using that as a place of business and the existing five family is providing no wall street parking that's correct well there i'm sorry there is
1:40:26one parking spot located just to the south of the uh of the building there is a second spot that if you you can see there that's one offshoot parking spot we would be taking away a second spot that's currently used by the existing five family dwelling in order to provide the access that to get behind the commercial building to provide the offshoot parking spaces
1:41:07the other thing i would like to add too if need be what we could do is there's an existing curb cut located in front of the existing commercial building you can as you can see where the 59-foot dimension is you'll see the break in the crib there we could certainly reinstall granite curving in that location which would provide additional wall street parking spaces that gap on vale street from the point
1:41:33looks like you have curbing yeah there's a small section of curbing yeah that's missing 59 feet yep that's correct is that are the parking spaces being used now for the five family yes but there's a curve cut along that entire stretch not along the entire stretch you can see whether you have a double line where the actual curving is it's kind of i know it's tough to see on the plan but there is um
1:42:04there is a little break where the existing parking area is then there's another section of crabbing in front of the commercial building then it stops again and basically there's no curving between where that stop is and totally uh the property line or just short of the property line that's all open
1:42:35so we don't know a use we don't have a use on the on the commercial now no how can we uh so he's asking he said i want to make this commercial lot i want this building that was used for commercial and i want to give it four parking spaces he's creating a commercial lot that says i have a building that hasn't been used it's in the bl district that's a
1:42:59and the commercial use i guess has to be conforming to the uses in the bl district and we've got this five family dwelling that's there also um but the the five family dwelling my recollection is that's a non-conforming use in the dl district in the bl district uh you can have a maximum of three units and they've got a five unit so it's a pre-existing non-conforming for the bl district so this particular
1:43:34you have the whole thing being pre-existing non-conforming so the question is what do you want to do by way of the variance now this has to be done by a variant have they met shape topography soil conditions is there a hardship that's in the property that requires us to grant or that we should consider for a variance otherwise if they don't meet the section 10 requirements then they don't shouldn't get the variance i
1:43:59mean we've heard that argument several times tonight so
1:44:11is there anyone here did i ask is anyone to favor anyone opposed okay so members of the board what do you want to do have they met the requirements of 48 section 10 to grant the variance was there shape topography soil condition was there a hardship is it for the public good or does it meet some of the other requirements that we've heard this evening that it's self-serving self-imposed therefore it shouldn't be
1:44:37shouldn't be granted when was the commercial building the commercial section last used as business within the past year i believe yes and again it was atlantic home improvement it was a place of business it's been assessed this property has been assessed as as mixed use commercial residential for as long as um as the the records indicate online so certainly the owner didn't create the situation he's just trying to
1:45:13separate no he didn't create it but he's trying to separate it by separating it he's creating the the issue that's being presented before the board and that one that was granted not that it matters to us now no 1989.
1:45:31yeah no i was just trying to see if there was anything special in that that so i don't know motion to grant motion to deny let's move it along
1:45:56you know the lot size is the minimum lot size in the areas uh 5 000 square feet this is 6 000 um
1:46:11i based on lot size i i have to make a motion to deny all right joe pereira motion to deny do i have a second second second john frank any discussion on that motion hearing none ricky sahari pushing to tonight motion to deny no no yes yeah dan dupia yes joe pereira yes john frank yes chairman assad yes so the vote is four to one uh the motion to grant the variance is denied thank you
1:46:48agenda item number seven walter cabral 17 colfax with m717 variants required to divide the parcel into two locks leaving existing two family with 3275 square feet on one lot an existing order repair shop with 6 364 square feet on the second lot waiving zoning requirements in the bn neighborhood shopping district okay good evening for the record jeff tallman from northeast engineers consultants
1:47:22this particular application is very similar to the previous one in some manners in some hands it isn't what we have here is a variance application for 17 colfax street which also there's an existing commercial use a component on this property which is 1020 locus street which is currently and has been used for many years uh it's currently used as an existing auto repair facility with an expired license
1:47:54uh currently the the lot size is 9 638 square feet with 100 feet of frontage on colfax and 96.40 feet of frontage on locust street again the residential component this is the mixed-use property residential component is existing two-family um dwelling shown at 17 colfax street and the the commercial component is uh 1020 locus straight the the application that's before you tonight is to divide the property
1:48:25into two lots as shown on the plan lot one in the residential lot which is 3275 square feet in lot 2 being the commercial lot which is 6 364 square feet the lots that you see on this plan is exactly how the property is currently being used as an existing channeling fence that runs along the proposed division line um as similar to the last project this this this property had received the variance back in 2003
1:49:01uh to do the the same exact division that you're seeing here um at that point it was the the owner didn't realize that the next step of the phase and he wasn't advised that the next step of the phase would have to be the enr plan to go along with the division he thought once he got the variance he it was divided um so it was never formally divided back in
1:49:242003. so that's why we're back before you tonight for the variance application so i'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have
1:49:43again no off-street parking being provided for the two-family dwelling that's that correct yes there's there's none being used now for the two family and it's not proposed and you've got that well you could move the chain-link fence into the existing asphalt area and getting some if you is that correct or is that some prohibition my recollection i don't know anything about any soil or lot size over there i mean i
1:50:09know the building i know the house yeah the um if need be um you know i'm sure a couple of street parking spots could be provided the relocation of defense i'm asking i'm asking the question i don't know whether or not because as i drive by and i know the location yes uh does that take away is that going to be a problem that i'm going to have well it would certainly interfere with
1:50:35the current use of the commercial property if it were required but physically it could be done dave you're saying down on the locust street side on a colfax street another call backstreet okay oh okay they'd have to pull the fence yeah they have to pull the fence up and change the division yeah if that's something you want me but you see the way the fence goes it it really encompasses the commercial we uh use
1:51:19the other component is in this bn district uh multi-family isn't a lot so that's a pre-existing non-conforming lobby while the auto repair is a performing use yeah i mean it kind of makes sense to get rid of the two family dwelling out of the singular lot but i'm just cons my only concern is off street parking locust and colfax because that's always a it's always busy yeah but is there anyone here in favor of
1:52:03this petition is there anyone here opposed to this petition okay so that's what we got uh i don't know whether or not they're sharing utilities if we need to make a separate uh i mean it won't hurt jeff do you know if there's at least they are separated but if you want to make it part of the um you know the motion that's fine as well but it's my understanding they are separate
1:52:26and i would say having i mean you're good ask me um i haven't grown up on colfax street and lived there 20 plus years i booked i know there's adequate offstreet parking on colfax street yeah no uh but it's just you know you got the two family and now you've got right not in the same ownership two different owners i don't again i don't want the building inspector or the police being called
1:52:48because there's no parking over there now you can't park and that's all i'm that's one of my concerns you've already got the fencing etcetera you know i mean the physical the physical stuff is there yeah but it's all by one owner so i don't know whether or not who's living in the two figures i just don't know the dynamics of it um but you know that it's going to be someone different looking there
1:53:10and that's what i get concerned about but okay motion to grant motion to deny motion with um conditions or did they meet the did they meet uh because it's a variance shape topography soil conditions hardship public good it's really what de facto was on the lot where you've got that combined use that's causing how do you get how do you do it you can't do it under a special permit it
1:53:41has to be but it has to be a variant and you've got the establishment already of the division between the two uses yeah i laugh about the existing concrete patio that extends i love that yeah so motion to grant with the with the condition of making sure the utilities are separated and recorded as for you no action on parking okay so that's joe pereira's motion motion to grant with separate utilities to the
1:54:16affidavit to be filed if they've already separated them i guess you can do an affidavit that they've already been separated but at least we've got it uh so i don't have the new owner saying hey it's not separated and so motion that's joe's motion do we have a second second dan any discussion on emotion hearing nine ricky sahari yes dan duper yes joe pereira yes john frank yes chairman assad yes okay that's granted
1:54:45with that condition agenda item number eight back in the game llc 542 546 4th street lot i 1244 special permit request uh pursuant to section 86 423 b to divide the parcel into two lots leaving the existing three family on a 2145 square foot lot and a five family on lot four on a lot of 4 605 square feet waving all zoning requirements in an a2 apartment district okay good evening for the record jeff
1:55:26tallman from northeast engineers and consultants here on behalf of back in the game llc the addition of the special permit application for 542 546 4th street the property is located in the a2 zoning district property currently has 6750 square feet with 50.85 feet of frontage on 4th street what we're proposing to do is to divide it into two lots pursuant to section 86 423 b uh leaving the existing three family
1:55:56dwelling number 542 um on lot 1 and leaving the existing 5 family which is 546 4th street on lot 2.
1:56:08this one what is not as easy as the one on the industry in terms of the division line but i think what is before you tonight is is currently how the property is used um we are providing a an access and parking easement um exposing that on lot too which would be for the benefit of lot one there's two parking off-shoot parking spots that you can see there that that would be for the use of
1:56:33lot one any of the um existing parking spaces to the rear um would be for the benefit of the existing five family the the five parking spaces to the rear um we'd also in order to be able to make the turn in and out of those parking spaces we need a second access easement uh which would be a lot one for the benefit of lot two uh for maneuvering purposes so
1:56:58um i know on this particular property the utilities are combined uh they are not separated so that would have to definitely be a condition which i'm sure it would have been anyways um but other than that i'd be happy to answer any questions that the board might have the three family dwelling is going to have two off street parking but that's going to be granted by way of an access and parking easement that's correct
1:57:27and then the existing five families gonna have five wall street parking spaces directly in front of the building right right in front of the building but the access is all going to be off fourth street what foster that's going to be the common driveway correct that's yes that that the access easement on lot 2 is for the benefit of both properties i mean they both are in essence
1:57:54they're going to swap rights so i got it so lot one as it exists is going to be the three family and that's going to be the dominant estate because that's going to have an access easement to the serbian estate for lot number two that's going to say lot number one you can pass and re-pass along this access event you can park two motor vehicles but you also have access in the
1:58:17so what is it the easterly side of the property uh to go it's going to be a shared access easement there for both of them yes so whatever it really is whatever that bump out is in the back whether it's a deck or a uh bulk editor yes so they'll be able to go through that access even i don't know what the distance is uh it's like eight feet wide approximately that's eight feet wide yeah yes
1:58:41and the one thing i did realize when i was looking at the plan tonight the frontage is on the lots um was not labeled the frontage on lot 2 is 17.85 feet and the frontage on lot one is 33 feet so that's how they so let's get that so the ax frontage for watt number two is point eight five feet seventeen point eight five and this one is going to be fifty point eight five
1:59:06minus seventeen so that's going to be thirty three thirty three sure about that jeff i mean that's the mathematics of it but i'm saying is because when you yes yes okay yes all right put me on the spot here no no i just want to make sure mean yes on the record we put it in the the decision i want to make sure we've got the right numbers because the plan uh well you know
1:59:37when the format plan shows up i don't want somebody saying hey you're off by and come back and get relief all right so that's what we have before as members of the board anybody here in favor of this petition anyone here opposed to this petition okay uh members of the board what do you want to do do we have a motion to grant motion to deny i'll make a motion to grant motion to grant john frank
2:00:02conditions separate utilities separate utilities the easement gets parking in the parking and access eastman yeah it has to be shown in the deeds have to be shown in the deeds and okay no offense no offense uh boundary markers permanent boundary markers and it's the markers again like the other one mark is for the boundaries and markers for the easement yes and i guess the only easement that needs to really be
2:00:46because the accident that easement is there it's going to be the 318 foot square access easement that needs to be oh i guess not they both have no i guess not because it's going to be that property lot number one will have its dimension and it's going to be that eight foot wide rectangle that's going to be yeah okay so that's your that's your motion okay we have a second on john frank's motion
2:01:13second ricky sahari any discussion on the motion hearing none ricky sahara yes dan duper yes joe joe pereira no uh john frank yes chairman assad yes four to one that happens okay agenda item number nine uh 577 609 to wall street care of attorney peter a solino 535 577 609 duval street lots o 22 10 14 and 0 23 5 this is a variance and special permit request pursuant to section 86 425 to
2:02:02raise the existing no building and construct a six-storey mixed-use commercial and residential structure waiving all setbacks and parking requirements applicant also seeks a special permit to construct residential units in the commercial mill district and h-1 district good evening for purposes of the record peter celino lawyer at 550 locust street here in fall river with me is julie bartlett
2:02:30zds architects who's the architect on the project um so by way of introduction here the property is on the southerly uh i guess would be the south easterly corner of turner and the wall street it's a vacant mill building a parking lot to the south and then a recently acquired parking lot which is lot 5.
2:02:55so at the time of application the record would reflect that our client owned the map oh 22 lots 10 and 14 and then there was a purchase and sale agreement submitted to indicate that lot 5 was under agreement per the records at the registry of deeds lot 5 closed on 5 19.
2:03:14the proposal is to demolish the existing structure to reconstruct 56 apartments thereon the proposal includes first level retail parking underneath parking on uh or to the south in the uh merger of one of the lots the accessories lot number 14 as well as number five in my analysis of the case i think the commercial use is allowed by right in a in a mill district we have sufficient frontage in as much
2:03:47as we have more than 100 feet and we have sufficient area so i think what we're talking about this evening are going to be setbacks unit count and parking and so i've phrased my arguments in the alternative uh in that i've checked both the variance box and the special permit box so across the board i would submit to you that there is certainly a hardship due and owing to the irregular shape of this lot
2:04:11the lot at the north is 80 feet wide at the south is only 50 feet wide it's bounded on the east by the existing railroad track and on the west by the sidewalk along the wall street which has granite kirby additionally it's in a flood zone which really constrains the construction and parking underneath the building and finally i think the location of i know that but i couldn't find it on your plan the flood zone line
2:04:38but uh just by curiosity i thought it was okay and i should say for the record that mr giosa uh was supposed to be here tonight but tested positive this morning so he's not um and he could have spoken probably better than i can to that component of it um so as far as the arguments with regard to the special permit for setbacks i think you can look at it as a reconstruction under section 425
2:05:04i think that it is no more non-conforming than what is there in fact we get a little bit better when you look at the proposal currently there is no front setback the building is on the sidewalk and the proposal is to keep it there on the north we only have 1.1 feet of setback we're proposing six so we get better on the south we have 36 we're going to 30 but 30 still beats the requirement by
2:05:3220 this is a 10 foot requirement wasn't that your exhibit my exhibit a yes you have it there i do okay i thought that would be a helpful chart it was very it was very good i want to keep my presentation in three minutes um and then uh we currently have 3.7 and we're going to 5.3 so we're getting better so it's submitted from a special permit perspective that what we're proposing is
2:05:56no more non-conforming than what's there if you want to look at it from the variance perspective then i've already said to you i think the hardship here is the shape of the lot and i think this is merited given the structure and the fact that it really could use revitalizing with respect to the units in my exhibit a that chairman assad is talking about i made reference to the use table
2:06:19we're seeking more than 20 units which in a cmd is only allowed by a special permit and so that's why we're asking for the special permit with respect to units and then finally with respect to parking so if you look at it again as a special permit i think under 455 we can ask for a special permit to reduce the parking requirements um i noted in my documentation that there is street parking
2:06:45i think the proposal promotes the overall rehabilitation of a dilapidated structure one of the things in the bylaw talks about is would the reduction create a safety hazard safety issue and i think the answer to that question is no specifically because the concept here is with the train station just north of this location we're seeking commuters and people that don't necessarily have two cars per unit
2:07:11but again if you want to look at it as a variance then i think the unique shape here is the hardship how do we put parking into that site more than we've already laid out so again per the plan we have 31 spaces under the proposed building 31 spaces outside of the proposed building to the south for a total of 62.
2:07:32finally from my presentation and then i'm going to turn it over to julie i do not think this is detrimental or has a negative impact in fact i think it's consistent and harmonious with the waterfront development scheme that we're trying to see in the city of fall river and i certainly don't think it derivates from the intention of the bylaw it's entirely consistent with the neighborhood mr karam did a nice
2:07:51project at the next corner this is consistent with that in fact julie's firm was the architect on that project and i think that's a good segue so you think julie can talk about the billing and show you some plans and drawings of what is proposed i do have a full set of plans that i can just sort of focus on the ground floor plan which shows as uh start as peter started to depict
2:08:15we have some 31 parking spaces at grade with no building above it it will be one way parking ingress and egress heading north and then we'll have additional parking under the building 31 additional spaces at grade under the building we also have a residential lobby accessed from both the street and from the parking under the building uh approximately 27 2800 square foot retail tenant on the north most side of
2:08:42the structure and ideally another smaller 700 750 square foot tenant on the south side of the structure this may turn into an amenity uh you know as we continue to develop the project with the with the tenants that we may find um trash to the rear and then up the building like we do feel responds to the the goals of the waterfront district it's a six story it'll be um the
2:09:11intention is sort of a five stories of likely wood or light gauge steel construction over a podium style construction on the first floor trying to respond to the shape of this unique shape of the site with a narrow building to the rear with some sort of a charcoal gray cladding we're thinking fiber medium density fiber cement and then projections on the front to capture greater views to the water and
2:09:39screening the parking with something slightly different allowing for a rooftop opportunities to view how the views of this waterfront district both from a tenant perspective some tenants would have balconies and and rooftop opportunities and then we would also offer amenities on these other levels as well for fitness potentially you know clubhouse style these are 56 mix of one two and three bedroom units
2:10:07market rate um looking to sort of offer a variety of types of room units to the neighborhood okay happy to answer any questions well architecturally you got your proposal that's what you want to do parking underneath going up uh units uh one bedroom two bedroom a mix one two and a couple of three bedroom units as well something that we felt isn't in the neighborhood right now and might be marketed quite well
2:10:48the market rent apartments they're not condos correct yes market apartments okay income stream good okay is all the parking for the residents are you gonna have some for the commercial we haven't really gotten that detail because we don't know what the commercial is as of yet so i think that naturally there needs to be some commercial parking there but i just don't know what the uses are going to be to really
2:11:19drill down on that part of it so this 56 proposed residential apartments they've got at least one to one there and they you know again and maintain that i'm just my concern is to make sure that that at least 56 is maintained yeah no i think it has to be one to one i mean but part of the i see mr fiola back then maybe he's got something he wants to say about the
2:11:44project maybe he always got to that stage yeah right no no but i'm just thinking yeah yeah okay all right no peter's doing a fine job so that's fine the one question is the on the master plan does it have on street parking down there there's no i i don't think there's any on streets they're gonna be on street parking down there after it's all set so so maybe i can just
2:12:09fill you on the the big picture right so well that's why you're here so uh for the record ken fayola executive vice president of brussels county economic development consultants resident of fall river um so as you know we've been working on this whole waterfront revitalization plan for 20 years okay trying to suppress the elevated section of route 79 bring that down to grade level
2:12:33uh create more at surface access ways from you know turner street and other streets across across the wall street to the waterfront i'm happy to report today that the project itself has been fully funded the overall cost of the project is 112 million dollars there's a 100 million dollar allocation from the state a 12 million dollar allocation from the city a large component of the 12 million
2:13:00dollar allocation from the city is for already uh scheduled cso repairs so it's not things that are new these are things that we're going to have have to happen as part of the cso project what we're doing is just accelerating them now so that when the state is doing this section of the project we don't have to come back and dig it all up and put in the cso stuff so
2:13:21the 19 acres that are going to be created as a result of the suppression of the uh the elevated section of route 79 is going to be 19 it's going to result in 19 developable acres we're looking to project probably about 1.1 million square feet of development space along that 19 acres we want to have the the units there and this is obviously subject to change and further important
2:13:45everything else through master planning but at least our initial uh intent there is to keep the buildings five to six stories similar to this and similar to uh mr carraman break day coast banks building so that we're not blocking views from the highland and the the areas that are going up the hill there so interestingly enough in this area here um in front of mr karen's building as well as this
2:14:11there's going to be a possible land there and that's going to be where the cso chamber is located and it's going to be located underneath the new parcel of land that's being created excuse me and as a result of the cso chamber being there we're not going to be able to put any buildings there right because you can't build upon the cso chamber so that's going to be flat it's
2:14:32going to be a flat surface lot and it's also going to offer more parking in the future so any over full parking for the commercial aspect of this building we'll be able to park there any overflow parking for mr carrington although he's fully he's fully deeded and approved could also park there and both these buildings will have unobstructed views to the waterfront just to the north of the uh of the cove restaurant
2:14:57this particular project is about you know i don't know julianna it's about 25 million as well we're estimating so this is not a cheap project this is going to be a first-class operation and it's what we're accomplishing here is exactly what we hope to accomplish right outside investment market rate housing we're not displacing anybody from housing we're bringing in new uh you know new uh housing options for people
2:15:25from within the city from outside the city and a lot of this is occurring not only because of 112 million dollars that we're going to be revised lives in the waterfront with but also within a quarter mile you have the rail so the plan after 20 years is slowly coming to fruition and you have people from the private sector whether it's beforehand was mr karam and daeco's bank and now you have
2:15:49vitaly fetisek of an outside investor from boston is coming down and they believe in division and they're coming here and they're making the investment and i can tell you right now that i'm dealing with right now not on the waterfront but throughout the city i have um i'm dealing with clients that probably represent another 500 units of market rate housing right and everybody says well
2:16:14how many so how come so many units because the demand is there adam's house leased right up commonwealth landing has a waiting list residents at river's edge right you know stone's throw away from this project is already leased up the demand is there so people are taking notice in the demand they're now invested in these bills bills along one middle street mills along um global zap the old pine the old
2:16:41um dural properties those are all being looked after conversion and historic tax credits and everything else so not only is it occurring on the waterfront but now it's occurring in other areas of the city and taking underperforming pieces of property turning them into valuable assets for the city no longer neglected properties and providing housing opportunities for people from
2:17:03all you know from inside and outside the area so this particular project i think is a great project obviously i'm here to speak in support of it um we think that this is going to be a bellwether project that's going to lead to additional investment along the waterfront and it's a you know i did the design you see it's a first class design it's something unique and different to fall
2:17:25river and i think it's something that uh at the end of the day is all for our residents we can all be proud of so i'm an advocate thank you thank you judy solido i don't know if i can do it better than that mr chairman um so i'll take any other specific questions but i think we've presented adequately and on the areas that need presentation so any questions
2:17:48but i think we can i think the board if they act under each component as a special permit gets you everything that you need without going through the variance i agree but i wanted to go no no no no no i'm asking you i'm asking you the question because this is a large project and i don't want you coming back and say ah we should have gotten i mean everything that i've looked at
2:18:12i don't have anything she's fine i'm so sorry so if we so if the board acts on each component as a special permit grant you will be satisfied and your client will be satisfied we don't have right i just don't the thought of you coming back if there's something that you think is cause i don't see it i don't think see questionable i think the special permit is there it gets you there and you're
2:18:40done yeah okay so all right so other than mr phil is anyone here in favor of this petition attorney gregory brilliant um 477 wilson wrote i know the principal of the llc's been a friend of mine from which one years and they're very very recognized people well funded and you really are excited about coming into forever and doing this project as can very eloquently stated uh and i do think it would be a just a
2:19:08great addition to get rid of you know a major eyesore in the city down there and clean that whole area up it's you know kind of a mess i i've been helping battalion because the people are throwing junk in there and we're repeatedly right now trying to get mattresses out of there and so forth and so on i think this would be a great great project for the city forward thank you mr chan okay thank you
2:19:28attorney brilliant is there anyone else okay hearing no one else members of the board i think that we can act on each component as a special permit um without going through the variance parts of it so step one for the special permits we have to have a finding that this project is not more detrimental to the neighborhood than what currently exists there so we start with that so john frank makes a motion
2:19:59that this particular project is not more detrimental than the current use that's on there second joe pereira any discussion on that motion hearing none ricky sehati yes dan duper yes joe pereira yes john frank yes chairman assad yes so we get that component out of the way um the unit count to 56 proposed residents 56 is the number that you need yes that is correct of the residential of the 56 reproposed
2:20:28residential apartments do we find that that would be an adequate number to grant a special permit for this particular project not more than 56 proposed residential apartments we don't have a mix of one two or three but 56 proposed residential bonds he didn't have the mixed io that would be my motion uh not more than 56 and also not less than 56 on the parking okay so motion 50 56 with not less than 56 parking spaces
2:21:04okay so that's john frank's motion do we have a second second dan duper any discussion on that motion site plan is a given well you put it in put it put it in to make sure we get site plan review exactly so it's amended to include site plan is that okay dan okay site plan review any further discussion on that motion hearing none ricky sahara yes dan duper yes joe pereira yes john frank yes
2:21:26chairman assad yes parking we need a special permit for the reduction in parking is that correct peter that is correct and so the reduction in parking should be i think what was the equation it should be 82 62 60 62.
2:21:4762 units and we're coming up with a total of 62 parking spaces 56 years 56 units okay so that reduction so that reduction uh correct 62 units for 62 parking spaces 456 residential units and we made part of that minimum of 56 parking spaces so is that your motion john yes or that so john frank's motion is 62 parking spaces yes yes yes yes the first one the first one was not less
2:22:25than 56. this one is the total plan what's on the plan didn't you pay a second yes yes any discussion on that motion hearing on ricky sahara yes dan duper yes joe pereira yes john frank yes chairman assad yes i think that's all the relief that you need that is what we write thank you very much okay thank
2:23:00agenda item number 10 1148 duval street care um care of attorney peter solino 1148 duvall street at 2012 remington avenue lot s 22 6 and 2 motion to extend time for relief previously granted in the decision made june 25th 2020 for a period of one year commencing july 31st 2022.
2:23:28yeah so to be clear on this uh well for the record peter celino 550 local street fall river attorney for the petitioner factually we have a special permit here that was granted in june of 20 and my concern was that it would expire in two years coming up now and i'm happy to be told that due to tolling or covet or some other legislative 62 act um that were extended
2:23:52and we don't need what i'm asking for but i just wanted to make sure i preserved it for the client so that was the genesis of the ask so there is that covert i think it's the 462 additional days that need to get added on yep uh and i know joe pereira raised that up one one of the meetings when i was away what do you hear you don't need it for
2:24:10but if the board wants to act to say yes just for belt and braces uh we i guess we can do that belt and suspenders yeah braces suspenders saying no braces that's yeah i'm oh um i mean if it's 462 no no but i think that was the number as i was doing the research about the covet and the permitting okay but so to me either the record reflects that we don't need it because of
2:24:40some covid thing or so let me say this if we if we calculate wrong if i run out of fingers and toes and it doesn't apply and the period has laps the board doesn't have the authority to grant you that extension but if we do then i think the board should grant the one year extension to it and have it nailed down for so moved second okay anybody here in favor anyone here opposed
2:25:08here john yeah john frank made the motion do we have a second second oh joe pereira second any discussion on the motion hearing none ricky sahad yes dan jupiter yes joe pereira yes john frank no no don't be going yet don't put your pens away we're going to go back to the one that the guy didn't come jamming aside yes so that one is one year grant and it's the one year grant from
2:25:31whenever it was going to expire all right thank you all thank you so let's go back to number five peter m of x junior 79 reservoir street lot l 764 variant's request to build the house edition waving setback requirements in an s single family district now our rules and regulations say that he should be here but the board does have the authority to act on the petition he didn't show up
2:25:59now can we table it and just reach out to him we can certainly do that if that's what the board wants to do or the board can act based on what's in front of us what he's submitted in writing so i'll leave that to the board if if we want to get it off the agenda we can look at what he's submitted and say yes no maybe so or we can say come back at
2:26:20another day or you didn't show up so your audition is denied follow back i didn't do it you never showed up
2:26:45a change date meeting i would put in a request just to uh i'll make a motion to uh table it until the next meeting with notice to the individual okay so does that mean the next meaning being next week's meaning no it can't be there no no july because it has to be advertised okay yeah put it on so long i mean he may say no i would draw it i
2:27:13don't know what his problem is just just because of the being a special meeting okay so that takes care is there anybody citizen input anybody want to address the board i don't see anybody and there was no signup sheet do we have minutes from the april 21st 2022 meeting you saw them they passed them around does anybody want to make it make a motion to waive the reading and adopt minutes
2:27:37dan jupiter makes the motion to waive the reading and adopt the minutes of the april 21st we have a second second john frank any discussion on the motion hearing none ricky sahad yes dan duper yes joe pereira yes john frank chairman assad yes uh motion to adjourn who is that dan do i have a second second second ricky sahara any discussion on the motion ricky sehati san du pair yes joe pereira yes
2:28:03john frank yes chairman assad yes the zoning board of appeals special meeting of june 9 2022 is hereby closed thank you all