7.18.2024 Zoning Board of Appeals

right before was door to door good evening I am Joseph Pereira chairman of the zoning board of appeals for the city of Fall River it is 6: PM on Thursday July 18th 2024 we are meeting in one government center in the first floor meeting room person went to Mass General Law chapter 30A section 20 subsection F I hereby notify all persons in attendance that this meeting is being recorded with both

video and audio devices by Mr Craig Salvador a Fall River government TV 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 intent see none our recording secretary this evening is Nina Krueger who's sitting to my immediate right present this evening our permanent board members John Frank who is our vice chairman

James Caulkins our clerk Dan deir and Ricky Sahar also with us this evening sitting to my far left is Dan agar director of engineering and planning Nina have all petitions to be considered been properly advertised and all interested parties notified in accordance with the rules and regulations of the zba and Mass General Law chapter 4A as amended yes I hereby declare there the July 2024 regularly

scheduled meeting of the zba of the city of Fall River open for such business as 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 3 minutes questions and responses must be directed through the chair the board's rules and regulations direct the board to

specifically look for information which supports the petitioner's claim as such the petitioner should identify and factually support the basis for the petition I hereby advise the petitioners and all interested persons that this is the board the zoning board of appeals it's uh the board's Authority exist person to Mass General Law chapter 48 and is limited in scope and deals with the use of land is regulated by

chapter 886 of the ordinances of the city of Fall River additional permits licenses reviews Andor approvals may be required for the specific development Andor use which is the subject of the petition before the board this evening the clerks in the building planning engineering and Licensing departments are competent in their duties as clerks however they are not lawyers and are not competent to give legal advice

the action taken by this board has a real and Lasting effect upon the title to your real estate I urge all petitioners to seek competent legal councel before filing your petition and after a decision of the board has been made for example there is a city ordinance 2015-11 section 10-1 requiring site plan review a copy of the ordinances available at the city clerk's office or from the planning department I remind

everyone that the building inspector is the zoning enforcement Authority and you are here this evening because the building inspector has determined that your proposed action is contrary to the city of Fall River zoning ordinances the city Charter section 9-8 mandates that all multiple member bodies develop and adopt rules for or policy for public comment we have adopted such a policy which in short

provides the for citizen input on zoning board specific matters at the end of the meeting there is a sign up sheet in the back of the room if you care to comment at that point I disclose that an official copy of the Fall River zoning ordinance is available at the city clerk's office and that one cannot rely on the online zoning ordinance we have a long agenda tonight so I'm hoping we can move through it

expediently we have a number of items held over from last month's hearing so I begin with old business item number 01 hqv homes LLC care of attorney Mark L 11 150 purchase street map n08 lot 49 the applicant seeks a special permit to convert the pre-existing mixed use commercial and residential building into five residential units varying use area lot coverage setbacks and parking

requirements in the BL local business zoning district and in an AOC Arts overlay District aod rather the petition uh was previously tabled from the June 20th meeting Council yes members of the board attorney Mark G 11an Mr chairman members of the board you had seen a Ply of this previously and with the suggestions that the board had and people inputting uh we amended our petition resubmit to you today with

changes one of the changes were uh as suggested by uh engineer to eliminate three of the parking spaces that he felt were ineffective uh with that uh we are short what would traditionally be the required parking spaces of 10 for five units but I want to explain a little bit as was suggested the last meeting the use of the property had been an insurance agency a real estate office

and one apartment with that the calcul made by the engineer showed that the real estate office would have required nine spaces which included a loading space the real the insurance office would required nine spaces which included a loading space the apartment two this property would have required 20 spaces under today's laws if it was a brand new building that was coming up there have never been any spaces for

parking for this building they parked on the street and just to see myself I went behind my office walked down Purchase Street buy the property and the meat is there there was one car on the entire purchase Street at 5:40 p.m. so there is availability for parking now I know during the day when the officers in that area are busy they were parking that use on the street but generally I've looked

back there in the evenings or weekends it's empty now what we're telling you though we want to have five residential units converting this to all residential from the mixed use that had been there is actually permitted by the overlay districts in fact by the overlay District it will allow a four to six family multif family so we're only doing five and of those fives and to explain why the eight actually do work is

because because there are only three one-bedroom one two bedroom and one three so it's only eight bedrooms the entire building and that can be stipulated to as part of it now the the Rays I got the letter that came in earlier by injector talking about parking spaces 2 and three I particularly ask the engineer when they remove the the side walking way on the south side of the building there's 11 ft

for which they can a car can pass back and forth and the that's the only exterior change that's going to be to the property is to level that down and pay it straight across so there are four particular spaces that can be on the property there are three spaces that they have deed rights copies of which I provided to you that was part of the deed the neighbor who complains has a

property had the opportunity of buying this they didn't they bought the back property after knowing what this property variance was they understood that they didn't have all of the parking spaces that were there they took title based on that so they can't object and say well we want to use those parking spaces we don't have enough they're not theirs they don't have a legal right to

use them ever uh my position really is that you really do want this type of property that is basically homogeneous with the wrestler neighborhood it's most multifamilies other than some offices on North Main Street an office at the corner of Franklin the the little clubhouse restaurant and the church is on the other side and I'm a little further on Rock Street with an office and apartments

upstairs um I think your your telling I am telling you that the board can properly approve this special permit to allow the uses to just be residential which be far less intensive for the use of the property and people coming in and out of it plus the need for parking that was never there anyway so you're going from no parking spaces for what would have been 20 to eight for eight bedrooms now the

zoning laws also permit you to look at a property to see is this the Practical use of the property is this suitable for a residential building I say it is we're not converting anything in the exterior to build on it it just within the building just converting the offices there's already one apartment upstairs but they remaining offices to four Apartments um we believe that this is

reasonable that the expense to uh change it over is permitted under the law uh to show you that abating lead in the building uh redoing the heating system the electrical system putting a full fire system in and the uh the the necessary requirements for utilities are supported by uh the Coughlin case a Kavanaugh case um is it going to be detrimental to the neighborhood well you had businesses there in one apartment

that required 20 spaces that had none which meant those people all parked on Purchase Street we had eight Apartments now with eight parking spaces that are going to be required by the board and owned by the the owner um I believe that the uh this can be allowed without substantial detriment to this neighborhood um they live with what they have for their own parking spaces they didn't want to buy this building before

I know they approach my client afterwards but he's already set in motion to rehabilitate at this property that's where his desire is and he feels that this would be an appropriate Place uh for primary resident residents for this type of neighborhood and again the overlays support this it's not like we're saying this is a business district like on North Main Street when don't put Apartments there it's already part of

your zoning bylaws to allow this type of use thank you thank you Council questions from the board thank you for opening up that driveway and clarifying those two parking spaces bothered me greatly previously um engineering planning um I would just offer that the proposed use of the of the building is in compliance with the Arts overlay District byw uh so if you are going to look favorably upon it should act at 863

76c where the Zony board of appeals has the ability to Grant a special permit waving minimum lot areas height lot coverage percentage yard setbacks for multif family development as cited in the code that would handle the use of the building um we then have to look at the requested reduction in parking and then you would just have to act under that specific section that allows you to

wave any parking requirement by by a special permit um five units parking spaces as you all know the the standard the standard Bearer for this type of development in the downtown area is usually one space per unit um so they they've exceeded that they will have other permitting to get through um if they haven't already curb Cuts site plan review the only other item you may want to acknowledge is that

there will be one space lost on the street I believe from what I can tell by the plan um but still coming up with seven new parking spaces for the 5unit building in Li of what the parking requirement would have been if the commercial uses were completely filled that's it thank you anyone else from the board before we go to the public and I just want to double check

and clarify it says it on the plan here but I think to quell everyone's parking issues on the lot itself says existing parking spaces to be restriped because I guess what's there now is not what was was ordered per the last right okay y okay we have uh in correspondence we do have two letters from uh preservation Society of Fall River one dated yesterday one today uh today's reads uh members of the

zoning board of appeals the preservation Society of Fall River would like to express its opposition to the proposed special permit request to convert 150 Purchase Street into five residential units and wave area lot coverage setback and parking requirements as a property owner of 146 148 Purchase Street and an abutter located directly behind 150 Purchase Street the preservation Society

has serious concerns regarding the request for increased density and its effect on the preservation society's own property out of the uh four par parking space is currently assigned to 150 purchas Street zero of them are on its own property um instead the preservation society as well as the owners of the abing 170 Purchase Street would uh provide the only parking 150 Purchase Street has uh we also pay all property

taxes storm water fees associated with those spaces in addition to the cost of maintenance for the shared easement the proposed plan squeezes as many additional Vehicles as it can on on paper in between multiple wooden buildings which isn't reflective of the situation on the ground and creates an unsafe environment for all residents occupants and emergency responders in fact spaces two and three on the in the

revised plan have no possible V vehicular access that would physically impact the preservation society's tenants Vehicles parked on its own property we believe the proposed five units of 15 Purchase Street would provide too heavy a burden on the neighborhood which already suffers from high density and traffic the neighborhood includes restaurants bars historic churches and uh that hosts

large community meetings and events um one right across the street from 150 Purchase Street which is which fills up uh available parking regularly on both weekends and and weekdays it is impossible to propose that the requested specialr permit would not increase traffic congestion or impact pedestrian safety further the m a number of units allowed in a BL local business district

uh is irrelevant if not possible to fit number of units in the building uh or on the lot um the same the same zoning board previously rejected a proposal to construct a new three family home directly uh abing this property in 2020 due to similar density concern turns an impact on the neighborhood the property already can't accommodate its own parking with the Zone uses uh currently

allowed an extensive release relief is already provided at the expense of a Butters uh we believe it would be extremely detrimental to approve special permit variance requests sinly preservation Society of FL River inc's board of directors and from yesterday included below is Preservation Society Fall River inc's vote by its board of directors on July 8th 2024 for submitting position

statement regarding the agenda items for 150 and 170 purchas streets of the zoning board of appeals for its meeting on July 18th 2024 the full Board of Directors for the preservation Society includes James Soul President James soua vice president Gail Powers Treasurer Alexander Silva clerk Maria Connie Soul um J Cory John Silver Jennifer Smith and Jennifer Luzon absent from the uh July

18th meeting vote where John Smith Jennifer Smith and Jennifer lison the vote to submit uh position statements for 150 170 purchas Street we're 6 to Z in favor uh with James SS um James susza Gail Powers Alexander silver Maria Connie soul and and Joanna Corey in favor and none oppos please let me know if they can be of any further assistance is there anybody here this evening that wishes to speak in favor of the

petition see none uh anybody who wishes to speak in opposition please uh as you know identify yourself and address please hi Alexander Silva 150 Purchase Street um a member of the preservation society's board of directors also landlord at site at the 146 148 Carriage uh Purchase Street Carriage House um I was anticipating on reading that letter uh in the record myself but thank you for

doing it for me um I'll just restate a couple things and uh touch upon some of the changes that were stated uh as I said out of the four parking spaces currently assigned to 150 Purchase Street uh zero of them are actually on its own property so I think there's a strong argument to say that this property is already experiencing severe relief in terms of its parking requirements um as attorney 11 uh said

there's street parking available however if I just walk down the street to this meeting if he would take a walk back up that street he would notice that the street is full because a lot of the community events at the church at I mentioned take place after five um pretty much most days of the week um including the weekends uh I also don't necessarily appreciate the speculative nature of some of Mr

attorney LV lavine's presentation especially speaking to conversations before his client even purchased the property or to the motivations of others um I don't know exactly where he gets his information from but a lot of what he said was actually inaccurate um in regards to parking spaces 2 and three if that drive so is my understanding that driveway speaks extended from the street

all the way to the back of the property surpassing that retaining wall that is marked on the plan and currently in existence on site is through the chair is that is that my understanding um by viewing this plan that's my understanding yes so okay is there going to be a new retaining wall built then cuz that's not to grade with the street and I'm just kind of confused how access have to go

through S plan to construct okay so beyond the expertise or so that plan is now inaccurate in terms of that retaining wall and access for sites two and three through the chair okay is that I'm just asking because I'm no no it's it's he's got to build these parking spaces we're we're dealing with a we're dealing with a footprint and again please we're not a site plan review we're dealing with

use and if what is depicted is impossible to build if it's if it's allowed it still has to go through PL site plan review it still has to go through uh the building department once if uh permissions are given for the construction and if they can't build it they're back in here or they're back in for an a site plan review okay well um I'll just I guess say for the record that as detailed in

the plan presented that retaining wall uh is blocking the cribed access for the two spots and one would I guess interpret as the abutter that our property is supposed to gain access give access to site uh spots two and three um but I guess that'll be hashed out in the site plan review so I guess I'll end it it there okay thank you I I do have a question yes does this property or does

it not have deed rights of the four parking spaces that are on um the preservation society's property yes okay that's has has that been called into question ever uh I don't I just called it into question I just asked because you are right that the four the four parking spaces that are there currently are not on their property and they've come up with spaces on their property so come up with the eight so the point of

the the point is Mo that they don't have any parking spaces on the property currently that's true but what does it matter they provided parking spaces at this point for this presentation and they have for on on preservation society's property so one is actually on 170 purchase Street's property three are on the preservation society's property and I would argue that the point is not mute uh moot

because it actually details that there's significant release already at the burden and expense of the abutters for parking um because as I said no storm water property tax fees um actually when that's a business situation between the owners of I'm just saying it doesn't fall under my purview I mean one of the stipulations that this board made when the property was originally subdivided

that before the subdivision would take place there would be an established maintenance plan for the easement of all property owners that hasn't happened so I mean the maintenance is a burden to the existing property owners in neighborhood I would just argue that do we have the prayer great thank you thank you anybody else wishing to speak in opposition that being the case I turn to the board oh

sorry after hearing you know the AR I'm not here to argue I'm here to Simply then tell us who you are concern Priscilla forrier and um I live at 25 Watermark Drive in ton but I've spent 74 years of my life in High Street and Fall River Mass so I'm I'm here long for a long time um my concern as a the owner of the Belmont Club on Franklin Street M and

having had people from the location that we're here regarding um parking in my Belmont Club parking lot which has post problems getting people to remove their cars and never doing anything like having them towed out or being an unkind neighbor um it has been a really significant problem in the winter when the snowplow has to come and they come before 7:00 in the morning for Bank five

who Parks 20 some of their cars in my parking lot and it's I don't want to tow people's cars I know they do this and they use the parking lot for their parking so there must be some you know issues with limited parking where they are to be using my lot I just want to state that as a concern it's it's it's downtown it's tight and unfortunately you got a big parking lot so you've got

people that are using it so but it's private I property and they shouldn't be parking there when it says on the side of the building private property and it doesn't allow the people who do the plowing to do their job so it is a really serious problem understood at certain times of the year more than others the winter that's all I just wanted great thank you so much okay thanks a lot anybody else in

opposition then I will turn to the board we have a better plan than we had last time and Mr chairman this is uh been in front of us three times now and the revisions that were made are I feel more than adequate to accommodate what um the concerns were uh I think the restriping of those spots to address any onsite confusion or onsite uh issues between building owners I mean they're deeded to this property maybe

signage would also be helpful it's up to them but um with that I'll make the motion to uh Grant on the first uh this has to be two correct it's that's spet it um the first one would be uh for the uh not to be more detrimental to the neighborhood for five uh residential units that's a motion do we have a second I'll second second from Dan deir questions comments on the motion Ricky

Sahar yes Danier yes Jim ckins yes John Frank yes chairman per yes and the second part would be to uh reduce the parking I I I heard the concern of the neighbor as far as those two back spots um with that retaining wall and stuff that might be an issue for the developers and or the neighbors so I my motion will be um right now it looks like very easily six spots can be

created um for the four that they have on and the two that they have on site I will put no less than six parking places to be provided for this building uh but if we can get the eight the other two in um the more the better I think is my uh way to handle that and um with that that'll be my motion Mr chairman so if I understand uh

the motion is to accept with no less than six parking places no less than six if they can get the eight I would obviously prefer that and so would everyone else but that retaining wall I know that was a concern and then uh um having to extend to the back site plan it's all going to come down to site plan anyways my concern is just not if we get to site plan and they turn around and

say it's just not going to work I don't want them have to come back and US redo this again for the fourth time um just to make sure that we're at a point so no less than no less than six but we can get the eight as stated on the plan that would be the pref preference that is a motion do we have a I will second the motion second from

Ricky sah have question I was asking site plan review it is definitely site plan yeah all right anything else on the motion in that case John Frank yes Jim ckins yes Dana yes Ricky Sahar yes chairman per yes thank you thank you for your time item number 02 old business BMF 4 care of Peter acelino 26 Brow Street map in20 lot 6 the applicant seeks a special permit per 86- 423b to subdivide the subject property

into two lots leaving each existing five family dwelling on a separate lot the property is located in an A2 apartment zoning District the p uh this petition was previously table from the June 20th 2024 meeting good evening good evening for the record Peter solino attorney at 550 Locust Street River on behalf of the applicant uh before you members of the board is my client's petition to divide the lot pursuant to 86

423b um the board's certainly familiar with that provision that allows you to uh allow the division of the Lots provided that each have a structure and they were both built before uh 1954 by virtue of a special permit um both lots are currently improved with existing five family dwellings uh both building cards indicate 1900 for the uh data construction so I'd submit to the board

um that it's an appropriate request and that uh the board should find that these Lots be divided accordingly okay very good is this the same division or similar to the division done uh that was in front of the board in August of 2020 uh 2015 2015 I am not sure

okay questions from the board um attorney selino just a recertification is that what this is it was not acted upon as I'm reading this came before the board in 21 and not acted upon correct so it was approved just not acted upon um that's a fair question I do not know if it was um yes I've refreshed my recollection it was not acted upon was not not acted upon no motion was taken that's correct

and then it was sold to my client uh ultimately as two lot you know as one big lot with two properties on it okay so this is third time the division of this lot is back so okay that's that I just wanted to clarify that all right uh other questions from the board anyone here wishing to speak in favor of the petition anyone wishing to speak in opposition to this petition hearing none I return to the

board it's a special permit 86423 which we we've uh seen many of what are the size of the two lots to the left uh lot one would be 2900 lot two would be 37 okay thank very clear on the plans all I have to do was look so special permit bipoc yes so Mr chairman I would make the motion that uh this is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and it be approve second

second okay motion and second any uh discussion on the motion hearing none Ricky sahti yes Dany Pier yes Jim ckins yes John Frank yes chairman prair yes thank you all right sorry I heard you say did you move you added approval did both yeah in the motion so were there any conditions no the second vote one vote was that is not substantially more detrimental yeah say and that it be approved that it be approved vot that

wording at the end okay I apologize I was I I misheard that I was going to just mention on the second part to just have no fencing no separate utilities part of that so if you can amend the motion to add no off and and separate utilities have the survey portion in there to survey markings markings so U no fencing uh separate utilities and bound Mark bound markers bound markers bound marker

okay on the second okay then on the on the amended motion then Ricky zah yes Dana yes Jim Caulkins yes John Frank yes and chairman PR yes thank you item number 03 BMF 4 LLC car petolino 105 Park street map go6 lot 64 the applicant seeks a special permit per 86- 423b to subdivide the subject property into two lots leaving the existing eight family dwelling on one lot and the existing three family

dwelling on another lot uh this Al this is the uh in the A2 apartment zoning district and this was carried over from the June 20th 2024 meeting thank you uh Peter selino for the record on behalf of BMF 4 LLC same owner same petition different property um so my client owns this property at 105 Park Street um the section I've cited in my relief request is 86 423b um again both uh Parcels have

structures that were erected prior to 19 1954 on them and we're seeking the approval to divide them pursuant to a special permit um there's an existing eight family dwelling on the front and a three family dwelling in the rear attorney sen just for the record on 86 425 V is that correct I think should be what I'm reading here is 425 reading it on what document on the uh special commit application

he might have had a typ though mine is correct okay um yeah if it if you're reading that that's a typo should be 423 on the agenda it's correct it's a correct on the agenda and it's a typo on the uh on the application it must beely 423 it's in more than one place 42 so was advertised is 423 and then in one place it's 426 on the application 423b is what it

should be yeah this is 426b the plan says 423b y plan does advertisement did okay good catch be a little something extra in your paycheck um all right any other questions from the board at this point anyone here wish to speak in favor of the petition anyone to speak in oppos opposition okay opposition to the petition please uh again hearing none I turn to the board Mr chairman I find that this is not um

significantly more detrimental to the area second motion and second on that motion Ricky Sahar yes Danier yes Jim Caulkins yes John Frank J Prairie yes Mr chairman I moved that we U approve the grant of the special permit uh with the conditions that boundary markets be laid and subject to site Review Committee fencing uh no intering shall be erected between the separation of utilities that exist well separation of

utilities motion we have a second was that you Dan yes okay thank you and on the motion John Frank yes Jim ckins yes Dana yes Ricky sah yes J perie yes thank you item number 04 Jason Cody care of Attorney Peter acelino uh 105 Pitman street map j19 watt 6 65 the applicant seeks a special permit to add three residential units to the existing five unit apartment building the apartment uh the applicant

also seeks a special permit to maintain the existing off street parking layout modifying aisle width and uh number of spaces required the applicant also seeks a special permit to increase pre-existing non-conforming lot coverage from 40% to 82% additionally the petitioner seeks a variance to reduce the number uh the minimum front and rear setbacks from 30 feet to 10 feet the minimum sidey

yard setbacks from 20 feet to 14 feet in an A2 apartment zoning District per submitted plans uh petition was tabled from the June 20th 2024 meeting good evening for the record Peter solino on behalf of Jason Cody Jason Cody's to my immediate left um the subject property albeit not on the screen yet is uh was inherited by my client um his father uh left it to him my understanding of the history of the

property is that there was actually a dairy uh in this um site so the property fronts on Pitman Street it has a narrow uh bit of Frontage 45 ft up on Pitman there's an existing four family dwelling um there's sort of a a commercial if you will I don't know commercial is not the right word but there's a garage um there are some curb Cuts along Marino Street and then the property opens up down

along Alden Street so the proposal here is to to expand the existing non-conformity um by attaching effectively a Pergola uh between the North buildings and the new uh proposed triplex on the south which fronts on Alden Street uh the proposal serves to create um off street parking sufficient to accommodate the new units in total The Proposal uh has 14 parking spaces in it the as is indicated in the ad and in

the petition um if the board were so inclined we would need a special permit to increase the existing non-conformity uh we'd need waivers as it relates to parking and then variances as it relates the construction of the triplex building that fronts on Alden Street for front yard rear yard and sidey yard setback um as it relates to the variance component of the petition I would submit to you

that the site is certainly certainly uniquely shaped um the existing structures on the site are certainly unique and so on Mr tolman's plan he's indicated in order to create traffic flow that there's an existing parking space uh to be relocated and that is so there's a travel aisle from Marino Street to the proposed uh asphalt driveway on the Westerly side of the property The Proposal would also include

uh closing a curb cut which I'd submit to you would create another on street parking uh space on Marino Street happy to take any questions Mr talman's uh with me and my client is here as well okay so the the entrance then is going to be where existing parking space one is is that correct that is correct Mr

PR why the why the pergola so that um the the idea is uh to connect the two so that we can go under a special permit Theory as opposed to a variance Theory so we go from from the house to the one stall garage to an existing roof I don't know what that roof is over but that's okay so you're going to drive under the existing roof there's an existing one stall garage a Pergola and then

connecting to the proposed three family the Dr ples that is the proposal put bones connected to the leg bone okay jiujitsu no Jiu-Jitsu here it's more like operation umage is engineering R away in um it's a lot um I do think they filed for the correct relief um the way that they' presented it it does look like a fairly tight area a lot of multifamilies you'd have to determine I

think the lot coverage I mean not the lot coverage the uh reduction in parking that if the neighborhood can sustain that lot coverage as well I don't know what storm water looks like through adjacent Properties or it's a lot could I ask what was the hardship identified uh shape and existing structures Mr uh Caulkins is what I've pled in my paperwork um we we looked at this and Mr tomman can speak to it too

but we looked at it and thought do you subdivide or do you seek to subdivide the lower lot if you will the corner of Alden Street and Marino um but I don't think that necessarily worked uh so that's why we came up with this concept I mean do you want to add anything to that yes um well a couple of things first of all with the all the existing structures that on that are on the

property now are all connected um the the there was the original House on Pitman Street in addition off the back um then that was that has a one stall garage attached to it then it was connected with the existing roof that's labeled on the plan to the uh an additional freestanding one stall garage or what was freestanding um so there is a a um the all these structures on the property are all connected right now the

existing bar in the back right well no that that's coming down that's no that's not connected I'm sorry um yes my mistake the existing bond there is an existing bond on the um you know the back uh part of the property I I guess it would be the uh Southeast yeah southeast part of the property there you go Peter thank you uh yeah that's coming down to to uh make

room for this parking area uh in terms of the parking right now there are three four five parking spots on the property for the four units when it's all said and done with this proposal where it happens to get approved we would be providing 14 parking spots for the total of seven units so there would be two parking spots per unit um with this current plan what what's the aisle wi between those back parking spaces the

two and the four like after you come through the existing roof I believe it's 20 ft I'm not mistaken and I believe that was part of the relief that was sought uh in parking it wasn't necessarily the number of parking spots required it was the aisle width that we would see right but it's not called out in the plan and it's not called out in the application uh I have aisle width in number

one additional unit modifying aisle width and number of spaces required what is the aisle with what is the aisle with oh I'm sorry I don't have a skill with I believe it's 20 ft if I'm not mistaken well the SPAC is a dimension is 18 it is it's a one-way traffic pattern through the site um you come through Marino under the roof do you get to that back parking

area then you work your way up to Al the to the South are they 18t parking spaces yes I didn't bring my rule with me but it might be 20 if you're going to say 20 you're going to live with 20 if this is approved so okay in that case I'd say 18 um I don't know I don't have a skill with me I apologize I don't know what that Dimension

isk the parking space the and we're looking at 82% lot coverage that is the proposal yes how many bedrooms you that anything on how many bedrooms you have my client's preference would be three bedrooms and in the new units the the new units so a total of nine bedrooms in there one thing to add as well is um on that side of Al street where the the driveway would be coming out and these

new driveways going to the garages would be there is no parking allowed on that side so we wouldn't be losing any on street parking uh by installing those driveways

how many bedrooms in the for fam there's um three three and three of them three three in the in the front two four and then one in the bottom uh studio in the bottom so two threes a four and a one yeah yes two thre and four and the one yes okay and and the garage is are currently used for parking you park cars in these garages yeah my bikes are in there his

motorcycles are in there Mr chairman do you live in the house by the way yeah it's me and my sisters okay I live in the whole thing well any other questions from the board Mr AR I said this is a lot anyone here wishing to speak in favor of the uh the petition anyone here to speak in opposition none I got to come back to the board then questions changes asking for special permit and of

Vance yeah so which one would you take first I would say you would you would first want to deal with the the special permanent portion of being not more detrimental to the neighborhood not I mean my greatest concern is is just the amount of lock coverage it is there's not going to be a blade of grass out here um Mr chairman uh may I ask a question please um would the board consider um or

consider it more favorably if there were only two new units as opposed to three and we created some green space in there and we can also think about unit count or bedroom count as well um bedroom count probably coverage okay I get some green space in there again I'm not going to get into a situation like a prior meeting where we design something for somebody but I'm not asking you to that

would be more favorable okay fair to me I don't know what's the rest of the board feel yeah I I think it's overcrowded and obviously a reduction is always more favorable in both BL that that would increase your green space to cut down some of your variances needed I I think it's overcrowded right now yeah should I think it's it's a bit much I think it would be up for you to make

the determination if you'd like to withdraw table or have them vot I would like to table um so I'd make a motion to table to the August meeting so that we can consider the board's comments and revise the proposal could you revise that to the September meeting as the a meeting is already oh that's it's capped out okay so then would that be approprate well what we have we have 14

14 so that we make 15 oh perfect sounds like so close so close but yeah so far away if they Grant it okay all right so the request of uh request of the petitioner is to um table the uh table of matter for changes uh to the August meeting what's the date of the August meeting August 15th August 15th meeting can we have a motion to that effect please second please second motion and second

on that motion uh John Frank no Jim ckins yes Dana yes Ricky Sahar yes and chairman F yes thank you sign this paper we're saying we're asking to continue for mon okay where am item number 05 okay so you to Christopher Mion 301 America Street math e08 lot 11 I'm sorry thanks for having um Mr chair I am supposed to be in Swansea so I've asked Mr tomman and attorney Walter frases if I could be

taken out of order so that I could try to get these done and get over to Swansea um and they've ascented graciously to that request heard there's a terrible plan over like some where are you you're deep in the batting order here number six is your first one so you got six eight after which we will take a break um all right we need yeah we need a motion to take out of order

please yeah yeah I'll make the motion we take second please second motion and second on the motion John Frank yes Jim ckins yes Danier yes Ricky sah F yes okay uh item number six in new business Tatro realy Trust car Peter salino 419 Laurel Street map co8 lot 22 the applicant seats of variance to divide the existing parcel into two lots leaving the existing single family dwelling on one lot with

4,550 square ft waving lot area and lot coverage and Crea a new fully conforming 8,000 ft lot property is located in an R8 single family zoning District thank you Peter selino on behalf of the owner tetrol real estate LLC uh my client owns the property in question um as you can see from the plan there's an existing single family dwelling on the site that dwelling sits on the corner of Laurel

and Mison streets um it's a unique parcel to me in the sense that you have this Confluence of three different zoning districts you have the R8 the R4 and the um BN um The Proposal is to divide the property to create uh Lot number one which as you read is a conforming lot uh the proposal is to build a single family house there on after raising the existing garage the uh

house would be left as it sits on uh what is shown on the plan as Lot number two and the waivers required would be um the square footage and the lot coverage I'd submit to you that it's certainly a unique piece of property in terms of shape and the existing structure uh 419 Laurel is almost on uh Mison Street you can see how tight it is uh to the uh

Street line so uh I filed this as a variance and I respectfully request that the board consider that I submit to you that it's consistent with the neighborhood in terms of use uh as a single family dwelling very good and you're not uh ex just you're just expressing the setbacks you're not expressing any type of uh footprint for that is correct it's a traditional uh setback shown okay and

we'd accept that obviously as a condition of course questions from the board single family two off street parking yes yeah lot lot two will be constructed in accordance with the R8 District correct y so all of the relief is into lot one regarding area and lot coverage setback any other questions from the board anyone in the audience wishing to speak in favor of the petition anyone to speak in

opposition they're seeing none it rests with the board make a motion of Grant second motion to Grant with a second um comments on the motion they're hearing none John Frank yes Jim ckins yes Danier yes Ricky Sahar yes chairman per chairman per yes thank you who second thank you all right item number seven purchas Street LLC care of Attorney Peter Peter a selino 170 purchase street map no8 lot

93 the applicant seeks an after Thea variance to construct a deck waving three yard setbacks and a BL local business zoning District uh and an aod Arts overlay District thank you Peter solino on behalf of the applicant uh with me is the manager of the LLC um this property is a recently constructed duplex style uh building uh this uh I guess it doesn't quite about the property that attorney L was talking

about but it's one property over to the north uh during site plan review was discovered that the deck on the rear of the building does not comply with the rear setback as you can see from the plan uh the rear of the property has um sort of different depths in terms of what the rear lot line would be so drawing your attention to the northwesterly corner of the lot uh the

deck does not comply with the rear yard setback so uh again this was discovered through site plan review and as a result we're here seeking a waiver um of approximately 4 and 1/2 ft for that rear setback on the deck so hang on it was caught in site plan review the deck is already built yes it is the are we talking about the deck or the the bulkhead that it looks like or

both both both and we've asked for multiple times to get revised plans that show that setback but you can see how that it falls within the set the building setback the dash line but we don't have a specific distance to the deck to the bulkhead it's 10.8 I would offer that the deck would be further than that

so so so we're talking here this is the envelope yes right so it's this deck corner and that bulkhead corner to this line the whole deck yeah and it was it was caught during the asilt portion of site plan review it was permitted through site plan review without this deck being shown or the bulkhead being shown so when it came in with the asilt for sign off that's when

it was found they proved site plan is in here okay thank you so the option was either to have them remove it or come for you so you did have a deck and site plan but it fit correct correct didn't BS bigger than it was two smaller Decks that straddled the the common line in the middle so they were much smaller decks this deck extends from bulad to

bulad is a bulkhead or dog house dog house dog house dog house dog house is structure um yeah they they're both considered part of the structure but one is you just walk down your bco head down the other one is you open the door walk in and then downsteps so this is so it's not really a dog house it's called he's got two k coros in there yeah um all right any other questions from the

board why why did you build it bigger you you got approval you got site plan you went through all this stuff why why didn't you just build what you were approved for I like a two-year-old kid they learn how to say why it's the best question in the world so answer why is it bigger I thought he not it's my first time building so I didn't pay attention to

the to the pl so I bu like 2 feet wide anybody here wish to speak in favor of the uh petition anybody in opposition come on down Alexander Silva uh 148 purpose Street um said uh sent a letter on behalf of the preservation board directors butter directly back um the preservation would like to express its opposition to the act of the fact variant request to construct a deck at 170 purchas Street

waving rear yard setback requirements as the property owner of 146 148 Purchase Street and in a butter located directly behind 170 Purchase Street the preservation Society has serious concerns regarding the impact this larger deck has on the neighborhood this very zoning board rejected a prior proposal to construct a new three family home on the same parel due to concerns of the impact that size would have on

the neighborhood uh the property at 170 Purchase Street was vacant poot only last year before the current two unit three floor condo was built which now stands larger than and in contrast to all the surrounding houses in the historic neighborhoods while providing fewer housing units than them uh we believe that if the owner of 170 per sheet wanded a larger deck it should have been incorporated into the original

designs before construction a year ago was the owner's decision to put as large a structure as possible on the site uh with an above ground basement and a first floor actually on the second floor and second floor actually on the third leaving no room for uh the large deck a large deck violating minimum rear yard setbacks and directly abiding five multif Family Properties around it while

hanging over an increasing number of vehicles should not be allowed after the fact as a detriment to the neighbors um and then I would just know that there I we did think that they were trying to build a larger deck that there was there now so I'm good happy to hear that it's some the existing deck I guess yeah it's yeah and the dog Poes are above ground it's pretty much an above ground

basement yeah no I I've been by okay anybody else who speak in opposition I turn to the board this is forgiveness so just so that I can add just one thing because this all kind of comes back to the same original variants that allowed for these lots to be created similar to the last petition with creating a lot that the new construction is going to be completely conforming to the district when this

variance was granted to create this piece it was to be constructed 100% in accordance with the bylaw Frontage area lot coverage parking everything which it did meet and that's how it went through site plan review so when this the whole variance for 150 preservation Society pieces and then the construction of these two new pieces it was anticipated that that construction would and it actually showed the decks on the

variance plan meeting the building setback so um they did build a larger house larger building that does meet the setbacks so that's that's all well and good um but that then forced the decks not to meet the setback and okay that's all I have to ask yep okay to the board what do we want to do do the St come up pass it St are fine oh yeah but it's egress egress is okay it's just

Dex um I make a motion to deny motion to deny we have a second I'll second okay motion to deny with second um Ricky zahi on the motion no D yes Jim ckins no okay um John Frank yes chairman perie yes thank

you so the motion was made to deny motion to deny so yes so it's a 41 y okay very good item number eight fat LLC I hope I'm saying that right I know I'm not sure how to say it either so all right attorney care attorney pelino 522 Broadway map G20 Lot 25 the applicant seeks a uh variant special permit to convert the existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling the applican SE uh special

permit to Wave parking requirements uh the property is located in A2 apartment zoning District uh yes so uh Peter solino on behalf of the applicant um this is similar to many petitions we've seen in Fall River so my client purchased this property uh there were three apartments in it uh first second and third floor uh he did to his credit and I just passed in to Nina um do some homework on the

property prior to purchasing it we often have discussions in this room about due diligence and I can tell you that he did do due diligence and the third floor apartment had a series of permits pulled for it including gas electric uh a building permit a plumbing permit all of which reference um that third floor apartment so he went forward with a purchase predicated on the fact that he

was buying a three family based on what I think is reasonable due diligence um subsequent to the closing he was notified by the building department that the third floor was not a permitted unit and now he's in this position where he has a house uh that he thought and he paid for was a three family and in fact uh the building Department's position it's a two family so therefore I've pled

as a variance and special permit um seeking to have authorization to use uh that third floor as a legal apartment because I'd submit to you it' be a grave hardship to the gentleman when he had a reasonable belief that it was a permitted unit attorney Sho did you submit copies of those building permits uh yes I just and I have others as well right was it does it specify if it was

for an addition unit or just for the creation of space that's anun not an engineering function but we get this information without being able to look it up AC the street if it's part of your argument you can don't know if you need it to be made part of your argument but you've made a part of your arum so we have a gas permit pluming permit electrical permit permit pair replacement for the building

permit building permit for roof sh Rock kitchen cabinets

operation property card is still two family there's no prior action we got we have one electrical permit says for first four remodel first yeah next building permit alteration install sheetrock kitchen cabinets does it say what flow is on that one building permit 20212 402 do you have those in front of you no I just gave my two copies sorry next one is repair replacement roof lay over and replace 12

Windows electrical permit replace service in first floor Plumbing residential second floor one bath one kitchen one La one water closet that's a plumbing permit for I'm assuming the second floor gas residential basement boiler second dryer third one DCR I don't know what DCR means so that's one gas permit but I don't see a building permit right for the third floor unit unless potentially is there an electrical one

that says there is but it doesn't say that it's for an additional unit so there is a gas permit and an electrical but those aren't building permits um the only one maybe you can hang your hat on is alteration install sheetrock and kitchen cabinets that's one building permit but it doesn't say what part of the building that was on I don't maybe we want to get clarification on that

MH if you think it would matter in your decision yeah electrical wiring permit is second and third Flor but that

doesn't is this the second

copy doesn't side so putting that aside how many parking spaces are there now three uh I believe yes three y so no increase in parking um I think sitewise Mr agar I don't think there's the ability to increase it um so then what why don't you tell us about how it's not substantially more detrimental than currently not meet meeting the parking lot normally when we look at these is it's if we can add a new

parking space right to make something better right what's being made better on this um that's why I pled it as a variance as well because I don't know if I have a good argument on that so you want them to work on potentially you want two votes now I have to plead as much as I can right so I'm making an argument for my client um I suspected that there's not much I can argue that

it's not substantially more detrimental so then I'd have to fall back to the hardship of the existence of that unit and the structure that was already in there when he bought it that sounds like a legal matter between him the seller but um all right so we have to take it as as two parts anyway one is the conversion which is which is the special the additional unit was probably

meant to be a three Family House in the first place somewhere along the line something got dropped out of it um any other questions from the board or from planning anybody here wish to speak in favor of the petition oh I almost called on anybody uh anybody to speak in opposition they're hearing none we turn to the board I would look at the special permit first which would be a bipoc special

permit then we have to deal with the uh the variants for um paron Mr chairman I would make the motion that um this this proposal is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood second motion and second on the motion uh Ricky s yes Dana yes Jim ckins yes John Frank yes chairman Prairie yes so the second part of that would be to approve the uh the third unit so motion to approve second motion second in

discussion they hearing none Ricky sahti yes Danier yes Jim ckins yes Johan Frank yes jman perie yes on the question of parking what hold on was it requested for parking I don't see it in the petition reduction in parking you would that's right you had done it as a variant SL special we don't no this what it says I am I reading the wrong one no seek a special to Wave parking requir where are you no

no no no on the application applicant seeks to use the existing third floor of the property as an apartment availing himself of infrastructure that is already present that's the requested relief yeah yep my mistake is it is there something on the plan was anybody live in there there were people living in there but they're not anymore because the building department didn't allow using any oh

great so it's it's already built out it's it's fully built out yeah says W parking it was on on it's got to go by with the application the same hang on let me clarify I don't want to make a mistake here yeah but the plan does call for it yeah yes it does the plan calls for it was advertised that way just the application does not what does the denial say the

denial says parking the denial does okay I think you're okay to go that's a special permit you don't need a Vari no special permit for Park special W Park the vtic covers it yeah so do we want to the special permit we just voted on was strictly on the um strictly on the increasing unit Department y one more we want to give them the wave on Parking Can you make a motion to Grant

the special for waving a parking one to one to one for three unit three parking spaces on site which is what's existing now good that's a motion to approve the variance is that correct yes no all by special permit there's no variance paring it was put in just parking for special just in case I'll I'll second we have a motion on a second uh on the motion then Ricky sah

yes yes Andy piir jump the gun uh Jim ckins yes John Frank yes chairman per yes thank you all just to be safe want I asked just to withdraw the petition sure I'll make a motion to withdraw the petition for the variance move second second on that on that uh to withdraw the variant Ricky's yes Andy yes Jim ckins John Frank yes chairman perie yes thank you all appreciate it thank you for Jeff

give our regards to the staff over there would you yeah thank you can we take a five minute break please that question going to take minut do we have to vote on that all right do we have to vote on the break do we have no I make a motion

toight six we're going to six all right we are taking things slightly out of order it's the same petitioner or the same representative items number five and six are flipping item number 06 is five diamonds LLC 818 Jefferson Street map e24 lot 105 the applicant seeks a variance to construct uh an offsite freestanding sign in excess of 86- 451 one 2 B4 of the city of Fall River zoning

ordinance to increase the height to 75 ft the property is located in the CMD commercial Mill zoning district and this was uh table from the June 20th meeting good evening for the record Jeff Colman from Northeast engineers and Consultants here with me tonight is Neil Rossy if you can introduce yourself Neil Rossy from Media Partners ADL Washington Street Norwell man Massachusetts yeah Mr chairman the the reason we're

here tonight is um we did receive a special permit to construct this billboard when when we do this before we really uh attempt the actual construction we do a lighting test with a drone we put a drone up 35 ft and we see where the light emanates uh this is a digital LED sign which the light it's nothing like a um a lighted billboard it goes dark when it gets dark at night it adjusts itself but

what we found out is it's sort of a weird situation I guess this is an industrial Zone but you have houses in the industrial Zone that were put there by special permit so I guess you have Residential Properties in an industrial Zone which we usually don't contend with so what we believe the hardship is and the reason we want to um raise the height there'll be no glare into the

windows of the house at all there's two houses one to the right one to the left and I think this this book that we have uh shows exactly what that is so the the end of The Arrow the top end of the arrow is 75 ft yeah so that's no that 75 ft would be up uh at 35 ft that's the glare you're going to get when you put it at 75 ft it goes over

the roof and right into the highway so the houses won't be affected at all so and it also reduces some of the tree cover we won't have to take down in front of the houses which help them with their Highway noise so I the hardship really isn't on us the billboard company but what we're trying to do is help the neighbors as much as we can in that neighborhood Hood cuz obviously we don't want people

complaining so that's why we're looking for the height adjustment that's a lot I'm I'm still wondering if you guys talk to the people that that own those solar panels that you're going to be shadowing just curious the same people who own the billboard that own the panels and and I don't think there will be much of a shadow on it because of the the height but we'll see we'll

see do we have the prior relief in here okay questions from the board Mr chairman if I can understand a special permit was granted at some point yes it was and it was granted for 35 ft for 35 ft and and what you're saying is that if you were to construct a 35 ft it would glare into the into the existing houses yes and and we really don't know

that until we go out there and do these drone tests we put them up 35 ft and we see so it it's more of we're looking to avoid complaints in the future so so therefore the uh the request from 35 ft to 75 is to avoid the cleare yes but the special permit was granted it was what was submitted this time variant of special permit yeah there a variance so you're requesting a variance

or a special permit variance for this how far is that from the highway and what would the billboard itself is right on the highway line like it's 10 ft it's 10 ft off it's the minimum 10 10 ft off the travel Lane no no no off the layout line what's the variance for the height well what section of zoning that are you not dealing with the correct height 86 451 I2

B4 no freeing I got you he's

right P level see was 75 the magic height when you did your drone test it was we we went up and we we kept trying it at what height would work 75 there's no issue at all with any of the light Ambience to the houses that was the Le for us it's more advantageous to build it as low as we can what this one of the concerns I was expressed when the original came before

us that the lighting effect on the houses and the trees being cut down yeah but I think this this helps that yeah no it eliminates the original concern but I thought we had assurance that time that it wouldn't have been a a problem Jeff you have any idea what the elevation difference is from the pavement of Route 24 to the site because that's actually what the ordinance reads in relation to

it I know it's minimal I don't know exactly what it is it's it's yeah there might be a little you know depression drainage sale on the side oft from existing grade not 75 ft from the asphal existing gr where the is sign okay MH so no relation to the asphalt we run the Drone up right where the pole is no no I'm just trying to make sure that're fitting in the right section of zoning I

don't want you to have to come back again okay um I remember looking at that it's pretty close there's not just so that the board knows the the the maximum height for a structure in here is six stories or 80 ft so this Falls could theoretically build build than okay any other questions from the board any other comments from from engineering okay so just going back to the I referring back to the prior

approval it's a v-shaped sign angled there's one the angles are away from the houses towards the highway it seems like yeah there it's like a 45 almost the way it looks and from the backside there'll be no light light Ambience at all the only two houses are affected are those ones with the arrows if you looked at the book we passed passed around yeah they're two on the ends two on either side and and they

are very close which usually if it wasn't an industrial area Billboards are prohibited of course in residential areas so this is sort of a weird thing that we don't run into all the time yeah no issue with the billboard being across the street no no it's uh more than um it's a static billboard it's more than 500 ft the state regulation is 5 on digitals it's th right but this roadway layout's 500 ft I'm assuming

from where that is from where a billboard is this 500 no no no I know but on this plan it shows a billboard across the street that's what I'm just saying is that this highway layout must be greater than 500t yes yes because um the state would not Grant a super no no I know that that's why I'm asking it is not a trick question of all nights to forget my

scill no yeah I one on your pen you should have one on the bottom of your shoe I'll make one right now should be in your pocket I love it has no bearing on this on this permit Jeff but it's I know just for I know we we ended up with a problem on on one um yeah it's well in excess of 500 all right let's go to the public we'll have a second bite anybody here

wish to speak in favor of the petition uh good evening for the record I'm Ken fola Executive Vice President of Bristol ccy Economic Development Corporation um I'm here tonight to speak in favor of the petition as I was um at the last um or the previous meeting upon which this petition was granted um the rationale for speaking in favor of at this time as in keeping with the last time is the

fact that this billboard here is also going to be a benefit to the community in terms of Ming uh different types of activities uh that will be taking place within the community everything from Civic events to other types of information that could be helpful to the community in terms of missing children public service announcements things of that nature and I also have to say that

I'm pleased that the company itself has done some further due diligence here to minimize the impact on the neighborhood uh as was previously suggested the the 35t level there's a greater propensity that the residential units of buting this uh location would actually be more impacted at that level than it would be at the 75 foot level itself and then unfortunately what we have here is a

situation where you know you have this abing these abing pieces of property that were once industrial that were granted variances for residential purposes and residential has been built out there but the property itself remains Industrial and the way I look at this at the you know where we are now is that this is probably a much less egregious use uh that could occur there as opposed to put it in an 80 foot

industrial building which would have a much more impact negative impact on the surrounding areas and it could be done by right um so you know again when I look at the totality of the situation you have some passive use of the property with regard to the solar Fields you have the building activities that are taking place now that we you know that hopefully are not too problematic to the abing neighborhoods with that

building was there prior to the neighborhoods being built and now with the billboard going up to a higher level and also offering some um some billboard space to the community for PSAs and other types of activities I think it's actually a winwin for for everyone uh in the area I guess you know at the end of the day if this is not granted they could just get back to a 35 foot Bill

board but I don't think that would be as to that Community or resal Community the one would be so that's all I have to say very good thank you Ken just for clarity it it is not strictly for community service it will also be a commercial billboard correct it is it is it is Mr chairman but if there's an amber alert it's available if there's something great happening in the city it's

available there there's also a 7% usage mandated by the state for uh what we call PSA like seat belts drunk and driveing the things you see on the highway boards the Amber Alerts are um exempt from that um what we do in a lot like in Marshfield for instance the police department can take over the billboard with a laptop Fall River has not done that yet Ken could you look at it

no all right anybody else to speak uh on the uh in favor of the petition anybody here to speak in opposition to the petition sir my name is Maurice Gia I own the property in 73 Daisy land nobody has said that if the sign stays at 35 at its current approved level with some pruning of trees that it wouldn't be perfectly visible to traffic going along 24 North and South that they'll have ample

opportunity to see the sign to understand its message and go on their way so what's the point of going from 35 to 75 it's to increase the the interim that people will have to notice the sign and that's going to loom over everybody around including those on Daisy Lane now motorist going along it's it's it's it's an interim a a small bit of time when they look at it Daisy Lane and

the people around it's going to be always it's going to be looming over us and it's going to have an adverse impact on our way of life there's no question about that so what are we talking about here we're talking about we're not talking about protecting the neighborhood we're not talking about a a couple of trees that might have to be knocked down we're talking about making more money here that's what we're

talking about and I can tell you uh 73 Daisy Lane is not going to be as adversely impacted at 35 ft than 75 ft there's no question about that thank you thank you members of the ward um my name is Peter gothier I live at 73 Daisy Lane um there was a few things that I picked up on the grade level of 24 is at least 6 feet below the

grade of where this site is um 35 ft like I when I first came in uh looking at the plans when the first proposed you know businesses are entitled to advertise their company no problem when you go down 24 uh 24 South in particular here you go around this corner all the signs are all at tree level the only time you're going to see that they're above the tree level

is at the Junctions at an on ramp or an offramp if you go over there to all these it looks terrible you see this giant huge sign it looks gross um for me it's going to impact my household at 35 ft or 75 ft the light is going to come into the house it's going to Blind motorist coming down the street and if you're in your car you're going down and

you look at a sign you're looking out your window if you're going to do 75 ft you got to look up now so it's going to distract more more motorists there is so many accidents over here in 24 I get to hear them see them all the time it cost the city I'm sure lots of resources the common sense fire department the state police rhod island has to come down sometimes you're

not going to see a reduction in accidents with a s thank you rebuttal comment well I would say there is no increase in accidents with Billboards there's been many many studies on that you can look at the national highway safety statistics and there are no 75 ft Billboards on onramps because they're not allowed with within 500 ft of an onramp so there are many regulations at the state level that govern

that honestly here the billboard is worth no more money at 75 ft than it's worth at 35 ft Billboards have a 500 foot look and that's it over 500 feet you can't see it okay anything else anybody else in opposition any audience okay hearing none any other questions from the board or does the board wish to move to a motion have a on the ones that are across the highway shorter than

35 that one that is across the highway is a pretty old billboard that's been up for a long time there's a couple of them 75 is really not out of the parameter we just put one up in Marshfield at 75 on Route three um how tall is the newest one that was just installed it's not electronic but just is that the one that Tony cadiro put up my guess and I'm just guessing on

that I'm thinking that's about 60 fet I think you're somewhere in there yeah that would be my guess I think I think it worked out well because the highway was so much lower there too so oh yeah the effective height is probably 80 80 90 ft yeah gentlemen so I asked before the distance between the base of the sign and the travel Lanes on

24 let's see forgive my rudimentary scale I'd say you're looking at 60 to 65 ft oh I'm sorry cuz that would be to the layout in another 10 ft so you'd be looking at like 75 ft plus or minus from the base of the sign to the layout to to the travel Lane the travel Lane are you asking because you're concerned when it falls over or if it does you have to ask that question no I

mean we have the same conversation for the cell tower on the other side exactly right right opposite right but it's it's I mean it's a lot higher so it's going to pick up a lot more wind any other questions and you mentioned something about what you would have to cut down less trees yeah all cut down well well obviously it has to cut down less because you're up a little higher so

some of the lower trees that are in front of the board we wouldn't cut and we usually try and this is not not us this is also the state they want to save as many trees as possible and that really has to do with the noise from the highway the buffer zone yeah no again it just seems like that whole area is lower already anyways than I think it is pretty low I I don't

think we'd have to cut they probably did that for the solar panels already yeah I don't think we'd have to cut many at 35 either but it would I would assume that we'd have to cut less being up a little higher will the state allow you to trim trees within the layout on the approach they do okay they allow you to trim trees uh cuz they allow the Billboards there's a

uh permitting fee every year for a billboard yeah a digital is 2,000 each side yeah and I think in Massachusetts I just read that there's uh 370 digitals so it's a significant Revenue razor but even on the even on the approaching trees there should be less clearing than what would needed to be done for the yes because it out on the V yeah when the arbitus comes out they draw a line to where your sight lines

are you actually have to have the billboard up before you can cut a tree really yeah so they don't you to the clearing for you can't when the state does something they just clear cut everything but you can't do that okay yeah it was a big controversy about that on the cape a few years ago uh Mr chairman I move approval of the VAR okay we have a motion for approval do we have a

second second second by Ricky sah discussion on the motion on the motion John Frank yes James ckins yes Dan de yes rcky Sahar yes and chairman Prairie yes thank you thank you drive fast again item number 05 Chris M 301 America street map E8 lot 11 the applicant seeks a special permit to allow the expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming lot coverage in on the lot from 28% to 60%

to install an asphalt parking area to the west side of the building the property is located in an R8 single family zoning district and this is continued from the are tabled from the June 20th 2024 meeting good evening for the record Jeff Tolman from Northeast engineers and Consultants uh this property may look familiar to to you uh there was an application that was filed on this

several months ago um that petition was to divide the property and construct a single family dwelling on the on the east side of the the U the existing two family dwelling uh that petition was withdrawn without prejudice uh prior to any action by the board um So what had happened since that time and and I prepared that plan it was presented to the board by attorney Karen um since

then the applicant had reached out to me um I believe he started doing some work on installing a driveway without knowing that he needed a permit to do it uh once he found that out he approached me to prepare a site plan uh for this particular um installation of the driveway um once I looked into it and saw the numbers saw where was at with lot coverage and what this would mean I

told them that you know he was going to have to file for a special permit um the existing property does exceed the allowable um lot coverage now uh so this expansion of the lot coverage can be approved by special pamit um but we do have to uh get permission from this board in order to move forward with the with the parking area uh I would just submit to the board that it would be um

a benefit to the neighborhood um you know you may lose one on street parking spot with the installation of the driveway but you're going to gain uh four offsite or off street parking spots on the property which would be two per unit for the existing two family on the dwell uh the existing two family structure on the property uh with that I'd be happy to answer any questions what what's the parking situation now is

it strictly the on stall garage and on street or it's it's basically on street I don't believe the one stall is even used for parking I think it's more storage at this point I think the um residents of the dwelling park on the street Street okay so we would get four cars off the street potentially engineering I'm good with it um site plan review and you know storm water management design will offset any

increase in lot coverage because we want to make sure and it seems offset enough from the Dow gradiant of butter that we have the ability to make sure that that they are not impacted specifically the house at 277 so through site plan review we can make sure that there's no detrimental effect with regards to R okay any other members of the board questions when I drove by there were a

bunch of business trucks out there and I was in panic that this was going to become a a parking lot for for some business but I think they were just working in the area I can't remember the name of the business but it did have a fa of a phone number the side um all right nothing else from the board anybody here wish to speak in favor of the petition anyone to speak in opposition

to the petition yes um so please identify yourself and address please I'm sorry I have double infection I can barely he um I live on 277 America Street okay and this has just been an ongoing issue from day one um the man that bought the property next store sells real estate um and is clearly hiding under an LLC umbrella to Fort deviant behavior um so you've called the police obviously huh have you called the

police have I called the police yes I called the police on no I mean the Deviant on an LLC you can't hide under that umbrella how is he hiding you can meaning using the I'm I'm sorry I'm really not feeling well I am um a tax consultant an advisor and a preparer and you can't hide under an LLC to get away with things and if you're selling real estate I think you know

that when you're putting an egress on the house you need a permit when you bust up the sidewalk and leave it there for months you know that's it's not appropriate but this property isn't owned by an LLC it's owned by Christopher M personally it's not an llc's no it's not an LL no no no it's him personally okay but he sells real estate and you know anyhow yes in fact there are a bunch of every

day I don't believe there any more work being done in the house but it's a fleet of commercial vehicles and that's what this parking lot is going to be for there were no cars there might be a commercial truck pickup but there are those big white commercial big van gigantic things lined up yeah well this this board has the ability to condition this that only residents of this building can use that

facility once that's locked in place then the building department has the ability for enforcement if someone else is parking there beyond that so that can be handled by a condition of this board that these four spaces are to be dedicated for the residents of this building only no parking of commercial vehicles they can put any type of condition they want to satisfy your concerns with regards to who may be in

there now and again are they are they construction vehicles for the construction activity taking a place I that we don't know I think you un must know better than we do you know about who parking there but that can be handled and you can be assured that you could have some level of protection about who's parking there that's not considered like with that many um commercial vehicles it's not considered

like like commercial zoning or well that well and and that's what we're getting to they're not they're not requesting to build a parking lot for commercial vehicles they're requesting to build a parking lot for four residential spaces for the occupants of this house and that will be conditioned in this approval and that runs with this piece of land so he will not be able to have commercial vehicles parked

there if that I mean if that satisfies your concern or I think that's it would it would satisfy me this almost like this almost locks them in and precludes them from having commercial vehicles there so this would actually be a benefit to you of this getting this formal approval and having this recorded at the registry of deeds that the building inspector could then have the enforcement

ability to make sure no one is using that right but my my concern as well is that the things that have been happening like we'll start construction on a Friday night and end it on a Sunday afternoon because none of you guys can be contacted well have have you called the building department about this because these are all building department concern and they haven't addressed it yeah well

I called once and they said they didn't need um for an ESS you you didn't need a um permit a permit okay and then I talk to Linda and she's like that's absolutely not true Linda who Linda per oh and she absolutely not true it's just you need I mean I couldn't when I built my house I couldn't a a fire a fireplace in my house because it went out 2 feet right too much and

that was the only thing that I have to take away from my house I you know I stayed in my lane and I don't know just very is Haring so the relief being requested today is solely having to do with lot coverage do you have any concerns about lot coverage yeah P Paradise poing lot we need parking lot in that street that's a parking lot well the zoning requirement is to have four

parking spaces for a two family house so the this this would finally make that right this would finally correct the parking situation because all they have right now is a garage that's supposed to have four parking spaces for a two family house and if I remember that was part of the argument about not allowing it to be subdivided that's correct because of the parking requirements y

I think it was overall too tiny well that too but it part of the argument is too small not enough parking taking parking off the street any number of reasons but as far as dealing with the building inspector um I know he's very responsive when when you call um asked to speak with Glenn Hathaway specifically if you have problems complaints um he's in charge of Code Enforcement so if someone's not

following the rules of the city as far as far as building goes he's the one that has the authority to go in well it was a lady that had told me on the phone it was a lady that well there are a number of women that answered the phone but yeah I'm not looking to tell any but it wasn't I'm not it wasn't but that's how you get it resolved is by speaking

to him and have him look into it so okay thank you anyone else wishing to speak in opposition I just have this as well I don't know

okay and this is a neighborhood petition that has just been um presented um we the neighbors of Butters of 301 America Street Fall River Mass do here by dis disapprove of the special permit request by Chris Mangin to allow expansion of a pre-existing non-con voming lot coverage uh on the lot from 28 to 60% to install an asphalt Park lot area to the west side of the building the property is located in R8 single

family zoning District the approval will result in a high negative environmental impact on A's personal properties and there are one two three four five six seven eight nine um nine signatures on this and they're all from the neighborhood according to the addresses given any other questions on the petition I know we all like being here special permit so this is

bipoc Mr shamman I would make the motion that um it is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood okay motion do we have a second motion and second John be you to the punch Dan yes he did uh on on the motion John Frank yes Jim ckins yes danar yes Ricky zi yes chairman Prairie yes take the second half well with the approval Mr chairman as uh as Mr Agia

was saying um I move approval with the stipulation that the lot only be used for the residents of that building no commercial vehicle in case the resent has commercial no commercial vehic hours Etc I'll second that amended motion uh what about visitors if they come they go to park on the street okay just and site plan we don't want site plan riew yes yeah so it's residents only and that covers

um okay any other questions amendments on on the motion Ricky sahti yes standa yes Jim ckins John Frank yes chairman Prairie yes thank you hey we're in new business again item number one supreme auto center Inc care of attorney Walter frases Jr please tell me I get that right 2389 South Main street map bo3 lot 22 the applicant seeks a special permit person to 86- 454 to install an electric

illuminated sign 4X 4T by 2 feet and to replace the existing fixed sign with a smaller fixed sign 6 feet by 3 ft waving all use and dimensional sign requirements in the r42 family zoning District good evening uh good evening members of the board I'm Walter fre here with the petitioner the owner of of the property at the uh this is a used car uh business and it is been there for a substantial period of

time the the request now presently there is a fixed sign about 7 1/2 ft by 4T uh and the proposal is to replace that fixed sign with another sign which would be fixed containing two smaller signs first a 6x3 permanent sign just to identify the uh business um a supreme autoart and then underneath that there there'll be a smaller sign which would be an LED sign four 4 feet by two with a

dimmer so that so that it can be dim to an appropriate uh luminous and that will be located going South Main Street obviously goes north south so this new sign will be East West so that it it'll be perpendicular to the street and it's it will be 2 feet west of the sidewalk and 5 feet north of the property line so that basically is is the idea as you can see it's it's a big lot it's

21,000 Square fet uh with the with the existing building uh listed on the on the diagram so so that basically is our proposal and and it would be a sign which which can be put in as a special permit merely to be able to to give reasonable identification to the to the uh to the business and the the lighted sign would operate 24 hours a day um obviously not during the day

because wouldn't make any sense is an LED sign it is an LED sign typically they they do illuminate during day they stay during the day is that what you want to do during the day till like

midnight um questions from the board now it's just for your business right it's not for any off-site advertising of other businesses or anything like that I own another on jafferson street if you look on my uh LED sign I had I only P like for July lab day you know things like that no nothing special ITI nobody close for vacation yeah stuff like that yeah yeah gotcha all right um Dan anything the

only thing I would have this is how we normally handle these um so 86 451 section e deals with electronic signs and in that has the number of criteria about how much they can change the lumens I mean all of it so if you do Grant it um I would just say that the sign itself needs to meet the requirements of6 86 451 SE as well y okay of course you canot put full string like

to and I have onon Street yeah it'll be like but in that section it tells you everything about maximum brightness that's why I got on the other side so as long as you can comply with those requirements then you should be fine which you should be able to it says different things that you can't different types of messages you can it can't be uations of adult use or anything I know you don't but doesn't

mean the next person who buys the property does right so we have to make sure that it has some protection on it that's all okay anyone else questions anyone in the audience here to speak in favor of the petition anyone to speak in opposition to the petition and sizewise on the plan submitted with the application so we're the two signs are 6x3 and 4x two oh the illuminated sign is the small

one no no no no it's a a separate plan that was submitted oh sign plan that's all yeah it's up on the board it's in the application so the special permit specific to the to the signed plan that was submitted would cover you on on any approvals yeah would okay on the on the petition folks make a motion to Grant Subject to uh the regulations stated earlier 864 51 section e 451 section e 86 451 Mr

chairman it is bated though right a special permit yes just a question I mean the the language on the agenda waving all use and dimensional requirements so we're not really doing that all we're doing is specific to the specific to the asking for y fire reaching so we'll specify the that's why I stated size of the sign the statement but the first statement be that would be uh it would be I make a

motion that will be not more detrimental to the neighborhood very good second second on that by Dan de on the motion Ricky sah yes Dan deir yes Jim ckins John Frank yes Jim per yes and now the motion to approve would be uh again subject to all the conditions under 8864 51 section e second motion second on the motion then uh Ricky sahti yes Ander yes Jim ckins yes John Frank yes chairman Prairie yes good luck

Miss so make sure the Sign Company reads this section yeah I'm doing that by the side what's that I'm doing that by the side okay I'm buying like the same company I have on no no no I know but make sure whoever you're buying it from make sure they read this section and the sign they're providing you meets these requirements yeah I understand okay I got I thank you okay thank you thank you very

much new business letter number two uh PT Property Management Inc care of attorney Walter fre Jr 1244 South Main street map g17 lot one the applicant seeks a special permit per 86 423b to divide the parcel into two lots each lot containing three residential units and one commercial unit the applicant seeks a special permit to wave uh parking requirements property is located in an a to apartment

zoning District Council uh good evening uh once again waler freas for the the applicant PG Property Management Inc this is a 423b application uh nothing is going to change on on the property uh as as the plan shows it there there are two residential buildings each having three residential unit units the the building at 12:44 has a one seat beauty salon and the building at 1260 has a small Church in the lower

level uh so so the church obviously is not a commercial unit it's it it's a a religious facility the there's only one entrance to the to the property on Palmer Street uh so as a result as you can see from the plan we did carve out three parking spaces for 1260 and 1244 which is the larger site also contains six stall garages so that that unit would would have plenty of parking spaces but obviously uh

1260 is is uh short of of the necessary parking spots but Palmer Street has plenty of on street parking as I said the the um the beauty salon is just just a one chair unit and typically just just services One customer at a time the church basically operates an evening during a week and then on Sundays the just curious the six stall garage at the rear of that lot is that

parking used for the tenants or is that rented out like a lot of these other garages are it's it's used for the tenants okay so then parcel one those parking spaces go with parcel one correct the garage that uh right 12:44 so that becomes the L-shaped lot correct and then the parking for parcel 2 is where the parking for parcel 2 if if you're going going south from the building at 12

12:44 there is a deck coming or or stairs coming out from uh the east side of 1244 right adjacent to that at the start of the of parcel 2 you can see that there are three parking spaces that have been uh dimensioned out 8 foot width but I believe it says 19 ft those those are the three parking spaces for lot two so three spaces behind 12 64 54 that use the access easement

right from pekam for Access so that okay yeah and at 423b doesn't require you to deal with as long as you're not increasing density right then you don't have to deal with parking requests um but at least you clarify no I just wanted to you know we don't need to make it more complicated no no no need to and obviously the church right now is just parking on the street when when they're holding services so right

okay um any comments from engineering just separate utilities yep um they are separate so an affidavit needs to be recorded to be recorded that that it has taken place MH um they're not building anything so no no site plan review no standard no uh utilities no fencing um I don't know about the need for any additional access easements looks like there's a set of steps off of 1254 in near the new property

boundary I don't know how you would get to those steps but really nothing nothing that you guys need to handle but that would be a a legal issue with them at some point if that is a door I don't even know if it's a door you see what I'm saying attorney yeah I see what you mean yeah in between the two buildings yeah that's a door so there's a set of

steps shown right above the word partial two oh yeah that steps go out to the property line that's an access I

believe is it intended to have an access easement to allow them to get there as well then you would just have to put that on the anr plan that would have to be extended let me check on that that is an entrance it is yeah th those are

Jacks other side the the opposite side in between between the the set of steps that comes out this door that put you onto this property is this a door this looks like Steps I'm assuming this is steps like these are steps yes it's a it's a one door okay for these house when you get to the bottom step you got to you got to jump off the steps either way you can't come forward no that

because that home land own will not have rights to this piece of land unless you put an easement through there or you can turn the steps this step goes goes to 1260 correct okay is there access from this area as well okay the this is the second entry to the to the building at 1260 which building is 1260 1254 or 1244 is 1260 12 1254 1244 is on top 1260 is the I'm missing 1260 I

see 1254 right oh I'm sorry 12 I thought it was 1260 okay 1254 um so that that's the parcel that has has the steps that that's the second access to to that building so effectively you've blocked it off now I mean there's there's no separation there is a separation on paper so in order to access to access that have to turn it no uh they have been separated Mr Tellis is the owner of the property

okay but but the point is the the steps come down now and if this is separated the bottom step you have to cross over onto 1244 in order to get down the stairs too get down the stairs or get up the stairs that's a retaining one

no Mr tell is saying he doesn't speak English okay so what he's saying is that the staircase ends still within 1254 correct yeah yeah right so you can't you can't get off the stairs unless you go off the sides of the stairs correct maybe the the plan may not be correct what what are you saying is that he's saying it is what he's saying is he doesn't know where the new

property line is going to be unless you look at the plan done by your land surve that shows it's at the bottom step okay so I I can only go by the plan that you submitt and again has no bearing on this board but right you're going to have an issue with needing an easement if somay you're going to sell this property m one or the other and that's going to be a

problem okay okay we can we can deal with that okay anyone here wishing to speak in favor of this petition anyone wish to speak in opposition to the petition and I would entertain any last questions from the board before we uh entertain a motion on the

separation I we Grant the bif I find that it was not substanti more detrimental to the area a second second on that by Dan on the motion John Frank yes Jim ckins Dan deir yes Ricky sah yes chairman perer yes and then on the motion to Grant I move that we Grant the special permit conditioning the F that no fencing or other barriers on the division line oh yeah no not but

but then when you go up the street boundary marker is being installed we have to record the separation of oh it has Place record and you're going to have to record that

easement that's not within up not within our purview but it's certainly a recommendation okay that's their problem we have a motion do we have a second second then on the motion Ricky yes Dan St jimy Hawkins yes John Frank yes chairman per yes thank you thank you Council have a good evening item number three 4 never thought this was going to happen Kenneth pachico General carpentry Inc let's be

quick 977 Bay Street map h18 lot 26 applicant seeks a variance to construct a single family dwelling and a wtod waterfront and Transit oriented development zoning District uh as per submitted plans yeah going to make this uh make it quick I'm going to give you one presentation for three applications uh get you back back on track here uh for the record Jeff tomman from Northeast uh engineering and

Consultants along with me is Kent Pico from Kenneth Pico General centry an um so what we're looking to do is simply uh reinstate a uh relief that was granted previously that had lapsed um it was an understand a misunderstanding on our part we believe we thought that the Barons had been acted upon um when this property was cut out of uh the Mount Hope condominium property in these three

lots were created um I don't know if you recall originally these this was part of that property these Lots were cut out uh a variance was granted uh to allow the construction of single family dwellings on these three lots which are in the WTO day um again so what happened is the property once the variance was granted we prepared the anr plan which took some time uh submitted that the property was

then transferred from the Condominium Association to Mr Pico um and then we had filed site plans to uh uh stop building here and by the time we get through the site plan review process or towards the end of it uh it was brought to our attention that the the original variants had laped so here we are back before you uh to reinstate uh variant that was previously granted so just to be quick board

members this is not a petition to sub this is strictly to construct a single family home in a WTO zoning District y complying with all dimensional regulations plan review is complete this is yep okay s yeah site plan is done yes okay and I I do remember this when when this came out so we separated these three lots out that was my first zoning board meeting ever was it yeah it was okay there you go see

you we do have to take them separately which is fine have any questions from the board I think everybody except Ricky was here at the time remember this were you already Al yeah you were an alterate but I was here all right no questions from the board we all remember it anybody here to speak in favor anybody here to speak in opposition I'm looking at you all right then on uh on the matter of

977 Bay Street which is the first one that that happens to be on the list we'll have to call them all out this is for a v this is a variance we've already handed out it has expired um I would take a motion on the variance Mr chair she said she had a question oh yes sorry if you could please tell me which house the first house what number that is I'm assuming it's 101

this is 101 101 this is 989 and this is 977 and the left as I can see that is the driveways uh just trying to figure out where the cut in the street will be the driveways I'm sorry the the driveways aren't showing on the plan but they will be in front of the dwellings yep um I believe they're slightly the place I'm on the corner of bay in most place yeah

just trying to figure out how I'm going to be affected cuz as it is I don't have any parking because I have a bus stop in front of my house and I have a uh fire hydren in front of my house and you can't park on the left side because that's where all the accidents happen so I'm trying to figure out how many spaces are going to be lost which house is

yours yeah I'm sorry get your number state your name oh sorry it's on far but what number I own the property at 1008 Bas and I'm in to but place across the street across the street it's not listed so you've got your further I'm right there this on the corner Taris yes you say Taris all right farious I thought she said farious Manel toar farious I so I mean for each home there'll be 16

ft of curb removed right if I remember correctly Jeff on the plan yes so in front of each home theoretically dimensionally one space in front of each house so that they can provide two parking spaces on their property so there shouldn't be a need to park on the street got thank you and they're not asking for any waivers about parking right do it ask you a question it does thank you okay thank you I know the

approval of the variant as submitted second that's a variance on 977 yes maid and seconded on the motion Ricky zah yes Danier yes Jim ckins yes John Frank yes chairman per yes uh the second chairman on 989 you read it read it it's the rules item number four K Pico General centry Inc 989 Bay Street map h18 Lot 27 applicant seeks a variance to construct a single family dwelling and the wtod Waterfront and

Transit oriented development zoning District as per submitted plans you also have to ask audience correct anyone in the audience wish to speak in support anyone in the audience wish to speak in opposition they hearing none to the board

make a motion to Grant thank you for variance do we have a second Jo Biden second second on the motion John Frank yes Jim ckins yes Dan deir yes Ricky sah yes and chairman Prairie yes item number five Kenneth Pico General centry Inc 101 Bay Street map h18 lot 28 the applicant seeks a variance to construct a single family dwelling in a wtod waterfront and Transit oriented development zoning District as per submitted

plans anyone in the audience wish to speak in favor anyone wish to speak in opposition take a motion make a motion to Grant motion to Grant second please second guys are getting tired on the motion John Frank yes Jim ckins yes Dan defir yes Ricky sahti yes chairman F yes thank you all right let's say no we can we can do discussion first we had started a discussion regarding the

we have someone in the audience I don't know if they're here for anag here for I don't see pet here or jeer was 522 Broadway Street did that go through already or no 52 yeah that was done that's done yeah they're G that was Jeff s that was Jeff who just walked out with the out Jeff they took it out of order took all Peters first cuz he had to get

the swans good thank The Tall Man The Tall Man oh now see she's getting tired she's getting for all getting Punchy yeah it was approved right yeah gred with conditions yeah that's only we took four votes on yeah so discussion go ahead let's talk about it so we had had a started a discussion about some policies and how we can help staff deal with what do we have this week 12 come in in the last

two hours of the day God it was bad it was probably the worst ever 10 came in within the last two hours yeah um so one we want to handle that so item number one you'll see in the little handout that you guys have has to do with with filing deadlines and my recommendation as we had discussed at that day was that the filing deadline should be noon on the regularly published date that we

already have published that is a document that the clerk takes in that that's a living document that we can't change M so whatever it is the 14th normally unless it's a holiday or a weekend bumps out to the next business day so noon at that day we can make a requirement and that would give us the ability to take four hours in the afternoon to go through these yeah um making sure even even tonight you'll see

some eyes don't get dotted te's don't get crossed and and it becomes an issue um so this would give them some time so with that you'll see item number two I created a zoning board of appeals submission acknowledgement so that any applicant when they come in and this is just to make sure that everybody is on board that submits note all submissions shall be made prior to 12:00 p.m. on the

published deadline date date of the submission then I respectfully submit the attached petition on behalf of whoever now here's the important part I hereby acknowledge that this submission will not be timestamped as received by the city of Fall River clerk's office until such time as it has been reviewed and deemed complete by the city of Fall River planning office so the stamping in at the clerk's office is the real

trigger for acceptance now we have if you remember we used to have a late deadline which was a week later than the regular submission so the real drop dead date is a week after after the 14th that we can actually live with we don't want to drag out that far we want the 4 hours in the afternoon potentially the next day go through all these things with the fine tooth comb then we will bring them

to the clerk's office have them all stamped in and then we'll alert them your your petition is complete you'll be on EX hearing and this is what this form spells out they will sign it upon their submission acknowledging that that is the requirement and how it will be handled what is a deficiency or an error in the so then so we will alert them to the fact that it's incomplete if they

can get it done and corrected within that time frame that we can to have it be on the next meeting it'll be on the next meeting if it's not as soon as we get the information and it's complete and then it's stamped then we'll tell them what meeting they go on that's why I said the next available public avilable okay so that it's still that one we time span it gives us a week of fluff yeah

well it kind of gives you an indefinite period of time well thetically I mean because you could go back and forth several times for them and they could move it for the next and it happens tonight how many times did we ask for plans from 170 Purchase Street the first plan did not show a setback for the deck or the bulkhead bunch of stuff wrong with the plan got them to submit a revised plan

they show a setback to the bulkhead but didn't show onto the deck we told them this also needs to to show the set back to the deck you can get it so it's it's constant with with trying to keep up on this so this this gives them or gives them some skin in the game with it's not just throw a pile of stuff in and we're going to deal with it here it shouldn't

be dealt with here you guys should have all clean applications that have no question about sections and all of that kind of stuff but when you get stuff in at 15 minutes before and I mean if you ever sat there and watch the scramble that goes on cuz while we're while taking them in and trying to review them we're working with them to try to correct some of these deficiencies to

get it in before the end of the day 4:00 and get it stamped in and it's just chaos it's not fair um so that's how I recommend that that item be resolved um already using it tonight you'll see item number three is I have putting together a um a request to table form y um and specifically tonight why it was so important was these were items that were tabled already once correct so by law we

only have so many days to vote unless we get a form like this signed and them extending or waving their right to any timeline Peter signed the one tonight yep so we have that so now we did we have a form before they It Was Always by like a letter when we asked for a letter or it was always handwritten yeah so so this we we can keep all of these in our

folders here and have them available then just to clean up again a little bit um almost the same identical form but when they ask to withdraw we'll ask them to actually submit the same form signed with or without prejudice Circle the one it's just a way of cleaning up files cleaning up votes and making sure that we don't have any issues moving forward item number five is we talked about a policy

regarding receipt of revisions whether they're revisions to plans whether they're revisions to petitions this is once it's been stamped in submitted and they decide they want to change something the 11th Hour my recommendation is that nothing should be allowed within one week of the hearing itself if you want to make that kind of a change then you ask for it to be tabled and we'll take it up at the next

meeting when it can be properly reviewed and who has the right to request a variant I mean not a VAR an extension or a tabling if we have the engineer here does he have the right where he's representing or I mean can accept the request so what what it'll be so if you see on these forms I put down authorized representative name and signature or owner or an applicant now in other

municipalities and I've had to do this we have to and I I don't want to create a thousand forms but what normally on our application it has the thing on the end about the is an attorney representing you no one fills that in if it's Engineers yeah so we could the theoretically require a letter of authorization from the owner stating who can speak on their behalf to make it completely

formal yeah well I just was wondering if you know to cover yourself legally as to who has the right to request what did we change it on the new form yeah it does say if you're represented by an attorney engineer land I think so right that's on the new form I think I added that when we made the new form so but they don't fill that in so so now when we accept it we have that

has to be filled out okay and then lastly we currently accept 15 petitions per hearing that does not deal with if we have tabled items how many did we end up having tonight um it was 14 14 toal um I mean 14 is a heavy lift and we how many did tonight we have that was just subdividing to existing multif family dwellings that are generally quick right yeah right um so it is a lot but that's

how many we get every month uh so it's up to you whether or not you want to keep that at 15 or change that or that's up to you I just I threw it on there just for discussion because I know you guys have had that that thought before now are you are you calculating are you going to try to calculate in tabled no you can't no you can't because you don't know yeah because the

submission dates before hear right the previous aing so that's what I'm saying so it would be 15 15 new petitions yeah for agenda and then tabled items we'll just have to bite the bullet if they more Dan do you know off the top of your head how other municipalities handle it as far as the number I I can look into it again this is discussion tonight we don't have to

decide any of this we can think I'm just wondering just out of curiosity do they meet once per month once every other month usually it's twice a month twice a month yeah so therefore that they uh they figure would probably be less yes and and relief again I've said this before relief in the city um we have more petitions because more relief gets granted so applicants know I'm going to take a shot you know

in other municipalities they know I have no chance I'm not wasting my money I'm not wasting my time um so that that factors into it as well so I would I would offer to say I cannot imagine that there would be municipalities that have 15 items per meeting again fact factoring in a lot of them have two meetings per month most municipalities um the vote isn't even at the first meeting right most petitions

get tabled conversation ask for more information blah blah blah they come back so um and that's but we would have that more frequently if you guys weren't digging through the petitions there are some towns that are taking these over doing a cursory and I've been on the other side of the table a lot longer than on this side of the table that they come in and all of a sudden the night of the hearing

it's like oh well gee yeah you can you come back can you change this and you know and but like even tonight you you'll see and again I I was just as guilty as everybody else you know what the applicant wants and you start there and then it's a negotiation right shouldn't it be a negotiation like like John tonight voted no against tabling I'm assuming it was because he anticipated or would have just liked to

deny the project I'm assuming um so that's why I asked attorney selino decide what you want to do is it withdraw is it table or do you want to vote what I'd be he knew he was yeah what I'd be curious Dan is when when you check into this municipalities that do meet just once per month I'd like to know what their limit is okay if you possibly could yeah okay and that's

that's going to vary widely it's going to be you know a smaller town yeah well I mean I'll report youf new New Bedford is extremely difficult um so even to get on an agenda it's probably a three-month process before you even put on an agenda really you get what you submit generally what you want to do and the building department there provides 10 12 page zoning report um um of what relief you need they tell you

specifically everything that you need make sure you know so it's it's handled differently you have a town like SE for instance where every section of relief and we talked about this when we did fees every specific section of relief right hand sideline that's one variance submit it pay your fee left side sideline same building separate variants I mean every front yard they're all separate petitions all separate

discussions which is just insane that that is insane yeah that is the worst I've seen and that's in SEC but it does I I I will tell you the term waiver dimensional requirements is like sand in my bathing suit yep yeah it's a variance it's a variance it's a variance and I I I I I remember you know something in my own neighborhood many years ago and I'm sitting there going

it's a it's a variance it's a waiver it's variance yeah read Massachusetts General La it's a variance and you know so so why don't we think about these things um in the meantime and and this can definitely be a um a fluid process because if you find out something isn't working it needs to be adjusted we could okay I guess my point is doesn't have to go in front of council to change any

kind of we don't have to it should it should just be voted when we decide deadline is going to be new yeah you guys should you guys should vote these things yeah um not just implemented by by our office because we the approach I'd like to see is for you to put on your old hat and see how you could manipulate this system and then we'll look for way to avoid and that's

what I do is is I back into things with knowing that if I saw this form i' would be like I can get around this by doing I'll submit a I'll submit a basic form at noon and then I can make I have all the time I want to revise Dan just just one more question um so this is for purposes of discussion next meeting and so forth I'm wondering if it's advantageous to

implement that aspect now the noon time deadline you can do that yeah I mean any of these that you want to implement if they simple I think we should we should implement as far as the forms or as far as yeah I mean I don't have a problem with any of this I don't know if any of this you already used the form tonight right yeah we're here well the only

thing I the only thing John is that I'd like to know the uh the number for the other don't vote on that we can continue this discussion every meeting with different things to sure so are we good with one through five I am yes yes yes all right I'll make a motion that we uh move these forward uh operational procedures from uh 1 through five and tabling six so we can get some more

information from other vicinities on that um second Motion in second then on the motion Ricky sah yes danar yes Jim uh Jim cins John Frank yes chairman Prairie yes excellent n that help you is Happy okay minutes chairman I move the acceptance of the May 16th and June 20th meeting it'sot yeah isot Motion in second on the minutes it's good thing I didn't wear a good jacket on motion

Frank yes Jim cin and rcky sah Jim and Prairie yes motion to adjourn motion to adjourn has been made have a

second thank you thank you thank you