7 20 2023 Zoning Board of Appeals

good evening I'm Joseph Pereira chairman of the zoning board of appeals for the city of Fall River it is 603 p.m on Thursday July 20th 2023 we are meeting in one government center in the first floor meeting room Chris went to Mass General Law chapter 38 chapter section 20 subsection F I hereby notify all persons in attendance that this meeting is being recorded with both video and audio devices by Fall

River government TV Mr Craig Salvador recording both video and audio version if anybody desires to make an audio video or combination recording thereof please notify me now and I will make a public announcement of your intention our recording secretary this evening sitting to my immediate right is Nina Krueger present at this uh present this evening are permanent members John Frank our vice chairman uh

clerk Gene James Calkins Dan De Pere myself as a permanent member and alternates John Sylvia and Eric Kelly pardon Rick Sahari as well permanent member you're right here in front of me I just walked right by you permanent member Ricky sahadi um also present this evening uh is the director of planning and engineering and planning Dan Aggie are sitting down to my far left and Chris Perino the

assistant planner sitting down to my far right 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 40a as amended yes I declare the July 2023 regularly scheduled meeting of the zoning board of appeals of the city of Fall River open for such business as shall come before it

I remind all persons presenting before the board including petitioners a Butters anyone in support or anyone opposed to a petition that your presentation should be limited to three 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 that all interests and all interested persons that this is the Zoning Board of Appeals the board's Authority exists personally to Mass General Law chapter 48 and is limited in scope to the and deals with the use of land regulated by chapter 86 of the ordinances of the city of Fall River

please note that additional permits licenses reviews and or approvals may be required for the specific development and or use which is the subject of the petition before the zoning board this evening the clerks in the planning zoning building engineering and Licensing departments are competent in the discharge of their duties as clerks they are however not attorneys and are not competent to give legal advice

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

I remind everyone that the building inspector is the zoning enforcement Authority and you are here and you are here this evening because the building inspector has determined that your proposed action is contrary to the city of fall River's zoning ordinances the city chart is section 9-18 mandates that all multiple member bodies develop and adopt rules or policies for public comment

we have adopted such a policy which in short provides for Citizens input on zoning board specific matters at the end of the meeting if anyone wishes to be heard at that time there is a sign up sheet on the table just outside the entrance I disclose it at that an official copy of the city of Fall River zoning ordinance is available at the city clerk's office one cannot rely on the zoning ordinance online let us begin

where should we go tonight uh item number 01 David paveo care of attorney Arthur D Frank Jr this is in regards to 1000 Blossom Road map w-15 lot 30. the applicant seeks a special permit to construct a 40 by 80 foot garage exceeding the height and area requirements and an r80 single-family zoning district and a wwd watershed and water supply protection overlay District petition was previously tabled at the

May 18 2023 zoning board of appeals meeting and by at the request of the applicant we have a letter

received from the applicant dated June 14th 2023 from the law office of Arthur D Frank Jr to the Fall River zoning board of appeals at this address referencing June 23rd zba meeting agenda item zero one David L Prevail 1000 Blossom Lane is actually in before the gym meeting okay it was too late too late uh David L prevailed the position the petitioner in the above reference matter hereby request

permission for uh for leave to withdraw and this is signed by attorney Arthur D Frank Esquire uh members of the board what are your wishes on this item we do not have a representative here tonight we don't need to have one here we can vote to withdraw it is not specifically say with or without prejudice so I would I would leave that to the discretion of whoever wants to make sure that we Grant

permission to withdraw without prejudice without prejudice okay very good is there a second second all right uh motion by James Calkins second by John Frank is there any discussion on the part of the board hearing none John Frank yes Jim Calkins yes Dan De Pere yes yes that has moved uh item number O2 I must recuse myself and turn this over to Vice chair

okay item zero two vertex Tower LLC care of attorney Francis D Parisi 42 Estes Lane map d04 lot 26. the applicant seeks a special permit to construct 136 foot tall cell tower in a commercial Mill District petition was previously tabled on May 18th meeting applicant this year before we begin John which alternate will be voting on this in the absence of the chairman by seniority it would be John John yeah

okay so you're looking at a five-member board to five Mr Kelly's be sitting up uh and we're all intimately familiar with it so if we can be very quickly thank you as the board was aware I after my review of the zoning bylaw in consultation with the building inspector I applied for a special permit at the first uh zoning board meeting the board suggested that I applied for a variance I applied for a

variance variances which were denied by the zoning board at the last public hearing we kept the special permit open quite frankly I think the board is probably aware we've appealed the denial of the variants to Superior and federal court and uh I believe it would be appropriate for the board to vote on the special permit application I kind of suspect where it'll go and I just want to close

the loop so that we can let the judges and lawyers work it out okay uh for the audience could we have a brief synopsis of what the um project is so um vertex Towers is trying to construct a 130 foot tall plus a lightning rod um telecommunications facility in the commercial Mill industrial district at 42 Estes Lane um when I read the zoning bylaw it said that radio transmission facilities including

Towers Associated there with would require special permit so we applied for a special permit we're building this facility for the benefit of at T and other Wireless carriers to close a substantial Gap in coverage at the um both public hearings with special permit and the uh the variance application I submitted extensive maps and and uh and part of the application Maps and uh showing that there's a gap in coverage

and that there's really no alternative we thought we picked not only a good spot but the only available spot given all of the other restrictions and limitations of telecommutations technology and new zoning bylaw to move it in any particular direction we put it in a residential Zone which we didn't think would be appropriate and in much smaller lots that uh would have greater impact on residential neighborhoods we

believe that this has no impact on any residential neighborhood and uh is an appropriate location for this type of facility in an industrial zoning district there are ample examples of other similar facilities around town that I provided to the board and like I said I thought that a special apartment was the appropriate relief and I would ask that the board just vote on that so that we could uh move forward with the

project okay members of the board any questions I have one comment John Nina can you confirm what members were present to hear the initial presentation at the night the special permit do you guys remember who was here everyone that was does everybody recall hearing this presentation for me meeting the May meeting yeah I think everybody was here yeah I'm pretty confident okay

John I I concur with that all right I want to make sure anyone in the audience uh in favor anyone opposed okay members of the board we have a motion just have one question what would happen if the tower would collapse what's that what would happen if the tower were to collapse um we submitted substantial um information on that in the application Towers don't collapse they're built with a very substantial

foundation and so um and you know and they're designed and this is a monopole type facility with internal cabling so Towers tend to lean in really extreme situations there's been you know um there are many similar Towers in in Fall River and throughout the Commonwealth that have withstood all kinds of uh weather events they're designed not to collapse uh you know any event though I'm sure there has been a

tower somewhere whether there be an earthquake or some kind of storm what I mean what in Hurricane Sandy no Towers actually were dismantled the issue with Hurricane Sandy is that all the gas stations went offline and they couldn't get propane to to fuel the tanks so they went offline from a telecommunications perspective we can fix that with with propane tanks and no Towers went down

during Hurricane Sandy I don't believe that he went down during Hurricane Katrina you know they can be engineered very safely um I I know this building is sitting over the highway now but it was engineered to the safety concerns of the town and the building inspector to construct that and and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts because you're over State Highway there are many similar facilities

and I actually provided to the zoning board at the zoning at the uh variant application an example of eight similar facilities in town that none of which meet what I would call tower height setback several of which were approved by this owning void several which were approved by the building inspector by Wright and none of which meet tower height setback and given the engineering standards and the uh

everything you know we're quite confident that it's designed not to fail and can be designed quite safely John at the first meeting we had requested information with regards to what would happen if the tower we have not received those responses with this application they were submitted as part of the variance application however that information is not part of what you're voting on tonight it would have to have

been resubmitted in response to the special appointment itself so you know how he was just saying that you know if it's not approved tonight then it goes to court is that is there is it by right that they have the authority to do that no absolutely not okay all right okay members of the board do we have a motion motion okay we have a motion to not deny do we have a second okay all those

we'll start off with we have a motion to deny John Silver yes Rick sahadi yes Dan De Pere yes Jim Calkins yes John Frank nope 4-1 very good motion is done thank you thank you very much thank you

item number O3 Reuben Pimentel care of Attorney Peter a celino 8 Stony Brook Circle map uo4 lot 71 the applicant seeks of areas to construct a single family home which is 23.1 with a 23.1 front yard setback foot setback waving front yard setback requirements in an S single-family zoning District where the required setback is 25 feet the petitioner previously tabled at the June 15 2023

zoning board of appeals meeting at the request of the applicant good evening good evening Mr chairman for purposes of the record my name is Peter celino I'm a lawyer with an office at 550 Locust Street here in Fall River I've submitted to Nina a paper letter um to withdraw this application effectively it was a construction issue and as a result of the timing of it my client has chosen to

pull the foundation out and start over and as a result we're going to withdraw this uh without the police or we moved to withdrawal and this will be we're trying without prejudice yes it is thanks to the members of the board but we'll go on record we have verbal requests to withdraw without prejudice they have a motion to that end we're at the request to withdraw without uh all right goodness very good

do we have a second on that second second by Dan De Pere discussion they're hearing none uh John Soviet zombie I'm sorry I'm sorry you're looking at this I apologize uh Rick sahadi uh motion to deny yeah no no yes Den to pair yes Jim Calkins yes and John Frank yes and chairman forever yes thank you thank you new business I am going to try very very hard not to butcher your names uh I will apologize

in advance if I do item number one uh Rita Maria gavilani's and Catherine O'Reilly or not or Alana care attorney David Perry 707 Laurel Street map C 10 lot 7. the applicant seeks a variance to convert the existing garage into an apartment unit adding an extension that requires relief foresight and rear yard setbacks this is a pre-existing two-family dwelling on the parcel in an R8 single-family zoning District good

evening good evening hi my name is David Perry I represent to my right Maria catalanes and to her right is Katarina Oriana the two homeowners so the um so what my clients would like to do is they would like to expand the garage that's currently on their property just to make it more spacious you know for their own family use they're they're currently it's a family of five adults living in a

living in a living in a second floor apartment the first floor of the house at number 707 is rented to another family and they would like to expand the existing garage a little bit and um I guess you know this would be a special permit with respect to setbacks and lot coverage but for the fact that my clients intend to you know for their own personal convenience not to walk out in the rain

you know put a put a bath bathrooms toilet facilities and um vacation facility they'd like you know to be able to do that too in this expanded garage um so this is an R8 District it's you know Zone single residential but it's really besides the fact there's already two residences on the property it expanding in the garage really wouldn't change the character of the neighborhood because

it's already quite a built up and crowded neighborhood um the larger Scale map which would show that south of um Laurel Street that is South right yeah I guess south east of Laurel Street is a The Amity Street number 306 Amity Street Housing Development owned by the Fall River Housing Authority there's multiple single-family dwellings next to that there's a um there's a multi-family dwelling next to that and

that that that's directly across Laurel Street when you go further down Laurel Street there's more multi-family dwellings and also a shopping center so the neighborhood wouldn't become appreciatively more crowded this would I this would be I guess I don't want to say a drop in the bucket but it the neighborhood wouldn't look very different with a slightly larger structure where that garage is now

and as far as the hardship the variants would um the variance the variance would fix is that like I say it is you know five adults living in apartment they were just like a little extra room be able to entertain friends and family members in that garage not have to return the main structure to use a toilet or to cook some food thank you thank you um one thing that that leaps out and I

realize we have a large Big Lot the Beltran lot behind their uh their property talk to me about this storage rack structure that's obviously straddling the property line at that point um would you I don't know of him Ms Oriana what is the storage rack that's behind the garage what is on that rack that's listed

was it so who does does Beltran Mendez you so that that apparently is it's it's on their property but it is used by um the buyer by Wilson Mendes Wilson Beltran who owns you know both of these prop who owns the Triangular property to the North or I guess on the map and then the uh and the built up partial to the left so he I guess he keeps personal effects on it

I think the answer is that that rack is not owned by this property owner okay and they don't have a problem with somebody else's do you do you mind that he uses you but that he can use it without any real no it seems the neighborly thing to do I guess okay so let him use it you don't hear that too often these days so we do have uh obviously a a very small setback

at the rear of the property now um I'm guessing there's a notation on here 3.2 feet I'm not sure if that is correct or not but then there's a two foot set back with the proposed expansion to the garage um I have no idea what Mr Beltran plans on doing with his property but that's tight especially on fairly large piece of land a lot of a lot of room towards the front

that stands out in my mind uh any comment on that from planning and engineering when I look at the petition as a whole and in response to attorney Perry's initial comments I think it's important to understand that the properties that he references across the street are in a different zoning District this puzzle sitting in an R8 zoning district is surrounded by only single-family homes within that District

it is a conforming lot to that District R8 with the requisite amount of Frontage in area it does have an existing non-conforming use which is a two family already um the proposed garage extension I don't think is a problem and that could actually be held or proposed as a special permit as attorney Perry stated my concern would be making this a new residential unit which is what the applicant is requesting yep without

showing the additional required off-street parking lot coverage issues I think there were a lot of unanswered questions on the petition and the plan itself um you're definitely making the parcel more non-conforming and definitely more non-conforming to the neighborhood by allowing the residential use to occupy that structure if that's going to be and that that indeed isn't an additional

residential unit correctly that's what the application says so we have a two family unit in the front at 707 we're asking for a third unit in the garage space in a single family Zone so the increase in the non-conformity of the use would be my concern personally we have five members voting on this so questions comments from the board at this point John I know that look well that was that was my question the

application talks about a uh adding an existing adding an additional unit not an expansion of a garage so it's creating another unit in this also keeping the garage space I think is what the idea is but it would all be finished off for you know for for comfort so the garage is going away the use has a garage that's correct yeah but there's a large enough driveway to accommodate

so it would no longer then be considered we say proposed garage extension so the whole structure would then be converted to residential use not no no garage doors no parking of vehicles that's correct although if the board would if the board thinks that keeping it as a garage is more appropriate you know they would certainly you know the homeowners would certainly be willing to you know leave automobile space and

garage doors there well Council the point is that if you know we're putting in a kitchen we're putting it in a bathroom if it walks like a duck sounds like a duck so certainly it's an apartment certainly I mean that and that's why it's on the application yeah no I I understand so I don't know how keeping garage doors can make a difference it's still going to have a kitchen still

going to have bathrooms can still be used as an additional dwelling unit to the flavor and the intent of your your application What's the total of elbow parking not shown um it's a large driveway that's about it's about an 80 foot long 75 foot long driveway and a little bit more than that and there's it's a two-car garage so the current tenants at 707 are all for for both apartment units are utilizing that driveway

I mean yes in order to meet the flavor of this I'd like to see really how many parking spaces are being designated in this sure is this virus are there by the way and lock coverage is yeah might be an issue with the driveway now

probably exceeds a lot of coverage already yeah it does yes it does yeah so we need a special permit to extend that non-conformity or expand on it anyone else on the board at this point this is how many bedrooms would the unit be that's a good question um there would be set off rooms I mean it's like something probably two or three bedroom sized rooms would be in there I think at most

um but it wouldn't be but it would not be is every I guess would they be living rooms or bedrooms I'm not I suppose anything is a bedroom right if it's set off from a um from a main living area if it's a uni if it's like a unit you know how many bedrooms would be in at one two three well um there isn't there is not an internal

plan yet I mean we're hoping to get the um the approval to expand it and put in the um put in the the appliances before that planning is done thank you anybody in the audience wish to speak on behalf of this application anyone wish to speak in opposition to this application you're hearing none again to the board any other any additional questions this would need to go to planning yes yeah of course sure

would you restate the hardship oh I mean it's it's not it's not something that you know sounds it isn't I suppose it isn't you know morally or implicitly a hardship but the family would like more living space thank you have they thought about adding an addition to the existing structure which may be an easier so this this was this was you know sort of because it's a single level garage it's

a less expensive extension to make them right but it's no I understand that seven or seven I mean if you if you want to add bedrooms to the second floor of 707 you've already got a kitchen there so that that relief is much you're not creating an additional dwelling unit same amount of additional living space sure but not an additional this isn't specific to to these owners and these users so this will move

forward and then in a short period of time this could be three separate families living in the three different locations I understand yeah I have a similar we're thinking down the same line This is a separate unit and what's going to happen 10 years from now 20 years yeah now the extension of I don't want to get the applicant in a situation where if they receive a denial they can't come

back for two years without appearing before the planning board I would say that there's a chance that the expansion of the existing non-conforming structure could be done by a special permit yes so if a variance is still denied they still have the ability to apply for special requirement so either way I think they're they're covered with a new application whether you deny it or allow them to withdraw okay thank you

yeah I I don't I'm on a Prejudice anyone else on the board I don't like the setback situation um and I and I really hate that we're creating a separate dwelling unit as opposed to expanding existing do all they knew so that's me so to the board again any other questions do you need to get that remove that book I just I just look at it and think like future subdivision

come at us you know what I'm saying and that's yeah can I have a motion from the board um chairman I find that the petition does not meet the qualifications hardship identified and okay second motion by James Calkins is that it does not make the threshold of of hardship and the motion therefore is to deny that was John Franklin II yes any further discussion on this move support John Frank yes Jim Calkins yes the

indepair yes Ricky sahadi yes and chairman Prairie yes thank you very much

attorney Mark L Levin 17 and 27 Wilcox street map g26 lot 18 the applicant seeks a special ferment here are 86-423 B of the Fall riverzone ordinance to divide the existing property into two lots leaving an existing two family dwelling on the first slot and an existing single family dwelling on the second lot this property is located in A2 apartment zoning District G we haven't seen one of these in a while

good evening good evening it's chairman members of the board I have a challenge Peter said I'm going to be less than hitting the first one so very simply this is based on the city ordinance section 86-423 parentheses three parentheses where these properties were in existent before zoning in fact somewhere close to 1879 my client just desires to put the line down the middle um he actually intends to keep them but he

needs them for finance purposes to finance them separately if you've driven by the aroma too we use the extensive work that he's done he bought these things they were pretty tough shape and he is improving all that that lot has a potential garage the other one never had anything he is contemplating the future doing something about parking but that's not for today's date straightforward so we end up with two

mods our area is 23.43 and 25 93 obviously the existing Frontage these are existing properties setbacks ending up with what's our setback from what two to lot one coming on to the other that distance between them coming to that new property line 3.1 the first one yep on the front then 9.1 for the other yep are there currently separate utilities I was told they were but that could be

part of the order I would explain that to this client that if that is then you'd have to make sure they are separate the only thing he had to check out just to find out where the cable runs for the TVs he doesn't know if it's off one building or another but I told him for the water and sewer they'd have to be separated no matter what being a half David have to be reported

to that effect that he did do it but he believed when he checked out with the city that they were separate ones anyway that'll just need to be verified and recorded yeah Infinity is always happy to come out and put in new services any questions from the board at this point none is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application anybody here to speak against the hearing none I turned to the board for your

wishes with a form of emotion take a motion to Grant a second with the stipulation of separation of utilities affidavit needs to be filed anyways yep worried about a fence on this one pretty clean straight shot yes so motion even I can fit about three feet I stand sideways I can fit

uh all right very good um motion to Grant by uh John Frank second by Jim Calkins discussion hearing none John Frank yes Jim Calkins yes yes and chairman yes thank you lovely dinner thank you very much have a good night item number I thought that was number three item number three Kimberly Moniz are you gonna make it he's gonna talk fast Kimberly Moniz 42-46 Utah Street map F map

f05 lot six Africa variants to construct a 23 by 34 foot two story Edition with covered deck on second floor attached to the existing two family dwelling waving setback requirements in the CMD commercial Mill District

and her husband they're also here the uh like you said it's an existing two family dwelling if you're looking at the dwelling right now from the street from Utah it's here and your husband live on the right side of the of the on the north side you live on this side yes ready dishes okay so they live on the left side now her mother and father lived on the opposite side father passed

away so now her mother is alone what she'd like to do is put an addition on the side of the dwelling that she lives in your son is gonna now occupy the the side on the right of the two family dwelling the addition is going to be comprised of a garage underneath there's there's no garage there now so that'll give him space to put a car inside and then upstairs is going to be what

she's proposing to do in the addition is at a bedroom and a living room it's not going to have like a full kitchen it's going to be the utilities are all going to be tied into her utilities electric cable things like that it's going to be the same bill it's going to give your mother a little bit of Independence but she does need assistance from them so the above the

garage to will be a door to just go back and forth into the house you'll be eating in their kitchen and but she'll be sleeping in the addition and she'll have a small living room area where she can spend some time on her own other than that that's it it's this existing kennel in the back fairly large close to the property line we're asking for it's a close setback on the sideline

we'd be set back in the front but on the side we don't so that's one of the reasons why we're here the coverage I think I calculated the coverage to be 27.3 percent it is a commercial Mill District the butter to the north Carolyn I believe couldn't be at the meeting but she's aware of the petition and for the boss wreckage she signed this plan so if you want to have it is okay with the petition

she would be the abutter where the side set back really is being requested to the north to the correct yes that's I'm gonna be picky it's not a notarize so we don't know if she actually signed it so somebody signed it she didn't come and pose it she didn't come and oppose it we'll leave it at that okay uh comments from engineering um Bob I'm sorry if I missed it but

will there be first floor of this Edition is it a garage garage okay so you're still going to be able to provide two Wall Street parking spaces for that unit the garage is going to be wide enough yes so it's 20 23.

back side of the garage it's it's the York we have the principles adding a garage door manually so please bring cars back to everything kennel or whatever spots well it says the kennel is being removed

okay other than that I mean it's 3.3 feet close yeah it's pretty close yeah but that's up to you to decide one thing I would note is that they really can't get much narrower than 23 and still provide two off street parking spaces side by side so take that into consideration maybe 22 you could fit into because you got you know two nine by 18 spaces so nine nine times two is eighteen give

yourself a little wiggle room to open doors and 22 by 34 might be a little bit more appropriate and have a 4.3 foot side yard side yard that would be my only concern bothering me a lot 3.3 feet put a fence in there and

questions and comments from the board anybody here to speak it's not oh I'm sorry oh so good I was delayed living space no additional unit it's uh it's a bedroom and a it's done yeah it's gonna be pretty much part of my house gotcha because she had a stroke and I understand no no thank you it's the right thing to do uh anyone here to speak in favor of the petition anyone speak against the petition

okay the hearing none again my concern is that setback on that sideline and again not so prejudiced I'm just you know that's can we get it that's an issue we probably can I think we can talk to the architect and maybe we can make it a foot thinner we'll talk to him and see what we can do 4.3 is a big difference from 3.3 and actually I think it's because it is existing driveway now that

would actually give you probably a sidewalk with you know to be able to get around that side of the house yes okay so it sounds like they're willing to go to 22 feet and with if the board wants to consider that give you a 4.3 side yard I see a yes and I know

so is this something that you want to consider I'm gonna see a yes and a no 20 20. gentleman just said 20 some feet is already tight 23 feet if I go 23 feet we're going to be opening doors we both have larger vehicles I need a larger vehicle for this so now yeah I you know you cramping me you pop it upstairs is going to be much smaller as well I mean this lady is

already losing her full two-story apartment try and put on a sardine can and still give her her dignity her privacy and all that I shot aired in a nursing home assistant home you know which comes to shove yes but I would really just love it if I could keep it at that the house in question is well over 20 some feet away from her property money Caroline's property line but but this

becomes part of the house right so the house then it is 3.3 feet away from her property there's going to be a gate there privacy plus the issue with the two garage doors should there be a necessity to get in back there which whatever is necessary it'll still be able to do it that's my feeling again if push comes to shove I'll fight the bullet so they can only act on what you present

so if you don't want to change it ask them to vote on what's being presented you have one shot at it thank you

consider just getting rid of the garage and having it in the apartment there because yeah she's gonna but you're gonna still be apartments on the second floor right right yeah expend it over and not have the garage the person who's going to elderly is going to have to walk up a flight of stairs she doesn't I have a I we have one of those um those chairlifts that go up the stairs I think they're probably

looking at what's going to happen in the future these this you guys might not be there and then the lady that's there might not be there and you got this tight thing and that's what people argue about later on I could slide it back and be able to park in front of the garage door and make it a single garage too if you slid the addition back enough to get an 18 foot space

so if that's what you're proposing yes please please 22 Yeah and in that case hang on okay only because the house is in your name Kimberly yes okay that just whatever votes being taken between the two of you has nothing to do with the ownership of the home I hate to say it I'm just going to split the hair and just call it what it is Kimberly if you're saying it's okay do you want to

change it to the to the one foot smaller yes please change to the uh to the application for the sake of the board is a is one foot narrower on the garage so that's 22 feet rather than 23 just to open up some of the sideline do we have any further discussion here if there is none can we have a motion on the uh on the Mr chairman petition yeah

I would I would make a motion to approve with that amended 22 feet to approve the variance get a motion to approve by Ricky sahadi do we have a second by Jim Calkins conditions all right there's no further discussion Ricky zahati yes Dan De Pere yes Jim Calkins yes uh John Frank yes and chairman Prairie yes thank you thank you

for 67-77 Mason Street Realty Trust care of attorney Jeffrey Medeiros uh the applicant at property is 67 and 77 Mason Street map k-14 lot 75 the applicant seeks a special permit per 86-423 B of the city of Fall River zoning ordinance to divide the existing parcel into two lots leaving an existing three family dwelling on each lot waving all zoning requirements in an A2 apartment zoning District

and hear from the petitioner so um the petitioner called earlier and um so he is requesting to table it I did yeah you want the hard copy I'm sorry all right a letter N file from Burke Espanola and Van colen van Cullen to myself and the board 67 Dear Mr Pereira please be advised that this office represents the owner of the above properties on tonight's agenda is petition number four and and five

kind the accept this letter as a formal request for the to table the petition due to my being unable to attend uh due to isolation protocol 19. and this is signed by Jeffrey Medeiros Council to the board first of all is there anybody here or did anybody show up to speak either for uh or against transition yes good um to the board I move that we Grant the postponement until well they don't ask

for a specific thing because I think okay did he ask for next month's meeting yes I'm guessing yeah we will assume we'll put them on next month's meeting as a short agenda right now you have a second on that second that was Dan yes thank you Motion in second uh discussion none uh motion to approve the continuance uh John Frank yes Jim Caulkins stand a pair yes Ricky Saadi yes chairman Prairie yes

and as we move then to item number five Mr Jim before you move on to that one yes can you um request a motion to wave the tabling fee due to this circumstances by all means um to the rest of the boy that is to wave the tabling fee take this one first uh John Frank yes Jim Calkins yes Dan De Pere yes Ricky sahadi yes yes uh we moved into item number five we'll

read it anyway 18-120 Jefferson Street Realty Trust care of attorney Jeffrey Medeiros 118 120 Jefferson Street map f04 Lot 27 the applicant seeks a special permit for 86 423 B of the Fall River zoning ordinance to divide the existing parcel into two lots leaving an existing four family dwelling on the first lot an existing two family dwelling on the second lot waving all Zone requirements and the CMD

commercial zoning District um the same letter in file on both of these it does cover 67 6667 Mason Street and 118 120 Jefferson Realty Trust again Jeffrey Medeiros Council this is in file I just hope he clears up covid very very quickly um anyone here to speak before or against the petition he almost raised your hand they almost had me with a red shirt um to exercise postponed this until the

our next regular scheduled meeting waving the uh the okay very good do we have a second sorry all right discussion none Ricky sahadi yes Dan De Pere yes Jim Calkins yes John Frank yes and chairman Prairie yes awesome six Fidel Estrella uh care of Attorney Peter acelino 53 California street we have Utah and California tonight uh Matt j-o-a lot 68 the applicant seeks permission to

construct an addition onto the existing structures as well as a detached garage in his side yard the applicant seek some variants for lot coverage and a special permit to expand the pre-existing non-conforming structure and another special pyramid allowing for a private garage larger larger than allowed and the g General zoning District good evening for purposes of the record my name is Peter solino I'm a lawyer

with offices at 550 Locust Street here in Fall River in this application I represent Mr Fidel Estrella the owner of the property at 53 California Street Mr Estrella and I have done a lot of work on this site together so far we've gone to a site plan and we are here as a result of that we've gone to city council for curb cut removals the property itself is a single family home

The Proposal includes an expansion to the right of the property if you're standing in California Street which is shown on the plan and as you can see on the plan it was required that curb be removed there so that's been approved at the city council level in addition we're seeking to build a detached garage which is screen left on the plan the garage exceeds 750 square feet and therefore

requires a special permit so what we're seeking here are two special permits one variance the variance relates to lot coverage in this zoning District 25 is the lot coverage requirement and as proposed it's 38.4 the special permits relate to the size of the garage and the expansion of the pre-existing non-conforming structure at the end of the work that is being proposed we will be left with a single

family dwelling with a detached garage the garage and new curb cut are sufficient to take all the cars off the street and allowed for parking on site so I don't think parking is a concern ultimately here the hardship is that Mr strella wants to live in this property the house is there it's pre-existing non-conforming if you'd like to enlarge it and put a garage and this concept is the best we

could come up with for him to accomplish those objectives happy to field any questions from the board but again I don't think there's detriment here at the end of the day it's a single family house with a detached garage the oversized garage reason for that just to have the extra space you're correct yeah not looking to do any type of business here doing no commercial use here he is board repair and testing them

at three o'clock in the morning no and he is a contractor but there's no intent to make that it's just for personal use okay I'm bringing work home comments from engineering planning um none as Peter stated they've been through a site plan review during that process it was found that they needed these types of relief applicants been fantastic with uh with following through with our

recommendations about it every eye this is the last step in the process and the current Cut's already been taken care of yes we've come to traffic and the full Council so we're going to add add curbing back to the existing driveway this is the driveway closed new driveway open yep business questions requirements from the board I think as Dan said to tease the quest and the eyes are dotted straightforward I agree

makes sense anybody here to speak in favor I am yes in favor anyone here as big against I am please identify yourself and step up I am Lucille Bouchard I am the next door neighbor our house at 67 California street with shabbat's 53 California Street was built well over a hundred years ago our family has lived there for almost 100 years in that time we have never had situations such as this

building a three-car garage with rooms above the garage less than 10 feet from our house should not be considered this garage will hold house construction vehicles I've seen at least four possibly five in the yard already our bedroom is right there this is a picture and that's my bedroom window and that's where the garage he wants to put if there ever was a fire in this garage we will be severely impacted I know of

instances where garages have caught fire and houses nearby houses even further than Mr estrella's proposal has been impacted according to the U.S fire Administration each year there are approximately 6600 garage fires in the United States each year just this year in February a large garage fire intimidated destroyed a garage along with the vehicles and this hot the house from that garage

was far away in that whole side was all impacted another reason to not have this garage so close will be we'll have just a little Alleyway between the two structures why does the city have these regular regulations regarding putting houses or additions when someone can just ask for a variance or a special permit this plan of Mr Estrella will definitely destroy our way of life I respectfully ask that this

proposal not be approved as it is now I'm thought I'm not against having a garage he's got a huge yard that garage could be further away from our house it this is our bedroom window and this is where the garage will be so I respectfully ask that's my say okay thank you thank you for the input attorney Selena how would you respond to the to the um comment that the construction vehicles around the site I

wouldn't I defer to my client who's already testified that he has a construction company but that there's no intended construction use in this structure and there'll be five to rot five trucks on the street because it's under now I try for any where I'm sorry just so I can I can ask I mean he does have the right to be he told me he's going to have a backhoe

in the in in the front yard I'd have a problem these pickup trucks are these utility body trucks what these are your kind of truck do you have you know I have like two bands and one pickup your name on it yeah the only state the truck says only at night at home that they want to work but I parked sometimes now on the air street because I don't have enough

parking my but your is your business based out of your home address yes so you have more than one truck so guys come pick up in the morning they come in the morning park on the street getting the truck and take a job site yeah that's my my think is when when I have my garage I don't gotta have cars on this street I got for inside because I have my tools in the trucks

everything that my plan is get the trucks inside the garage at night try and make safety right so your personal vehicle that you drive for work with equipment and all of that that that's fine but if you have people coming getting in trucks and leaving that's operating a business out of the garage then then can have the trucks at the city over here because then it's still my tools and it's still like three times

I understand but again you're in a you're in a residential district garage or have any more questions I understand I understand what you want to do however that's different zoning relief than what's being requested operating a business out of this garage two entirely different things with regards to the setback they're they're a foot further away than what they need to be they only need to

be four feet from that side property line so they're five feet in change the regulation is four feet that's my yard is three feet from my bedroom window I understand that so that's not so no it doesn't need to be 10 feet the regulation is four feet so they're not asking for relief of how close they're getting to your your property line they're meeting that requirement and exceeding it the relief

they're asking for for the garage is the size of the garage that is all for as far as the garage goes that's the only relief they need for the garage and there is no second floor so there'll be no second floor rooms to this garage this is a this is a one-story garage and it will be conditioned that there'll be no loft or storage of material in the garage on a second floor of any soil

because they're not asking for any relief with regards to the hype so all they get is 18 feet and the board can deal with that as a condition of what's allowed to go into that garage but as far as the commercial use of swapping out Vehicles leaving other people's Vehicles behind that's a different relief so Dan in effect are you saying for all intents and purposes if that's taking

place it's considered business correct so we're no longer dealing with the proposed plans is we're dealing with a whole different thing if that's the case right and that and that relief is not being requested right now right you don't you don't have to Grant it you can grant what's what's being proposed and not deal with the use issue or you can condition the uses yourself or you can allow this to go on

and then now the building inspector will have to visit the house and tell Mr Estrella to cease and desist all business operations but I guess what I'm saying is is that considered a business operation somebody just taking it in my opinion sure all right if you have workers coming to your home taking vehicles and equipment from that property right I would say that you're operating a business owner he is

he's got all sorts of equipment what time do you start what time do you start in the morning like six in the morning just get the trucks or anything I don't make a noise in that I said what I load up is that now and then come with the guys coming in the morning it's still it still becomes a used issue yeah just a point go ahead education on the side step back according to the plan

that's required 10 feet residents all garages are four feet from the sideline six feet from the structure when they're detached if that structure was attached to the house then you would need to meet the side down set back correct any other questions from the board was was the use considered no this is new to me I have one more question sure to build an inspect to go on and see we are no

I don't think so no no one's asked him to it is full so that's a current situation so what I would recommend is call the building inspector right and voice this complaint that's a different board different different entity

that's correct and that's going to happen even if this gets denied tonight that's not going to change so regardless of what happens tonight you should contact the building inspector and file a complaint with the activity that's going on in that property thank you welcome to the board what do we want to do with this one Mr chair if I may please could I make a motion that we table this petition and try to

address some of these concerns and potentially come back and see you in August out here too yes okay should we have a requests from the petitioner to table uh would you want this table the next month that would be perfect and I'll bring you in that check all right so table into the August meeting you wishes gentlemen they have a motion I know that we grant them request to continue to announcements very good thank you

we have a motion thank you here um Ricky Sadi yes Dan De Pere yes Jim Calkins yes John Frank yes Jim Crow yes thank you thank you thank you have a good night thank you for coming out we appreciate it number seven uh quintal Investments LLC Cara fraternity Peter celino eight Griffin Street G24 lot 16 the applicant seeks relief to construct a trip uh Triplex seeking the variance uh for use as a

three family dwelling and an R4 two family drone zoning district and a special permit for alteration of a pre-existing non-conforming lot coverage conditions good evening for the record Peter celino on behalf of the applicant Quintel Investments LLC with me is Daniel Quintel uh the manager of the LLC the petition before the board this evening is to build a triplex on this vacant lot

on Griffin Street currently there's a cement Foundation or slab on the site The Proposal is to build three units all parking would be off Street we meet size and setback requirements in the district so the issues are really only two and pretty narrow the first is that in an R4 District only two units are allowed by right it's a two pound District so we're asking for three units that necessitates

the variance and second the existing law conditions with that cement slab create a non-conformity and so we've also applied for a special permit in order to expand alter or change that non-conformity as it relates to the variance first I think as it relates to the hardship component clearly this is a funny shaped lot the curve in the street creates that odd property line and then

I know this is isolated on your screen but immediately to the southeast you have property g242 and g2419 one of which is seven units one of which is eight units and then on the corner of salamand and Griffin we have g2313 which is a six family so I would submit to you that we definitely have shape issues here but I also think that there's really not a lot of detriment to the neighborhood with

this kind of a proposal in as much as the density is a lot less than what surrounds it um so it's submitted that the variance is appropriate in this context and further that the special permit is appropriate and I should note as listed in our documents that we actually improved the lock coverage with this proposal so in other words right now we have this big cement slab there if we take that out

and do three Triplex units with off street parking it reduces the lock coverage by 23 percent and I would suggest to you that that substantially um it is not substantially more detrimental than what's there right now and obviously this would be subject to site plan review and we could govern uh water and traffic and parking and all this other issues that normally are concerns of the board so I think this is

a great use for a vacant parcel on a funny kind of curve in the road and it's consistent and appropriate for the neighborhood excellent so one one garage space for each unit one outside parking space yes Court bedrooms two bedrooms I like the plan uh questions from the board

I'm Mr chair and I'd just like to hear from Dan um well what the attorney celino did not state is that this parcel even with its odd shape it's 11 000 square feet which is a rather large lot for the for the neighborhood so for two family structure you would only need eight thousand square feet so the way the zoning is in this District it's six thousand square feet to build unit one

two thousand square feet to build unit two so if you kept with that same square footage density per unit he would still exceed what would be required for an additional 2 000 square feet that would only bring you to ten so we have this oversized lot in the neighborhood that by square footage and area calculation could provide density shape and housing for three units it is in a neighborhood that

is surrounded primarily through multi-family dwellings directly across the street is Citizens for Citizens and there are multiple facilities there we really don't start getting into you know Parcels or lots that have that are two family and so we start heading closer to Broadway and then those Parcels are on those buildings are on very very small Lots so I can see the Merit in in this petition parking is not

an issue a lot coverage would be an improvement for the neighborhood creating additional Green Space I couldn't find what was on this property before um it does have it does have an existing curb cut and it is a very large you know paved parking area now that something was there for a long period of time but yes I don't know I don't remember for years I don't know I could don't know so no I

I have no opposition to it all right so so any other questions from the board before I go to the public anybody here to speak in favor anybody here to speak in opposition in that case I turned to the board I'm Mr chairman after listening to uh to our engineer I would make the motion that we approve okay any conditions which is standard yeah okay um we're not taking any chances do we have

a second on the motion up second by Dan De Pere any further discussion on the motion hearing none uh John Frank yes Jim Hawkins Tim pear yes Ricky Sahari yes and chairman Prairie yes thank you wait yeah hang on good catch Mr Congress that was that was uh was that on the variance I actually don't think you need the special permit for lock coverage because you're reducing it but you can go through the motions

I mean as you're saying even with the three units it's 10 000 square feet as a and there's 11 on the right but the variance was for the use to go to three units the special permit has to do with lot coverage which they're reducing if they were expanding with a lot of coverage then a special permit would be required yeah that's what you're saying it's the midpoint you can go through it

anyway it's requested so rather than not active that's how it was applied for yep so do you wish to make that all right all right I find that the request for a special permit would not be substantially more detrimental to the area thank you we have a second second uh discussion uh Ricky sahadi yes Dan De Pere yes uh Jim Calkins John Franks yes Andrew McRae yes thank you thank you thank you the silver

123 Locust Street map oh 13 lot 45 the applicant seek some variance to construct convert an existing three-family dwelling into a four family dwelling by adding an apartment in the basement with parking is shown in the submitted plan property is located a local business zoning District good evening Peter celino for the record on behalf of the applicant with me is the applicant Amanda de Silva

um this project is somewhat interesting to me because Amanda purchased this property and in the lower level of it was a apartment fully plumbed electrical rooms the whole nine and ultimately when she had inquired at the city level as to whether or not it was cool it's legal she was told that it was not so ultimately the petition is not necessarily to add a new unit but rather to substantiate a unit that is already

there and I think therein lies the hardship that she buys the structure there are four apartments in it it's zoned for a three in this zoning District um when I initially met with her I expressed to her that I come before the board regularly and that I thought that parking would be a concern she is on Locust Street just down the street from my office she was able to work with Mr

Tallman to engineer a plan that affords two additional off street parking spaces by enlargement of her driveway so ultimately I think the proposal could allay the concern of the board relative to parking I think she can fit all parking on site I think that the unit count is consistent with the neighborhood again three family in this BL district and you see as shown on Mr Tallman's plan the zoning line there but

in the BL District three is allowed by right but when you look immediately to her West you will see 105 Locust Street is a four family dwelling if you look a little further you'll see that there's a four across the street there's a six we have an existing eight to the Southwest so I don't think the density is abnormal or detrimental to the neighborhood I think it's consistent with the number of

units that we generally see in this neighborhood and so we'd respectfully ask the board to Grant the variants to allow her to legalize the already existing infrastructure there and afford her a four unit dwelling as opposed to A3 so there is an apartment there now it's already there so yeah when she purchased it it was there she um she thought it was legitimate if you will um and then she was able to speak with

the building department who advised her that they have no record of that and that's how this petition started interesting due diligence is a good thing yeah how many how many bedrooms it's just one bedroom in that new apartment oh the other ones uh first floor second uh first little second second plus second third floor is three and the bottom is one of one yes and how many parking spaces are we getting out of this

is it six eight uh it is eight that's right yeah the questions from the board anybody here to speak in favor of the petition in our position being none and we have a motion on this this is a variance to convert the three family into a four family and no special permit on this one motion to Grant by John Frank second place second by Dan Hey sir see I can't recognize your voice either you saw

nothing like anybody else in the discussion on that uh on the motion uh Ricky Sahari yes Dan De Pere yes uh Jim Calkins yes John Frank yes Jim Prairie yes thank you congratulations good luck thank you appreciate it all right doubleheader benedito's WS Terrence street map uh one that I'm sorry i-23 lot 39 they have conceits of variants waving dimensional requirements in the A2 apartment zoning

District the petitioner proposes to construct a four unit townhouse dwelling on an existing non-conforming vacant lot we've minimum wide area lot coverage side yards setback and Frontage good evening good evening for the record Jeff Tolman from Northeast engineering Consultants here with me tonight is Mourinho Benavides the petitioner on this application uh they existing lot that we're dealing

with here is a 9321 square foot lot located on the west side of Terrence Street Terrace Street uh the lot is vacant um has been vacant for as long as the record show at uh on the assessors website excuse me hmm so what we're looking to do uh well excuse let me backtrack the law is located in the apartment two zoning District um and excuse me always happens that way the

moment you step up people sitting there quiet for too long sorry about that geez so anyways the um the last located in the A2 apartment zoning District as you can see all the abutting properties that directly above this um all have three to uh 12 and even the one to the South has 34 units in three separate buildings and if you look at the densities on those lots specifically the one to the South lot 18

the density to that is one unit per 1400 square foot of wide area the one directly behind it is one unit for 1600 but just under 1700 square foot a lot area and the one to the uh the one to the north is one one unit per 1325 square feet of lot area what we're proposing to do here is to construct the four unit townhouse style apartment building um and provide off-street parking

required offshoot parking for two spots per unit so a total of eight parking spots which would be located out in the front and the density that we'd be dealing with here on the size as possible with the number of units that we're proposing is 2300 square feet per unit which is much greater than the surrounding area in the neighborhood the use would be similar to what's being used in the

neighborhood be consistent with everything that's going on in the neighborhood and the again the lot size itself it's it's I don't want to say it's pre-existing not get flow me because I don't know the full history of it but I know it's been sitting there in this configuration for quite some time and it's not being used uh so therefore I think it would be a benefit to the city to have something uh

you know built on this property and I think what we're proposing here makes a lot of sense in is in conformance with the rest of the neighborhood with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board might have any bedrooms two three these would be Tylenol style units this is um this project somewhat similar to one that you recently saw on Spring Street Corner spring in fourth or fifth

I believe same type of building same type of units there's that structure okay

there's nothing on the lot i-2317 either correct correct that's a vacant lot as well sounds ripe for the picking any questions from the board the difference here obviously is not just the the percentage of block coverage it's you know it's a matter of setbacks as well where other larger buildings are spaced so not to uh not to be well the one right next to you yeah the one directly

to the rear would be very similar to what we have here close to 10 feet and that might be close to 11.

but even the two other on Snell um you know the four family and the three family they're closer than what we're proposing here with the 10 foot request that we have kind of reasonable uh damn comments meets the parking requirement so forget that um Jeff do you know if you don't have the addresses on here but the lots that you're talking about which is 41 and then also 18. yep did they

were they granted relief I know they were zoned the A3 zoning District which I know was different than the A2 so they may have I don't know if they complied with what the A3 required or if relief was granted to those I didn't I didn't look at that I'm not certain um so I mean I agree with with Jeff's assertion with regards to unit per square foot however these may have you know been constructed when

under different zoning or before zoning even existed which I'm sure you know some of them living at the age of the buildings on the drive-by that could be yeah yeah and I'm not sure um as the chairman stated you know did you approach the the owner of lot 17 about potentially buying that other vacant piece to add to this yeah nothing interested okay all right what do you needed when I

gave him the option as well as the one on personality I gave them the option to okay the one on Snell wanted to buy it I think if I recall 10 feet 20 feet but that wouldn't work you know I mean yeah

was there any contemplation of less units than four it's just the number that we got into yeah when we when we put it all on paper there's always a magic number yeah that's fine yeah it's just it won't work yeah I will say there was consideration for five and we ended up so generous yes yeah Jeff um it just seemed to fit nice you know with the a lot area and the parking that

we can meet and that type of thing let's see what we have for our Butters if any want to see if we have any Butters in favor I believe anybody any other questions from the board first I'll hold off anybody here to speak in favor of the petition anybody to speak in opposition good evening don't be shy come forward so we can hear you my name is Tom Joel I own the property at 355 Snell Street

okay when Mr Benavides purchased the property on Terrace Street he acquired an easement through my property at 355 snow I'm sure he knows he's responsible for Duty care and maintenance of the easement but that's not the question uh Mr Benavides is a developer got to listen he's going to flip the property leaving the Eastman in Jeopardy to whoever buys it or if it goes into condos it may be dealing with four

subgiveness before unit townhouse is going to a place of unreasonable to burn on already crowded in Africa if the easement is utilized my life see this overflow parking using my driveway as an apartment area since access from terrorist street is the preferred accident there's no reason to utilize the easement from snow Street respectfully request consumption being denied that is as it's presently proposed

and you were mentioned smaller units and things like that what what kind of easement is it yeah utility or access or access everything access we'd have no problem eliminating the easements eliminated to satisfy the gentleman okay which it makes sense why you even have more traffic through that because we have plenty of area here on town street so we could just eliminate that so so I can understand sir

uh does that easement run right down the length of your property yes and how wide is that uh the whole total area is 30 feet I believe these minutes for 10.

that was pretty that was pretty existing and yeah but if that's going to please please I have no problem eliminating a satisfy your objection will satisfy me the easement was there before yeah before you bought it I thought he granted you and easement one of those lots okay which is why they put I thought he granted you and these but I apologize okay everything goes to cover Street

sure the parking area a lot I think was similar to the one to the to the north of it and then the back piece had the access office now yes but I have we get the thing here the way it is I have no problem is that he's been recorded at the registry of deeds yes okay you've got an attorney who represents you yeah I haven't closed on it yet depending on this thing

yeah we're closing down in the 24th so I'll eliminate that please be in communication you guys have each other's phone numbers because he has that lot there that he eventually wants to do something okay thank you all right thank you very much easily done music with this idea open in the driveway out right now cars from the top of the street from the bottom of the street so he's saying the

four family that's going to be eight cars technically you know if you have four people living in an apartment that's 16 cars never mind their family and friends so you're talking not so much ecos it's more double at because right now that whole street people circle around the neighborhood and try to find a parking spot wait for the winter time what are they going to do with all this snow

okay do you know I understand his point and you understand that we have a regulation it dictates how many parking spaces per unit okay which he meets yes so for us to say you gotta double up parking spaces you could contest that and a heartbeat is your concerned the fact that is is it the the additional cars or the fact that by opening up a curb cut there's a couple parking spaces chemistry I believe it's uh

and why would not for a city it's basically rub the sidewalk all the way down opening up a driveway on that side it's just going to make Chaos on a two-way street you can go up and down on that property so me seeing that it's just going to be more with dilemma now costs coming out of that Narrow Street you're gonna eliminate two other parking spots because come out of that Poppy throw all the way

to the sidewalk so what do you do you can't park in front of a driveway right it's not a terrible you cannot so we're going to put those out two additional cars open up a driveway to accommodate another four family how many of the houses up and down Terrace Street have have off street parking wine mechanical two it's like so I guess my my point and I'd have to take a drive down the street

again to take a look at which ones could potentially do that we have a developer in here that's offering to meet the parking requirements of the bylaw and we have people with admittedly older homes that were not required to do so who have made no effort to do so so you know it's kind of a kind of a toss-up it's new school old school um do you know the layout of that street

is it a 45 man looks like it's a 30-foot layout yeah so it's tight what there's no parking on that side of Paris stream it's on the opposite side it's signed it's there's there are signs up there's no parking on the side where there's can you look at street view yeah right but there's only parking lot okay across the street so once you open up the driveway technically you're not

supposed to be popular in front of the driver right no you can't park in front of the driveway that's cool you can park across the street from a drive yeah or whatever it is that's going to be difficult especially with with uh entrance 10 feet or something the standard size for a dry reopen it they're requesting 22 feet that's without parking requirements required it's 22.

yeah I'm sorry your name and address please uh Norbert Solas 365 Snell Street snow okay country and but you also own lot 17 right yeah it has the also the corner yeah putting up an existing garage for the future more of a headache for me I can see it already happening those those are things that are beyond the preview of this boy those are not things we can consider when accepting or denying

Chris just as clarification so the west side of Terrace Street has no parking that's that's signed there's no parking it's only on the east side Terrace it's the opposite side of this all right so we're not yep

driveways actually three don't have to porno 28 and 18.

in 18's across the street yes yeah any other questions from the board anybody else to speak in opposition I would turn to the board if there are no further questions or comments um what are your wishes on this challenge Mr chairman is it appropriate to make a motion to approve with the elimination of the easement as a requirement yes it's land use so yes right then I would make that motion motion to approve with

the elimination of the recorded elimination of the easement um yeah the easement should be extinguished prior to the issuance of a building permit correct okay I'll do that at closing yep cool yeah just tell your attorney ahead of time it's easy to do no one else has rights to that easement correct no one else has rights to that easement we have a second on the motion please discussion

the motion to approve uh plan as shown with the elimination or the vacating of the easement from Snell Street on the motion Ricky sahadi yes Dan De Pere yes uh Jim Calkins yes John Frank no and chairman Pereira yes thank you thank you Mario Benavides 1352 Bay Street map a-02 lot 18.

the applicant seeks of variance wave and dimensional requirements in the R8 single-family zoning District the applicant proposes to divide the existing 11 300 square foot lot into two lots leaving the existing three family dwelling uh 1352 Bay Street on lot one a 5769 square foot lot with 103 foot Frontage on Bay Street and constructing a single-family dwelling on Lot 2 a 55 131 square foot lot

with 55 feet of Frontage on Charles Street waving minimum lot area lot coverage Frontage and setback requirements in order to keep the total unit count down to three the applicant proposes converting the existing three family dwelling into a two-family dwelling good evening for the record Jeff Tallman from Northeast engineers and Consultants here with my uh Marino Benavides the petitioner on this application

what we're looking to do here what we file for is we have an existing non-conformance structure which is a three family dwelling located on the southwest corner of the property the lot itself which is located in the array zoning district is oversized by you know in terms of lot area and Frontage being a corner lot has Frontage on both Charles Street and Bay Street the house itself is tucked uh you know

to the south of the property to the point where the existing porch and the structure itself do not meet current uh setback requirements um the lot has a large what's considered the backyard area now which would be on Charles Street with a um existing two-stall garage located to the rear and there's a driveway located to the north of the dwelling a fairly wide driveway that provides um

six parking spots for the existing uh three units that are in the dwelling uh move it the petition is discovered upon purchase of the property is that the condition of the units on the uh specifically the units on the second floor uh the way this property is divided is one unit on the first floor with two units on the on the second floor uh the configuration condition um and just overall uh you know status

of those units wasn't uh they're not in good shape so what we're looking to do is is to eliminate one of those units and bring that dwelling the existing dwelling closer into conformance with the R8 zoning District which just allows single-family homes so we'll knock it down from a two I'm sorry from a three to a two and what we're looking to do in order to compensate for the the loss of

that unit which the uh again the petitioner was anticipating is to subdivide the property and to construct a new single family dwelling on lot two which would have 55 feet of Frontage and 5531 square feet of area on Wall Street both Lots would be comparable in size and they would be also comparable in size to the watch that directly above it specifically lot 82 54 and 8229 which are one's a little over six thousand

they almost a little under six these these two lots would be in that range and this these two lots would be about fifty percent bigger than the uh next to budding lot heading East on Charles Street but the requests that we're some of the relief we're looking for here is in order to do this uh division that we're proposing we would need a relief from the existing dwelling to the new

property line which would be five feet um and also from the uh where we'd be constructing the new dwelling on Lot 2 to that same property line where we're asking for a reduction down to 10 feet rather than a 15 feet we would be holding uh the remaining setbacks on the new lot specifically the front setback of 20 feet the side setback on the east side of 15 feet and also the rear setback of 20 feet

the I think that's all I had at this time so I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board might have on this petition what does that do to us for the coverage on each of those two laws so the coverage well the coverage on lot one would be would be over um that'd be at 67 we are asking or we did ask for a reduction in coverage on Lot 2 uh or an

increase I should say from 25 to 35 percent um but if I I suppose I looked at this closer uh today prior to the hearing the 25 percent you know with the minimum driveway you know just going on 20 feet um maybe 20 feet wide even 18 by 18 I would still leave the ability to put like a 30 by 32 house on the property and maintain the 25 percent of uh lot coverage so

at this time again I think we can waive the 35 percent request that I had on a lot too we would certainly need it for lot one um to maintain the uh what we'd like to do is obviously maintain a structure in the parking Arrangement we'd eliminate the concrete driveway going to the garage on which would be loaded on a lot too we'd still be providing the full offshoot parking spots required for the

two units that would be left in the existing well okay where would you put the uh the driveway unlocked to Jeff it could go on either side um I anticipate a house being 30 feet wide um you know maybe 32 feet deep or maybe you know uh maybe it well it would have to be somewhere in that range I mean it could be potential a little bit deeper but then that

driveway could be offset to one side or the other a portion of it would have to go in front of the dwelling so the dwelling might have to be set back a little bit further than 20 feet shown um just to give a little bit of landscape area between the end of the driveway and the house but it could go basically anywhere on Charles Street in front of us you wouldn't be looking at

coming up the side of of the house no no just in the front just in the front because of the lock coverage requirements that we'd be dealing with yeah before I even go to the board uh Dan comments from planning I mean the overall density is you know in keeping with what's sitting on that lot now if I'm sorry I didn't get to go out and take a look at this one but the

Topography of this doesn't like to sit a little bit higher or is that flat with lot one time it's got a pretty substantial grade so you might even have the ability to potentially put like a garage under on the left hand side of the house as well to you know to help you with a lot of coverage at all but just a single stall driveway in the front but

um if they think they can deal with 25 and get rid of the 35 I wasn't opposed to the 35 as we talked about before the lot coverage thing prior to site plan review was a bigger deal in the city than than it is now but through site plan review we make them do you know developers are required to make drainage improvements and infiltrate roof areas which is really what the intent of lot

coverage was in the first place but they get no credit for doing that as far as a lot of coverage goes and they have the ability also to use pavers or different types of surface for the for the driveways to keep the impervious area down but as far as the the zoning relief yeah it's an odd shape lot it's on the corner to put to the excuse me the topography does kind of separate the two

Parcels the way that it's shown here so whether the yard necessarily Isn't So usable to the two family dwelling yeah it would be great if there was some some ability to reduce some of the existing asphalt online but that's not being proposed at this time I don't know what uh what we could what we could get to on that you would you would end up making more of a convoluted parking situation

you know as it currently sits now um you can you can accommodate the the four spaces I mean that's that's a lot of parking yeah yeah so you're coming down to two units are they two bedroom units two three the threes yeah I think you need all the four and then some so you're not asking to increase it just by the numbers because of the subdivision it's it's increasing a lot

of coverage right now the driveway okay you can accommodate six thousand no problem problems you can probably Park eight yeah we decides that that's shown there after that other leg obviously the concrete driveway that straddles what will straddle the two separated Lots that's all coming out on both Parcels yeah correct so there will be some additional Green Space added to the lot one with that

little square of concrete driveway to be removed well and certainly more you you probably have to increase the setback you only got 20 feet somebody goes up buys an F350 they're not fitment there so this is probably more a Dodge Ram neighborhood right I mean overall a lot coverage if you calculate what's there now probably gonna be about the same once they build the house why no I said oh yeah it's part of it is

uh all that that asphalt up in the corner yeah I mean I mean if the board's not opposed to it I wouldn't mind keeping that on the table maybe not for 35 after I did take a closer look but we could knock it down to 30.

um because it's I don't know that 25 just seems like a magic number it always seems like you're running up against it on a lot of things I mean it would give us a little bit of flexibility and like Dan said with the additional area we can certainly compensate for that site plan review dangling bait out there and then just yank them back yeah yeah I know I know I felt so good oh

I have nothing else to add just give us take it away let me split the difference uh 27.5 oh 30. not 30. oh God it's late and easy anyone knows from the board questions concerns comments good guys no more comments anybody here to speak in favor anybody in opposition still have to ask somebody pops up in the back row them up I will um

I would uh entertain a motion

it's just a variance it's all a variant so one one vote covers you off

yeah going once motion to deny Washington right you join do not feel that they met the threshold for the variants motion by Dan De Pere is to deny the this threshold from hardship we have a second on that second we have second motion to deny by John Frank for the discussion to deny then a positive is is denial John Frank yes Jim Calkins yeah Dan De Pere yes Ricky sahadi no and chairman Pereira now

which does not give a super majority that we need for somebody you want to make a motion to approve well see if the vote changes but you can go through the motion somebody's going to change wow yeah I don't want to belaborate motion to approve but no one's going to change their mind okay Let's uh no pass thank you thank you all right just no receipt of Correspondence you've got it

got a few spare minutes tonight you want to take a peek at it please do so hey hey Ecom I can't I can't look at this because I'm doing business with them in Alabama it's addressed to you I know to have broke my eyes I love recusing myself uh discussion this is the night review and discuss proposed updates the zoning board of appeals rules and regulations I read it actually and I don't have any changes I

want to recommend well other the ones that we discussed about the time the petition's on one night right yep we wanted to make that change it doesn't take a vote to accept the correspondence and place on file you're correct can I have a motion to accept the correspondence from AECOM so I'll move second uh John Frank yes Tim Calkins yes Dan De Pere yes yes thank you for that catch Chris thank you

do we need a motion to approve the right new rules and regulations yes so moved motion to approve the rules and regulations as presented to us do we have a second second uh on the motion just uh an amendment that to that motion that subject to uh correction of of evidence editing and of the number of petitions yeah or whatever the scriveness areas are yeah another given granting you the permission because

yeah you did have changes to 15.

15 naps we'll clean it up yeah that I mean I just grant you authority to clean it up okay correct any error get a motion from John Frank do we have a second

yes Jim Calkins John Frank yes Jim prayer yes please and approval of minutes on the June 15 2023 meeting the waving of the reading the minutes do we have a second on that section by John Frank uh John Frank yes Mr Dawkins yes and a pair yes Ricky Sahari yes yes I will take a motion to return to adjourn second by Jim all in favor yes aye