7.9.2025 Planning Board

All right. Welcome to the uh July 9th, 2025 meeting of the forever planning board. Pursuant to the open meeting law, any person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit transmit the meeting through any media. Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made whether perceived or unpersceived by those who present those present and are deemed

acknowledged acknowledged and permissible. The city charter the section- 9-18 mandates that all municipal members bodies develop and adopt rules or policy for public comment. We have adopted such a policy which in short provides for citizen input on planning board specific matters at the end of the meeting. There's a signup sheet uh that is located in the back of the room.

We have uh with us we have Craig Salvador in the back from Forever Government TV. Dan Aguiar, city engineer.

Patty Aguiar, administrative clerk. Also in the audience, we have Courtney Pereira, planning clerk, and Chris Lev, assistant planner. Um, do roll call.

Gloria Pacho, not here. Beth Andre, present.

Here. Mario Luciola, not here. Mike Farius, present.

And I, John Ferrer, present as well.

We have a few items on the uh on the agenda under new business. First item form a application for endorsement of plan but believed not to require approval and our plan of land file number 25-1631 owner applicant Maria Americo property location 67 and 77 Mason Street assesses map K-14 lot 75.

So before you on this is um although the plan is daunting when you look at it um it is really fairly simple and if you look over to the right hand side of the plan the area that's called just says locus to the right hand side in this little section over there down there. Right.

So what this really is is the just a subdivision of a lot that contain two multif family dwellings like we normally have. have they went through the appropriate zoning board appeals process. So, they're just subdividing that lot. All the rest of this plan has to do with the fact that this is registered land filed through the land court and that's the level of survey that the land court required them to do

to create this one new lot line that separates these two lots. So, it's been it's been a couple of years in the making. So, they're finally at that point with Lanc this plan endorsed. This this will not actually be a recorded plan. This plan gets submitted back to the land court.

The land court redraws it. They're only going to redraw this little portion.

They're not going to redraw all the work that had to get done and then land court will actually put the subdivision plan on file at the registry of deeds in the registered land portion of the property.

So, at the end of the day, what we have here is subdividing this parcel of land into two pieces, leaving an existing multif family dwelling on each lot in accordance with the zoning relief that had previously been granted. And that note um is added to the plan um as well as as we normally require them to do so.

Other than that, now what my question is, what about the park? I'm familiar with this because I worked on Thomas Street.

Okay.

Right behind it. What about the parking that's in the back there?

the lot two, lot three, there's parking there access that is still available and in accordance with the variance. Yep.

Yep.

So I know they've got about six, seven parking spots back there.

Yep. Yeah. So that that's not going away and that has to be divvied up according to the zoning relief that was any uh is there anyone in the audience here for this uh pertaining to this matter? Board members, any uh comments?

No. Do I have a motion to approve? Not approved.

AR. So motion to approve.

Motion to approve.

Motion by Beth. Second. Second by Michael. Beth.

Uh, roll call. Beth.

Present.

No. Yes.

Yes.

No. You're present. Michael.

Yes.

And I vote yes as well.

Thought we were doing that again. No, we're not doing that again. Number two, form a application for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval.

ANR plan of land file number 25-1623 owner Roman Catholic Bishop of Fall River. Applicant Family Homes Construction Company, Inc. Pop location 189 Wellington Street, Cess S-17, lot 0045.

So, this is the property located um this would have been the rectory to St.

Michael's Church.

Um and it's built on the rear part of the property along St. Mary Street predominantly parking lot. Um the church is looking to sell this piece of land under a purchase and sales agreement uh with Family Homes Construction who is the applicant on this plan subdividing the lot into a total of seven lots. Six of them would be for uh residential use, all exceeding the minimum zoning requirements for the WOD zoning

district. Um as well as lot number seven also exceeds the uh the requirements.

There is a reference to um zoning board of appeals decision, but that was really having to do with the use of the properties, not the size of the parcels.

The size of the parcels all conform to their own. Um on this plan you'll see the normal uh no determination as conformance with the zoning bylaw and um the intent of the plan.

I want to see do you guys have the revised one with the intent on it? Yeah, you do. I don't have it in my package. So you'll see in the top lefthand corner the only plan in my file is the original one. Now you did you say family homes is buy and hold the whole thing. Okay.

So ultimately they're going to be building singles and duplexes on the vacant parcels and then they'll be converting that existing rectory to an apartment building.

Nice project.

Yeah.

Is there anyone here pertaining to this uh project board? Any uh questions?

No.

Do I have a motion to accept the plan as submitted?

I have a motion to approve. Motion by Michael.

Second.

A second by Beth.

Roll call. Michael.

Yes.

Beth.

Yes.

Okay. You're not present. And I vote yes as well.

Okay. Number three.

Form A. Application for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval and our plan of land. File number 25-1633.

owner applicant Robert Costa and the state of Ernest Costa Jr. Property location zero Jones Street. Assesses map T-6, lot 40. So this is an existing parcel of land that has 100 ft of frontage along Jones Street and 10,440 ft in area. The proposal is to subdivide this parcel into two conforming lots for the zoning district with 50 ft of frontage and 5,000 square feet each. Um, no variance required for this. Um, they

do reference the intent of the plan as I had just stated to subdivide this parcel into two and the the general note about no uh no determination as to zoning. But both parcels do conform to the zoning for the general district.

Wish they were all like this. I know.

Anyone here for this particular project?

Not board members, any questions?

Yeah, I just have a quick question. Uh Dan, was this the the same area that um this applicant was subdividing or giving off land on uh both to the left and the right of it.

So, this was a this was a larger piece that had a a home in the middle, which is what's shown there.

Yeah. they they got relief to cut out this lot because of the sideyard setback to that existing house. But the lot that they were cutting out was a conforming lot with 100 ft. So that didn't that required no relief. But yes, there is a much larger parcel that includes the house heading in the opposite direction and that's the one they're not it's they're not going to build on it. Is that

at this point in time they are proposing nothing else? No.

Okay.

Do I have a motion to to accept?

Motion to accept.

Motion by Beth. Second.

A motion. A second.

Michael.

Yes.

And I, John, vote yes as well.

Next.

Number four on the agenda is for May.

applicant application for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval and our plan of land file number 25-1634 owner applicant north congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses Fall River Mass Inc.

Property location 100 Northeastern Avenue, 141 Seavoy Street, and 142 Northeastern Avenue. Assesses map L-9 0084 and L-13-60006 and L-13009.

So just to bring you back to this this this petition was before you um I don't think it was quite a year ago but might be to refresh your memory it was December it was December of of of 2024 of4 okay so this plan was submitted this has to do with the discontinuence of um a portion of London street which was a private way and they were dealing with the rights of the abuing land owners um

that would have ownership to the center of the right way. Um different parcels were being divvied up, rights were being assigned to the remaining pieces of land for ownership. Um at that time at the last meeting, I offered that the plan should have been afforded endorsement.

Um attorney Pico felt that it didn't and had requested that some additional legal documents be prepared and submitted.

Um so we'll let you pick it up from there.

Sure. So I I agree with everything you just said. So let's pick it up from there. And you might remember it's even longer than that. It started with a land correct.

Can I just have your name and address for the Oh, I'm sorry. Patrick Delaney. I'm an attorney for Marsh Mori Arti on Tela Golder 99 Rosewood Drive, Danver, Massachusetts on behalf of North Congregation for Jehovah's Witnesses. So this started with a land court action for Quiet Title. We initially submitted a plan back in March of 2024.

That was eventually denied at a May 8 hearing due to insufficient evidence to establish rights in a private way. The planning board requested that we finish the land court process first, then come back. That's why we're here in December.

We reported that it's concluded. We have agreements for judgment. We have a default judgment. We have a boundary line agreement. They actually all include a sketch plan of the ANR plan being submitted today. All the parties have signed off on it. The court signed off on it. At the December hearing, the planning board requested that we first record those documents for title purposes and then reference the

recording information in the notes section. So if you look at the NR plan on the far left in the note section, it's a little bit buried in the third paragraph, but it does reference that the boundary line has been recorded in uh book 11743, page 101. The default judgment's been recorded and the agreement for judgment's been recorded.

So anyone that would pull up this plan at the registry would then have easy access to find the court orders and they see that all of the parties have agreed to.

It's really just swapping a few feet of land located in a private way.

I remember uh Lauria mentioning to get everything recorded and everything down and and all the uh TE's cross.

Yeah, it's certainly confusing, but the courts signed off, the parties have signed off. I mean, the lots, they each above a public way. They have the frontage. They have vital access. And I think we've also met all of the uh conditions or the additional conditions that Miss Patriio requested of us. So, we respectfully ask that you endorse the plan.

Is there anyone else here for this? I know you three gentlemen are. You want just here for support?

I I have one more question, John. Um and again, I don't know if I don't have the revised plan in my package. Can I see it up here for a second?

I'm just trying to see the note that you're referencing on the left.

It's a little more confusing because we had to keep the date of the plan since that Yeah. So, the plan is signed before this these these things were recorded.

It would have caused us a a larger issue to change the date of the plan and go back to court and where all of the agreements reference the May 1st, 2024 plan. So the the unrevised the prior version said to be we have a mile for this.

Yeah.

Where is it upstairs? No.

Oh, it should be right there next to you.

Um

I mean, I almost can't believe that you got a registered land surveyor to submit a Yeah. And I I think you met with the surveyor and he you know, he was reluctant to, but he did do um

I know all the information is correct. I just don't know how we can rely on a signature that came before this because the surveyor is is acknowledging that the information on his plan is correct. I don't think a backdated plan affords that signature.

And now why why could he not like stamp and date it again?

You know, he if you want me to ask him to do that, I'm sure he could. It just needs to remain dated.

Dated is fine. Yeah. But like even up in the top top corner top corner note that he signs I certify his plan has been prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations of the register of deeds in the comalth of Massachusetts. His name date one May 124.

Um, so the date of the plan I really don't have issue with, but there there should have been some note that references that it's updated and but they were only ever draft plans to begin with.

Well, no, the ANR plan that was submitted here wasn't a draft plan, which was this same plan without those.

I suppose you're right, but I was thinking no one on the public record would see these plans other than this plan that it's dated May 1st, 2024.

I I I wouldn't have a problem if if you wanted to approve this with new stamp and signature being a fixed that's what I was just going to say with an update as long as somewhere on here it's his signature and a date that comes after that date of that recorded information I think is what we should just put an addendum on it with a sign he can he can just come by and put

another he can handwrite it and signed date and he can even make the reference of why the new signature is here and that the only thing added to the plan was that note something like that and I'm fine with that.

You comfortable with that?

If I got him on the phone, could we do that this evening?

Well, he can't sign the sign.

He can't sign physically sign it.

Oh, yeah. You need to But what we're saying is we're going to prove it tomorrow anyway.

Okay. So, so as long as he comes by and he comes by it.

Yeah.

Well, that's how they vote and he comes by, signs it tomorrow, date it, I'll tell him what he needs to write on it.

Okay.

And we can scan that in. He can take the monologue with him when he leaves.

So, I'm not sure of his availability if it's within a week or two. Is that okay?

As long as his availability works for you, it's fine with me.

Oh, I just didn't know if there's a time limit on your on your end.

No, no, no. That's fine.

My law will be upstairs. So, yeah. No. Yeah, I think that's good. I appreciate we understand that.

Yeah.

Okay. Board, any any questions, Beth?

No.

Michael?

No.

I think that clarified. I know we're we're familiar with this coming back and I know that Gloria uh wanted all these uh notes on here, which was was my right anyway.

Of course, she's not here tonight.

Yeah. So, you're lucky.

So, fingers crossed. Well, you might be lucky or you may not be lucky. So, um I I have no problems with with that with that new game.

All right. So, do we have a motion to approve?

I'll make a motion to approve with the contingency that the land surveyor will come in uh sign uh stamp and redate the issue it within the next few days.

Yeah. All that just just the the my won't be released until last time.

Second.

Yes.

Beth.

Second.

Okay. All in favor? Michael?

Yes.

Beth?

Yes.

And I John vote yes as well.

Does that get you closer to the finish?

close, right? It's the closest we've been to today.

Good.

Ain't going to get no closer than you.

At the last meeting, I I I thought it should have been I thought thought I I did see that and I appreciate that.

But I I also You don't always listen to me, right?

Not me.

He never listens to me.

Thank you. Thank you.

I can appreciate Miss Picho's view as well.

Oh, yeah.

All right. Thank you all. Thank you.

That's the good news. Bad news, give the man his jacket back.

I'm going to stay till the finish.

All right. No, you don't have to.

Oh, is that what you can have mine? Yeah, you can have mine.

You sure?

Yeah.

I don't want him to have to stay.

Yeah, she'll take yours.

I just can't get up to give it to you.

It's okay.

She already went through his pocket, so she's I don't think there's anything annoying.

I don't think so. I'm on camera.

I would I wouldn't do it regardless.

I know this is going to be a fashion.

Thank you so much.

Well, you're welcome. You're welcome.

Brendon Brendon. John. Been a long time, buddy. Oh, this one's nice and warm.

Remember Joe?

Yeah. Yeah, I remember Joe.

I know.

We'll see you again. All right. All right guys.

Bye, guys. Thank you so much.

Nice to meet you.

Nice to meet you.

You're missing someone your jacket.

Is it Is it Andre or Andre?

Andre.

Is it Elizabeth or Betty?

It Beth.

It's Elizabeth. Only according to the nuns.

All right. Number five on the agenda.

Form a application for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval and our plan of land file number 25-1635.

Owner applicant Aaron Tetro for Tetrol Real Estate LLC.

Property location 165 and 169 Grant Street. Assesses map G-5-0050.

So back into the real world subdivision.

This one's actually not too bad. It still has 46 feet of front 16 feet of frontage, not not a 5 foot. So, in the plan note section, you'll see the reference to the special permit that was granted. Um, the recording information for that, the purpose of the plan, delineating what they're doing here, which is subdividing the parcel, leaving an existing multif family dwelling on each of the lots, and in the title

block, no determination as to compliance with the applicable zoning bylaws is made, intended, or implied as a result of this endorsement. So, with that, I'll offer that the plan is in accordance with the with the relief plan that was granted by the zoning board of appeals and that it should be infored uh endorsement. That's it.

For the record, there was no there's no one left in the audience. So, board members, any questions, Beth?

I do not.

Michael, no. Me? I'm not very excited, but um do I have a motion?

A motion.

Motion by Beth, second by Michael. May May I ask a quick question, John? Um, this is to John.

I'm just curious what what was something that you're not thrilled about?

He doesn't like any of these.

I don't like any of these subdivisions that are approved with these narrow. I mean, we've had some would close. So, so what when what I'm going to make the recommendation perhaps we need to go and talk to the zoning website because you can send so so you can send a letter to the to the zoning board of course but read through the zoning bylaw that allows this first because then you may decide that you

don't want to because this is basically the zoning board of appeals hands are tied where if you have multif family dwellings in existence prior to 1954 so that's subdivision control law yep they are required to allow this subdivision to happen.

Do the best that you can with it. So they they contemplate they make them separate utilities. Can we do something with parking? So those are the kinds of things we make them stake out the property corners so that prop now that property owners are aware of. Hey, this is what I own, you know. Um but read through the section of owning. I'll forward it to you. So you don't have to

vote for it in the book. I think it's 86423b something like that. Um, yeah, it's it's just that we have gotten some worse than this and but it's it's specific but it's specific to the Fall River zoning board uh zoning ordinance that allows this. If it wasn't in our ordinance, it's actually worse because um if you if you study the case of uh SIPO with having multiple dwell multiple buildings period,

you cannot deny a subdivision. Um, so it's you got to get into that. So before you send a letter, I just want to make sure that you understand what what you're sending. So you you can say you don't like them, but just understand that the zoning board of appeals that hands are tied when it comes to dealing with.

So I just voice my that's why we see so many of them. And I've explained this to John for the last 20 years.

Yeah. I mean like at some point I mean isn't there any issues that I've seen other ones being approved uh and there are definitely life safety issues associated with it where so you don't have nearly the separation and again the the zonings were zoning laws basically put in there for the safety for the community.

So so on these no one is constructing anything. Well, now another condition that the zoning board of appeals puts on these is that it precludes the ability to put up a fence along the new lines for that exact reason so that we're not impeding emergency management, fire, police from accessing the properties.

We make sure that that's also be before that wasn't the case. That's been something that over the last few years we're putting in these conditions. Mhm.

Um, we actually require them to go through the site plan review process to make sure that the water and the sewer lines are separated correctly. What happens on a lot of these, the water line from the back house runs through the front house and then out to the street.

Now, when you sell that and something goes wrong, now there's a problem. So, so now we have very specific um conditions that they need to comply with like staking out all the property owners. So, when somebody buys it and we require that those markings are shown on this plan. So, anybody that goes to the registry of deeds and does any due diligence, they'll see all of these restrictions.

So, my question I I guess one question on this one, this lot too, would that dwelling have its own separate line, water line uh to it or Yes, supposedly. Yeah.

Yes. Yeah.

Water, sewer, gas, all separate.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. So, we Beth was uh Beth, you made a motion. Mike second.

Um, roll call. Beth, yes.

Mike, yes.

And I, John, yes. As well.

Number six on the agenda, form a application for of for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval in our plan of land, file number 25-1636.

Owner applicant 302 Cory Street LLC and 1320 North Main Street LLC.

Property location 1320 North Main and 302 Corey Street. Assesses map S-12- Z0058 at S-12-0073.

So this is 1320 is Olive Insurance if any of you know of the area across from St. Joseph's Church. Um they own both properties now. So, we have the office building in the front and an existing three family dwelling to the back. No zoning relief is required. What they're doing is cutting out parcel A from what was lot 58 and conveying that parcel A to lot 73, making it bigger so

that they have more more parking area and more land. Both parcels remain conforming to the zoning district.

Building setbacks meet the zoning requirements. Um, so simply partial A coming out of 58 and being conveyed to 73. That is all.

And I'm assuming at this point in time, I think they're probably thinking of selling 302 Cory, which is the multif family house. But before they sell it, they're making sure that they covered they still have the rest of their parking lot because right now it's a drive-thru and it's all fairly convoluted. So it's operated as one piece right now.

There is also a note on the plan. No determination as to compliance with applicable zoning. Um and then of course the intent of the plan as well. No no zoning relief reference because there was no zoning relief required with that should be forwarded an endorsement.

Just a quick question. Uh lot um 50 uh 58A y is that's still part of lot 58. Is that correct?

Well 58A is what's left over after you take a out.

Gotcha. So, new designation would be 58A is now 12,000 ft². If you look at the original 58, like at the top of the plan, you'll see it was 15,600. So, okay, you subtract that 2,700 out, that's what you're left with. Same thing, you'll see 73 was 10,000 square ft and now it'll be 13,000 the new area.

Okay, that's all right. Any other questions from the board Beth?

No.

I have a motion for to approve. A motion to approve.

Motion by Mike. Second. Second by Beth won't roll call Michael.

Yes.

Beth.

Yes.

And I John. Yes. As well.

Okay. Number seven. Uh shity relief discussion regarding Highland Woods.

All of the shity relief u m be the next meeting. We haven't gotten through the review process through DCU. So 7 through 11.

The only one we're going to the only thing left we're going to do is Wood Street. We have So 7 through 10.

Do I have a motion to uh table items number seven, 8, 9, and 10?

I have a motion to table items 7, 8, 9, and 10.

My mic second.

I second.

Beth, roll call. Michael, yes.

Beth, yes.

And I, John, vote yes as well to table number 11, Wood Street Extension, completion of roadway reconstruction.

So, this you may recall there's a letter to the board from me. Um, I'll just read that. July 7th, 2025, Paul River Planning Board Chairman John Ferrer. Board members, we are in receipt of a final asbuilt plan illustrating the construction of the Wood Street extension from Preston Street Easterly.

At a public hearing on August 9th, 2023, the planning board ultimately uh sorry, unanimously voted to approve the proposed construction plan and the granting of specific waiverss. Upon reviewing the submitted asbuilt plan and subsequent site visit, I can offer that the roadway was constructed in substantial compliance with the approved plans. You are being requested to issue a certificate of completion with regards

to the construction of the roadway.

Additionally, I have attached a memo from the Department of Community Utilities offering their comments regarding the asbuilt review. Um, so this is not something that requires shity. This is not a subdivision plan.

This is what we classify as a roadway reconstruction. So if there's an existing paper street that an applicant wants to build a road to provide frontage to buildable lots, this is the process that they go through. So that's what we had done back in 23 and approved that extension of that that plan. That work was all completed. He submitted an asbuilt plan. Um so we we are now being

requested to sign off on that work that was required. Uh and you have a certificate of completion um that you are requested to sign this evening.

That is it.

Any questions from the board?

Actually did a really nice job on it.

Did I hickey it? Yeah. Didn't I did a good job Michael?

I motion to approve.

Motion by second.

Michael Beth.

Roll call. Michael.

Yes.

Beth.

Yes.

And me John. And I John vote yes as well.

Uh approval of the m minutes of the meeting of June uh 11th 2025. I don't think we have enough. I w I wasn't here. So we'll have to table that.

Do I have a motion at the table?

Motion to table.

Motion by Beth. Second.

A second by Michael.

Roll call. Beth.

Yes.

Michael.

Yes.

And I John. Yes. As well. Any no citizens input? We have none here. Do I have a motion to adjurnn?

Motion to adjurnn.

Motion by and second by Michael. And I vote yes as well to adjurnn.

Have a good night everyone.

Thank you. Nightix.