Fall River Zoning Board of Appeals 3 17 22

it's six o'clock good evening i'm david assad the chairman of the zoning board of appeals for the city of fall river it's 6 p.m on thursday march 17 2022 we are meeting at one government center in the first floor hearing room pursuant to massachusetts general law chapter 38 section 20 subsection f i hereby notify all persons in attendance that this meeting is being recorded with both video and audio devices

fall river government tv michael ferreira is recording both the video and audio version if anyone desires to make an audio video or combination recording thereof please notify me now and i shall make a public announcement of your intention our recording secretary this evening is christine alex the lady to my right present this evening our permanent members john frank from left to right

john frank he's the clerk of the zoning board of appeals james calkin dan dupayer joe pereira who's the vice chairman and ultimate member of ricky sahatti also in attendance is the director of planning for the city of fall river caitlin young the lady to my extreme left christine have all petitions to be considered and properly advertised in all interested parties notified in accordance with the rules and

regulations of the zoning board of appeals in massachusetts general law chapter 48 is amended guess sir i declare the march 17 2022 regularly scheduled meeting of the zoning board of appeals of the city of fall river open for such business i shall regularly come before it i remind all persons presenting before the board including the petitioners abutters anyone in support or anyone opposed to the petition that your

presentation should be limited to three minutes questions and responses must be directed through the chairman the board's rules and regulations direct the board to specifically look for information which supports the petitioner's claim as such the petitioner should identify and factually support the basis for the petition i hereby advise the petitioners and all interested persons that this board

is the zoning board of appeals this board's authority exists pursuant to massachusetts general law chapter 48 and is limited in scope and deals with the use of land as regulated by chapter 86 of the ordinances of the city of fall river additional permits licenses reviews and or approvals may be required for the specific development and or use which is the subject of the petition before the zoning board this evening

the quirks in the building planning engineering and licensing departments are competent in the discharge of their duties as clerks they are however not lawyers and are not competent to give legal advice the action taken by this board has a real and lasting effect upon the title to your real estate i urge all petitioners to 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 this evening because the building inspector has determined that your proposed action is

contrary to the city of fall river's zoning ordinances the city charter section 9-18 mandates that all multiple member member bodies develop and adopt rules or policy for public comment we have adopted such a policy which in short provides for citizen input on zoning board specific matters at the end of the meeting it was a it was a sign up sheet in the back if anybody wants to talk we'll get

to it at the end of the meeting i disclose that an official copy of the four of a zoning ordinance is available at the city clerk's office one cannot rely on the online zoning ordinance are there any questions before we begin hearing none old business zero one stanley street treatment and resource inc dba star uh care of attorney richard e brick jr 75 weaver street lot t310 the board received an email

communication from attorney burke on march 15 2022 requesting that this matter be tabled until our april 21st meeting because he has submitted additional information to the building inspector for his consideration so if we're going to allow that to happen can i get a motion to table agenda item 001 to the april 21st meeting second who was that dan dan second any discussion on the motion hearing none

john frank yes jim carkin yes dan japan yes joe pereira yes chairman aside yes okay so that one will be tabled to the april 21st meeting agenda item new business agenda item number one r r consulting services inc care of attorney mark 11 423 425 division street lot g4 446. this is a special permit request pursuant to section 86 423 b to divide the property into two lots one lot containing a three family dwelling

and a second lot containing a three family dwelling good evening eternity loving will you identify yourself with the record and tell us what you'd like to do yes mr chairman member is the board uh welcome ms young and hi alex christine house uh my name is attorney mark kell levin 138 rock street florida massachusetts i'm an attorney this evening representing r and r consulting services inc

the project before you in the request for a special permit is the typical four river generation of properties built in the uh early late 1900s early 20th century where you have one lot that had multiple buildings on there based on the bylaws section 86 423 section subsection b i am submitting to you that this these properties have been in existence prior to zoning they've been continually used and that

for your consideration there really is no change this property that will occur other than creating new lot line there will be a small easement for a right-of-way from the house in the front to get the access to the back that's where currently accesses the garage that's in the front has been used by the owners or tenants that live in the back house there was never any parking for the house

uh and the front right on the front of the street so basically we're just partitioning the line giving an easement for access to the back for foot traffic uh the current uh rear house will still have the access for the garage and use for their parking so other than that we're not changing anything it's not going to be any more burdensome to the neighborhood by granting the special permit than it would be

if you left it alone it's still the same three units on each property it's just separating it the back property will have a bigger yard for their use but with the front property it's a smaller they're small very small units i'm told inside there like one bedroom or something so they they really don't need a lot of access and i'm told that currently the population's a little bit older so it's not a lot of car

traffic from this property and that's about it marthy you say the six foot easement from post six foot wide access easement so lot number one can get around a lot number two lot number two can go through the lot number one's property by foot traffic only by foot traffic only because the garage is right in front well that's my next question the garage that the proposed lot line along the face of the garage that

six foot easement isn't just located in the rear it's the full width so if any work needs to be done on the garage they'll have the easement to use that that's correct so granted there should be we should probably any deed a condition may be that any deed contain the crosses or the easements for that that's what's intended also permanent permanent boundary reference markers uh for the survey for any surveys must be

in place to take care of any uh corners or yeah so that i would recommend that that be one of the conditions that standard language that we used at two points uh any discussion about offenses no okay so that's those are my only concerns let me see if the board has any questions no is there anyone here in favor of this petition is there anyone here opposed to this petition

can i get a motion to grant can i get a motion to deny make a motion of grant okay motion to grant john frank any conditions any conditions on that john yes with the uh previous stated uh easement be recorded on the deed no fences in between the prop on the property line no offenses and permanent boundary reference markers that's part of the deal yeah permanent markers plus uh separate utilities will

be with an affidavit to be recorded will be required within one year or before the conveyance is made okay all right so that's john frank's motion with those conditions i think the second was joe pereira all right any discussion on that motion hearing gunn john frank yes jim corkins yes dan japan yes joe pereira yes chairman assad yes okay that was granted

agenda item number two r r consulting services and corporate care of attorney mark 11 3 34 to 36 and 40 hawk street lot g g611 this is a special commitment question for section 86421b to divide the property into two lots one containing a three-family dwelling and a second lot containing a five-family drawing again mr chairman and this is the board and planner and clerk uh mark levin 138 rock

street forward massachusetts i'm going to turn you again for r r consulting service exam this is almost duplicate what you just saw these are pre-existing buildings again built at the end of the 1800s beginning the 20th century they've existed on the property perpetual from that time before zoning and again they are just dividing up the lot so that they have separate ownership interest the

as you can see for lot number two there is a driveway uh that lot is the the bigger house has always stacked their cars behind each other as they have availability to use uh to get into the lot there is a little yard that's left with number one but number one and the rest of it is yard for not number two uh it's not much different again the use of the property isn't gonna change the

impact on the neighborhood will not change to still be the same multi-family units on the property and i have no problem with the same stipulations for the last conditions with the boundary markers easements well actually this one has no reason and the separate utilities with an affidavit of the year thank you

it's not going to be necessary for an easement no the the lot 2 has a has the driveway that they'll have access directly by it's uh it's almost 14 feet wide that's what they use now currently to i was thinking more for a lot one all right oh a lot a lot one's not going to need anything it has full frontage on its own and yeah it can get to the back of the

property and has a little bit of land in between the building and its boundary you know that may be something that will uh add in the deed once it's created well that's right 1.5 yeah i mean if they need to get around the back of the property to do work on the property they would need a legal easement to be able to bring a man lift back there or painters with scaffolding etc

i agree that makes sense and i'm that could be a stipulation i'm going to tell my client to that we're adding that even though it wasn't on the plan yeah that that's correct that was my concern yep that makes a lot of sense no question at all but okay they'll the uh we'll we'll just cross easement over the driveway access crossing across these no fences no separate facilities boundary markers okay

anything else members of the board is there anyone here in favor of this petition is there anyone here opposed to this petition okay motion to grant motion to deny is that plan sufficient for everyone to work with i'll make a motion to grant with the same conditions motion to grant with the same conditions john frank do i have a second second second jim cawkins any discussion on the motion

hearing none john frank yes jim carkins yes santa yes joe pereira yes chairman assad yes okay with those conditions the petition is granted agenda item number three david and michelle marcus marca russo i'm sorry chair of attorney arthur d frank 1267 globe street lot f 23 6. this is a special permit request pursuant to section 86424 to change the pre-existing non-conforming use on the first floor

which is a beauty salon into an appliance repair and retail pots sales office pursuant to i guess there's no pursuant to waving all applicable minimum requirements good evening mr chairman members of the board uh ms young ms alex for the record my name is arthur frank i'm a lawyer with address of 209 bedford street fall river massachusetts and i represent david and michelle macarusso who are sitting to my left

they are the proprietors of appliance care service company in earlier times you may have known it as jerry's appliances uh it's been a family-owned business for quite some time they are currently on plymouth avenue where they lease but they would like to become owners and they signed a purchase and sales agreement for the premises at 12 67 globe street uh as the uh petition was read uh it's it's a

multi-family with a a storefront on the first floor where the owner of the property ran her beauty salon and she told the maca russos that she had clientele of 600 people and three chairs so you can imagine the amount of foot traffic that she probably generated mr mrs macarusso's business is quite different they don't sell appliances they repair them they have contracts to repair appliances with

warranty companies big box stores they also do work directly for the manufacturers and their operation is something like this the mr mrs macarusa are the office staff and they have four road techs in the morning the road techs show up eight o'clock they pick up their work orders and they're gone for the rest of the day mr mrs macaruso stagger their time in the office occasionally they may get somebody to call

who will ask if they have a part on hand maybe they'll get two or three people a day for foot traffic that's about it they close at 4 30 in the evening they're they open at 8 30 in the morning i spoke to mr hathaway about parking and loading requirements and he was satisfied with both what they have on site and what they have on the street because you're going to be going from

probably a lot of cars parked near the beauty salon to having nobody parked near the beauty salon so you're going to have a much less intensive use which i think qualifies under the ordinance we're going from from a beauty salon with a lot of people to a appliance repair business that doesn't sell appliances doesn't have walk-in traffic with the exception of the occasional person who wants to buy a part

or somebody who wants to order a space heater and when that comes in they call the client client goes down and picks it up so you have a lesson intrusive use for this neighborhood than what was previously there when you say the client goes down and picks it up picks it up from the site from the store yeah somebody would somebody would come down and and mr macaristo would say yeah the parts in

person would pull up go in pay for the part and leave so there's no showroom there's no nobody there looking at appliances he also tells me that he doesn't keep a lot of parts on hand he's constantly just ordering them as he needs them for the different job sites so he lines up his his work orders my question tell me about deliveries what time of the deliveries do is athletics deliveries i mean there's a truck pull

up and all of a sudden i've got 14 drives and washers and stuff never appliances just parts just parts so regular fedex boxes of parts just once a day um i get a fedex delivery and i get a ups delivery maybe three times a week would be ups but every day fredex usually mid morning 10 or 11 o'clock he's in and out in five minutes that's what oh good good ass no any combustibles on site

no no it's parts yeah we don't do any gas yeah there's no repairs on site so no tools or anything on site the techs go to the appliance repair is the nature of the business but you're not repairing on site and for the vortex correct have all these in their trucks and they take off they leave at eight o'clock in the morning okay and they come back and they load up no

they don't go back in the day they don't they're only there once a day yeah uh the only people that are there are mr and mrs marcarusso and they close at 4 30. but during what are the hours of opera the hours at 8 30 to 4 30 monday through friday and then in october through april they like to open on saturdays from 9 00 a.m to 12 noon october 1st to april 1st

9 00 am to 12 noon correct okay current signing whatever signage is there just going to get we'll just yeah we'll we'll make do with what's there or obviously within the bounds of the the ordinance and we'll show it all to mr mr hathaway well i mean within the ordinance it's in the off-road district so i don't think there's a sign so it's going to be what's there right right okay the two of you

four trucks the garage is going to be used for storage or is it going to be correct storage of parts parts yep so correct okay and he also does have that you can see there's like a driveway area you know yeah i suggested to him that could even be his or his wife's parking spot uh or he could he could reserve it for loading unloading whatever he deems best okay

all right members of the board i mean those allies members of them no yeah uh director of planning nothing okay is there anyone here in favor of this petition is there are you in favor or republican few questions yes if you identify yourself for the record please mr piper i'm kenneth piper i live next door to this uh beauty shop in 1275 grocery i just want to know is this going to

change the neighborhood in any way or a business go from is it just one business to another business it's not gonna you're not gonna have uh uh you know walmart come in there pretty soon well so often you to answer that you will surely power back what you just said what what we're going to do sir is can you have can you get what we have is a an appliance repair service business that doesn't do

any repairs on site they may get two or three walk-ins on a given day to buy a part a specific part if we have the part on hand the techs that do the repairs in your home show up in the morning they get their work orders and then they're gone for the rest of the day they don't come back until the morning so they're there for possibly 20 minutes in the morning

and then the only people there are mr mrs macaruso unless of course somebody calls and says do you have a coil for a frigidaire refrigerator model x x20 yeah we have that coil can i come down and pick it up so you're going to have nowhere near as much as much traffic that that salon generated and you live there and i'm sure you could tell us how many how many cars wasn't that much

it wasn't that much never it never interfered with it without parking at all yeah we don't like the uh uh upper street is a funeral power that sometimes uh becomes a problem but otherwise no problem and i noticed on the address you have 167 where the business is going to be exactly 1261. not 12 12 17 12 67 that's the house well i think that's the 1267 is the address that that's what my purchase that's that's

the property they're purchasing buying the whole thing correct that's correct correct with any luck what about the garages on the side they're going to be used as trafficking he's going to use it for his he's going to use it for his storage no vehicles the representation is the garages are going to be used for storage of appliance box and it was mentioned a truck is going to park there with kind of a truck no no no

we have ups trucks that show up and drop off packages just the ups synthetics to drop is what they're saying his four trucks that as i understand it often correctly there are four four vans have the appliance parts in them they will get their orders in the morning where they're going and they will leave for the day and they won't come back until the next morning is the representation that's being made

i have a question yes sir identified so please victor tevz i am i'm here with my mom and dad i do not know yes they live at the property i do not wonder that's 24 garfield street correct yes the main question that i have is uh the trucks that are the four trucks that are coming will they be housed there at night 100 no okay the other question that i have is the

four trucks they only come once a day they will not come at 12 and one and two to pick up more parts or have more jobs no not those may i answer yeah go ahead uh not those trucks but like as he said there may be customers coming in at various times of the day but we've stated how many we perceive is going to be there's nothing like in they're not like

being like an 18 wheeler or anything not at all and like i said deliveries fedex and yeah there's plenty of that on the street

washers dries refrigerators or major household appliances not mixers and things big big badges will not happen break so i get a special rate you know we billy has we don't fix their conditions if you take yours over i'll see that outside

excuse me we have the conversation to make you have to go through the chair madam well tell me what's your question on that the property is not going to be changed as far as the outside exterior no if he wants he can't but that's not what's before the board the only issue that's before the board is the use the change from the beauty parlor into this appliance repair shop what's this one name here

zone a4 no it's an r4 r4 our fourth district so what it is a special permit we've got something there the standard for this board is to determine that the new the new use uh deter we have to determine that it's not substantially more detrimental than the existing non-conforming views so you have this non-conforming use is this new proposed use not more detrimental than what's there

that's what we have to find okay thank you thank you thank you

family is opposed to the board granting it okay and the pipers are not opposed okay thank you they are not no ken piper said he was not opposed to the change mr tevz said that he was opposed to him okay okay um okay members of the board any other questions i asked who was in favor who was opposed this bifurcated but well under under 86 424 all we have to determine is

that this new you shall not be substantially more detrimental than the non-existing to the current existing non-conforming use mr chairman i do move that we find that this is not more or substantially more detrimental uh than the existing existing non-conforming use of the property okay so jim cawkins makes a motion to make a determination by the board that this change is not substantially

more detrimental than the existing non-conforming use i'll second who's that yeah dan dan duper okay any discussion on the motion among the board no no john frank yes jim clark yes dan japan yes joe pereira yes jim and assad yes okay so that petition is granted um did you take a second you take a second vote to for the special appointment you know that that was the whole thing the

finding and the special commitment okay but the i think jim included the the hours of operation 8 30 to 4 30. i i would suggest that we make it eight since that's when you indicated your main report okay so eight o'clock and then october first um nine to twelve to april first nine to twelve conditions those are your conditions monday through friday thank you okay okay very good huh eight to four thirty yeah

so that was just motion that's what was improved thank you very much thank you good luck to you sir thank you agenda item number four bnn dubois realty llc attorney mark 11 112 bullock street lock p 2419 variance request to divide the possible into two lots leaving a pre-existing single-family dwelling on bullet street and creating a new lot to construct a single-family dwelling on david street

waving area for both lots again good evening attorney mark yeah excuse me excuse me can you take that outside please thank you attorney mark l11 138 rock street for the massachusetts i am the attorney for bnn dubois realty i'm here tonight with laurie dubois her husband and her son behind me if you have questions uh this is an interesting parcel of land that my clients have informed me of

this property has been in mrs du bois's family for many years her grandfather was the first occupant of the single family house that had been a farmhouse because at one point this area was farmland the 1800s so that house has been there quite a bit the the lot itself is the size of the lot it fronts on two different streets it always has been one parcel it wasn't two pieces or i can ask for

division without coming before you uh the property in fact had been subject and maybe the board has his records already back in 1996 my client's parents irving and agnes gates request before this board to divide the property into two separate lots very similar to what we have here and to allow the construction of a second lodge that was case number 1992 and the meeting was december 19 1996 and

the board granted that that variants did get deceit decision did get recorded uh but subsequently mike one of the uh owners passed on and eventually didn't do anything in fact after the second one passed away my client inherited this property she put it into a company just for liability purpose because we're concerned about someone falling or anything so the difference between that variance and today's variances

that was a little bit lopsided where they gave more land to one lot than the other here she's making this as least non-conforming as possible by dividing the lots basically in two the only thing we're asking for a waiver is the square footage it would require twelve thousand for each lot you get a little over ten thousand for each the new house will meet all the requirements by the zoning bylaws it'll have uh all

the parking that's sufficient under the code is will be the house on bullock street the only thing on bulk street is that house is a pre-existing and as close to the frontage other than that it meets all the other requirements that would normally be in this district the only thing we're really asking for is the waiver of the area you see they're on two separate streets david street where the new house is

proposed the dead end street basically goes up to property the city of four river owns the this house each of these houses are 0.235 acres of land the new house will have coverage of 22 percent the current house we have to be divided will still have just 13 coverage the these two lots as compared to all the other lots and the butters are some of the larger lots in this neighborhood

most of them are smaller there are two that are larger so it's not inconsistent for this size lot to exist again if the agnes and the irving gates had acted on their variants uh we wouldn't be here because they would have already split this off and sold it but it isn't so it's sort of a rehearing but we're trying to make it as equal as possible to make it not as as

non-conforming as it would be than the 12 000 square foot lot that you have the only variance you need is is square footage area that's it the proposed lot number one meets in all respects except for area that's correct front rear side yard the building envelope meets it the front lot lot number two nothing changes there other than the boundary line changes that's it okay okay but being this area it's pretty

simple that this is not going to be intrusive giving a variance in this area isn't going to do anything to harm the neighbors or provide them with any uh more traffic obviously david street only if someone comes to the house there's only two cars coming into the house and coming out it's not like traffic's going up and down the street and the current traffic you have for bullock for the house that

is there already so it was really not much different other than building a house both lots have i see for the new one lot number one you have off street parking lot number one lot number two the existing will have off street parking yes okay all right let's see i think it has one parking space no but i mean it has the capabilities yes it has plenty of land to put parking in members of the board

any questions on this particular project no no no no no okay is there anyone here in favor of this petition is there anyone here opposed to this petition motion to grant motion to deny what he wanted to members of the board have they met the burden for the variance shape topography soil conditions i'll move the grant grant by john frank do i have a second second by jim cawkins any discussion on

the motion hearing none john frank yes jim calkins yes dan duper yes joe pereira yes chairman assad yes that petitions thank you thank you have a great evening

agenda item number five uh ashley machado 79 81 queen street lot m922 special commit request pursuant to 86 423 b to divide the property into two lots leaving a single family dwelling on 81 plane street and a four unit dwelling on 79 grand street good evening pete tallman tell us what you'd like to do for the record mr chairman members of the board my name is jeff tallman from northeast engineers and consultants

here representing ashley machado the petitioner for this special permit application we file this application in order to divide the properties under section 86-40 423 d where we have two existing residential uh structures on the same property um they've been in existence um from around 1900 plus or minus based on building department records so uh quite simply what we're looking to do is to

again divide the property into two parcels keeping the existing single family dwelling number 181 plain street on lot one and uh putting the existing four uh family dwelling on lot two which is number 79 plain street uh the the reason the petitioner is going through this exercise is not to sell off the properties they want to maintain ownership of the properties uh quite simply what they're looking to

do is take out a residential loan on the property in order to um to do some research mr benavides can you can you shut that door for me please i tell them to move thanks so uh again the intent here is to maintain ownership of the properties uh but again what they're looking to do is take out a residential loan against lot one the existing single family dwelling you know

81 as opposed to having to take out a commercial loan so that's why we're here before you i'd be happy to answer any questions that the board might have the proposed 13 by 60 foot access easement that's going the access easement is for lot number one the yes that well the access season would be uh for both lots to be able to use um part of it so there's going to be

cross easements for it would be across a lot more than a lot too correct there would be a pedestrian easement um well actually it would be a cross season for both use but basically a pedestrian easement alongside the driveway for lot too and um if need be vehicular access for lot one which i don't believe they would need a lot one could possibly park behind the building they could create if they ever decided to put

off street parking behind the building they have that option with this easement okay no fences we're gonna put boundary lines boundary markers in so we know where the boundaries are lot number two is going to have nine wall street parking spaces according to your plan um there are there are already existing nine off sheet pockets that's what i'm saying so there's nine so they will be a minimum there'll be nine

that'll stay that's correct okay separate utilities are oh yeah there'll be that will if you has to happen but yeah well the only thing i would ask in this particular case since the property is not going to be conveyed as it is right now i believe the sewer comes in through sewer in it possibly even the water comes in to number 81 and it goes to the rear building um if they can maintain that relationship until

you know which time one of these properties is sold and then do the conversion because basically what they're looking to do is to um you know to get money to fix up the buildings so i'm not going to tell you how to practice law mr tall but if we grant the variants you you said that you they want to maintain it they have to convey one of the lots out they have to act on the

variance not just getting the variance and filing a plan um so i i would suspect that what mr frank is asking is that because he anticipates a conveyance for you to be acting on the variance that the utility should be separated i think that's what you where you were going john separate utilities so we're not it's now or in the future fired now by planning yeah yeah that was the reason

so that's i'm just i'm just making that because it has to get conveyed if you don't do it you're not going to be acting on the variance you're going to be back before the board but maybe you should get another legal opinion on that that's i understand we don't want them to they're going to try to fix this place up and all of a sudden find out it's going to cost them twenty thousand

dollars to put in well that's the thing the the loan that they're taking out would go towards separating the utilities right so i wanna

so from what i saw there's a wall from 81 that actually connects to the house on 79. yeah that's it on the plane right but you have your boundary line going through there so yeah like in the event that they do sell it like who's going to maintain the wall you knock my wall down on you know what i'm saying um the wall below obviously belongs to 81 but it connects to

well it would belong to both i mean it it you know it's not uncommon to see that usually you'll see it across the front of a property and you see walls continue on along the street line or something like that right it's whoever's property the wall is on would be responsible for maintaining so when they put in that see we see where that bearing of south 55 57 15 west is where

it crosses the wall dan yep they're probably going to put some rebar or a hole in the so they know that's where it is no i understand that but i'm just saying what if that's gonna be let's take it down you know i'm saying it's yeah i think 70 79 that's the one in the back yeah they can take it down so long as they don't disrupt or damage what's left for 81.

yeah i don't know how they're going to do it but right on a piece of paper i could draw the line and say it's coming down in reality it isn't a retaining wall it's more of a decorative wall uh for separation of driveway and yacht area right um so it doesn't really have a structural bearing on the properties so but do you want to make do you if you want when we're talking about the thing

you can say that the walls got to no i'm just saying the wall it's gonna remain you know well the law's gonna remain do whatever you want but i mean if that's a concern listen i don't want them arguing i don't want what typically happens and what prompted the the condition that we've been asking for for the boundary markers i don't want the police called in the building inspector

called to the site on a saturday at five o'clock in the afternoon with the argument about where the boundary markers are so if that's a that's a very real concern that has happened in the city so if we can alleviate that by either a condition or something then let's do it so that's your i get it i think we all heard it so we can figure something out joe you're ready yeah question regarding parking

for lot one currently where do they park on street on street exclusively they're not parking back in the the four family area no okay and again because of the wall they'd have to take it down if they wanted to park in there so right i thought they may have been parking in the back since they own the entire property so to the best of my knowledge on street okay another fist fight another fist

fighting police call we wanted you know i don't i want to avoid it i want to avoid those type of we do we grant the variances and i hear it from the building inspector that he was called out because we weren't clear in our decision if we granted it so if there's some way we can prevent it let's prevent it and put it in so whoever is buying it whoever's doing it knows exactly what's going on

okay so anything else members of the board on this uh caitlyn no is there anyone here in favor of this petition is there anyone here opposed to this petition okay members of the board would he wanted to grant deny conditions it's a special permit it's under 86 423 b did they provide for adequate parking and adequate space in yard if they have then under the special commit it's not the

standard the same standard as the variance mr chairman i find that they met the qualifications of the section and that i know that we grant the special permit any with with the with the condition that uh the boundaries clearly be marked by boundary markers separate utilities no fencing well we're wetting that wall no we're letting the wall but how about along that 13 by 60 foot easement do we want we

want to make sure that there's no fences that go up along that line in the rear of the property i mean i'm asking the question yeah i think where we have the wall we have a different condition than on others so it's not a concern if somebody wants to amend the emotion and

and that's your motion with those conditions okay do we have a second sec second uh john frank discussion on the motion anybody want to add anything discuss the motion no hearing none john frank yes jim calkins yes dan dupia yes joe pereira yes chairman assad yes okay granted with those standards thank you karen m sebastiano 632 tucker street lot e 866.

this is a variance request to divide the existing 10 250 square foot lot into two lots leaving the existing single family dwelling at 632 tucker street on lot one and b construct a single family dwelling on lot two a new five thousand one hundred twenty five square foot paso with fifty foot frontage on ludlow street waving side setback requirements in the r8 district good evening again for the record my

name is jeff tallman from northeast engineers and consultants here representing uh karen sebastiao the applicant or petitioner for this application for variants um for 632 tucker street quite simply what we're looking to do here is um we have an unusual shaped lot it's a through lot with 50 feet of frontage on both tucker street and ludlow has just over 10 000 square feet has 10 250 square feet to be exact

uh what we're looking to do is divide it right down the middle unfortunately this uh particular piece of property does not qualify under section 86 423 for the um excuse me for the division of a through lot because this lot originally um when it was originally created off of tucker street was about 370 feet deep it went beyond ludlow ludlow street was created after tucker street sometime

i would say between the 1920s based on my research in the 1950s when that street was created it divided the existing property into two parcels this parcel that you see before you was one line and then there was another parcel on the north side of ludlow so what we're looking to do here is we're looking to divide the property again into the two lots um and create a new uh 5 120 square foot

lot which would be lot too this would be in conformance with the rest of this neighborhood if you look at this particular block that this sits on of the 31 residential properties in between land for street ludlow tucker and going down to the shopping plaza 20 of those properties have received variances in the past 40 years to do a similar type of division so what you see before you here before you today

would be in conformance what what has been allowed in the rest of the rest of the area there are only three properties on that block that are conforming and they're all down closer to the sharpened plaza there are eight properties that are pre-existing non-conforming they all tend to be up towards the landforest street in the majority of these properties between the subject property and

again going down to the shopping plaza in the middleware have all received a similar type of variance so due to the the shape of the pot the shape of the property having the frontage on two streets we have before you tonight in order to get a variance in order divide this into two lots okay besides an area so the variances that you need are waving sides setback requirements area requirements in the r8 district

yeah we are asking for relief um i just want to be specific on what the relief experiences that you need uh we are asking for additional relief on the site set back down from 15 to 10.

um in order to be able to construct the dwelling on the property and frontage because you only go 50 foot yeah it would be frontage area inside setback requirements okay okay members of the board any questions the um so you've got two existing buildings in the back of this you have an existing outbuilding and you have the existing shed those will be raised before that is correct okay yes okay

parking for the new lovelo street residents would be provided on-site two wall street parking is that where your question is yeah yes and there's currently parking for lot number one off street parking on tucker street um no there's on-street uh parking on tucker there's a retaining wall along the front of the property i thought you said offshore i'm sorry yeah lot number one has no off street

that's correct i'm sorry that's correct it's got that

dan any questions anything joe no okay ricky no no okay is there anyone here in favor of this petition yes ma'am please tell us who you are identify yourself please um and i'm not necessarily against the um the application and i apologize i do this for a while no no no no it's okay direct the butter to the north i'm i'm i'm going straight i apologize that north arrow showing on

the plane is incorrect north is straight up on the plan so it's you're on the opposite side my major concern is circulation on both of the lots um the tucker street side as you mentioned there's no on-street parking the church and the school do create circulation issues if there's any way they can provide parking on that site i'm not sure if they can currently they park on you say on that site on tucker street side

and then on the ludlow street side i think you mentioned before just to ensure that there would be two parties not garage spaces but parking two off street parking spaces it's a tight spot for um emergency vehicles to get back and forth so just to make sure the parking is inside i have a whole different opinion on non-conformities and it doesn't seem like you know i'm not to go there i do

think oh go go go no no no i do this for a little bit i don't want to do that to you but my main concern is making it then we'll talk after the meeting to make it work i'd like to see for both both sides um my children go to holy trinity work welcome there every day yes um it can be a very tight intersection so anything that could be done to to

alleviate some of that would be great okay that's a great statement but so now now that you've raised it tell me what your proposals are to accommodate that i'm not sure if there's any way to create you know it would have to it would be i don't know how you're going to create it on a tucker street other than that the retaining wall or an either through the back to the site

which is also at the time which is kind of a tight yeah kind of a tight project i think we have to talk targets we issue on the tucker street sides well the tucker street yeah you've got the retaining wall you've got the topography and then you've got one low in the back there are some sightline issues for sure going down the imports a hill to that intersection and you can see

that in the morning the logistics can get pain anyone else in favor or any comments any education for the board okay uh members of the board what do you think uh shape topography soil condition has it met you got the singular you got the new single family home skewed to the front on tucker street you've got this lot going in the back they need a variance because of square footage and frontage and side

yard requirements on the lot number two is this efficient hardship with this particular project that warrants a grant of variance under section 10.

um if yes then we should grant if it no then we should deny i'll make a motion to grant motion to grant john frank any conditions off street street

no i just want to make sure that there's anything else that we have as written on the plate it's written on the waivers of the the weight side the buildings the two existing outbuildings and the shed need to be removed before a building permits issues oh yeah demolition of the two outbuilders okay so that's john frank yes also uh uh property markers property markets property markets yeah

okay property markets to make sure we have the division okay john is that okay all right so that's john frank's motion as amended uh do we have a second no second joe pereira second any discussion on the motion hearing none john frank yes jim caulkinson yes dan duper no dan pierno joe pereira yes yes chairman assad yes okay so the votes four to one that petition is granted thank you thank you thank you for coming out

i'd like to get your name and telephone number and get some more input from thank you

agenda item number seven fall river real estate management llc 1429 south main street lot g2656 special yeah special permit requests pursuant to 86 445 to waive the requirements for two austrian parking spaces per residential dwelling the petitioner is proposing to convert the commercial units on the second floor back to two residential dwelling units that's correct good uh again for the

record jeff tallman northeast engineers and consultants here representing uh atul yoshi of floriva real estate management llc the owner of the property that's before you for this special permit the property was recently purchased by the petitioner in the past year when the currently there's an existing commercial use on the first floor and there's two units on the second floor i want to stop you for one yes

looking at the assessor's cod and knowing that building i have always thought there were two apartments above that building okay and it's been assessed and it's been on the first floor has been commercial and it's been a two family that's correct and i it was a curveball to me when i was reading the petition and doing the research i didn't think i would have to come before you for this particular so i'm

wondering if if the assessors have it wrong or who's got it wrong so the villain department would not issue a billing permit for the renovations on the second floor was the second floor used as commercial did the assistant was converted illegally by a previous owner okay that explains what's going on because i just couldn't put it together yeah it's always been listed as a mixed use 2007 forward prior to 2007 it was

commercial that is good then you had to split two you had the and i said i i couldn't figure it out right and and i thought he'd be able to the petition be able to go and pull a building permit but the building department didn't want to grant the permit until he got relief on the parking requirement okay as you can see on the plan the building basically takes up the whole lot yeah

there's no spot for wall street parking on the properties so quite simply what we're here uh before you tonight is is for a special permit uh to eliminate the need for parking for the commercial i mean uh for the um residents residential units yeah no i mean that's that's the simple that's what's here before yeah i just want to get to the section so it it i'm confused now so it it is residential

assessed residential upstairs it's been assessed residential since 2007 there's been this two-tier yes which is what everybody's always a speaker right always assume so what jeff just what mr tallman just told us was that i guess there was a conversion from the residential to some commercial use upstairs okay they wanted to the the change back and the building inspector said here you go you need

relief from the zoning board to get a special permit under 86 445 that says any parking or loading requirements set forth here but not to convert back to residential yeah he's converting it back he is converting it they don't need relief to go back to residential is my question they do and the reason why they do is because jeff just confessed that they converted the residential to illegal commercial okay they weren't

able to pull a building permit for for doing the renovations on the second floor for whatever reason building the department would not give him a permit to do it even though it's listed as a residential or two residential units on the second floor get the illegal conversion offset the zoning no you can't didn't change no they didn't i mean that's what that's why i couldn't but if that's what the building

inspector needs for them to get it because if the i guess this is the analysis the building inspector is saying i don't care what the assessors are doing you're using it as commercial now if you are bringing it from commercial back to residential you have to comply with the ordinance with residential wall street park yeah but if you change its zoning it did not know yeah i mean the zoning was what it was

but the zoning but the zoning and the and i think it's a bl district isn't it yeah it's a blt so both uses are allowed the problem was it was converted illegally from the residential to commercial so that never changed what the zoning what it was assessed as and what it was originally correct so why do we have to i don't know well we have to we don't have too much bargaining right now because he filed

his petition his ba2 for us for a special permit versus an appeal of the building inspector's decision oh okay yeah they would deny the building permit so we're here so he couldn't i understand that and i i procedurally he could have come i wanted to build this yeah this is uh it seems like we're trying to pass something that doesn't need to be passed well that

so let me let me just so the ordinance tells us any parking or loading requirements set forth here and may be reduced or modified upon the issuance of a special permit by the zoning board of appeals if the board finds that the reduction or modification is not inconsistent with public health and safety or that reduction or modification promotes a public health benefit so it is what it is so if we have that

finding then we can go and grant the special permit so is there anyone here in favor of this petition is there to hear a post of this petition okay so if you want to make if you want to make so we'll do it too we'll do bike videos so do buy if you have a finding and then we'll grant if we want a special permit i'll make a motion that the

the reduction of modification is not the modification of the existing use is is not inconsistent with public health it's consistent with public health yeah okay so that's less intrusive do we have a second a second second jim cawkins any discussion on that finding hearing none yes yeah john frank jim calkins yes dan dupay yes joe pereira yeah chairman assad yes second part do we want to grant a special permit for it

because you have the finding now we're going to grant special permit special permit john frank make a motion for a special permit to be the existing use of what it currently is would it currently well no no no no to be converted back to for residential use on the side what it's currently being assessed at maybe what about the waiver of parking though yeah that's all it is the waiver

of pockets yeah waiver so it's not even a question of whether it's residential enough yes it's the waiver of parking so for the residential units yeah so you making the motion yeah i'll make the motion to waive the parking requirements for two uh for two parking spaces for the resident introduces on the second floor okay so that's joe pereira's motion any do we have a second second second set

dan two pair with the second stance yeah okay dan any discussion on the motion is it a waiver of two spaces or two spaces per unit two spaces two spaces per unit per the ordinance yes okay any further discussion on the motion hearing on john frank yes jim carkins yes dan duper yes joe pereira chairman assad yes okay thank you so much number eight blunt realty llc 630 current road lot zero three sixty

this is a special permit request pursuant to section 86 389 to waive setback and dimensional requirements in industrial park district so as to construct a 19 382 square foot addition to the existing buildings

good evening for the record attorney thomas foreign off main street four river massachusetts i represent the african blind realty llc with me tonight is john kavanagh who's the director of engineering for blount nigel mcginn who is the senior vp of operations and nick faison dolo from level design through the site plans i do see that the board has some site plans spread out in front of you i do have a slightly

amended version of the site plan that i'll give to you but i think it might be easier if you walk through there i think the changes are going to be very minimal um even if the board wants to keep those in front of them or i can certainly pass out some new ones do your presentation all right thank you we're here before you tonight looking for a special permit as the board may

recall i think some of you were here for this we were before you in 2020 uh for the addition of about a ninth team february 21st 2019.

2019 even longer than i thought so 2019 uh for an addition um along graham road of the existing building this chiller edition here right we sought relief at that time with the overhang we anticipated being within 1.7 feet of the street layout as constructed i think we're 3.5 feet away at its closest point fortunately for blunt fine foods business has been booming as they say over the past few

years they have significant demand and they need to increase their operations they do have other production facilities in the country but four river is their nationwide headquarters they certainly want to keep fall river as their nationwide headquarters so they're looking to expand their operations here there are two additions that are proposed this here is a maintenance edition which

is slightly over 4 000 square feet this is not what we're seeking relief for i'm just bringing it to the board's attention because this is also an addition that's going to be constructed the addition that we're here before you is here it's 19 100 square feet it runs flush up against the chiller edition that was constructed approximately two to three years ago it runs along the face of their building

again they're going to maintain that same setback remaining about 3.5 feet away from the road layout you can see there's a grass and landscape area that's approximately 20 feet wide so if you were to actually to go out to the property and see what's actually constructed on the ground that chiller edition that was constructed isn't going to look like it's three and a half feet off of the

roadway it's three and a half feet off the road layout but a good 23 feet or so away from the actual pavement so we're effectively coming before the board looking for the same type of relief again being able to construct an addition and keep it 3.5 feet away from the road layout consistent with the chill it's going to be in that same line let's see same way so we're not changing anything

we're just going it'll be where is it exactly it's really going to square off the building square off the building and that's it connect it to the chiller a question that possibly could be posed is well can you construct this somewhere else because of the way the plant has designed and evolved over the years this production facility has to be conducted excuse me constructed here in order for

the internal workings that are already been constructed that came up with the same issue there it is where it is how the production line goes and it needs to be there you seem to remember from last time well i was expecting that you were going to do that the last time so you wouldn't be back here this time well they didn't think they were going to need this type of capacity back in 2019

or i'm sure we would ask for all of that relief back then again fortunately um blount has the demand and they want to be able to meet their demand it's just that the the other piece that showed up on the original plan that two-story office that's already existed that's there that's that's there i mean that's correct yeah the thing the thing off to the side yeah yes that's somehow emboldened highlighted because when i

drove by and looked i said no that's i'm missing something but i think it's there that's there i believe when that was constructed some relief was needed at that time as well and the proposed addition where inside is you don't need relief there all you need is for this proposed edition that's correct that's correct so uh just by way of background for blog currently they have 1100 employees um spread out through

three shifts so you can have your public service announcement thank you thank you they anticipate that this will have a minimum of another 50 employees they hope eventually more once they get it up and fully running so i mean they'll be closing in on 1200 employees by the time this is done um they're going to be making a several million investment in this edition uh like i said before this is where blounts

headquarters are they want to stay here um they think they've been uh good corporate tenants to this to the city and um we respectfully request the relief granted i know this particular special permit provision i i the wording is is a little unusual i think this was pointed out by the chairman we were here last time uh it specifically states this is 86-389 yeah but it's in the overlay district

and you know today you made me map the thing out until i figured out how to use the interactive plan and then i got cause i said no tommy it's i'm gonna call him and then caitlin who said no no look at this and i said uh-uh i don't have to map it out but i had the maps out and i was thank god for miss young then thank god

let me tell you three hours later here i am should have made the phone call first it was going to be to you and say tommy what the hell are you doing well i rely on the engineer so i would have asked so it specifically states that the board of appeals shall after public hearing grant the permit for the following uses unless such use would be detrimental to the research and overlay development district

and would not be in the best interest of the city respectfully i don't think that this proposed addition would be a detriment at all to the specific district and certainly not to the city as a whole and this does not reduce any parking whatsoever right it does not reduce parking one of the things that we anticipate may be part of the discussion when we go for site plan review is there is parking that goes on

in some of this grassed area here um there's recently been a parking area here that's the series that's been brought online it's been repaved dressed up there's a walkway there's a covered bus stop to promote um promote public transportation so blount is going to be notifying all their employees that have been parking along that grassy area that that is no longer permitted some of the areas where

they may park is where this addition is going to be going so they're all going to be relocated to that designated parking area but we are not losing any designated parking spots based on prior layouts okay board members any other questions ricky joe no sir dan no jim no okay is there anyone here in favor of this petition is there anyone here what yeah i know you guys are in favor

is there anyone opposed to this petition scoliosis identify yourself please tell us your concerns about this project thank you please come on down yeah tomorrow yeah we just had a pre-meeting chat so i i think we're somewhere but let me give you my i have a couple things to hand out that you can look so give us i'll give you my name please an address george and i'm representing in a sense uh see fox

llc at 1375 airport road who are abutters and we're notified uh of the um variant's request um let me just let me just give you the rest of these do your hands up yeah just just so you can see it from a different point that's the spot right there

that wants to get filled in george you're a client you're you're you're representing the people to the north they are to the north west right here again across the street on this corner right here that's that's the corner they want to fill it and that's what we're that's my that's where c fox is they're building a new building there right now they've owned it for about 10 years here it is right here at the

council i mean right here so here's what they want to fill in here's where sea fox is okay they've wiped out all the most of the trees there and they put a building there and so they're building within you know they're starting out within the bombs and within the regulations in this fx and everything is uh 15 000 square feet on three and a half acres so i'm ahead of myself but we're putting 19

000 square feet on whatever that is covered so it brings you to and i guess i'll be i guess i'll be a little bit off i know i don't have a lot of time but you know lot coverage ratio yeah lot coverage ratios are always important i'm not usually a complainer or as you know or a whiner and i and i know that rules are made to keep people from complaining because

then if you follow the rule you don't have anything to complain about but if you want to change the rule that's why you notify everybody so that we can if you if somebody is interested like in a butter or a neighbor they can say what their uh issue is now and we're talking about setbacks i think and um in uh whether it's residential commercial or industrial the uh reasons that you have these setbacks in place

are uh they apply equally to all three types of real estate for the most part and you all know this but better services space between the properties insurers you know fire and response and all that other stuff better ventilation and here's where you have a problem you know in a neighborhood it means clean air it means not not uh problem roadways and give you cleaner air in this case it's the same with odors that

come in industrial areas maybe even a little worse and of course um blount isn't uh immune from uh emitting odors with the product that they have and we're we're aware that we're not having a problem with that but it's just something you have to consider uh lighting and insulation sound insulation they call it and of course landscaping and i talked about lock coverage ratios and then

we're not really sure what's what's in this proposed edition um my guys are a little concerned about freezers what is it in there and that brings me to i talked to uh tom lauren about this uh it's fine to get a notice but if you really want to be successful and they haven't had to do this in the two previous ones you might reach out to the neighbor and see if they have any

problem with uh what you're planning to do and my my guys didn't get a call from the company at all so we object to this edition and uh i guess the you you've got now you've got now a building and if you look every pretty much every bit of land on it is going to be covered uh and i can show you you can see that on the pictures i showed you it drops

off pretty substantially after the last edition that they had i think this shows is this the one with the uh i think that it drops off yeah this yeah this was the latest edition right here and they fixed this up but this all here is 20 feet down on the edge it's all 20 feet so they're not going to go any further there and and you're going to just bring the building

right up against they talk about two and a half feet or three and a half feet from the uh from the layout and that leaves a little bit but then you get to the other concern you can bring up is uh a lot of people walk that street they go around that block i've been out there a bunch of times and there's a lot of walkers at lunch so now you got

a building right up against the street something to consider for uh travel and visibility and then you brought up parking i was up there and there are they are doing well there there are a lot of cars they do need some parking uh does own another piece of land over here i don't know what their plans are for that but that could be a parking lot but this here is an active uh

i think they have uh um overhead doors there they have they have doors is there through me george what do you want to do i think they're i think there are uh anyway it's very active there with with traffic that spot it's an industrial site go ahead yeah so they cover that up i don't know where that well i want to ask the question you're raising a percentage of coverage so yeah

i'm going to defer did somebody do the calculation on what the lot coverage is with this edition does it bring it beyond the 80 80 no the law in question is 15 and a half acres or 67 hundred seventy seven thousand square feet right plus or minus no that was that's why i'm asking the question am i missing something in terms of the existing building is 284 173 square feet the two total editions that are being

constructed one of which we need relief for combined or roughly 23 000 square feet so you'll be over slightly over 300 000 square feet for the building area there's 677 000 square feet for the um actual law uh i can continue to speak on that no no i just asked the question because my my rough calculations based on just because i was concerned about that i mean it was it was negligible it wasn't right

approaching the them so i'm listening to it unless i miss something in my calculation or mr coleus uh is telling me that i'm missing something i don't think that was really a consideration the singular issue was the the relief that's required for that rectangular piece approaching the roadway i didn't i didn't specifically address lot coverage in my presentation again i think because it's so

we're so far away from what the requirements are on that um and looking at the aerial photographs that mr coley has handed out i i don't respectfully i can't agree with him in saying that this lot is nearly covered by this proposed edition if you can see there is substantial green area no no that's what what i'm saying is that was one of my original concerns until i looked at the deal

and i looked at the lot itself it was but this addition would be going here that's it that's it that's it it's a kind of a graveled area right now mr foley's is correct there are i believe three overhead doors in that area on the proposed edition because they will be losing those three overhead doors they will have like one garage door that a vehicle can drive in and out of um so there's actually going

to be a reduction in the amount of what i call truck traffic going to and from that particular area industrial i i i agree i'm just trying to address mystical issues i'm just trying to get my my head just around what it's one thing if it was in the middle of a single-family residential neighborhood but it's an industrial site right you got to go up there it's very active and and yeah

trucks i mean i was kind of happy that there was lots of stuff happening a lot of stuff god bless them there but in back here they roll the trucks in there's signs pointing to which parking lot you go to go to it's great i mean don't get me wrong i know they do a good business but um and run a business but uh if you say you know you're gonna come into the

the driveway i don't know what kind of truck or whatever it is but stop this is the zoning board of appeals there is a very limited issue that's before the board i'll give up on that no no i'm not telling you to give up what i'm saying you're taking me down a path that's really beyond thank you for letting me know i i don't i don't want to go down

any path so i should and i brought a lot of coverage i only thought i wasn't aware of the perce i wasn't there with a percentage of this and and i don't know whether how much uh wetland if it comes in or not but this if this is all if they could build on this part it's about 20 feet down from there so why not build that way instead of going on the you know the

easy route right on the flat here well i think they've already answered that yeah but no no but for for the business right in other words i guess how it's laid out how well the manufacturing is difficult how the existing processing plants already laid out i mean the zoning board george i heard that no we hadn't go i have not gone and i can't speak for any of the members of the board going in and

see their how they actually do their thing but when we granted the last variance for the cooler it had to do with the whole production line and the how they did it and this is a continuation of that but we there's wetlands here and on previous developments there's already been some fill over here and they cannot fill it anymore so they cannot expand out in that direction and if they did expand in

that direction it would actually be closer to mr coleus's claim where this addition is being constructed is on this i believe it's the west hilly side i believe mr police's client is down in this area so he's really on the other side of the building from where this addition is being constructed and as far as overall traffic and i think again i don't want to belabor the point i think mr chairman

this is an industrial site they do have a fair amount of traffic there are trucks that come in and out of there they have a lot of employees respectfully i i think that's a good thing yeah one minute sir let me but mr coleus has the floor i just wanted to make sure yeah no and i i appreciate all that you're getting that straightened out the uh um um

so if does the wetland count in your lot coverage ratio do you have a percentage of wetland against uh the 600 or it's the whole thing a lot coverage is a lot coverage this is what i've got how much is being covered but they don't mind itself for wetlands and stuff like that so no i was going to defer to the planner but i'm the answer i don't know she said no she's

she's saying no i'm saying no but anyway okay so you and it's impractical then or unavailable to build on that part of the north the north northeast northwest northeast part of the of the lot so this is the only part left so they should have covered it last time and like you said why didn't you come in uh you know in 2019 for the whole thing under under our ordinance see fox woke up

yeah go ahead under our ordinance in 86 389 which mr claren referenced as part of his petition in a specific case the board of appeals and it's not may it says the use of the word is shall after a public hearing grant a permit for the following uses unless in the opinion of a board such use would be detrimental to the research and development overlay district and would not be in the best

interest of the city so that's really the standard that the board has to go to see whether or not we're going to grant the special permit which is not the standard of a variance it directing us that we should do it unless we determine that it's going to be detrimental to the it's not in the best interest of the city so we're listening to what mr killorn and his clients have

presented i'm listening i am and i think the rest of the board is listening to your presentation about why you're objecting to it but we really don't have a very wide avenue or lots of latitude to say no it's not in the best interest of the city i mean i'm listening to you i'm taking into consideration i can't speak for the rest of the board the issue that you're making about how big

the building is but then when i overlaid the size of their lot with the entire building i wasn't coming close to the maximum lot coverage that didn't even enter into my analysis before presentation this evening yeah but keep going well i mean no i want you to know i want you to hit things that that are concerned for your client because maybe your client and maybe you and mr color need

to talk to see if there's some issue that can get resolved but the board has to make the determination for mr kawarin this evening well that's i i mentioned that uh mr claren and thought that maybe we could uh i got it and i'm happy to continue the conversation with mr coleus or his client after tonight's meeting what else do it you've got a list go go no that's it i just see i i it just

seems yeah no it uh we're not talking about a variance or setbacks we're talking about a special permit yes correct and you have your two two rule two things to consider that's it right so i guess my objection stands that you're filling in uh yeah yeah and i i got it well you got you got five six people listening to it i mean i i'm only one guy yeah i i understand and and but i've

been directing my attention to you you have to know it has to come through me yeah and uh otherwise we'd have chaos and uh even more even more chaos yeah thank you yeah so um okay we'll see yeah that's good that's fine yeah i mean um okay mr chairman could i just give the update yes what tell me what the change was from what we were looking at so i think i

mean you're giving it you're giving it to us at the last minute but i just want to know what the change was he didn't have this um this bay door okay here and i believe it had it about 1.8 feet away from the uh original 1.8 how it's got 3.5 correct itself now of the addition is 19 100 and it was 19 380. so it went down by 280 square feet it came back about

two inches or so away um from the from the road layout and uh out of that bay door that's that's the difference okay is there anyone else one of i think it was one of your yeah i guess the last thing i missed was uh another thank you for letting me read my notes here i i know my glasses today but um uh uh you want my glasses on the next i was

gonna ask you but the next the next petition that comes in would say a special permit that wants to come right up three and a half feet from the layout well if it's in the if it's in the overlay district it is something to consider so if your client is thinking i want to build right up to it then right i guess he's going to come with a special permit he's probably going to hire attorney

kalor and they're going to come and they can right for the next building that he might need or want because if it's a vacant piece of property it's a different story than an existing ongoing production facility yeah well no what about for the exist the new building he's going to have then he wants to expand like answer we're not going to do hypotheticals this is like real problem but they can use

that can't they use this to if you if it goes against no what we do here is not precedent setting it's not precedent every case is on its own merits so what we do here tonight you can't say you grant that to this guy okay that's what you learned that's what i missed in that in law school right thank you okay you kept your secret wait wait a minute i also thank you so very much for

telling me that we got some in favor oh you read it of course can you brought my best reading thank you you do all right we did receive a uh letter of correspondence march 10 2022 from michael bisco 20 development street follower massachusetts zero two seven two one dated march 8th dear chairman assad this letter is tendered in support of the above captioned petition regarding bounty realty llc

blount was an excellent addition to the industrial park and the city ought to support its expansion plans we are a direct abutter and know firsthand the care and attention todd blount takes with his company's property this addition will enhance it while at the same time increase its business potential we hope that the zba looks favorable upon the petition and grants the relief blount needs to continue

their successful operation in fall river very truly yours michael bisco jr is that the only correspondence we got on this that's correct is there anyone else in favor anyone else opposed to this petition okay mr chairman i move approval or i move that we find that it is not uh more than it is so 86 383 you're making you're making the determination or the finding that the opinion of the board such use would

not be detrimental to the research and development overlay district and would be in the best interest of the city that's correct yeah and in accordance with the revised political courses submitted this evening okay so that's jim corkin's motion a second who is that joe no damn damn you know i'm going to separate you guys sounds too much for like we don't do anything well come over here dan

okay second any discussion on the motion hearing nuns john frank yes jim carkins yes dan du pair yes joe pereira yes oh yeah it's a little different yes okay so that special permit is granted thank you attorney gloria thank you mr cole is thank you very much mr chairman thank you thank you have a good night thank you okay agenda item number nine so let me go to confession this is

this is something i can't listen to so vice chair joe pereira is going to have to chair it um but i was the instigator for bringing this before the board ricky sahad he's going to listen to it um and i'll bring one other thing to the board's attention before i depart unless christine's going to do it um the moratorium on purchase street is not 2026 it's 2024.

and i'll step up

item number nine on our agenda 154 street trust care of mourinho zachary benavides trustee under 140 uh this is for 146 148 purchase street lots in 08 48 and 49 a request for finding and determination that condition number two of the decision of zba issued on july 15 2021 should be modified with that is a letter from the trust dated march 7th 2022 gentlemen a person went to massachusetts general

law chapter 48 section 14. i hereby request that the zoning board of appeal exercise the power granted therein to modified the decision of july 15 2021 by extending the time for the separation of all utilities and recording the affidavit with this with the fall river district registry of deeds from prior to sale and or transfer of the property but no later than one year from the date of the grant of variance

to within 60 days of the actual separation of all utilities or 120 days after the grant of permission from the city of fall river city fire of a city council to excavate excavate sorry purchase street but not uh not later than 60 days after the moratorium on the excavating purchase street uh whatever is earliest to occur should i read that again that section so the original the original ruling was no one's here oh

i'm sorry nope you lied to me i finally sit here so originally it said that the separation of utilities and the recording of the affidavit had to be quote prior to the sale and or transfer of the property but no later than one year from the date of the grant of variance which would mean july of this year and change that to within 60 days of actual separation of all utilities or

120 days after the grant of permission from the city from the fall river city council to excavate purchase street but not later than 60 days after the moratorium on excavating purchase street whichever is earliest to occur what do we know about the moratorium on purchase street there's a uh it's part of the five years the streets that are paved within the last five years can't be excavated until

the moratorium is lifted the moratorium will be lifted i believe he said 2024.

yes not 2026. unless you go to city council or western right right so that's what that's what they're saying right yep either with so we deny it they're going to go to city council and they could put in a request correct correct right

i'm just trying to understand exactly what we're looking for so within 60 days of the separation of all utilities or 120 days after the grant of permission from the father of a city council to excavate purchase street which could could be in 2024 come on they put it on the agenda for next if they put on next month's agenda and city council grants it then they can turn around and excavate the street

otherwise they have to wait until after that and the city council has been fairly reconciled against any further well that's why so that's why they say but not more than 60 wouldn't be able to go ahead because the city council chances are we'll say no so we'll come back again if you'd said no right on the fact that you think the city council is going to do it yeah can we hear from you do you

have to take this matter to the city council no i was just ready to uh the engineer marked everything was ready to cut to separate the sewers but he said they got in the street that so you'd have to come before you guys talk in i just want to be able to close on the property because right now it's vacant it's don't uh you know vandalism and all kinds of and

i have a vacant piece of property that's highland preservation is the one that's buying the property and they're ready to close i've been ready to close in for two two months so a closing is pending yeah as soon as you guys say okay and i'm one of that engineer that you have the invoice there so i want to put the money on that screen they're going to hold it for when you guys whenever

and highland preservation is looking to buy the front property anyway which is both tied into it they just looked at it today so i just need to close on the property and i also the lot the duplex lot they're going to want to come up to come to open the street because they're going to build a duplex there so my my concern then is that if you're closing on the property there's still sewer tie-in going through

there yep and that would then remain yeah we're just going to have to work somehow with the buyer for the duplex so you know we're just going to have to get along until we get this taken care of i just need to close on a property i have a vacant piece of property right hmm yeah it has to go on the purchase and sales yeah which again he's looking to buy the front one anyway

so we're going to open it up right now on that purchase and sales agreement is our decision from july it should be if it's recorded so that's going to show up that's going to show up in the chain of title but in this case on your purchase and sale agreement you have to make this disclosure regarding the amendment regarding the conditions so we hear from the planner yeah i think if you condition it in the way

you've discussed it's appropriate so yeah i hate to see somebody's tied up because of the fact that i can't get down because what they've got to do yeah it's a catch-22 yeah yeah the engineer's already marked everything the gas lines everything he's ready to dig up this was all new good thing he didn't start i said all snap and i will say i believe there's been discussion with the city engineer

regarding this and he's that new guy yeah you know our good friend who isn't here tonight um so what we need to approve a year i'm sorry so the conditions that are on there 120 days after we would modify the existing conditions which are pretty standard as far as what we've always done and the new condition would be that the separation of utilities and the recorded affidavit would be within 60 days of actual

separation of all utilities or 120 days after the grant of permission from the fall river city council to excavate purchase street but no later than 60 days after the moratorium on excavating purchase street so this gets a little bumpy if you look at the last part first 60 days after the moratorium passes what you're saying is you'd get a permit and get right in there and get it done get the separation done

that would be your trickiest one all right so you could be sitting there you know in in 2024 knowing that the moratorium just ended and having to fight your way into the street because you can't get the permit to cut it yeah so keep that in mind that that you know that could end up burning you with that that 60-day period i mean it's a little convoluted not now the uh yeah make it longer what

he said who said that was that the ghost i'd say take that 60 days and make it 120 days i agree with the ghost just because i know i know how permitting goes that's all i when you can get bogged down for whatever reason yeah it could be in the middle of winter now that that separation is totally a local zoning board regulation it's not in statute correct so we do have the complete ability to

amend it act yeah and it will it's gonna have to work with the buyer again he's buying the pro it's to avoid problems down the road and that's that's that's why we always do it so that there's no no hassle down the line some of the sewer line breaks somebody caves it in who's going to fix it etc you're going to have to put that in your purchase and sell with purchase and sale

we're already buy you're going to have to make a disclosure about it yeah so if that's the case and i will hand this to anybody who wants to make this motion or remove the approval uh as requested with a modification of condition number one changing from uh 60 days to 120 days so our modification we would you're you're saying that we will modify the decision issued by this board on july 15 2021

which i really wish we had clarification too the the determination that we made was a condition too well condition one on the new right so that would then change it this should go to 120 days as well that the recording that the separation and the recording of an affidavit of the separation uh to be within 120 days of the separation of all utilities or 120 days after the grant of permission from the

far right city council to execute purchas to execute i'm sorry excavate purchase street but no later than 120 days after the moratorium on excavating purchase street whichever is earliest to occur that's emotional that's emotional second down motion all right can i just read that to clarify all right so it's going to be 100 the modification to condition 2 as it stood on the july

15 decision we're modifying to 120 days that they have to excavate and record it'll either be 120 days if the city grants special approval city council grant special approval or 120 d no later than 120 days post moratorium correct right correct okay you agree any discussion well hi john it says within 60 days of actual separation of all utilities or 120 days after special permission

or no later than 60 days there's three things yeah not two so i want to make sure that's correct and we we took we took the sixth grade we took the 60 after the moratorium and made it 120 just in case they can't get the permit what are the moratoriums listed in the in the middle of december and they don't i understand there's three things the first one says within 60 days

is that what we originally had yeah i think it's because originally it was presumed that you could go right ahead and dig into the street and so your 60 days was given to record you had to excavate and then record within 60 days so that you really can't do this right now because you just can't go out there and excavate and we can't separate there's only two there really should be only two time

frames that we have to address that's what i want to make sure and i don't want us to be wronger nope we don't want to be longer any other discussion on the matter mr chairman just one uh one thing um caitlyn you did say you discussed it with the city engineer what was his opinion so i think he actually may have like worked with the applicant on this proposal that's what i think the letter states

trying to figure out a way to make the to allow us to proceed really yeah i just want to close put the money on there and let them do whatever they want to do whatever you like and he's also creating he's also free to create an escrow account in the entire amount of the excavation which is eighteen thousand eight hundred dollars gonna hold it i think that's so so he had no problem with it anyway

so it's covered okay motion is that being the case seconded yes jim yes dan yes ricky yes and vice chair prayer yes i like kisses thank you very much you're having a nice night did jim make the original motion or was it jim did it okay okay can i get one of those

you heard outside before it was done mega long ghost damn city halls i was talking about ghosts so let's see so that was that i knew this place was that um citizen input does anybody have anything they'd like to address the board okay hearing none approval of the minutes of the february 17 2022 meeting i saw that any any questions on those we all got them in the email from christine

can i get a motion to waive the reading and adoption of the minutes okay so jim cawkins made the motion second by second dan duper any discussion on the motion hearing none john frank yes jim carkey yes dan dupay yes joe pereira yes yes can i get a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn selection to adjourn second by joe pereira any discussion hearing none uh john franklin jim kawkins

dan duper yes joe pereira yes the zoning board of appeals for the city of fall river uh march 17 2022 is hereby closed thank you all happy holidays thank you