Fall River Zoning Board of Appeals 9 18 25

works.

Good evening. I'm Joseph Pereira, chairman of the zoning board of appeals for the city of Fall River. It is 6 PM on Thursday, September 18th, 2025.

We are meeting at one government center in the first floor hearing room. person went to Mass General Law Chapter 3A section 20 subsection F. I hereby notify all persons in attendance that a video and audio recording of this meeting is being made by Fall River Government TV, Mr. Craig Salvador. If anyone desires to make a video, audio, or combined recording of this meeting, please notify

me now and I will make a public announcement of your intent.

Our recording secretary this evening is Courtney Pereira. There is no relation.

Uh sitting to my immediate right.

Present this evening are regular members, Mr. John Frank, our vice chairman, James Caulkins, our clerk, Dan Depre, and Ricky Sahadi. Uh we also actually we have no alternative members present. One is due here shortly and that will be Miss Alexis Anelmo.

Also present this evening is Mr. Daniel Aguiar, director of engineering and planning, seated to my far left, Courtney, have all petitions to be considered been properly advertised and all interested parties notified in accordance with the rules and regulations of the ZBA and Mass General Law Chapter 48 as amended.

Yes.

I therefore declare the September 18th, 2025 regularly scheduled meeting of the zoning board of appeals of the city of Fall River open for such business as shall regularly come before it. I remind all persons presenting before the board including petitioners abutters anyone in favor or opposed to the petition that your presentation be limited to three minutes. The board's rules and regulations direct the board to

specifically look for information that supports the petitioner's claim. As such, the petitioner should clearly identify and factually support the basis for their claim. In the case of a variance, a credible hardship as defined in Mass General Law Chapter 48 must be presented. Please remember the uh this applies to variances for use as well as so-called waiverss from dimension dimensional and area requirements. I

remind all present that the authority of the ZBA exists pursuant to Mass General law chapter 48 and limits and is limited in scope dealing with the use of land as regulated in chapter 86 of the ordinances of the city of Fall River. We require that comments made in this hearing be limited to the scope of authority of the uh of the ZBA.

Please note that additional permits, licenses, reviews, andor approvals may be required for any petition that's here this evening. The action taken by this board has a real and lasting effect on your title to your real estate. As such, I urge all petitioners to seek competent legal counsel before filing your petition and after the decision of the board has been made. 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 because the building inspector has determined that your proposed action is contrary to the city of Fall River zoning ordinance. The city's charter section 9-18 mandates that all multi-member bodies develop and adopt rules or policies for co public comment.

We have adopted such a policy that provides for citizen input on zoning board specific matters. There is a signup sheet uh on the table just outside the door of the room if you wish to speak in public comment.

We are therefore open.

We have one matter of old business. Item number 01. The applicant is ACN TRM LLC care of attorney Peter Celino. This property is located at 547 Highland Avenue, map M18, lot 27. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. One, relief from section 86 attachment two to erect a medical office building in the S single family zoning district. waving lot requirements per

section 86 attachment one. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following relief from section uh 86-450 to erect a sign for the purposes of identifying the business pursuant to section 86454.

The property is located in an S single family zoning district. This uh item was tabled at our uh August meeting.

Good evening, Mr. Chair. Peter Selenino, councel to the applicant petitioner. Um members of the board, if you recall at the last meeting, there was a substantial discussion in the opening of the presentation relative to whether or not the prior variance had been acted upon. Yesterday afternoon, Mr.

Hathaway's office issued a letter to me which in fact confirms that in his view, the 2015 variance was in fact acted upon. Given that we received this information yesterday afternoon, we uh as a team need to step back and see how this impacts the proposal. And therefore, the petitioner makes a motion to table this matter until the October meeting so that we can evaluate the impact of this letter on our project.

Mr. Before anybody acts, just have the two permanent members acknowledge that they did watch the videos of the previous meeting so that they can vote on tonight's even requested table.

Y member Sahi, you did view the uh this section of the meeting from last month?

I did.

And you can attest that you did so.

Yes, Dan.

Yes, you also viewed it. Can attest to doing so?

Okay, that will give us a full board for the um for the uh continuence if granted. We have a request for a tableabling. Uh do we have action on that please?

Mr. Chairman, in view of the unique circumstances of the notifications being received yesterday in IR.

Very good. Do we have a Do we have a second on that?

Motion and second on the motion. John, yes.

Uh, sorry.

James, yes.

Dan, yes.

Ricky, yes.

Chairman Prairie, yes.

Thank you all.

Very good.

On to new business. Item number one, the applicant is Phippe Fittado or Maria Fittado, care of uh Jeffrey P, attorney Jeffrey P. Maduras.

Subject property is 582 Cambridge Street and 1215 Rodman Street, map F uh-10, lot 07. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following.

one division of the property into two lots leaving an existing three family dwelling on one lot and an existing two family dwelling on the second lot. First went to MGL 4A section 9 and section 86423B of the Fall River zoning ordinance. The property is located in R4 two family zoning district. Good evening.

Good evening Mr. Chairman. Jeffrey Maderas with the law firm of Burke Espanola in Vancen here in the city of Fall River. I represent the petitioner uh with regard to this matter. Um as you can see the uh petition is to subdivide two properties leaving a two family and a three family uh two family on one lot, three family on the other. The lot sizes for five um 82 Cambridge is 2256

square feet and the lot size for 1215 Rodman is 3527.

The buildings were in existence uh prior to the for zoning ordinance going into effect. Um and we are trying to separate them to provide another tax source to the city of Far River. and we do so under PD6423B as a special permit. It doesn't um degregate from the zoning ordinance and it wouldn't be more detrimental to the neighborhood since the buildings have been in existence uh from the early

1900s. There's currently no off- streetet parking. Um so the people at park for those two buildings are already parking on the street. So therefore, we ask the board to consider this petition favorable.

Okay. Any questions from the board?

How do we have access?

Uh if you can see, Mr. Coggins, uh Rodman Street, there's a building that fronts Rodman Street and then the other building uh fronts Cambridge. So that's how they get their access. There's a front door on Cambridge. There's also a front door on Rodman.

And I've talked to the petitioner, Mr.

Fado, indicates that there is separate utilities, separate sewer, separate water already at those buildings. The only thing is is that he receives one tax bill for the two buildings.

Okay. So, all the utilities are currently separate.

That's what he indicates they make.

We'll still need a we still need a recording on that. So, any other questions?

Anyone here in the audience wish to speak in uh support of this petition?

Anyone to speak in opposition?

You're hearing none. It comes back to the board.

Mr. Chairman, I move that we grant approval is subject to proper markings or permanent markings of what has this been surveyed yet? It obviously has because we've got it.

I would presume it has, but um I'll make sure that's that's done when we do the myawar plan to present to the planning board.

and stamp stamp is a land survey. Also this is a special permit therefore bifurcated.

Yeah. All right. So so separate motions.

Y they can go together but you can make it a singular motion but just just deal with both items.

I make that motion by adding that significantly.

All right. So the motion as amended is to grant and with the finding that u the petition is not more detrimental to the neighborhood.

Mr.

Pardon

I don't think this one's too bad for fencing because we got some decent offsets.

But you do have to condition on the affidavit being recorded for utilities and then contemplate the additional unit.

Yeah.

What's what's everybody's feeling on that? Adding no additional ADU to both properties.

Okay.

So, not substantially detrimental to the neighborhood um grant, no additional ADUs on either property. Okay, with that so what they're proposing is no additional units. I don't know what the buildings look like. So, I don't know if you have a walk up third floor, but they're saying that you can't add that's fine. Very good. You second stand.

Yes.

The amendment.

In that case, if there's no other discussion on the motion on the motion, Ricky, yes.

Dan, yes.

Jim, yes.

John, yes.

Chairman Per, yes. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Have a good even

number two, the applicant is Little Hands College Incorporated, care of attorney David M. as a uh I'm sorry 551 Rock Street, map 08 0 O2, lot six. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following. One, relief from section 86441 waving parking requirements pursuant to 8 section 86445.

to relief from section uh 86450 to erect a sign for the purpose of identifying the business personal intersection 86-454.

The property is located within an R4 two family zoning district.

Good evening council.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. I am David Asad. I'm an attorney licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I maintain offices at 326 Pine Street in the city of Fall River. What you have before you is two requests for relief.

One under 86441 uh to deal with the parking issue that exists or doesn't exist and the other one is for the erection of a sign. Um the applicant is a duly licensed Massachusetts early education care facility and as such is entitled to all the benefits of Massachusetts general law chapter 48 section 3 third paragraph the do amendment.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has declared, pursuant to Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 15D, Section One, that it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Commonwealth to assure every child a fair and full opportunity to reach his full his or her full potential by providing and encouraging services uh which maximize a child's capacity and opportunity to learn, which strengthen family life, and which

support families in their essential function of nurturing the child's physical social educational moral and spiritual development. In furtherance of said declared policy, Massachusetts General Law Chapter 48, section 3's third paragraph grants an exemption from zoning ordinances. The city of Fall River zoning ordinance section 86445 recognizes the need for promoting public benefits by authorizing the zoning board

of appeals to grant relief from section 86441 by a special permit. If the board finds that the reduction or modification is not inconsistent with public health and safety or that a reduction or modification promotes a public benefit, there is availability on the street on street parking uh along Rock Street.

There exists approximately 1,120 linear feet of on street parking on Rock Street between Prospect and Maple Street to it 560 ft on the westerly side and 560 ft on the easterly side. A parking space is defined in our chapter 86 article 2 as 9 ft by 18 ft. Given the 1,120 linear feet available on Rock Street and the defined length of parking spaces of 18 feet, there exists approximately 62 feet on

street parking spaces.

the subject's uh structures maximum enrollment and I kind of stress this because it's the maximum enrollment that can be fit into the structure at 551 Rock Street um is not is a staff of 19 employees in one loading space for a total of 20 parking spaces. Customers, and I don't know whether you call them customers, are the parents of infants to preschool children who simply bring their children to the building and

leave. The hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

The applicant's current enrollment at their current location requires a staff of nine. Of the current nine staff members, four do not require mobile parking. They either get there by walking or public transportation.

The number of 20 and n or 19 staff members has to do with the maximum available space in that building in 551.

I don't think I don't know that they're going to accumulate that, but the office of education needs to approve in the department of Massachusetts early education and care needs to license how many students, how many physical children can be there.

But as you do the mathematics of the interior of the building, that would be the maximum. Currently, they can only have nine staff members to take care of what they have for attendees. But if I don't I don't want coming back to the board every time there's a change or there's an expansion and say I need nine spaces, I need 10 spaces. So if I use the maximum number, it could never be

greater than that. And that's the relief that we're looking for. So we get it established once and it can't go over that because that's the physical limitation of the building.

The second part uh of the request before the board is for a sign. And same as the 20 maximum spaces, the maximum size of the sign that we're talking about to identify the building is shown on the plan. And it's the pretty the identical sign of a school down the street called Antioch School. So there I can get photographs of it if you'd like to see them, but we're thinking of that's the

maximum size of the sign. The sign may be smaller. I'm not saying. But if I use the maximum, then I know it can't be any greater than that. It will be a non-illuminated sign and it's there strictly to identify the building uh and the activity that will be taking place at 551 Rock Street.

What would those dimensions be, Council?

So, if you look if you look at what we gave you, uh it's 5T wide. If you want me to pass these up just so you get an idea.

No, that's fine. We have the drawing.

Can I add just more?

All right. Yeah. So, if you look at it, it's 5t wide, four feet high is the I guess the facing of it, but the two poles uh are four feet above ground and three feet below ground. Unless my eyes are strike at six feet above ground, three feet below ground um with that two feet underneath it. But that would be the maximum size that would be affixed.

It could be smaller. Uh, and as the chairman said in his opening monologue, there are other reviews and other permits that may be required before all of this happens, but the zoning board of appeals issue is strictly those limited issues of parking and signage.

The sign is not illuminated, pardon me, not illuminated.

Non non-eluminated sign.

So, let me let me bring up two things.

one. Did you say the the maximum number of staff members student staff members number of students?

I can't tell you that. That's a unless they know. Do you know the maximum number of students that could be there depending on 65 children but that's where the state of Massachusetts.

So the maximum number would be 65 and as a ratio the ratio of staff changes depending on the age of the children.

Yeah.

Okay. So if I use the maximum what's the maximum we can get and the maximum staff required that's where we get the 19. So, let let's be I'll be conservative and let let's come down to 50. And if every parent pulling up is dropping off one child, one infant, there's 50 cars coming in the morning, there's 50 cars coming later in the day.

Let me address that, please. The So, today I was on Rock Street watching just to verify in my own mind what happens when Antioch school whistle blows. There are lots of people on Rock Street and on Prospect Street and that lasts for about 45 minutes and then it disappears. These hours of operation uh it is not one time for dismissal. It is a some in the morning, they come at 7, 8, 9, 10. There

are different times and Paula correct me if I'm wrong, but that was what that was what we observed. There are there isn't a single dismissal time or a single uh starting time, but it ends at 5:00.

Okay. So, a parent could decide to have their child there from 7 to noon.

Yes.

Somebody else who lives next door to them may want 8 to 2.

Correct.

That type. Okay. All right.

Were you aware of the letter that was issued from the code enforcement office?

I was aware. I re I so that letter uh or that determination was requested by me.

When I received the letter, I dropped it off to Courtney to make sure Mr. Aguia saw it. Uh my comments were I didn't think that it was adequate uh for me to use or to come forward and say that he that the building inspector articulated all the component pieces that needed to be addressed for me to use it. Uh but yes, I am aware that that was a determination that he had made and I

think if he had articulated or incorporated more of the items that I had in my request, it it may be a different story. But he didn't. And here we are this evening and I'm leaving it to the board to make that determination.

Okay. No, I appreciate that. Let me just quickly read it in for anybody who's here for this item. Uh this is dated September 16th, so two days ago, 2025.

Uh RE551 Rock Street. To whom it may concern the property located at 551 Rock Street, um will be under the new ownership and will have a change of use for the building. The city of Fall River zoning ordinance 2020 section 86-443 uh change of use for parking requirement uh will apply for the existing property.

Therefore, no additional parking spaces will be required. Glenn Hathaway building commissioner, city of Fall River. Um I have to agree this doesn't address your situation in my opinion.

That that was just what I was going to ask in the comparison. Have we got any idea of how many spaces were used as a medical office?

So let me let me address that because I think there was some issue about that.

In 1996 a variance was granted for the use of that building as professional offices. Period. There was no limit. There was no limitation on parking. There was no conditions placed on it. Our parking ordinance, and this was one of the things that I was bringing up to the building inspector, wasn't incorporated into the zoning bylaw until 2018.

2000 2018 it was proposed 2019.

uh they complied with 48 section 5, amended the zoning ordinance, and I would submit that that particular variance, if I wanted to bring a large legal firm onto 551 Rock Street based on that variance, uh I could have a 100 lawyers working there with without any issue. Um because it just didn't exist.

parking was not an issue, was not a condition of that variance in 1996. In 2018, in 2019, when the city council approved the the inclusion of our new parking ordinance, that makes a problem for a change of use in that building or anything that's allowed because now we have to address it and then we come before the board and asking for relief.

And again, make it I'll make it clear to the to the general populace here, the use It's not presented. The use is is going to be existent no matter what is allowed and is does not have to come before this board for any type of approval.

Yeah. But I'm still wonder when the medical even though it wasn't required by the zoning variance that they got about how many offices were in existence. Any idea?

I have I have no idea about that. They have, excuse me, they have three operation rooms and like around seven hygienist chair and experience a dental assistant as well. I know there has to be assistant and a doctor in hygienist and so while so the parking probably was heavier in the past than it would be.

I think that's kind of hard. I don't I was trying to find that information. I couldn't find it. Uh I know that there were comments, but anyway, you go to the dentist you I know. Is this public regarding the practice?

Is this Are you associated with the dental practice or I'm in a Okay, hang on. We'll get to you. Okay.

Thank you.

So, uh David, did you request an amended uh letter? No, decision.

It was coming on this evening. The zoning board of appeal, I think, has the authority. I I it has the authority to act. I wasn't going to press Mr.

Hathaway to expand or give me a different letter. It just seemed easier to come before the board. Uh and that way uh I have the board's decision on two items. One is parking or one is the sign.

Mr. Chairman. Yes.

Yes. Oh.

It had to happen, didn't it?

Um, in your opening presentation, you referenced the build amendment.

Yes.

Um, so of course, which deals with educational use, chapter 48, section 33.

Um, in your opinion, Yes.

Uh, with this proposal to be rejected, are we in violation of the Dover amendment?

So, it is my opinion that the Dover amendment talks about the use the express language and there is I couldn't find a case I found lots of cases that got lost but parking is one of the conditions that the zoning board of appeals or the city can dictate can function with uh there is an argument this board was was confronted with uh a few years ago with someone raising a do amendment issue and saying that that's

an issue if you deny action uh based on something else then maybe it's appealable. It is my opinion and I'm going on the record in saying that I think even the Dover amend amendment deals with usage but it also allows the board to consider parking as one of the criteria that you can decide that it's a component that you can and you get and the way we get to it in this

particular action under our ordinance is the Commonwealth recognizes that early education development is is a needed part of a civil society that in that we allow the zoning board to grant a special permit. The special permit criteria being less than a variance. It says it's approved if they meet certain conditions. Uh and under our ordinance, it says here you go, think about it. If

there's no other available parking then and it's not going to pose a risk and it's a benefit to the public, the board has the authority to make that determination by way of a special permit and grant the relief that we're looking for. And the same with the signage.

Again, you look at it, you say, "Do we need it? Can you do it?" Yes, you have the authority to do it. And is it in the public good, especially in this area?

So, we avoid any confusion between Antioch school or any or the house across the street or Here you go. This is Little Hands College. Come here.

Again, not to be and I'm not trying to be fresh to anyone, but if you don't get a sign, what do you do? Paint the white building with primary colors and say, "Here you go. This is a the Little Hanss College." I don't think you want to do that, and I think that would be offensive to the neighbors.

Thank you, David. Can you get a little more clarification on the the number of students? You have to know an exact number.

you can have this many zero.

So, so the structure itself, the structure itself, how many the maximum students that you can have there on the maximum number that would let you business by our population.

So, the maximum number you're hearing is 68, but they don't have that's that would be subject to the department authorizing that many children.

That's what I was wondering. So, hasn't been done yet. They they don't have that license yet. Or are you No, they do have a license. They do have a license, but but the but the but the complexion of the students change depending on who's coming. So they're using the best case for them.

How many students can they have? So if they were all 68 would be all infants or toddlers.

a mix of so they did they did the quadratic equation and came up child that you get so many caretakers for a child but you have to know what do you have now and the location you have now is in street okay so you don't have a calculation of knowing the square footage of this building that's our calculation based on your calculation or the state's calculation upon the regulation of me okay

Okay. Do do you have more space in this in this new facility? Correct.

Okay.

And again for everyone's edification who doesn't know the number of caretaker or the number of children per staff member varies by age.

So it's some particular age it's no more than 10 per staff member etc. Any other questions before I go to general public?

Yes.

You have a van?

No.

So, you don't have personal transportation?

No.

Okay. Good question.

Okay. Let me turn to uh to the general public. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak uh in favor of this petition?

Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in opposition?

Okay, I'll start right at the end of the row. Lady in the black jacket.

Okay, good evening. My name is Carol Brown and my husband and I own the adjacent property at 527 Rock Street. We previously owned 497 Rock Street for 13 years and we're very familiar invested in the neighborhood in the local historic district, especially this resial block that's between Prospect and Maple Streets. We purchased 527 Rock Street two years ago, fully knowing that 551 Rock Street was an orthodontic

practice with no more than five employees with a structured scheduled patient traffic flow that's typical of a dental practice. The business was open Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The congestion and noise impact to the neighborhood was minimal.

The property was classified, as you mentioned before, as office professional on the property card. Proposing change from a professional use with five employees to a child care with capacity for 19 employees and 15 perhaps up to 68 children concurrently is a significant and non-conforming change to the use and capacity of the building. Therefore, with regard to parking and on street

congestion, the property at 551 Rock Street, of course, has zero off streetet parking for 19 employees and limited frontage for safe unloading and un and loading of 50 children, as well as no designated off- streetet area for shipping and receiving supplies. I'm very concerned about the increased congestion and traffic safety risk, particularly at drop off and pickup times, which would bring this

residential block to a standstill twice a day, 5 days a week.

Regarding noise, the city ordinance 46-7 specifies that any noises that interrupt or disturb sleep of city residences between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. are prohibited. It is our understanding that the proposed child care would begin operation at 7 a.m. However, this would be preceded by staff arrivals, parking on street in front of our residents, and anticipated use of the outdoor break

area and side entrance that is adjacent and to and faces our property.

There's also increase of noise of cleaning services and shipping receiving at unspecified hours. Um, and please note the previous orthodontic practice did not open until 8:30 a.m. There is also a proposed outdoor play area facing our property. And while not occupied by children within the hours subject to the noise ordinance, I am worried about the detrimental impact on the quality of

life for my family and my dogs compared to what was always a quiet property during the weekdays. Regarding sex offender registry, uh although Massachusetts does not define a radius restriction for registered sex offenders, I would like to bring to the attention of the zoning board the presence of a registered level three sex offender currently residing at the adjacent property on 556 High Street.

Again, this property is adjacent and shares the eastern property line with the proposed child care business. The property at 556 High Street is classified as a group boarding house and has a regular history of registered sex offenders in residents. So in conclusion, I ask the zoning board to take my comments into consideration and deny a change in use from office professional. There is no hardship as

claimed in the variance application to justify relief on the city's parking and loading requirements. The current owner purchased 551 Rock Street in full knowledge of the property's restrictions and our beautiful neighborhood quiet backyard should not have to suffer the unnecessary increase in noise anticipated noise ordinance violation drafty safety risk to children and decline in property values. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Brown.

You as well. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Connie Soul and I have lived and owned my home at 577 Rock Street since 1993.

As a director of butter and a longtime resident, I urge you to reject the permit request for the property at 551 Rock Street. Approving this request would fundamentally alter our neighborhood and undermine the preservation efforts of the 40C historic district. The applicant, Miss Paula Jesus, p purchased the property at $750,000 with the full knowledge that it did not meet the zoning requirements for a

preschool. This is not a compelling hardship that developed unexpectedly. It is the result of a deliberate business decision. The burden of this decision should not fall on the homeowners of this neighborhood. Our community worked for years to establish Fall River's only protected 4C historic district. Every home owner agreed to its restrictions to preserve our homes investments in our

unique character of our neighborhood.

Approving this request that no one violates these established ru rules would set a dangerous precedent and value the hard work of all who support the district's integrity.

Furthermore, the recent approval of a 12 apartment uh development directly across the street will already add significant congestion and noise. Approving this request would only compound these issues, leading to a decline in the overall quality and charm of our neighborhood.

I implore the board to protect the integrity of the 40C historic district and reject the special permit.

Thank you. And my name is Con7.

Thank you very much.

Who else?

Yes. Yep. All you.

Hello. Alexander Silva, 148 Purchase Street. I'm the president of the board of directors of the Preservation Society of Fall River. Members of the zoning board of appeals, the preservation study of harbor respectfully requests that the zoning board deny the special permit request to wave off streetet parking requirements for 551 rock street as well as the installation of an appropriate

sign. The property at 551 rock street, also known as the circa 1956 first church price scientist, is one of less than 50 properties located within far's only protected historic district. The owner of 551 Rock Street is seeking to convert the formal dental office into dayare for 50 to 68 children and 19 staff while providing no off- streetet parking spaces which greatly expands the

previous density and traffic flow at the location. Not to mention uh adding increased risks to safety. This special permit would be extremely detrimental to the historic character of the neighborhood which is protected under Massachusetts General Law 4C. After the zoning board's recent approval of 12 apartments across the street and the proposed size of the daycare facility, the setting of the neighborhood, meant

to be preserved in perpetuity, would be irrevocably damaged by traffic, clogged streets, and the loss of a historic resource enjoyed by the city. Our community's historic Highlands neighborhood, meant to be respected and cherished for future generations, is under threat and may cease to exist as we know it. Please reject the special permit before you, or at least reduce the density or require some amount of

Street parking sincerely the preservation society for river board directors.

Thank Mr. Silva. Who else?

Please. Uh good evening Mr. Chair and members of the board. Uh my name is attorney Dane Ardente with the law firm of Daryl Ever Proidence Rhode Island. I represent Aaron Liry of 544 High Street.

Uh the first thing I wanted to bring to the board's attention is uh this should be a dimensional variance and not a special permit. Section 86 uh 445 of the code provides quote any parking or loading requirements set forth year end 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 the modification is inconsistent with public

health and safety or that the reduction or modification promotes the public benefit. The applicant states that such a special exception cannot be regulated by municipal zoning based on state law found in MGLC 4A section 3 which provides in relevant part. No zoning ordinance or bylaw in any city or town shall prohibit or require a special permit for the use of land or structures or the expansion of existing structures

for primary accessory or incidental purpose of operating a childare facility. Provided, however, that such land or structures may be subject to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk of the height of the structures in determining yard sizes, lot areas, setbacks, open space, parking, and building requirements. As such, while the applicant attempts to persuade the board they provide a complete exemption

from exemption from zoning in this case, it's a misstatement of the law. In fact, while the applicant has an argument that the use is allowed, the law clearly states that the town can or city in this case, excuse me, can still impose reasonable regulations concerning the parking of the use itself. As a result, this is a dimensional variance and not a special permit just based on the volume

of parking that the applicant has proposed. The request for relief in this case does not satisfy the requirements of 86445, which require the board find that relief is not inconsistent with the public health and safety of the surrounding area. This is a residential community consisting of single family and multif family homes, 47 to be exact. The granting of this relief will seriously

alter the character of the neighborhood as a residential area. There will be no parking for the people who currently live in the neighborhood. Properties on both sides of 50 551 Rock Street do not have driveways and need off- streetet parking. And as the board should note that just last week, the police chief of the city stated in an interview that Rock Street in its current state was one

of the top two streets in the city for occurrences of car collisions. This will further worsen an already inherent pro problem on Rock Street. Additionally, section 86441's table of parking and loading requirements requires one space per employee per shift, a minimum of six spaces per customer, and one loading space per building. Assuming the applicant is seeking relief of full capacity rather than current capacity,

which they stated they estimated at 68, that means the applicant is seeking 20 parking spaces for just staff and voting alone.

Further, there will presumably be two major queuing events per day. I understand that council has indicated that there there will be staggered uh queuing events, but I would assume and uh perhaps uh council can speak to it afterwards that the majority of the pickups and drop offs would be probably around the same time. They've already stated that there's a potential of 68 different vehicles coming and going

twice a day. This is a much greater problem than perhaps a dental office which would have uh staggered uh customers uh where you have two major queuing events a day which can jam on high street. Those queuing events are going to create extreme congestion uh than if it was staggered.

Rock Street will be completely loaded with vehicles uh with this type of queuing on top of staff parking and on top of current resident parking as well.

Regarding the signage, the applicant requested relief from signage to install uh the sign presented uh which as I saw it is a let's call it a 6x5 in terms of uh the post. I understand that the sign itself is 4 ft high. But uh section 86454 provides the board may grant the special permit to construct a sign provided they find they find that the sign will not be detrimental to abuing properties and is

needed to identify the business. The applicant can't show either in this case as the applicant's business is not a business which would need to advertise uh its location by sign. Presumably the applicant does not obtain child care business from signage. So the sign would be unnecessary as per proposed. Finally, as it was mentioned earlier, uh this is uh this property is located in the uh

40C historic district. Uh to my knowledge, the applicant has not contacted the historic district commission to determine if the sign would be within its purview. Um and it is yet to be determined whether that sign would actually be under the regulations of the historic district commission for them to have an input on such.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Sir, thank you. William Brown, 527 Rock Street.

My wife did present earlier.

I just want to make sure that I can copy everything that I've heard since I got here. Connie, very poignant. These are all poignant things.

I'm sorry that the choice was made by somebody to bring a business into a residential area with 14 plus employees, 50 plus deliveries a day, pickups a day, trash diapers service of custodial services, uh UPS deliveries, is there going to be food service? You're going to hear a reaper truck out front, oneway street.

This is absurd to even consider this. I am sorry, but I feel for the owner who bought it. Either she was misled, naive, or just wanted to push her way through it. But is I am totally against this.

And the number of diapers per week is an issue. The playground, which is in our backyard, is an issue. So, here we are reinvesting because we did we reinvested in Fall River and uh we bought a beautiful house, a house that actually we have to save from people incorporated when they were going to have to been parking for eight cars.

I believe that is now our sideyard. The yard that separates our house from this building, which is now proposed to be a playground or break area, but we all know what happens on a playground. And we can all assume what's going to happen in the break area. They're going to smoke. They're going to drink. They're going to make their calls. They're going to converse.

You're inviting them into our backyard.

And we invested in Fall River as a residence knowing well what was there before and what could be there again.

And we had a choice to make. We had some decisions to make. We looked at the facts. We were very passionate about it.

But we knew well what the neighborhood was and could be. This is nothing like that. This is way beyond that. There should not be 50 plus deliveries today with no loading dock, nowhere to pull off to the side of the street. There'll be double parked, triple parked. There'll be raining.

They'll be parking down the block and these aren't kids that you can wait for to come out of the school. You have to go up to the door, sign in, take them out. It's ridiculous to allow this business and it is a business into this neighborhood. Totally opposed to this William Brown 527 Rock Street.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Once twice about any of this council? Well, the use is in allowed use both under the Dover amendment under 8635 uh 36. So the only issue uh of the two issues that exist is the granting of a special permit. So if we believe and if we adopt what the general court has directed and told us that early education care facilities are good for the community then this particular use is good for the community. The issue

about the physical plant of this particular building I can't change what it is. It is what it is. There is a variance out there right now uh that allows it to be used for professional offices with no restriction.

This is a limited use Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. staggered hours, not two hour, not two uh times of entry and exit. Um I'm using maximum numbers, maximum uh square footage of the sign uh to get the maximum number uh relief that we can obtain. We are certain that we need other permits, other reviews from other bodies to function. This board is the zoning board of appeals. There are two limited issues

before the board. Our ordinance directs us as a special permit. If you find these particular things that exist, then the board has the authority to act and grant um the relief that we're looking for. Off- streetet parking. If we pave the front and make four parking spaces, it ruins the character of the building in the area. Uh if you go, I'm sure the board has gone by Rock Street on any

given day, uh that section between Prospect and Maple Street, there are no cars there. Many of the employees, I'll use the current employees. Of the nine, only five of them have motor vehicles that come to work. Everybody else takes public transportation. I don't know what the complexion is going to be, but based on our ordinance, that's the maximum yield. has the maximum number of parking

spaces that are required and there are adequate parking spaces along Rock Street to accommodate that and if not Rock Street down Prospect Street in other areas in this area uh that would accommodate those cars um if I listen to some of the objectives it seems I really don't want to go down a taking of this property right in the use of the property it has to be used it

should be used um and I look for the board to grant relief for this particular building on a special permit.

Special permits, I'll reiterate, are considered to be um beneficial or a permitted use uh not the anathema of a variance. Variance is uh looked at for only in rare instances would a variance be granted. special permits tell the board if you find your way that this is good for the public benefit then you should grant it and I would urge the board to grant these two uh requests for special permit again the signage is a

maximum maximum size so instead of coming back before the board if I wanted something smaller I may have to go before and I think I do have to go before the historic commission to have them look at it and help us with the site plan Um, the Department of Education needs to look at the building itself to determine how many students can be there, but the initial relief that I need is from the

zoning board of appeals so we continue down that process and that's all I really have to offer. Um, thank you.

Any other questions?

Yes.

Yes. Paul, I just want to elaborate um just because we talked about maximum capacity of children like it just based upon what we have right now 45 a lot of our families are not just one child I have multiple families that have three kids and drop off so that's something to keep in mind that's not going to be 68 drop offs maybe will be less because of the amount of children that a family member will consistent

I I understand and appreciate that thank you for sharing that let me let me ask you this though I I assume there is some type of like sign in process somebody doesn't just run in and toss a baby in somebody's arms so there's some type to sign in and sign out.

Correct.

So if there are a number of people stacked up outside, it could get kind of backed up. Correct.

So what we're going to provide is um tablets and scan cards. So everybody can just scan the child in. So each room will have scanning so there's not amount of traffic or a line for to drop off or to drop in. That will limit that.

So, let me I was doing a Lebanese time study on what what was happening on Bronnell Street and the average So, the the pickup and drop off uh it went from anywhere from 5 minutes to two and a half minutes is is kind of what it was with the average being about 2 minutes and 45 seconds. Opening the car, get the child, bring them in, here you go, see you later. Um, I suspect it's

not going to be any different over there versus as I was watching the Antioch school empty out in the past couple of days. Um, it's usually a little bit longer. It's usually about six or seven minutes and parents talk and there's a whole congregation when the whistle blows and all the students are released.

Yep. As as a result of this application, I've driven down Rock Street.

I know the board members have done their work.

Uh, from the planning point. Do you have anything Mr.

Just housekeeping wise, I would advise that the board not act on something where the zoning enforcement official has determined whether inadequately or not, but supplied a letter saying that the applicant doesn't need to be here. I would like to see that cleared up one way or the other.

They either do need to be here or they don't. If we act and it gets appealed, we may have acted improperly. So, I I think it would be beneficial to communicate this with the building inspector. I met with the building inspector. I explained to him my concern with what he wrote and how I did not think that what he wrote was applicable to the bylaw that he mentioned. Um, but that doesn't mean that he shouldn't be

afforded time to either withdraw this and say I was wrong or two write a new letter that both Chairman Assad and the board can look at reasonably and have some confidence in.

Yeah. Um well the only issue about what the what the building inspector wrote was it was it was rather like a draft because there should have been in my request as I outlined all the several elements that I was expecting to get played back to me.

So you don't want to get that?

If the board is ready to act I would I would prefer to have the board act because otherwise it would be an appeal.

So, if I go if I just go with what the building inspector wrote, Yeah.

I would have I wouldn't have gone forward and said it's a moot issue. The board doesn't have authority because there's no uh case or controversy for the board to deal with.

Right. The board can only act on what's before.

I understand that. So, but I've gone forward and the board's taken evidence about it because I didn't think that the letter the other thing that's before us and I agree the the letter, you know, if it were a paper and I was grading it based upon what was required, it wouldn't get a great grade.

So, if I record that at the registry of deeds and say here here you go.

I mean, I'll I'll accept it and I'll go forward with it and let somebody appeal it.

I don't have a problem with that. I think the board will be acting in I would I would withdraw I would withdraw my request for the board to act on a special permit and I will let some agrieved party tell me that the building inspector's letter is inadequate. So we'll go that route.

No, but it's been submitted to to our board for us to act on what what has been this letter?

So yeah, go ahead. I don't I don't know whether it was I was dropped off for you but I can't say that someone Yeah.

in the building their intention I I don't want to act in opposition to what those I'm not the code enforcement officer. You're not what the code enforcement officer says they don't need to be here.

Mhm.

I would like clarity on that. That's just what I But but if you you may want you may wait. He may want recommending that for the board may the board may want but if I take that letter and say I have a determination then I'll make a motion to withdraw and I will go and I'll base the non the applicability of that letter and let somebody appeal it and say we want to appeal the building inspectors.

That would be from the build appeal the building permit.

Correct.

Yes. But this is the zoning board of Yes, this is the zoning board of very narrow, too limited.

So when we get a letter like that, I think it has to be acknowledged whether positive or not. I think we're in limbo because you could be acting against the building department's opinion and and that's what I have an issue with.

And he is the code enforcement official.

That's correct.

So we are and I agree and and and I have concerns over the letter.

Excuse me.

Pardon?

I have concerns over the letter.

So do I. the letter as it's written.

Correct.

Yes.

Correct.

So, I'd like to give him the opportunity whether we request to send it for clarity or you can table and ask for clarity, but it's up to the board decide whether they want to go ahead.

I would have the board do that.

Okay. Beyond that, I want to make it clear to the audience. So, it's in the uncertainty.

Wait, wait, he's not done yet.

Everybody's not done yet.

Um We're all talking over each other.

Yeah.

Everyone has to understand that the zoning ordinance is what this board needs to follow. That's the only narrow scope that they're here. So there there have been a number of comments that are being spouted about with hardships. Hardship is not to be discussed. As astorneys stated, this is a request for a special permit. The board needs to determine that this is not substantially more detrimental than

what to the neighborhood. No hardship has to be shown. That that's just the law. Again, we've we we've talked about this before. The fact that it's in a 40C district means nothing with regards to the zoning ordinance that this board has to apply to this property. Um I forget what the attorney's name was, but he mentioned a number of different items.

One specifically that the parking ordinance requires a certain number of parking spaces and then some for customers. That's wrong. Um, at our parking table, it clearly says daycare centers, one space per each employee per shift.

Period. Nothing about customers. So, I don't know what section of the the bylaw you mentioned, but that's incorrect.

I was quoting uh No, no, you were reading off your paper and that was those were your words because he never said that he needed one per employee. I mean, one per customer.

He had said that he said one per said memorandum to the board.

Correct.

So you you said the zoting ordinance says you didn't say attorney Assad says I should have said attorney Assad.

Correct. But I was quoting his fine. So beyond any of this we we could have just wasted an hour of time if the building department or the code enforcement officer had written a letter one way or the other.

Correct. a concise, complete, informative, codebased letter, I would have been satisfied. Or maybe I still would have had a couple things to pick about it, right?

Basically, one sentence saying it's okay, it doesn't cut it because whatever goes forward, if there is appeal, an appeal, and that's what's hanging there, it what good is it? I mean we try to limit the amount of relief that you have to act upon.

Yeah. Well, no, I agree that we we don't have a varian situation here. But again, I think with the amount of undecisive information in this letter I undecisive with the letter. I I I overall I would make it motion to table uh to get further clarification from the zoning code enforcement officer.

Jim, you had a point you wanted to make.

That was a motion earlier due to the uncertainty. I don't think we're in any position to act or this could be a case that that it could be that we need to determine that before we make any action. So I second John.

Okay. We have a motion and a second to table.

Council, are you comfortable with that?

Motion tables on the board. I'm not paying.

There's no tableabling fee and and we will request we will send a letter to the building inspector on behalf of the zoning board of appeals requesting clarification of his letter and whether or not that section is applicable to this case or not.

That's fine. We have to get it settled.

If he didn't give it to us yesterday, we may have had more time to get this out before the meeting. So, I understand how I found out. I know you do.

Some hour yesterday afternoon, I finally saw the thing and it's like this is ridiculous.

On the motion then Ricky motion to table. Yes.

Dan, yes.

Jim, yes.

John, yes.

Chairman Prairie. Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Plenty of time to act. So, we don't have we don't The board has plenty of time to act.

This young lady needs to get moving on it. But I think it's I think that's good way of dealing with it. Let's get clarification.

Clarity for you to decide whatever.

No questions. No, because it's made in an appeal. Thank you.

Thank you for your Thank you very much.

Item number three, the applicant is uh there James and Dwart attorney Peter Celino, 1163 and 1168 New Boston Road, map P uh P16, lots three and four. The applicant is Okay, folks.

Guys, if we could talk about that outside, please. Appreciate it. Thank you.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. One, the division of the property into two lots, leaving the existing single family dwelling on one lot and erecting a triplex on the second lot, waving lot coverage requirements of section 86 attachment one.

Two, relief from 86 attachment two waving uh the count use in the S single family zoning district for lot two. The property is located within an S single family zoning district.

Good evening. For the record, my name is Peter Celino. My office address is 550 Locust Street in Fall River. Immediately to my left is Jason Dart, the owner of the property, and everyone knows Jeffrey Tolman, the engineer on the project. Um, this proposal is seeking to take the property that's located at the northeast corner of Eastern Avenue and New Boston Road and divide it such that the

existing single family uh structure be left on what Mr. Tolman has labeled as lot one and that a triplex structure be built upon lot two. The uh waiverss requested in order to effectuate the request would be lot coverage on lots one and lot two and then on lot two the use or the unit count being that this is a single family zoning district. Um the property itself has a pretty old home on

it and a barn garage sort of centered in the middle which is contemplated to be uh raised or demolished. Uh in terms of surrounding uses, I'd point to the board. Uh directly across the street north, uh there's a three family dwelling and to the east there's a two family dwelling. So although it is a single family district, like many places in Fall River, you can if you look find multif family dwellings. Uh so we'd

submit to the board that this is an appropriate use of the property given the existing structures and their location that there is a hardship that the literal enforcement of the bylaw would impact uh Mr. do our in a way that he'd be unable to make the highest and best use of his property. We would certainly be happy to entertain any questions that the board may have regarding the proposal. And the last

thing I'll note is that the proposed triplex would be u providing all the required parking bedroom count in the triplexes and the three units.

Three bedrooms each.

Someone else doesn't Someone else will say it. I mean, Eastern A is not the the friendliest parking uh the friendliest traffic street in the city. Um from an enforcement standpoint or anything else.

Um and you're either backing out or pulling out directly into Eastern Uh, no, that's not correct. Uh, the sole travel path would be from New Boston Road along what Jeff has labeled as easement area.

The what you see on Eastern Avenue walkways, walkways, but yes, that we recognize that issue and it was designed in order to not back out or take a right in from Eastern Avenue.

This is what I This is what I get for preparing too far in advance. I look at uh questions from the board at this point.

Let me ask this. How did you arrive at a triplex rather than considering a duplex or something less well maximizing the lot, right? Well, it was looking at the overall unit potential of the property um being possibly you could put two single family dwellings each with in unit for a total of four units that could be uh constructed on this property.

Nothing anyone going to the public. Anyone here wishing to speak in favor of this petition?

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

If I could, I did get a phone call this afternoon from city councelor Andrew Raposo who lives across the street.

Yeah.

Uh he had planned on coming to tonight's meeting. He was actually didn't call. He was in the office just before we left today. Um and he had something that came up. Couldn't be here, but of course voiced his opposition to this. So I won't elaborate on specifics to it, but he did recommend a request that the petition be denied.

see the historic commission here, but that barn garage historic.

Fair question. What do you think?

So, it's not historic. It's um labeled the house is labeled as a sign a significant structure. It's not It was never recorded as historical.

Okay. I know it's an older The bond was originally on the western portion of the propert.

And there was a taken from Eastern Avenue and it was relocated.

Okay.

All right.

There are no other questions and there's nothing from the audience. I mean from from a planning standpoint.

Well, I'll I'll offer that we've got we got the ability to create two conforming lots in the S district.

I don't understand why we wouldn't just build another single family home in compliance with with the ordinance. ADUs are limited in size to 900 square feet or 50% of the gross floor area of the main structure. I don't know what the total square footage is of the building because it hasn't been shown for the triplex um because that now brings us into the lot coverage issue as well.

I I haven't heard anything about relief uh or hardship uh what is particular to this property that would require you to build a triplex in li of a single family something with regards to the soil soil shape of the lot topography that two could be two perfectly rectangular lots that could comply with the ordinance completely.

I can just offer that I made a hardship argument. You might not like it, but I tried to I don't even know if I even heard the word hardship. I I read the highest and best use of the property or I wo in hardship.

I have nothing more to add.

Thank you. There are no other questions.

Let's act on this.

Hey, Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve the as stated.

We have a second on that.

Well, we have to do something.

So, we can make a second motion.

Second, I guess motion.

There's no second on that motion. I'll make a motion to deny with saturation of triplex on that property.

We have a second on that motion.

The motion is to deny on the motion. John, yes.

Jim, yes.

Dan, yes.

Ricky, no.

Chairman Prairie, yes.

Thank you.

Item number four, applicant is Tedaro Family Irevocable Trust here of Attorney Peter Selenino 243 Montto Street.

Map G13 lot 71. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. One, demolition of the existing fire damage two family home and construction of a new single family home waving the requirements of 86 section 86 attachment one. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following uh which is relief from parking requirements for 86-445 uh property is located in A2 apartment zoning district.

Good evening. For the record, Peter Celino on behalf of the trust that owns the property known as the Cadero Family Trust. For the record, my clients are sitting over to my should over my shoulder to the right. Uh Mr.

and his wife and his daughter Patricia who's the trustee of the trust. The subject property is located at 243 Monttop Street. Uh the plan that's on the board is not correct if anyone's looking at it, but ultimately the structure was fire damaged and as a result of that fire damage, my client is unable to live in their home currently.

uh they went to the building department to figure out what the next step was in terms of demolishing the existing structure and were ultimately told that depending upon what they wanted to rebuild that they may need relief of this board. As a result, the proposal before you seeks to rebuild a single family home uh at the address of 243 Monttop Street. The proposal would require relief in the following ways. Uh

a variance is needed for the front setback. As proposed on the plan, the setback is 12 feet. Uh I'm sorry, the setback is 11 feet, but it should be 12 feet. So, we're a foot short on the front yard setback. On the side setback to the north, uh the requirement in the district A2 is a 10-ft setback, but we have a 5-ft setback. And finally, the lock coverage requirement is not met.

The lock coverage in the district is uh 30% and we're at 48.2 per the plan.

Additionally, we've sought a special permit as uh in as much as we need a waiver of the parking requirements in the district. I'd also like to note for the record that the structure as it predated the fire did not have off- streetet parking. There's a curb uh in the front of the property. So, I've submitted to you in my filing that certainly the hardship is Mr. and Mrs.

Cadero's house burned down. They have what is a pretty small lot in a densely populated neighborhood. They would like to rebuild the house for their own use and they're seeking relief of the board to do that in order to build the proposed structure.

It was an excellent opportunity to put parking in lot um seems like a lot of house on that lot.

You're asking for about four variances here.

Uh three variances, one special permit.

Yes.

You're attributing that to I'm attributing that to the proposed structure. I would agree with you that there may be a potential to put in parking, but then I think we need a rear setback.

and we probably get worse on lock coverage. So, I understand your perspective, but I think that ultimately we're going to be in a position where changing the proposed structure results in the need for maybe different relief, but I still think it's going to be in the ballpark of the Yeah. same relief.

What was the footprint of the u the damage, the fire damage, the bottom left?

Uh yeah, they put a spot shadow on this plan. So, um Got it.

Okay. So, just as wide, notice correct.

Questions from the board?

Comments from the board?

comments from planning.

So I'll offer that this is in the A2 apartment zoning district which you know we went to great lengths to modify and to make construction easier in the city of Far River in these zoning districts.

Um in the zoning table you'll see that the required lot area is 5,000 square feet for the district. They exceed that.

Frontage is 50 ft. They exceed that. Now we start to deal with building setbacks and lot coverage. The A2 district would perfectly allow for a home to be built on this property in strict compliance with the new A2 zoning district and be providing parking. I don't know what's specific to this building footprint um that requires relief um or why a different house couldn't be built that

was compliant or maybe the building department would let the municipal build back the two family that was there which may be an option as well. Again, we're trying to limit the amount of relief.

You know, we've gone to the extent of changing zoning bylaws to limit the amount of relief that people need to come here for. Um I don't know if people are just going to keep asking for more even though we reduce things and make things easier.

John, you were contemplating something.

I I appreciate that it's going to single family.

I think that's a positive on the whole project. Um it does seem like there could be some slight modifications to get us uh consider that neighborhood, you know, we know all the small neighborhoods like this parking everywhere. Um it seems like this will then be the largest house in the neighborhood. Um so there might be a little bit of modification somewhere, but uh I fairly pleased that it's going back to a

single family.

I mean, this house can actually slide back. The rear yard set back is 15. Um, it could get narrower. You could get rid of one of the bumpouts in the front so that you have parking. You're already 11. If you slid back, you only need 18 ft for a parking space. So, I don't think it would take much to get two parking spaces in this building. might have to redesign the building a little

bit, but I think there somewhat I don't really have a problem with the sideyard setback relief um as it's somewhat in keeping with where the building line was or at least one portion of the building line was previously at its closest point was three and a half ft for a very short distance though. Um, but even at that, I mean, you you could build a a house here meeting 10 foot

setbacks on on either. I don't know if this is a one-story building, twotory building.

Yeah. I mean, the idea to the other houses.

I'm kind of looking at it as a blank as a as a blank canvas and therefore a chance to do something that's not asking for variances. Anyone else on the board?

Anyone here wishing to speak in behalf or support of this application?

Anybody wishing to speak in opposition?

Mr. Chairman, I just had a chance to uh speak with my clients and I'd respectfully request that the board allow us to table the petition to uh look at redesigning the house to provide for some off street parking.

I appreciate that. Thank you. Uh can someone please make a motion to table?

I'll make the motion to table.

Motion and second on the motion. John, John, yes.

Jim, yes. Dan, yes.

Ricky, yes.

Chairman Furry, yes. Thank you.

Thank you.

Where are we? Item number five, applicant is TRM Development LLC attorney Peter Felino.

This is uh Zero Monarch Street and Zero Bank Street, map K23, lots 514 57 and 94 Hutton. The applicant is uh is requesting a variance to allow the following. The division of a property into seven single family home lots waving the provisions of section 86 attachment one as follows. A relief from area frontage and rear yard setbacks and lot coverage for lots one and two.

Relief from area frontage and lot coverage for lots three, four, five, and six.

Relief from area and lot coverage for lot seven. The property is located within an S single family zoning district. Council, good evening. For the record, Peter Selenino on behalf of the owner applicant. Immediately to my left are Mr. and Mrs. Dilva, the owners of or I should say the principles of the LLC, TRM Development LLC, which owns the lots before you. Uh, this site is located on

an undeveloped uh end, if you will, of Bark and Maro Streets. Uh, it's in the it's east off of Eastern Avenue. The property, as I've noted in my petition, has been before the board several times before. Mr. Dilva acquired the property and uh looked at how he could develop it. Uh I've submitted in my petition and I'll say it as part of my argument that the clear and unequivocal hardship in

this petition is the specific soil conditions and ledge on this property that is not uh generally related to the zoning district at large, but rather specific to these lots.

uh that was a factor in the proposed development. Additionally, as uh we've seen at several board meetings since uh the ADU bylaw, we also had the engineer uh look at this property in terms of a byight type plan. And he uh Mr.

Gordetski advised us that four lots could be built by right and then of course you could make the argument that you could have ADUs and that ultimately lends itself to eight occupants or eight families. So as a result of the ledge, the by right options uh and all the facts and circumstances relating to the petition, we thought that the most tasteful and appropriate use of the land

would be as uh seven single family lots as depicted on the plan. The uh relief sought I've itemized in the petition uh by lot. I don't I Mr. Chair just read it, so I don't think I need to go over each lot uh individually in terms of the relief sought, but we'd be happy to answer any questions. relative to the proposal or the proposed use that the board may have.

Could you explain how the ledge is a factor in having to have this number of units versus having a smaller number?

Certainly, it's a cost factor. So, the amount that it's going to take to uh destroy or break out the ledge and remove it from the property uh is going to be significant.

You also have to extend Bark Street, which is significant.

Yes. And the contemplation is Monarch as well because Monarch currently does not go through um to reservoir.

Yeah, that ends quite a ways back.

Correct.

One thing on your plan I'm noticing that on six and five you don't have the 25 set

they actually have room to slide the house forward.

True.

29.

Yeah.

Norwood Street. Not constructed. We have a lot of not constructed streets in this city.

Yeah. So, I mean, I remember I remember watching this meeting a few times when it came before this board. Um, and it was actually owned by a contractor at the time.

And I can offer that the entire area is alleged both in the streets and on the lots themselves. So even though you you've got to construct the roadway to even get here, the cost of that construction and and I know this was the argument initially when it was like a 20 unit condominium project initially. Um there is some legitimacy to what it will cost to actually create this road and that cost is specific to this real

estate as attorney Seleno had had stated if not the zoning district. This land has sat here for for a long time.

Let me let me ask this which isn't directly within our purview but just curious as how you're going to try to get around the ledge situation. Are these going to be slab on grade?

Yeah.

Um what's the situation out here. Is there city sewage down this far? I did not research.

No. Well, not only building road, they ought to install water lines in the street, sewage in the street and that's all rock. So, there is a cost associated increased cost associated with the development of these pieces for sure.

Yeah. Practical I used to be a developer. I probably would not have taken this one.

Right now, there's sewer at the top of Barkley. Right before Yeah. So, I think the water main would go up down Norwood connect back to Norwood to probably make a loop type thing.

I'm pretty sure the water department would make you loop it.

Yeah.

Yeah.

But Monach would be like deadended. It wouldn't run through.

You know, there's a huge outcrop of ledge on Monach like lower. So Monarch would probably be like like a tea off of Norwood.

Any other questions?

I'm giving you an A for if you don't speak any Yiddish. You don't know that.

It's a lot to take on.

It's that's a lot of determination. Anything else from the board?

Let's go to the general public, please.

Folks, anybody here wishing to speak in favor of the application? Anybody wishing to speak in opposition?

Yes.

My name is Conception and I live at 122 Street. We've been there 29 years. Um for now we are against the housing development that is being proposed at the time for numerous reasons. One of it would be there's no dispute that it's a wedge solid wedge. There's no utilities the property also slopes downward. In order to make this a buildable property, you're going to have to make the roads

which means blasting. Um, we live in a old established well established neighborhood. I have questions that what would that do with our foundation.

Um, would breaking up the granite change the water table because of the property being on a slope. Does that cause erosion issues? Would there be flooding issues like on Highest Street and Whitfield Street? And what are our recausoures if something does happen to our property? And finally, let's be clear it's Monarch Street is right on the side of my property. I have pictures of the

ledge that go the ledge is this high and you climb up it, but that also goes into my yard also into the back on the side.

I just think there's too many unanswered questions at this point.

Okay. And and and I respect that we deal with the land use.

Mhm.

So a lot of the questions that you brought up regarding runoff, etc. comes up in site plan review. So they're far from done. If they if they pass the test tonight, they still have a long way to go. And that includes dealing with the public utilities as far as extension of the roadways. So that there is a lot and drainage review.

All of that is incorporated into those three different levels of permitting to go beyond that that deal with the actual construction activity.

But don't you feel that we're in a single family neighborhood and you're cutting the lots in half and that's not right? That that doesn't conform to our neighborhood. We have different shapes and sizes of houses and having to cut that lid having to cut it down to 6,11.

But do you understand that that how we don't cover that?

So what?

Okay. So I can make an opinion. I the only thing we're we're looking at the use what they're proposing. Not the rocks, not the slope. It doesn't fall under our purview. Okay.

We're just the first stop on on this this line and everybody wants us to stop everything here so they don't have to go to additional meetings. I guess No, I don't care if I go to additional meetings. I just don't think it's right.

Okay. And and and I I appreciate that, but I can't. If you tell me that the setbacks that they're asking for are inconsistent, that we can deal with. If you say there's too many houses, you're going to see less. Okay. then that falls under our purview. That falls under our authority. So I I can but everything else, you know, somebody brought up diapers earlier. I don't we don't have a

diaper bylaw, so we can't cover that.

You knew I had to say that. Um I've been very quiet tonight. Um so listen, other people have come in and tried to do something with this land.

All right.

in in my business, I've built on rock and gee, it's fun.

So, I I'm empathizing with them for giving it a shot. Um, but but that's it.

They they do, as as the director of of planning and engineering has stated and I have indicated, they got a long way to go. So, if we say yes to this, They're not putting a hammer in the ground until probably a year from now. So, but thank you. And and one thing only because this just came up at last month's meeting in a very very similar case and the neighbors didn't understand

and attorney Selena alluded to it, but it's important to understand that Massachusetts created a new law January went into effect February 1st that any single family zoning district, you are allowed to add what's called an accessory dwelling unit. It can be a mini house, it can be an apartment in the attic, it can be above a garage. So just when you build a single family home by right, you are allowed by law doesn't

come here to add another unit.

And what attorney Seleno stated was by right they can build four houses here.

Four. four by right plus wait plus each one of them can have one of those ADUs which would then be potentially a rental situation as well but they're only 900 ft something like that right there was a limit on 30 by 30 so these houses are being proposed 40 by 30 the ADU you can go as big as 30 by 30 so but have a rental component to it and then an ADU also doesn't require

additional parking We didn't make those laws. The state did and I was opposed to them and I wrote opposition letters that they should not allow these ADUs everywhere. But it's statewide and it's creating havoc. So when when you when this was on our property on Hillrest uh Highest at the last hearing after the meeting when people understood, well, what do you mean he can now build a a mini house in the

backyard there by right? Yes, that's the law. So now they're trying to circle the wagons and get them to come back and say, "Oh, no. Let's we're okay with it now." Because they didn't understand. I just want to make sure you understand.

No, I do.

That that listen, we can still get eight families here. Four of them which would be rentals and four of them which wouldn't need parking.

But lots.

That's all I'm saying. That's a lot of house.

That's all I'm saying.

Understood. Well, I also understand that there are a number of houses on on Park Street. There are two lots that are one's 4200 ft². One is 5,400 square f feet. One at the corner is 7,000 square ft. Across the street 6,300 grandfather.

No, no. And I'm not and I'm but I'm just saying you're just saying that they're squished.

They're not. They're actually fairly similar to the neighborhood. I know that all the surrounding land here across the street on Maro behind this property, it's all land owned by the city of Fort River. So, so there would be no additional development there as well.

And then we have school properties to the to the east of that as well. That's I just wanted to make sure you understood that the edu component because it's it's becoming detrimental everywhere in the city that these things can just go pop up as a matter of break.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition?

Hearing none.

Mr.

Chair, I'll make a motion to grant conditions.

It has to be condition.

Yeah. Oh, absolutely. That I think we accept that condition that anyway has to be part of the motion.

Yes, definitely no ADUs. Uh partition.

Is your motion going to also deal with everything else is standard?

They haven't requested relief for that rear yard setback. So, they can't. So, they'll have to shift it around to live within what the zoning requirements allow for.

So, in other words, on the plan, it's 24.5.

They're not getting approval for that because they didn't ask for it.

So, therefore, it has to be 25.

We understand.

Okay.

That's my motion. Second motion and second discussion on the motion.

They're hearing none. Ricky, yes.

Dan, yes.

Jim, yes.

John, yes.

Kevin Furry, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This is a journey.

All right.

Thank you.

Item number five, TRM Development LLC attorney Peterson. That was tier.

Item number six.

Come on over.

Veterans Association of Bristol County Incorporated. Kroelino, 145 Globe Street, map H13, lot 01. The applicant is requiring requesting a variance to allow the following. wanted to convert a portion of the existing commercial building to include a food pantry and the operation of a commercial kitchen for purposes of job training and additionally to house uh veterans service association of Bristol County. A

waiver of parking requirements in the R4 zoning district property is loaded located in the R4 zoning district.

Good evening. For the record, my name is Peter Felino. In this matter, I represent the Veterans Association of Bristol County. Uh my client is represented here tonight by its executive director Kenneth Lebec as well as many uh board members and support staff. Um the proposal before you is to uh acquire the existing structure from Mr. Alan Amarl who's to my left. Uh the proposal is contingent upon zoning

relief of this board and therefore we submit the following. Uh the we have a pre-existing non-conforming building in an R4 zoning district. My client uh we heard earlier a lot about the do amendment. My client presented a very detailed proposal to Inspector Hathaway relative to the proposed use of the property. Mr. Hathaway opined that a portion of those uses were not uh zoning

exempt under the Dober amendment, namely the kitchen component. Um and as a result, the way we ended up here originally was the commercial kitchen not being an allowed use in an R4 zoning district. So we as a result have to file for a use variance but then we had to look at the building at large. So the proposal is to u leave the existing tenant base in place which is a therapist's office a church and a

printing company and then my client intends to occupy a portion of the first floor and a portion of the second floor for uh its purposes. Mr. Mr. Tolman did a very detailed uh parking summary in the bottom leftand corner of the plan in an effort to address my request for a special permit for parking. Uh relative to the parking, the total u number of spaces in the lot for customers uh are

34 with one uh space for loading and one loading dock. Based on the calculations of the therapist office, the printing company, and my client, uh Mr. Mr.

Tolman concludes that there are uh 32 spaces that are required and he's labeled those as the business hour spaces. The church use which is primarily used on the weekends or off peak hours uh requires 20 spaces. So when you take the aggregate parking load of this building um you see that the conclusion is that 52 spaces are required. The property has again 34 plus one loading one loading dock. 36 total

and therein lies the request for the special permit. Uh I will point out to the board as I've done previously that the parking demand uh has offsetting peaks. Um my clients hours of operation tend to be traditional hours of operation even a little less than traditional during the week and the church or religious use occurs on the weekends. So as a result, I think the requested special permit is appropriate

uh because ultimately the church is not there when my client and the tenants are there and they are not there when the church is there. Um the the uh petition pleads that the hardship associated with this property is the pre-existing structure, pre-existing parking lot. Uh it's there, it's currently occupied.

There was previously uh relief granted by this board for apartments that were never constructed. Uh so ultimately we're happy uh and I should also note for the record that Mr. Lebec has several letters of support from various figureheads and political officials in support of the project. So we'd be happy to answer any questions that the board may have. Um and again we have board members present. We have um support

staff and the executive director as well as the owner of the building.

Very good. the um so you do I'm kind of surprised that that Dover didn't play here because you are going to use this for education purposes to it to an extent. It's not the only use of this kitchen.

Correct.

Correct.

I can only opine that perhaps that's why u that's why uh Mr. Hathaway looked at it that way. Um would you use it?

Are you going to have a gathering area, some kind of messaul type thing going on here too? Yes. Where you can hold small functions, that type of thing, or is it strictly for your offices?

Go ahead, Ken. Will answer that.

Yes. Yeah. So, uh the the plan would be uh for the for the kitchen uh the training purposes, but also to help feed the veterans uh a lunch uh and and we would have uh depending on the size of after construction and things like that would be the tables. Uh let me ask you this. Where where are you located? Just for the general public, where are you located currently?

Right. Uh Pine uh 755 Pine Street.

Pine Street.

Yes. And you're feeding veterans lunches there. Correct.

Working out of a kitchen that's probably about the size of two of these tables put together.

Yeah.

Right.

Yes.

Okay.

So, I think that's a that's a big that's a big step forward.

Um, the bulk of your existing tenants would stay.

Uh, everybody. Yes. Everybody that's there now. Yes.

Okay. That's that's good. The church, that's primarily their offices there. I do realize they hold some services there.

Correct. upstairs. They have their their church service uh on the weekends or or weekends or or nights. Yes.

Yeah. It's during the week.

Um I'm pretty familiar with the building.

My wife actually shared space in there at some point.

Parking lot was never full. Um I have Oh, how it just roughly again doesn't really play into it. Roughly how large is that uh that kitchen area proposed to be? 20 by 20 ft. 40 by 20 ft. Do you know yet? Haven't designed it yet.

Haven't designed it yet. We haven't gotten that far yet. Yeah.

Okay.

Uh but but I it's not you know a restaurant kitchen, not nothing big like that.

And that's you know going to come to health and everything else. Not our perview. Was just kind of curious.

Any other questions from the board?

hours of operation.

So our hours are uh Monday, Tuesday and Thursday we are 8 to 4. Wednesday is our our late day. We do 10 to 6.

Um and Fridays we are closed to the public. That's our kind of admin day to to get caught up on paperwork and things like that. So it's Monday through Thursday with the latest being 6 p.m.

No weekends.

No weekends.

The existing veteran center works on those same hours.

Yes, where we are now.

No. No.

Okay. We do have two more time.

Now's the time to ask.

Uh, could we also add that we would like to be able to be open 8 to 5 on Friday?

Not that we necessarily need it, but we'd ask for it.

No need to be there on a Saturday.

No, no need for an event or anything.

Uh, no. No, we don't.

You don't now.

We don't now. Um, we'll get to the Yeah. So, we Yeah, we'd request the ability to be open on a Saturday if the board would be so inclined. Would 10 to 6 something if there was a function?

If there was a function. Yes.

Okay. So we'll request 10 to six on a Saturday to the extent there was a function and Friday 8 to 5 8 to 5 closed on Sunday.

Yeah. Why don't we just do continuity broadbase 8 to 6 right across the fine Monday to Saturday. Okay.

Is that your proposal?

That is my proposal.

You don't have to Mr. Chairman. You have the letters in support.

I do. We have a letter. We have three letters in support. Uh, one of these, I won't read the entire letter because it is it is testimonious. It is a letter of support from State Senator Michael Rodri.

Um, good guy to have on your side. We have a letter of support from uh, city council vice president uh, Linda Pereira, not a relative. Um, feel inclined to say that all the time now.

and uh another in letter of support from representative uh Alan Silva.

So this is good. I think um I think this is a big step up for you guys from the space that you got now.

Uh it's is a good building. A lot was done to it, so you won't have to do too much to it, I think. So let's go to the uh any other questions from the board before we go to the public.

Anybody here wishing to speak in support?

Sir Street in South Fall River.

Yeah.

Also a member of the South Neighborhood Association. We met with the gentlemen.

We've reviewed their plan and we're all in favor and in support.

Excellent.

Good outreach. Thank you very much.

Anyone else wishing to speak in support?

Anyone speaking in opposition?

Yes.

is right on their parking lot, their building. If you I don't know if I can see it there.

We see it directly south of the of the parking area.

Yeah. Yeah.

Um I'm just concerned about the amount of people coming in that neighborhood. I mean, we have a school that sla all the time. The street is like hard to park on. There's a lot of parking.

There's a There's a two family right across the street from me across from the building. And um I'm just concerned about the number of people coming in the area. It is a quiet neighborhood. And I'm don't mean to um insult anyone about the the veterans. I please I'm not here to to do any of that. I'm not against the veterans. I'm just concerned about the number of people and what's going to happen.

That's all.

Thank you.

Anyone else speaking in opposition?

Uh just brief rebuttal. Um I can submit to the board that my clients did do a neighborhood outreach meeting to address and allay concerns on September 10th. Uh the neighbors were invited invited to attend the meeting. My understanding is that two people attended and neither of those people are here to oppose. But I can certainly represent on behalf of my client that the intent is not to be a

bad neighbor at all. It's to be a good neighbor uh to make a good use of the property in a manner that's respectful to the neighborhood. And uh Sandy Curry, who's here and has worked tirelessly on the project, uh really spearheaded the neighborhood outreach. And I thought that was a great idea. So, I don't mean to be dismissive of Miss Monus' comments because everybody certainly has the

right to speak at these meetings, but I can assure the board that my client is fully intending to be a good neighbor and not going to overburden the neighborhood.

And the prior use that was allowed was how many apartments?

Uh, I believe 13.

Yeah.

And in that special permit, it was 13 units leaving the existing commercial offices and light manufacturing on the first floor.

I just wanted to clarify that for they did approve it for 13 apartments before and I I have no no problem with the area now. I mean, I'm just concerned about the traffic that's going to be coming and, you know, with a food pantry and, you know, um, that's all I'm just concerned.

I don't think there'll be bad neighbors.

I haven't had bad neighbors since I've been there. I've been there since 1992.

And right there, how many days a week does the Thank you very much. It was a question.

I'm sorry.

How many days a week does the food pantry portion uh four days. So Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday it's 8 to 2.

Okay. So it's not the full the food pantry.

Correct. And then Wednesday is 10 to six. Yes.

And it's meals served on site. You're not doing any like at home delivery meals or anything like that?

No. No sir. No sir.

But when you when you say I just want to make sure we get our definitions correct. So when it's food pantry, it's you have a a stock room of food that veterans can come and pick up.

Correct.

Beyond the prepared foods.

Correct. Yes.

But the kitchen would be used for those lunches and for training.

Correct.

Yes.

Food pantry open to the public?

No. Veterans uh and and spouses.

Got you know how many you serve?

What do you think the traffic wise just to ease per day?

Yeah. Uh 50 to 70 I think is a a comfortable number.

Just coming and going.

Uh coming and going. Correct.

And and that's from the I'm sorry uh from the 8 to to 4 time frame.

Does do many of your patrons have cars or do some come on foot or public transportation? Some some do use public transportation and we've had the conversation with some of the veterans that there is a bus stop down um on the corner of Globe and Bay Street.

Does the veterans veterans van provide transportation for something like this?

Uh I guess it could. It doesn't but it could I to answer your question?

It could.

Then I'll go to Pine Street.

Uh no.

How many park space you have at Pine? I know that's a problem there.

Uh, six, right?

Any questions from the board? Anyone else in the audience?

We're hearing none.

We do have a variance component and a uh correct.

Oh, that's right. I'm sorry. Thank you, Chris. Um, Attorney Celino, they they did submit um a filing fee with this. I told them I would not cash that check and that we ask that the board consider waving the fee for the nonprofit organization.

I'd almost insist.

We have not cashed the check.

I'd almost insist upon that that motion.

You guys can all thank Chris.

Mr. Chairman, do we have two separate motions?

Yes.

Two separate motions.

To wave the fee.

Well, that's three.

We need them separately. We can't group them. What's that?

We can't group them. We need them separately.

I would do them separately.

Yeah. So, I would make a motion first that we wave the fee.

Second on the motion. Ricky, yes.

Dan, yes. Jim, yes.

John, yes.

Chair Ferrari. Yes. Don't hesitate.

Second motion would be to grant the variance as stated.

Second as requirements. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

Okay, you make sure you get this.

Yep.

Sore hand.

There was a second from Dan on the motion then. Ricky, yes.

Dan, yes. Jim, yes.

John, yes.

And Prairie, yes. And finally, a motion to um wave the parking requirements as requested.

Second motion and second discussion on the motion. Hearing none, we'll move the other way. John, yes.

Jim, yes.

Dan, yes.

Ricky, yes. Jerry, yes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Take my crew.

Take your crew.

bear some place.

All right.

Item number seven, Dylc.

Do you want me to kick my clients out?

No.

Item number seven, the applicant is Dylan's Estates LLC car Peter Iselino.

26-28 Hanover Street, map 26, lot 63.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. One, relief from section 86 attachment two to allow three additional apartment units uh to add three additional apartment units to the property. located at 26-28 Handover Street.

The request includes the addition of uh an apartment to the uh current three family dwelling as well as the conversion of the existing two stall garage into a two-unit apartment in accordance with the proposed design in a Gz zoning district.

Uh two, relief from section 86 attachment one waving lot coverage and lot area requirements. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following relief from parking requirements to section 86-445.

The property is located within the General Residence Zoning District.

Good evening. For the record, Peter Selino on behalf of Dylan's Estates LLC.

With me is Manny Sarto, who is the principal and the uh main shareholder of Dylan Estates LLC. Dylan's Estates LLC owns this property located at 26-28 Handover. It's currently a three family dwelling uh obviously fronting on handover. It's almost down near Rugles Park and Locust Streets. I think it's one house up from Locust Street. There's an existing two stall garage barn type

enlarged structure that sort of hugs the southerntherly property line. So as a result, the proposal here is to uh take the ground level or the basement level of the existing three family, convert that into an apartment as well as to convert the existing garage structure into two apartments. Um in order to do that, the relief necessary would be a variance uh as to the lot coverage in

the lot area. Um a variance as to unit count or use in the Gz zoning district.

And then we've also asked for a special permit for parking requirements. And I want to be clear about that that the proposal, if granted, would yield uh six units on the property. The proposal allows for um sufficient off- streetet parking spaces, i.e. 12 off- streetet parking spaces, two per unit, but at points the travel aisle is not 22 feet wide as you can see on the plan. And so

Mr. Tolman thought it prudent to ask for uh special permit relief related to potential parking or travel requirements on the site. Um the existing structures to me are the hardship. Uh you have a retaining wall that goes almost down the middle of the property. This garageelike structure that's not used as a garage is a pre-existing structure that's there and again hugging the southerntherly

property line. So as a result uh in addition I should note that uh floor plans were provided to uh Mr. LEC, which I believe the board has for each of the proposed uh dwelling units, which again would be three additional units. So, Mr.

Tolman's here, obviously, I'm here.

Manny's here. We can answer any questions the board may have about the proposal.

I actually thought there were apartments in that garage building currently. So, is that just used for storage right now?

It's empty.

It's empty.

It's empty.

You have a bedroom?

Uh, yes. So, the floor plan on the new units, Mr. Deir.

Yes.

Okay. two and two.

Yeah. So, each of the uh architectural drawings show two um bedrooms per new apartment.

As well, uh the three family, the lower level would have two bedrooms and then the garage is proposed to have a ground level unit and a second floor unit each consisting of two bedrooms. There's the floor plans are on the screen now.

But the garage building, there's no outside changes. It's not getting taller. It's just it's that existing building right?

Correct.

Yeah.

Yes.

And the basement unit now is actually Well, I'm not I'm not saying that because I think the back the I'm not sure if the back part of it of the garage I don't think I don't know if it's tall enough to two stories. I don't know. Uh to be honest, you got me on that one now.

But no higher than what the front is.

No, because at the front it's two stories, right?

Yeah. Correct.

And the basement the basement area now is actually finished living space for the first floor unit, just not being used as Yeah, correct.

A separate unit in the three.

And it's a walk out basement.

So I see what you're saying. The second half I got you.

Yeah.

So you're not changing the footprint of the garage? No, there's no intent to change the footprint.

This is definitely a site plan review, I take it.

Yeah. Well, so two things would come to mind is one with regards to lot coverage could require some type of pvious surface or through site plan review. So if the relief is granted and lot coverage is waved, we would require through site plan review that they infiltrate the runoff from the structures into into the ground to offset that lot coverage.

Kind of two options.

That's just standard.

Yeah, I'm concerned about that too.

But we always talk about how lot coverage was. Previously before site plan review, we had no way to govern how do we deal with excessive lot coverage through site plan review. Now, we can offset the increase in lot coverage by requiring that they infiltrate roof runoff or other impervious surfaces. So, yeah, I mean, just know that that's coming down the road.

I didn't wander into the property because that's rude, but the areas the area behind the not that I haven't done that um the area behind the house where those parking spaces are proposed. What's back there now? Is that grass and weeds?

Grass and weeds. Okay.

So really the the big change to the to the lot coverage is all of the parking that's being considered.

Yeah.

Not all of it.

Yeah. Because the exist Okay. Go ahead.

Six spaces on the north side of the existing retaining wall.

Yep.

Right. That's the increased lot coverage. Right. Correct.

Now because these already exist, right? They already said I don't want this to become an issue because it became an issue on one of the other ones that we let an expansion of the four family and I saw this on the plan which I was happy to see.

Yeah.

This four family now needs to be sprinkled.

Okay.

Sprinkles. And that that's actually on the architectural drawing. So I'm assuming you're aware of that.

What?

That the four family that the building going from a three to a four that building now has to have sprinklers.

which I believe is on the architectural drawing. That's where I said it, too.

So, he's correct. But sometimes people don't understand that.

I was not aware of that.

That's a building code thing, but I'm 99% sure.

I thought poor families didn't require that but pretty sure they do, but I just want to make sure that you're aware of that.

So, I would have to sprinkle all of it.

Well, that's not before this board.

Okay.

It's going to be between you and the building department. But that's always a question. And I'm I'm pretty sure it showed it on this plane when I when I looked at it earlier, but it's somewhere on the plane that it showed that was there's a note might have been on the front sheet or it's there somewhere because this gentleman, the architect, understood that that that is the case.

And then lastly, I would offer and it's not the way that it was filed, and I can understand for the sake of ease the way that it was filed, the two units in the garages could be contemplated as ADUs.

Yeah. as special permits, right? So, it is all a variance, but still contemplate that this could be technically except for the size of the basement unit because it exceeds what's allowable for an ADU. So, that that one requires a variance, but the other two could be ADUs as well because they fall under the threshold, but you can just deal with it, I think, as as a variance because that's how it was submitted.

rather I mean those units going to exceed 900 square feet, right?

No, they're less.

No, they're less like 800 and change.

The building's only 40T 42 ft long by like 24.

I don't really have a problem with tightening up.

I mean, if there were spaces accessing have the narrowing then that's a problem. But yeah, once you get past the restriction, get space.

The guy with the F250 is going to actually fit.

F250 would fit through here.

Yes.

17 foot space that you don't have any 17 seems tight.

You don't have any swing where it's where it comes down to 11 ft. It's just driveway. But 17 foot at that last parking space.

Would you rather have them call it a compact space which is also same dimensional relief? But no, I think it's going to happen by common sense that somebody's not going to try to park something new.

What's the existing curb?

How many parkings do you have?

Why don't you park them this way?

Reconigure the That's how they spaces to put three along the property line perpendicular.

Huh?

Yeah. Then you run into an issue with the aisle width. Then be guns for you.

Look at the two you had there 9 by 9. So there's your 18 ft. So that but you've got 31 to the street.

So you got a 20 foot aisle there. You could put one spot parallel to Hanover if you had to. So there's room to get that many parking spaces on there. But yeah, because that's how people park now is this whole area. He has like seven people parked there.

I mean, if you're if you're contemplating it, minimum number of spaces 17 foot I don't have an issue with for the one space.

Yeah, it's just it's it's the only one that's really going to be tight. There's two in the be tight as far as a swing.

But you could actually if it's too big for you to drive, you shouldn't be driving it.

Okay. Any other questions from the board? I'll have to ask a question even though it's the general public here.

Anybody wishing to speak in favor?

Anybody wishing to speak in opposition?

Chris, keep quiet.

If you want to give back another filing, fe No.

Right.

Cash this one.

That one is already cashed.

Thank you for your service. I I uh yeah I think our property owner if he's going to put sprinklers in might declare himself to be a nonprofit organization.

I don't know consideration questions from the board. This is the time site plan review. We'll have a handful of this one.

So again three separate motions. Is that correct? Three separate motions.

Uh so you've got the variance with regards to unit count right and you've got special permit for aisle width y and the special permit would require the bifrocated lot coverage lot coverage sorry lot and lot area well that's un so again three motions correct Um, are you entertaining motions at this time, Mr. Chairman?

Yes. Wide open.

So, I would make a motion first of all that we approve the variance as requested.

Second on the variance. A motion and a second.

Any discussion on the motion? They're hearing none. Ricky, yes.

Dan, yes.

Jim, yes.

John, yes.

Jim and Furry, yes. And on the special permit, we can lump them together.

Correct Dan?

That's right.

Special permit. So, um, first part of that is that I would make a motion that this is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and that we grant the special permit as requested.

Second.

Okay. No conditions on that?

No. Just as Yes.

Okay.

Discussion hearing none. Ricky, yes.

Dan, yes.

Jim, yes. John.

Thank you very much.

Item number six, eight rather. Citizens input.

You have to do the last one.

See, I see none. That's not a bad thing.

That's always a good thing.

Uh number nine, approval of minutes from the August 21st, 2025 meeting.

Mr. Chairman, move wave of the reading of the minutes. Approval of minutes.

Second motion and second on the motion. Ricky, yes. Dan, yes.

Jim, yes.

John, yes.

Jim Furry, yes.

Accept a motion to adjourn.

Second.

Second.

All in favor?

I. You got that. Who made the motion in a second?

Yes.

Well, that wasn't