Good evening. I am Joseph Pereira, chairman of the zoning board of appeals for the city of Fall River. It is 6 pm on Thursday, May 15, 2025, and we are meeting at one government center in the first floor hearing room. First went to
Mass General Law Chapter 3A section 20 subsection F. I hereby notify all persons in attendance that this meeting is being recorded by Fall River Government TV, Mr. Craig Salvador in both video and audio. If anyone desires
to make a video, audio, or combination uh recording of this meeting, please notify me now and I will make a public announcement of your intention. Thank you. Our recording secretary this evening is Miss Patty Aguar, sitting to my immediate right.
Present this evening are permanent members, Mr. John Frank, our vice chairman, uh Jim Caukins, our clerk, Dan Dupier, and Ricky Sahadi, as well as alternate members Alexis Ensalamo, and Eric
Kelly. Uh, also with us this evening is Mr. Dan Aguiar, sitting to my far left, the director of engineering and planning. Patty, have all petitions to be considered this evening 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 thereby declare the May 15, 2025 regularly scheduled meeting of the ZBA of the city of Fall River open for such
business as shall regularly come before it. I remind all persons presenting before the board including petitioners abutters anyone in support or anyone opposed to a petition that your presentations should be limited to three
minutes. We will talk about this later. Questions and responses must be directed through the chair. The board's rules and regulations direct the board to specifically look for information which supports the petitioner's claims. As such, the petitioner should identify and
factually support the basis for their petition. I hereby advise the petitioners and all interested parties that this is the zoning board of appeals. The board's authority exists pursuant to Mass General Law Chapter 4A and is limited in scope and deals with
the use of land as regulated by chapter 86 of the ordinances of the city of Fall River. Additional permits, licenses, reviews, and/or approvals may be required uh for the specific development, which is the subject of a petition before the
ZBA this evening. The action taken by this board has a real and lasting effect on the title to your real estate. I urge all petitioners to seek competent legal counsel before filing your petitions and after a decision of the board has been
made. A copy of the ordinance is available at uh the city clerk's office uh and from the planning department. I urge anyone not to use or not to rely on the online version of the uh zoning ordinance. I remind everyone that the
building inspector is the zoning enforcement authority and you are here this evening because the building inspector has determined that your proposed action is contrary to the city of Fall River's zoning ordinance. The city charter section 18- I'm sorry 9-18
mandates that all multi-member boards develop and adopt rules for public comment. We have adopted such a policy which in short provides for citizens input on zoning board specific matters at the end of the meeting. Anyone wishing to make public comment, there is
a signup sheet on the table just outside the door. Let us begin with old business. Item number 01. Applicant is Carara O'Connell. Care of attorney uh Jeffrey P.
Maderas. Subject property is 284 uh River Street, map 10. Um I'm sorry, X1, lot 16. Uh operator uh I'm sorry. OP. The petition is to operate a seasonal
bar entertainment event space uh serving alcohol and providing food via food trucks and licensed vendors. These proposed uses would be in addition to the existing commercial boatyard and storage facility. The property is located within a CMD commercial mill
district. This was tabled from uh last month the April 17th 2025 meeting. Uh, is councel here or the petitioner here? No, Mr. Chairman, I can offer that um after the day after the last month's meeting, attorney MadiRas came to my
office and did not realize that he was away for this month. So, I had him revise his requested table form um tableabling the matter to June 26th. However, you do have to take that vote to allow that matter to be tabled to June 26. Mr. Chairman, I move that we
table the matter to our uh June meeting. Second motion and second comments on the motion they're hearing none on the motion. John, yes. Jim, yes. Dan, yes. Ricky, yes. And Chairman Prairie, yes.
Very good. New business item number one. Applicant is Scott Deont. Uh, and Kimberly Deont. Care of attorney Mark L1. Subject property is 2036 Meridian Street, map U21, lot 62. The applicant is requesting
a variance to allow the following. One to to construct an addition to the exi existing single family dwelling which will include two bedrooms, a bathroom, a kitchen, and a garage waving sideyard
set back by 5.5 ft uh on one boundary uh waving the requirement of section 86-35 attachment one of the city of Fall River zoning ordinance. The property is located in an R30 single family zoning district. Council, good evening. Yes,
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Dan and Madame Clerk. My name is attorney Mark Lan with law office at 138 Rock Street, Forward, Massachusetts. I'm here tonight with uh Kimley Deon and her husband sitting there, not enough room
here at the table. Uh John Deont. Uh my clients uh came to me and told me that they needed to add an addition to their house because there were five of them uh ch three other children, two of them adult boys, and they needed some extra
room in the house. Uh they looked at the property and everything to try to figure out where they could put an addition. And while they were thinking about adding the two bedrooms, they decided they would put an indoor garage on first level, then create the two bedrooms on the other side. uh looking at the
property and determining where they could put things. Uh on the side toward Joseph Drive, uh there is a force main uh sewer main that I think is shown on the plan. Then there's a gas line that comes in there and then they have a retaining wall and a fencing that comes
all around that back side. So, the only place they really had that was not inconvenient and would be the least attrusive was an extension right from their house uh to the uh south of the property. Uh so, what they would be
doing is adding a garage in the first level. They will be keeping their driveway that comes in, in fact, the driveway be a little bit larger. They will then have the two bedrooms for their boys upstairs with a connection that comes through uh the garage into
the house. Uh they have a bathroom up there and they're going to put a small kitchen up because their kitchen happens to be on all the other other side of the house and they don't want the boys to bother them at night time when they have to go get a soda or beer. So, um we're
asking that you wave the 5.5 ft from the sideline. or meet all the other criterias for that. Um, you may be wondering uh why we are doing this instead of going for a UDL. U that's what the building inspector called me and said I'll give you a permit today.
And I says we're not looking to make it a two family. It's not going to be for third parties. They just want it for their two boys. So that's why we're coming to you for variance. I believe this is dimminimous as compared to the neighborhood. You have a large lot. Uh all the neighbors are pretty much spaced
away from it. they're not going to really have any real effect from the property um to wave the 5 1/2 ft. So, I think it's a good plan for the family without disturbing the neighborhood and and without the need of creating a two
family home out of a single family. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for the explanation on why you're not doing an ADU. Um, questions from the board. I've got
virtually nothing at this point. Did not hear a hardship mentioned. Well, they the hardship is that they can't they have other land and the hardship is is that physically with the property. You have a force sewer main which is part of the city's sewer main that goes into
Joseph Drive. So where they could have put something that would have comply without the 5 1/2 ft, that sewer line prevents it. They have another gas line that comes off of Meridian Street to the to the north side of that house. And
they do have other improvements. So uh you know, gas line would be an easy fix. The force main for the city system probably is not an easy fix. So the the really the only way they could have this would
be on the side of the house without interfering with other improvements that they are stuck with and as is on the property itself and what will we end up with parking spaces? They'll have the garage under
and they'll have all that front area for parking. The driveway would probably could put up to six cars, I think, or five. Four cars, probably. Six cars now. Yeah, there's a half a dozen cars here now. So, we're just going to put two
cars in a garage and we'll have the remaining cars outside. They just don't want to make it a two family dwelling. That's really the purpose. That was my next question. Would you be amendable then if one of the conditions of an approval is
that there not be an ADU here in the future that would run with the property? Okay, that's fine. They're not looking to have it for other people. They're looking to No, I understand. But someday you'll sell this house or your your sons will sell the
house and somebody may say, "We got a kitchen up there. We're just going to right make it an ADU." It's not what their position is. Anyone else on the board? No, just one thing I would offer is that if if you're concerned with the proximity to
the property boundary, the applicant actually would have the ability to build a detached garage and only be 4T from the sideline. So, just the fact that we're connecting it and making a second story above it, but it's still 19.5 ft away where 25 ft is required. So, I
wouldn't be so concerned with the sideyard setback. I'd be more concerned about, as the chairman stated, limiting the ability for um this to be considered a two family or a qualifying ADU at any point in time. That's all. Hearing nothing else from the
board, is there anyone here this evening who wish to speak in support of this petition? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition there? Seeing none, uh, Mr. Chairman, I move that we grant the
variance as requested on the condition that no additional ADUs uh, or that the property be kept at a single family dwelling. No future ADU and no future ADU. I'll
second a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion. You're hearing none. John, yes. Jim, yes. Dan, yes. Ricky, yes. And Chairman Furry, yes. Thank you. Thank you. Have a great evening. You too.
Item number two, applicant is Tetro Real Estate LLC. Care of attorney Peter Acelino. Subject property is 165 169 Grant Street, map G05, lot 50. Lot 50.
The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following. One, pursuant to section 86-423B of the zoning ordinance, the applicant proposes to divide the current property of parcel lot 50 into two
separate lots. The first lot will keep the existing two family structure located at 165 Grant Street um encompassing a newly created parcel of
2,847 square ft with a frontage of uh 38 square uh 38 ft. The second lot will contain the existing fourf family building at 169 Grant Street situated on a new parcel of 3,870 square feet with a frontage of
15.74 ft. Council, good evening. For the record, my name is Peter Celino. I'm a lawyer with offices at 550 Locust Street here in Fall River. I represent the owner applicant on the subject petition. As Mr. chairman indicated this is a 423b petition seeking a special permit to
divide the existing lot into two lots as shown on the plan before you. I believe the board is well aware of these uh 423b situations but this is a special permit. Uh it's as close to by right as we can get but still have to come before you. Uh nothing on the ground in this
petition is changing. Um the two structures will sit as they are. There's really no room to do anything else with the subject property. uh my client as the owner and again seeking the petition I'd submit to you that the lack of detriment here would be that nothing is actually changing the two buildings
there's no construction there's no ways or easements or anything contemplated at this time so I know we have a lot on the agenda tonight with that I'll take any questions from the board is there any change up or down on parking none thank
you anyone else or separate utilities or not I do not know but I'll certainly accept that as a condition and with the affidavit. We get nothing else from the board, nothing else from uh planning? Nope. Uh
and is there anyone here this evening wishing to speak in support of this petition? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? They're hearing none. We come back to the board. It's a special permit, so it's a bifocated vote. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that it is
not more detrimental to the neighborhood. Second. motion and second that it is not more detrimental to the neighborhood on the motion. John, yes. Jim, yes. Dan, yes. Ricky, Jim Prairie, yes. Mr. Chairman,
I'll make a motion to grant. Motion to grant the condition of separate utilities. Uh, no, no fencing between the properties. Uh, permanent uh boundary markers to be installed. Mhm. And uh site plan review to verify
separation of the utilities. Very good. Do we have a second? Second. Motion and second. Discussion on the motion. They're hearing none. Ricky, yes. Dan, yes. Jim, yes. John, yes. Chairman Prairie, yes. Thank you. Thank you. Item number
three. Applicant is Brian Merkeland, care of attorney Peter Aselino, 1173 South Main Street, Map, G23, lot 30. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. One, to construct a two family dwelling on a
currently vacant lot. Uh requesting to wave lot area lot coverage and setback requirements in the R4 zoning district. Waving the requirements of section 83-35 attachment 1 and section
86-36 attachment two of the city city of Fall River zoning bylaw. property is located within an R4 two family zoning district. Good evening. For the record, Peter Celino on behalf of the applicant. With me is Mr. Brian Merkeland. Mr.
Mirkeland is the prospective purchaser of the subject lot and is proceeding this evening pursuant to a purchase and sale agreement. Uh the petition before the board is that of a variance. As you can see, the lot is pretty irregularly shaped and so therefore I cite that as my hardship. The lot sits at the corner
of Freedom and South Main Streets. The proposal as Mr. Chairman indicated is to build the duplex style unit uh and the proposal provides adequate parking and therefore the board should focus its attention on the three um waiver requests which are area uh in the R4
with a 2unit. We need to provide 8,000 ft. We have 4,415 per Mr. Tolman's plan. The lock coverage uh requirement in the district is 30%. The proposal is 55%. Next we look to setbacks. The front setback uh in the district is 15 feet.
Uh the plan as you can see from South Main is 10 and on the rear the district requires 20 feet and we are proposing 10. So again seeking variances for those uh four things and the hardship associated with the petition is the clear and irregular shape of the lot
before you. Okay. Dan from planning aspect. Um, I think you guys all know which property this is at that corner. Um, I don't know if it was a store or if it was a funeral parlor funeral something that burned a number of years ago. Um, so at that point in time, they probably could have
even built within the footprint of what it was, which was much larger than this. It is a two family district, proposed two family. I would have the same concerns as others with regards to um the restriction of prohibition of additional ADUs um other than the grant
that you're giving them. Now, stacked parking isn't ideal, but as long as both of those spaces are allotted to one singular unit and should be fine. Stack parking is kind of a kind of a tough one. Although and and I actually think they could probably
make a parking modification so they didn't have to stack the spaces, but either way, it might increase the lot coverage if they did not stack them. So, it would I know exactly what you're thinking.
Okay. All right. Other questions from the board, Mr. Chairman? Yes. Um, attorney Suino, is your client willing to accept the AGU restriction? Yes. Yes. Okay. Okay. Nothing from the board. I turn to
the uh general public. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this petition? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Sir, if you could just identify yourself and your address. My name is Anderson Kern. and property map
honored of the 175 the back of the okay piece of land. Yep. I'm not against but I'm I'm just proposing a second option without changing anything. I know how difficult it is especially in for river for parking and we struggling for
parking in that corner especially and we are using especially the tenants and the corner of the the other housing they have used this place for almost 5 years now as a parking lot and when I s when I heard about the the death of the owner
of the property I called the the the the wife and I propose her to to buy the property to have those as a parking lot. And that's my my proposal. It's it's a
second option uh to buy that land to be a parking lot for everybody around. So you certainly have the ability to approach Mr. Merkeland after the meeting. No, nobody told me that about you know, nobody told me that he was No, no, no. I said you have the ability tonight. Oh, sure. After this, you know,
have a conversation with M Mr. Mland and if you can come up to an agreement for him to sell you the property after he buys it for the purpose of a parking lot then then you can use it for that. I you said sir that some of the neighbors were parking on this property.
Yeah. You have like 10 cars every night. It's not their property. Yeah. No. Okay. It's going to be in the streets now. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else in opposition?
Hearing none, I come back to the board. I might be able to do a quick flip here. I don't know. Flip this house, Mr. Chairman. Yes. Um, I move that we grant the variance with the restriction of no additional ADUs.
Second acceptance. That's acceptable. Okay. Do we have a second on that? Second, Dan. Any discussion on the motion there? Hearing none. John, yes. Jim, yes. Dan, yes. Ricky, yes. Chairman Prairie, yes. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you much. Item number four, applicant is Brad T. Turner, care of attorney Peter A. Solino. This is Zero Saucier Street. Grab that one. Map G16, lot
13. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following. One, pursuant to section 86-425 of the ordinance. The applicant proposes to extend the existing non-conforming structure by adding a second floor. The applicant is
requesting a variance to allow the following. One, to convert the existing garage into a two-unit residential apartment building with four off- streetet parking spaces. waving the requirement of section
86-35 attachment one and section 86-36 attachment two of the city of Fall River zoning bylaws. The property is located within an A2 apartment zoning district. Good evening. For the record, Peter Selenino on behalf of the applicant owner, Brad Turner, who's to
my left. Uh would you like to introduce yourself? Hi, I'm Brad Turner. You want to introduce yourself? Jessica Turner. Uh Mr. and Mrs. Turner owned the property uh located at zero saucier. The petition before you is to convert the existing garage structure which sort of
hugs the westerly lot line and fronts on Saucier Street uh to convert that into two apartments providing four uh parking spaces off streetet within that garage structure. Um Mr. and Mrs. Turner also owned the property to the north which is 53 Palmer Street. Um, however, the
building department made a determination that the two lots did not merge and as a consequence, we're here solely on what is labeled G16-13. Um, as indicated, we are seeking relief in the following ways. We are seeking a special permit to alter the
existing non-conforming garage to include the apartments as stated. We are seeking a variance to change the use from the garage to the residential uh units. Should be noted for the record that Mr. Turner is a plumber, currently has a plumbing uh company that he
operates and uses those garage for storage of uh things associated with that business. If this proposal is approved, he's indicated to me that he will be moving that operation to Westport. So to the extent the opposition will be worried about
overburdening the uh site, I'd just put that out there right up front. Uh, additionally, I believe that I understand what the opposition is having read the correspondence, but I'd like to note for the record that on Saucier Street, there are currently six uh
properties uh that exist and they are uh there are many two families there. So, I'd submit to you that the proposal is consistent with the zoning district. Um, and relative to the hardship component and speaking to that, clearly it's the existing structure. It's a grandfathered
structure that hugs that lot line. So, with that, I will close my presentation and be happy to accept um any questions that the board may have and then just like to reserve the right to reply to Attorney Brilliant's rebuttal. Uh objection. Okay. I um I do have a
question and I didn't get out and walk the property. That existing garage does not look to be in the greatest condition. Are you going to be able to stack something else on top of it? An additional floor? Um that's up to the engineer when we go
through this. No, it's up to an engineer. Okay. From what we've been told, there's ways to reinforce this event structure. Yeah. Um do you have a design on this yet? Yes. May I approach? Please. Okay. Do you know roughly what the
overall height is? Not that on here. So I figure 20 roughly say 12t right now. So with another story 1224 1224 probably 36 or more feet to the top of the peak. You've seen this correct? No. Okay.
I don't think it was submission. It was not. It was handed to me tonight. I I think and I'm just going to tell you my concern. Number one, the structure itself. Can it be could it even be saved to put to double the
structure? But the other problem we have is the proximity to the lot line. And I'm looking at the existing two family structure right next door which is only 2 and 1/2 ft off the property line. You're going to end up with two buildings
um within 5t of each other across a property line. But right now it's a garage. it's fairly low, the height is going to double to something else. And now it kind of becomes a wall right against that property line. So from that aspect,
it's my concern is I realize it's an existing structure. I realize it's nonconforming. I'm not 100% convinced to extend that nonconformity at this point in time.
I don't know if you can if you gave that any thought. Have you spoken to that neighbor who lives directly next door? No, I haven't. It's an existing structure for almost 100 years now that's right against the property line, right? So, I haven't
really I I don't know. But we have considered um you know with the layout that is proposed that is um not a set in stone um plan but we were proposing thinking of moving like the kitchen windows to overlook the park. So with the current structure we would want to
maintain the privacy level between the two properties and minimize as many windows that share that lot line with them. Um and just try to minimize as much uh connectivity with them to maintain privacy and consideration.
I'm just looking at dimensions here. So, you've got 25 ft from your property line to the face of that garage. Dan, I think you know what I'm thinking. Can you um hang on? Well, when I look at the the plan that we're just looking at now, the first
thing that jumps out to me is that the stairs shown would actually be in Saucier Street because there's not room to to build those stairs um off the front side of that building that might be able to be modified. But if if if you're saying that this isn't the plan
or if it is the plan, the board kind of needs to know that because the approval will be granted upon this plan. It's it's not just what you want to do after. Understood. Yes. I do have concern with regards to the proximity to the property line. Again, we have an existing 12story
building being 2 and 1/2 ft off. That's one thing. But when we now go to 20 or 30 foot in height, um that would certainly be in my mind considerably more detrimental to the neighborhood, specifically to the parcel at 18 Celsius
Street. Um I don't have an issue with with two units. um if they were moved closer to the middle of the lot um or in some other configuration. But that's all I have to offer. Okay. Thank you. You are kind of thinking the
way I am. The way I I I realize you you want to try to use the building that's there. If that building is not structurally sufficient, it would be a really good idea to take it down and get off that property line by a bit. That's
just a suggestion. I don't design this stuff for you guys, but that's where that's where my problem is with this. Before we go to public, any other questions from the board at this point? Uh, did you say this this is one lot? This has been merged. It hasn't been No, the opinion was that it has not been
merged? It has not been merged. Correct. Yeah. So you So you haven't had a structural engineer look at it yet to see how it would be rebuilt? No, I had the building inspector out to tell me it sounds plausible. Not the building inspectors. Yeah. But I have not gone further till
we figure out what's going on. Um and and this is a seven currently a seven seven garage. Yes. Something to contemplate is rather than we still got a long way to go with this hearing, but public comment.
Um, could you contemplate making sure that you could rebuild it in this location or that structural land engineer may advise you that you cannot, thus allowing you to maybe increase the send back to this property
line and maybe not get a denial. I can't tell you to withdraw a table, do any of those types of things and get additional information, but probably should have gotten that answer before we talked to you. So we were informed that due to the structure being existing that even the footprint would be allowed if the um
structure wasn't able to be fully rebuilt right for one floor that wasn't disclosed. We were told for the plan that we had which was to maintain the garages on the main level and to put two apartments just like on Alden Street what they've done with that four cars. Well that so first of all that's not
true right because this is a garage this is so you're asking to make a two family house out of it. So, a second story on this is entirely different. We have two sections of this petition tonight. One is a special permit to extend an
existing non-conforming structure. That's one thing. That doesn't preclude or deal with use. That's just it could be a box that you store bananas in. Does it doesn't matter. It could be a two-story box that you store bananas in. Once you So, that's one section of relief. So, they have to look at is that detrimental to the neighborhood and to
the neighbor. Shading, overcrowding, could it be a fire hazard? Could it be anything? You know, could we get emergency vehicles or apparatus through this car owner? Now, I don't know if if the way that this plan shows it actually shows the house at 18 maybe even being closer to the property line than the two
and a half that this one is. So, we don't even know what the distance is between these two buildings. You know, maybe maybe the house at 18 is actually further away. And then we could contemplate, okay, well, there's actually six feet between the building, but this planet on this plan,
excuse me, there's a marking of two and 1/2 ft. One and a half. One and a half next door. I see two and a half. Two and a half on the other lot. No, the two and a half is for the lot in question. That's not the way it's shown. Yeah. No, that's the way it's shown. There's two
arrows. Yeah. 1.5 is now right here. That's that one. This way. I'm telling you now that the two and a half when you look at the two arrows provided is dimensioning the distance between the property line and the house. That one goes soenior. That's all I'll offer for
now, but let's see what we have for in favor or in opposition to it. Yep. I do have one letter that I'll read after I go to public. Is anyone here wishing to speak in favor of the petition? Is there anyone here wishing to speak in
opposition? Councel, just stand up. Can somebody provide uh No, it's okay. I can speak. We want We need you to have you on the microphone. Yeah. Good evening, members of the board. Uh chairman, Miss A. Yeah. For the record, uh attorney Gregory Brilliant on behalf
of uh Mrs. Jean St. Martin, owner of 3236 Spence, excuse me, Saucy Street, who's been a um an owner and resident of that property for over 40 years. First of all, I I agree with the chairman and the concerns relative to the structure
itself. I went out there and I have pictures if anyone needs to see them. Um, relative to the structure, it doesn't look like it would be I'm not an engineer, so I don't want to comment and give any professional opinion, but it doesn't look like it would hold up to additional two units on top of it. But
the one thing I I do want to focus on is, as it was stated, it's a two-prong um decision you have to make here. Would this be not more detrimental to the neighborhood? I I think without question, it would be not only by relative to the concerns that have been
raised by the by the chair, Mr. Ayard, relative to the height, you will you will totally wipe out any sun and so forth and so on on that particular area. It is 1.25 and 2.5. I'm not sure which one as Mr. Agie I just said but it's 4 feet and I have a I have a picture of it
because um I'd like the board to take a look at exactly how close these are. Okay. Um they are very very very close and um it is it is what I feel as though much more detrimental to the neighborhood. Excuse me. Here it here it is Mr. Chairman. I
only have one but it barely can f fit a a garbage bucket. Uh so there there's no question it's that close. So how in and of itself that that in and of itself is not more detrimental to the to the neighborhood both for the purpose of a special permit and for the variance
which is a component of the variance I don't know how but one thing which was not even discussed saucier street um again I am not an engineer so what I did is I went and get a tape measure and I measured the distance of this particular
property excuse me street the street from totally totally paved is only 17 ft wide. The pavement for the street is 12 ft because as you can see, and this was
at approximately 11:00 in the morning when I took these, there's cars lined up all the way down Saucier Street. There's a 5 foot approximately 5T street strip. So, it leaves 12 feet, which I know that there's been a letter relative to a former uh uh chief of the fire department, which in full disclosure is
my client's son. So, I don't want anybody to think it is his son. He's the former chief of the fire department, but he raised serious concerns regarding getting apparatus down that street. So, if you look at that, if they went in and they put their egress and ingress on
Saucia Street, they're going to eliminate this area. That's all that's there. There's a huge tree and there's a huge tree stump. So, if they take that out, first of all, I don't know what it's going to do to that building in and of itself, okay? Because it's so close. And secondarily, you're going to take
cars off of Saucier Street because it's already congested. So, you're definitely going to eliminate spaces because right now zero SIA street does not use Saucier for ingress and eress. They go from the from the Palmer Street, his other property he owns. And I can show you
that just so you all know to make get a good crystal clear vision of this. There's how they come in. They come in from from Palmer Street. There's no ingress or egress right now on Saucy Street in any way, shape, or form. So once they create it, once they create it, they're going to take cars off the
street. There's no question. Okay. It has to because it's you're going to take off at least 12 ft for for a uh driveway and they're going to have to take out the tree. They're going to have to take out the stone, which I'm again, I'm not an engineer, so I do not want to give an opinion as to what that's going to do to
the building itself. That's relative to the special permit. As you're well aware, as you're well aware, there's also asking for a variance here. Okay? And I just want to touch on that briefly because one of those aspects is is is it more detrimental? I just I just touched
on that. And then it's a hardship. My clients have nothing against Mr. Turner relative to his plumbing business, but the hardship, he's already using the garage for his plumbing business. Okay. I have a document from the department of DOT which clearly shows the address of
his of his business as Palmer Street and his mailing address zero Saucier Street. I submit and I don't want to cause this man any problems. That's not a legal use. And what's the hot chip? He's already using it for his plumbing business. I don't even think they meet that element of this particular
proposal. Not to mention, they're doing all this increase asking for a variance and I submit to the board and and I again Mr. Mr. I don't know if Mr. AI has touched on this, but they're asking for no waiverss of any dimensional requirements. They're going up. They
don't meet anything. They don't meet side yards, frontage, rear yards, uh, uh, front yards. They don't meet lot coverage. They don't mean any of them. So I submit to this board here tonight that I firmly believe that this is a and I don't want to say this a cut and dry
case that this board cannot find in my opinion that this is not more detrimental to the neighborhood in any way shape or form whether they move that whether they whe it just can't be done based on what it does to Saucy Street, what it does to the house next door. And
and again, um I'd ask that you uh you know, when you find your first prong, not find that find that this is not more detrimental to the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, council. Board members, if I if I can just so in response to a couple of items. One, Saucier Street exists. It provides
access to six to eight other houses. So, I I don't have concern about access because it's already accessing properties. with regards to uh the proposed 12- foot curb opening, the property owner has rights to their frontage, correct, and to be able to access Saucier Street. So, I don't have
a concern about that part of it. Um, when we when you're looking at the relief and the order in which it needs to be granted, as attorney Brilliant stated, special permit has to be acted upon first because that's what allows the second story to be constructed
regardless of use. So that's special permit because you're just going up. The variance part of it deals with the use of being a two-unit building. And so it's it's really it's two separate contemplated uh pieces of relief and
that this is a pre-existing non-conforming uh parcel of land in this zoning district. Um it does not even meet the requirements for a single family home in that district. So yes, so the first action you should contemplate is the special permit and if the special
permit can't be granted then the variance has to be denied as well. Y thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition? Yes. Name and address please. My name is Ann and I am I reside at 18 Saucy Street
and owner of the property. I am very very concerned with this as you notice. I call it a little alleyway. That's what it is. That for my house and their garages. It's it is for a pee because well, how I know that that those garages
even from the prior owner that we've been here for the same thing trying to do another building, another building about five, six years ago before he sold it to Mr. Turner and of course he got, you know, nothing went through that. Now
I am very concerned. The garages are there. They do not look sound. I mean you can see the bricks. Uh they there's opening between the bricks. Will never I don't I mean I'm not a contractor but I mean I see the alleyway because my
barrels are there and I walk on my two feet and I have to put a cement cap because those garages never had gutters. And the last time I was here, I asked to have gutters because the water runs down, seeps in the ground, and I get
flooded. My cellar gets flooded. So, I went ahead and I did a little cement cap. So, it would probably prevent some of that water. So, I know it's 4 feet the entire little alleyway. So, I cemented that whole alleyway. So, I'm
very concerned about if he's going to do something to the structure on that those garages, what is going to happen to my structure being so close touching my structure. It's an older house too. Also, is the fire just from the heat
being so close. My house would be up in flames. My first floor and second floor. I'm very concerned. I mean, I'm also I've been there over 40 years and I'm very concerned someone else putting a a two family home
there and then again like there was said the parking spot they going to take I mean when I moved there there was seemed like there was more street but that's not what happened. People have kids. They're adults now. They've got cars.
There's more cars. People actually, would you have the park there overnight? There's cars there parked because there's nowhere to park cars. What is going to happen? I mean, how is the fire department going to get
there to to do this? The the the trash has to go backwards to collect our trash. Understood. We're we're at three minutes. So, all right. Just not on merit, but can you give your name again? Anna P. P R O C. And which property you
own? 18. 18 Street. Maria Isidaro and I am a trustee. Oh, okay. So, I'm just looking at the list. I'm the daughter and it's Maria Isidoro. I si D O R O. Okay. Um, anyone else in opposition?
Yes. And there's someone. Good evening, members of the board. My name is Dennis Gagy. I reside at 18 Sausage Street with my fiance Annrock who owns the property with her mom. We have no problem with the owners of said property zero of
Sausage Street. The concerns we have are the following. The setback which is supposed to be 20 ft is only 2 feet on the existing structure and 2 ft on a property of 18 Saucier Street which is 4T which is an alleyway. Also, they want to open up the sideway walk to access
said property. And anyone that lives on the street will tell you that parking is already a problem. Some some nights people have to park in the park overnight because it's not enough parking already. It could take up more spots and access property zero and take two additional parking
spaces. Also, being in the construction industry, I've noticed substantial cracks and water missing from, like I said, I'm not an engineer, and that's what people are saying to me, but I've seen it. Um, also, uh, last, but most important is the access for emergency
vehicles. Last year, uh, my fiance's mother fell and hit her head on the toilet, and the ambulance couldn't get down the street, and they had to bring a stretcher in from the street and back up again before being able to take her to the hospital. Imagine if there was a fire. It said zero. It would definitely
spread to 18 Celsius Street with only four feet between the structures. You know, they are both going to go up in flames. If you want that on your conscience, then vote yes. Thank you for listening. Thank you very much, sir. Anyone else in opposition? Yes. Yes.
Your name and address, please. Uh my name is Michelle Manos. I live at 36 Celsius Street. Okay. Um, this is from my sister Marcel Robinson who resides at 32 Saucia Street. Um, she could not be here tonight. Um, she has some concerns uh
regarding the proposed apartment development on Saucia Street. As a current tenant on Saucia Street, I can attest that parking is already extremely limited and the removal of even one parking space would not only be impractable impractical but potentially
unsafe for existing residents. After working second shift, I often return home late at night only to find no available parking. I'm frequently forced to park on Globe Street or South Main Street and walk two blocks just to reach my home, an experience that is
especially distressing as a woman in a neighborhood with limited limited police presence. While I understand and empathize with the urgent need for more housing in Massachusetts, particularly in Fall River, where I served the community as a care coordinator working with unhoused individuals, I believe
that this development must be approached very thoroughly. For several years, tenants were able to park in the nearby park, but that area has since been sold and fenced in, eliminating a key resource for residents. The proposed plan to add two two-bedroom tenement
apartments with four parking spaces assumes each unit will only have two vehicles. However, given the housing crisis, it is common for households to consist of multiple roommates, meaning there could be more than two vehicles per unit, further worsening the parking
situation. Um, that's from Marcel Robinson. Did you want to read this? This is from Roger St. one who is who was the uh fire chief in Got that one, but you can go ahead. You have that? Yeah, please go ahead. It's one less I got to do. No, you can read that one.
Yeah, read it. I'm sorry. I am ready to express my concerns about adding adding dwelling units to the garage between 18 and 32 Saucier Streets. Saucier Street is a densely populated narrow one-way thoroughare which is difficult for large vehicles to access and traverse. There
is a telephone pole located on the northeast corner and a fence post on the souththeast corner at the beginning of the street where Sauier inter intersects with Wilbur Street. The telephone pole and fence post restrict vehicles turning onto Saucier Street from the north and
south approach. Saucier Street is a oneway ending at South Main Street. To enter from South Main Street, you must go against traffic. Telephone poles are located on the north um even side of the street with electric cable and telephone wires running along and directly in
front of the house on that side of the street. The existing subject garage is located approximately 4 ft from the dwelling structure located at 18 Saucy Street. In 1989, 36 Celsius Street, a multif family dwelling, experienced a substantial fire. Accessing the street
proved challenging for emergency vehicles compounded by numerous parked vehicles along the north side of the road resulting in delays. Responding aerial apparatus were unable to be placed into operation due to the narrow width of the street and the power lines
running along the same side of the thoroughare that the fire was located. My parents have owned 32 and 36 street for over 40 years and it is where I grew up. Three of my sisters and their husband and children resided at 36 Celsius Street. Most were home during
the fire. Fortunately, they were all able to escape the blaze with some minor injuries. The responding fire suppress suppression forces were fortunate to keep the fire just to one structure. As a 37year veteran of the city of Fall River Fire Department, former city of
Fall River chief and city fire marshal and current employee of the Massachusetts Department of Fire Services Firefighting Academy. I do not believe that adding to the existing fire and safety problem in that area is a prudent decision. My concern is due to
the proximity of the adjacent dwelling structures, the narrowness of Saucier Street, and the difficulty of emergency vehicle access. I rem I recommend visiting the area personally to realize the concerns noted. If there are any questions, do not uh hesitate to contact me. His confirmation his um contact
information is listed. Could you just read in his name and mailing address? Roger A. St. Martin Jr. 1 Stonybrook Court, Westport, Massachusetts 02790. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone
else to speak in opposition? You want to address? Yeah. Could I have a moment in response, please? Um, so we heard a lot of theory just now. I think we heard multiple people qualify their comments relative them to them not being engineers, masons, structural engineers. So I think my client would like the
chance to have an engineer look at this and uh address the concerns that have been raised and put a rest to the theory. And then second, I just like to note that there's no question that the existing structure doesn't meet setbacks. That's why we're asking to u have a special permit to expand the
already non-conforming use. So I just want to be clear that I never represented that we tried to comply with setbacks. We're trying to use the existing structure. No. Understood. Understood. So with that, I'd make a motion that the uh petitioner be allowed at the table this evening to address the
utter concerns and come back at the June meeting of this board. Members of the board, do we have to make the motion? Somebody has to make a motion. Somebody you don't have to. No, you can make a motion to approve. You can make a motion to deny or you can make a motion to grant the
request of tables. I Mr. Chairman, I move that we grant the petitioner's request for a continuence until a June meeting. Second. Have a motion, a second. Any um discussion? Can I ask one question
before we vote on this? This retaining wall that I couldn't see that's on I guess behind that fence. How high is that on the saucier street? Yeah, street side. It's uh the fence is on the retaining wall. It is. That's it. That's a whole of it. Okay. So, it's not. No,
it's not. Okay. Thank you. On the motion. Ricky, yes. Dan, yes. Jim, yes. John, yes. Chairman Peri, yes. Thank you.
You can hear that, chair. on any of the item number five applicant Rock View LLC care of attorney Peter Aselino 550 and 570 Rock Street Matt zero I'm sorry 0 O2 lots 16
and 17 the applicant is requesting variance to allow the following one to convert the existing convents and carriage house on lots 16 and 17 into 15 residential
apartment units waving the requirements in the R4 zoning district as detailed in section 86-35 amendment one attachment one rather than section 86 36 attachment two of the city of Paul River zone bylaw the applicant is requesting a special
permit to allow the following to pursuant to 86-445 to adjust the dimensional requirements necessary to accommodate the required parking spaces. Three pairs went to 86-321 to increase the existing
nonconforming lot coverage for each lot. Properties located within an R4 two family zoning district. Good evening. For the record, Peter Celino on behalf of the applicant Rock View LLC. Immediately to my right is Alan Rumsey, who is a principal of Rock
View LLC. And I'd also like to note for the record an owner of the property located at 492 Rock Street immediately to the south of this property. Um I'd like to deviate from my normal custom and presentation and tell a little bit of a story about this petition as we
start. Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey, as I said, live at 492 Rock Street. This property was a former convent. When the convent went for sale, being careful to protect their own investment, they took the chance and purchased it. And they did
that knowing that the use had lapsed in terms of the use as a congregate or a convent living home. But they wanted to do something nice and something thoughtful for the neighborhood in which they live in. And so the proposal before you tonight is going to be met with a lot of opposition and I understand that.
I've read all the opposition and I've heard all the rumors and whispering. But I want to hold on a second. Can can you either close out or just ask him to be quiet? Sorry. No problem. So I want to focus the discussion on what is being
proposed, the relief that is actually being requested, not what people think, and talk about why the project was designed in this manner. So first and foremost, a lot of the opposition seems to focus on historical preservation. The proposal here is to use the existing
structures and to only construct or do construction activity within the existing walls leaving the facade in place. So for all the parties that are objecting on the nature of the historical significance of the buildings, I'd submit to you that that's not being changed. Next, there's a lot
in the opposition relative to congestion and parking. And contrary to many petitions that I bring before this board, this petition seeks no waiverss of parking, but rather we provide two off- streetet parking spaces for each of the proposed 15 units. I think that's
hugely important to the argument. Next, the design of the parking to the rear of the property or the west of the property fronting on Prospect Street is significantly more more costly to Mr. and Mrs. Rumsy, but they're doing that to be mindful of the neighborhood and to
not have a parking lot in front of the building on Rock Street. Next, when I first took this case in, I met with Mr. Ramsey and he explained to me that on any given night on Rock Street, there's plentiful street parking. So, again, focusing on the objection, starting with
the objection, u if there's plentiful street parking, then why are we worried about congestion? So, he had showed me some photos and then last night I went there at around 6:20 and I took these pictures which I'd like to submit into the record. One picture is me standing at the intersection of Prospect Street
and Rock Street uh looking south towards the Ramsey House and there are exactly two cars parked on Rock Street in that stretch. And then I walked down southerntherly on Rock Street towards Prospect Street uh towards Maple Street and took a picture in the opposite direction. And similarly, there are only
two cars on Rock Street um on a Wednesday night at approximately 6:20. So again, I'm trying to allay and address the concerns relative to congestion. I made enough copies for the board. Mr. Chairman, can I approach submit, please? Thank you very much, Council.
Okay. So to the argument at hand, the proposal is to convert the existing structures into 15 residential units providing sufficient off- streetet parking. So the first thing that we need in terms of relief is a variance for use
in the R4 zoning district. Now I'd like to note for my presentation and for the record that again this was a congregate living home. It's uh assessed that way. And then um so the the 15 units would be in the existing structures. The other
waiverss are to modify the already existing non-conforming lot coverage to increase it and to modify parking in order to comply with the requirements of the district. So to be clear, we provide the number of necessary spaces, but we're prophylactically asking for a
waiver in the event that turn radiuses and travel aisles may need to be adjusted in site plan review. So, we're asking for three things. Two of which, as we know, are special permits, which are a much lower standard. The next thing I want to talk about is the hardship uh component of
this petition as it relates to the variance request. Several of the opposition suggest that we have no valid hardship. And I'd submit to you, as we've seen with many cases before this board, the hardship here are the structures. We have a property. It's there. We need to do something with it.
It's not going to stay vacant forever. And although I know it doesn't have presidential value, I'd submit to you that this is similar to Highland Manor on the corner of Highland Avenue and Stanley Street. We had a lot of opposition that night, I think we adequately addressed it and I think the neighborhood's happy with the project at
this point. And I'd submit to you that while this has changed, this is similar. And I know it doesn't have, again, I'm not suggesting it has presidential value, but I'm suggesting to you that we have all of these properties in Fall River that are going to eventually face this type of quandry. What do you do
with it? And so the last point I want to make is that I had our engineer, Mr. Tolman, look at this and I said to him this afternoon, Jeff, what could Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey do here by right without asking for any relief? And the answer to that question is kind of interesting. It
is 12 units. Demo the buildings after the historic preservation period goes by. Put up call them vinylsided two families. Uh you can it's 75 ft frontage in this district. So along Prospect Street, you could get two ANR lots, uh,
79 ft of frontage each, and then you can get two 75 foot lots along Rock Street. So I'd submit to you that when weighing this petition, the board really needs to consider what could be done there by right and is that in fact more detrimental to the neighborhood? And
then lastly, uses that are zoning inapplicable. Could there be a group home here of some sort, which is prevalent throughout the Highlands? So, while I understand the opposition, I'd submit to you that this is a thoughtful proposal buy and a butter who has tons of skin in the game and wants to do
something nice next to his own property. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions. And thank you for that presentation. Um, why 15 as far as the units go? Yeah. Uh, interesting question. So, here's the answer. When the architect originally
went out there, he thought we could go as high as 20. Mr. Ramsey says, "Inappropriate. I'm not doing that near my house. So, we walked the site, Jeffrey, myself, the uh the architect, and Mr. Ramsey, and he felt like as long as we could provide two off- streetet
parking places, that 15 was a good number. So, that's how we got to 15. Okay. Knowing that you could tear everything down by right, put on 12. Correct. Chris, it's Norton time.
Do you have a bedroom count? Uh yes. Uh we would like to do two-bedroom units. So just to be clear, attorney, this proposal would um keep intact all the historical um well um you're just going
to do it on the inside. Correct. The outside, which is part of the historical property, would be left in. That's correct. That is the proposal. part by right you could build 12 and you could actually we'd have to demolish the existing structures but yes there could be a potential here that if the
structures were demolished that we could get four ANR lots out of it right okay all right thanks any other questions from the board we come back from planning comments all the comments that I had
written down were were pretty much already offered in the initial presentation but preservation of structures and unique size and location of existing structures are grounds for hardship under Massachusetts general law. Uh the project does meet the department requirement. I would not however
um entertain relief with regard regards to making spaces smaller than what is shown on the plan. Isle width is some room flexibility but the space size should have to be 9 by8. Um if if the board sees fit to approve
this, you should also consider the same ADU condition. Absolutely. So that we don't approve for however many units and then by right under Massachusetts general law, they can come in and add an additional ADU on each of on each of the two parcels.
again and understand the by right use which is a total of 12 units is actually four duplexes each one of them having an ADU additional which could be inside the the actual duplex building or in a separate structure as well so we could
end up with scattered buildings in the amount of eight entirely for a total of 12 units that's all I have to offer okay thank you will have a in a moment. Is there anyone to speak who
wishes to speak in support of this application? Before we go to opposition, we have a number of letters here. I am going to hold to three minutes. I will remind everyone that our job and our charge and our
only our only authority is to work within the law. Mass 48 and section 86 of the Fall River code. We can't work on emotion. Okay? We can't work on that
aspect. And I realize that when we talk about our homes, it becomes an emotional thing, but we can't. It's it's not a matter. So if there is legal reason, if there is safety reason etc that you wish to
comment on that's fine. I would ask if you have submitted a letter, if you wish to read your letter into the record, that is fine. All right, that no problem with that whatsoever. Um, and when we get big crowds like this, I'll always say the
same thing. If somebody up, if somebody stands up before you and says exactly what you wanted to say, identify yourself, give us your address so we can write it down and say, "I agree with Fred. Everything Fred said plus or everything that Fred said just because
length does not make a better argument." I hate to say um with that, is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? I would. Yes. How's it going? Carl Amroll, 59 Gate House Drive. Um, first I'd like to say,
although Mr. Rumsy isn't a second, do you want to read your letter into um, um, I actually have a paraphrased version of this, so I did send in an email, but I can keep this one more concise. Is that okay? Go right ahead. Yep, that's fine. So, even though Mr. Rumsy
isn't a butter. He does have about a football field between himself and the property in question, whereas I'm right on top of it. So, my family has had privacy issues, financial issues, and personal feelings against this various variance and permit. But I'm going to go
a larger context and explain how this affects the neighborhood that has recently grown exponentially, including traffic, potential disturbances, and the overall historicity of the Highlands. In our one small neighborhood, we have the Antioch School one block up the road on Rock Street. The Westall recently
expanded their elementary classes, which has been causing major traffic concerns, specifically on my small street, Gate House Drive, that's meant to be a oneway, but has become a street for through traffic and has become a hazard at the time of school dismissal. The children running out, it's been
dangerous. Next, we were informed that the old orthodontist office on Rock Street across from lot in question is becoming a daycare and may potentially need additional parking. Before any of these new facilities open, traffic on Prospect, Maple, and other nearby streets was already getting dangerously
dense with an additional 15 unit apartment complex being added. Traffic will soon become a serious problem. From my personal perspective, we have gotten one bad hit after another. um that's been out of our control and I feel information regarding the purchase of this lot wasn't disclosed to us several
years ago when it might have been when Mr. Alan Ramsey came to us explaining that we needed to give him $5,000 to retain our property, our backyard that we thought we rightfully owned when we purchased the lot. I also took down a large pine tree in my backyard last summer which afforded what I now realize
was much needed privacy if a parking lot is going to be built in what's basically our backyard. We have a 12-year-old daughter whose bedroom window will be looking out on this new lot. And we have been made aware of this information had we been made aware initially of this information. We may not have decided to
make that investment or remove the tree that gave us the privacy we needed. Furthermore, what happens if construction on the lot causes water damage in our foundation or basement since I'm on the hill that the water is going to be running down from onto Gate House Drive? Will we receive financial
compensation? How about the privacy we'll no longer have? Can I guarantee my family safety and privacy with 15 apartment units and a parking lot going up right outside my window? Literally, as we're watching TV, we can see where people are going to be parking and
coming in. I already know these answers. Probably not. The halves will make up and for the lack of better term, the victims will have no recourse to compensation. I realize life isn't fair, but in my eyes, this could be a potential conflict of interest. and uh the profits of the few should not
outweigh the needs of the majority and impact on the Highlands district. Thank you. Thank you. I will I'll hold my comments at this point. Yes, sir. Hello. Alexander Silva, 148 Purchase
Street. I'm president of the board of directors of the Preservation Society of Fall River. Members of the zoning board of appeals, the Preservation Society of Fall River requests that the zoning board reject the requested variance and special permit to convert the historic property at 550 to 570 Rock Street into a 15 unit complex. We believe that the
current density proposed would be too detrimental to the neighborhood which is part of the National Register of Historic Places Highlands Historic District as well as Fall River's only protected historic district, the Highlands 40C local historic district. The Highlands 40C district was created
10 years ago thanks to dozens of preservation society volunteers who donated hundreds of hours of time to aid in its establishment and recognition by the state. According to the state, the purpose of protected local historic districts is to promote the educational, cultural, economic, and general welfare
of the public through the preservation and protection of the distinctive characteristics of buildings and places significant in the history of the Commonwealth or their architecture. and through the maintenance and improvement of settings for such buildings and places and the encouragement of design
compatible therewith. The property at 550 570 Rock Street which includes the circa 1833 Jefferson border house number two is a significant component of the Highlands Historic District. The prominence of the parcel on the Rock Street prospect street corner means any
changes to the property would have an outsized impact on the neighborhood and the public at large. Any variances or special permits should include stipulations and protections that ensure the scenic visa of the historic island district is preserved and the intent of the 40C district is respected under
Massachusetts general law dictating 40C districts. Any exterior alterations require a certificate of appropriateness from the Fall River Historical Commission. As the city's government body overseeing the 40C local historic district in question, the preservation site believes it would be appropriate for the zoning board to request an
opinion from the historical commission on the impact of the current proposal and what it would have on the district before any decisions are made. The Preservation Society requests that the zoning board deny the variance and refer it to the historical commission so that members and the public may have all pertinent information relevant for
future reuse options before reparable harm is done to the neighborhood and the protected historic district that so many have worked hard to establish. Um, and I would also offer that a cherrypicked snapshot of parking at a moment in time is probably not a holistic representation. Thank you. Alex, if you
could, can you just provide which which public hearing and vote of the commission authorized you to write this? The preservation society's board of directors and I can send the letter with the You don't have it now? No, I don't have it. I can give you the copy of the letter though. No, I want a copy of the letter. I want to know what what gave
you the authority to write the letter. A vote today. You had a meeting today and a public hearing. Yes. You had a public hearing posted. We're talking it's a nonprofit organization. Well, I understand. But if if you're a commission, you have you have regular monthly meetings, don't you? They're not
monthly vote. However often you have, it's the preservation society. Listen, I'm not talking to you. I'm talking to Alex. And Alex understands what the protocol is here when you submit a letter. Yes. Because if he wants to write a letter on behalf of himself, then that's how he presents it. If you
want to write a letter on behalf of the Preservation Society or historic commission, then you need to have the proper authority to do that. That's all I'm asking for. So if you don't have that authorization, then I would say that this letter is from you personally. Sure. Okay. Thank you. As the president
of the president? No, not as the president. Okay. I could be the president of the Mickey Mouse Club, but that has no authority. Congratulations. Thanks. Let's Let's keep it civil all the way around. Sarcasm not welcome. Okay. Thank
you. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition? Yes, ma'am. Hi. Um, I'm Holly Morris. I live for you Rock Street. Yep. I got your letter right here. And I will have to say I don't mean to go into a big spiel. I did write a letter. I believe I
agree with both of these gentlemen, but also there is development on High Street, 386 High Street, and they're trying to develop 909 High Street. Mhm. Do we really need more units in that area when there's already vacant apartments that cannot be rented out?
And what in turn at some point it it could turn bad if these apartments are not being rented out to people, you know, decent people. I think people are overreacting to the train coming in. Everybody's developing.
Everybody's building. They're cramming um town houses and units into lots that can't accommodate them. Do you really need more apartments in that area? It is already congested in traffic and schools
and um my parking lot during when the school's getting let out and people flying in and out of there. They're blocking the traffic. I just can't see it. It's 15 units. I'm going to make Actually, I'm going to
ask a question, but it's going to sound more like a statement. You brought up parking ws and and traffic, etc. You brought up parking walls and traffic. You've obviously spoken to the police department, correct? I have not, but I drive through there. I walk through there during the day and
it's very really has to start there outside of our purview and it helps if we know if you came in and said you talked to Sergeant so and so or Lieutenant so and so and they have an opinion on it, we'd
probably have a letter if it was a big negative opinion. So, we don't do we don't do traffic. We don't do parking, but we do keep an eye on parking because that that does fall within our purview and that includes the effect on on street parking. You're right, there's a
lot going on. Everybody's wanted Fall River to grow up for a long time and it's growing up and with that is going to be change. And we've got to try to meet that change in the best way possible, which is true. And um yes, I do agree. I probably should have asked
the police beforehand, but this is my first time doing anything like this. I'm just trying to speak up for the preservation of the neighborhood and the whole historic area and um make it a safe and peaceful place for people to
live in that area. But it's important for everyone to understand that they're not requesting parking relief. They're providing the required amount of parking for the zoning district. If they were asking for a reduction, as many developers do or many land owners do, then issues like it's not enough
parking, they only have to meet what the bylaw requires. They're not seeking that relief um just to offer that consideration. And in that in that section of the city, there are a number of these houses that have zero parking,
don't have driveways. I mean, you get some of the driveways if you put them in would be on such an incline that they they would be impractical. Not so much on on rock, but you know, it's it's an issue. We're dealing with houses that were built in the 19th century. And if they have a carriage shed in the back
like this, one, you know, this property does, obviously, you know, they were a wealthier family, they had their own carriages, etc. It's it's different. It's it's it it's a hard one. It's a hard one to hold to. I grew up in the
area. I moved away from a while and came back and I've seen a lot of changes and it'd be nice to keep it as is long as we possibly can just preserve the history and people that come to you know to see the historic area, the waterfront and so
forth. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else to speak in opposition? Yes. Hi, good evening. I am Eron. I am the homeowner of Maria Rodman Rodman Hicks House at 544 High Street. It was built
in 1899 and is located in Fall River's only Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40C local historic district. I think that point is maybe being glossed over. The same protected district where the 550 570 Rock Street properties are located. There are 47 properties in our
historic district. All 47 owners had to agree to be included in this district to be bound by the rules and design requirements in the district. And how often do you find 47 people, 47 homeowners getting together and agreeing on anything? Um, very rare. Uh, but we
did because we believe in protecting the historical integrity and charm of the neighborhood. The petition before you degrades a local historic district by shifting zoning from two family residences to highdensity apartments. Variances are extra an extraordinary form of relief intended to accommodate
unusual characteristics of a particular structure or parcel of land that causes hardship to the property owner if the ordinary zoning requirements are applied and they are to be sparingly exercised. There is no such hardship that prevents the petitioner from full enjoyment of the properties as they are currently
zoned for R4 to family use. The deprivation of potential economic advantage to the petitioner to maximize his profits through the development of a residential apartment complex does not qualify as a substantial hardship under the law. In this instance, the fact that the appropriate R4 zoning prevents the
petitioner's most personally profitable use does not create a hardship where a conforming use is reasonable and viable. Further relief cannot be granted because it would significantly alter the neighborhood causing a substantial detriment to the public good in many ways including but not limited some some
things that people have already mentioned safety and traffic congestion and I appreciate we don't have a report from the police at this time but it was very short notice that we all rallied to be here today so uh I would suggest maybe a traffic study be done before this is agreed to there's a commu
cumulative impact of other developments in the area 909 high street the ones going into the Oenheimer building. I think that's another 10 roughly. Um just a lot of development in the area. The daycare going in as was already mentioned that's going to have some significant uptick in traffic throughput
traffic. Um just a couple of other points. Um on the site plan we received yesterday, it was updated it seemed from the site plan we received last week and it had 16 parking spaces. So is it 16 or is it the
required 24? I'll respond and say I'm not sure what site plan has been received, but when it was submitted, it was submitted with 30 spaces. And that was submitted a month ago, not last week or this week or yesterday. Well, it received uh it was stamped
April 11th. We received it yesterday from the planning board and it had 16. So, I'd ask for clarity on that. The plan hasn't changed. It's you have to look at both parcels and add up all of the parking. So, there's 16 provided on one parcel the site plan stamped by the
planning board. April 11th. Yep. That's I have in front of me to the right. Had a key and it said 16 parking spaces. Excuse me. You want to come show me? That's one on one. You have to read down. It's 15 on the next lot. It's actually 31, I think, if I can add 31
parking spaces. Okay, thank you for the clarity. Yeah, good. Um, we're at 3 minutes. Okay, thank you. Um, and I would also challenge by right whether they could take down the buildings and put up 12 units because it is in the protected Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 4 historic district. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition? Yes. Hi, my name is Connie Solo. live at 577 Rock Street, which is right across the street from Maria and Alan Ramsey's
proposed uh 15 limit. I have talked to Alan and to Maria about this. I have um let them know that 15 is just an extreme and it would change the millu of the neighborhood. I agree with what everyone has said and my other concern is it's
been you've been talking about it could potentially knock down the buildings as Aaron just explained. It's a protected 40C. The buildings cannot be knocked down. That's the reason why it's in a it's it's in a protected district. Allan
and Maria's main home is not. It's right outside of the district. Um and they've opted not to be included. And um so I I just want that for the record that the buildings cannot be mock cannot be knocked down to put up for family homes
vinyls. Um and any structure, any um fire structure that needs to be put, you know, fire exits or whatever needs to be interior because it cannot be seen from anywhere from the outside of the property. So that needs to be considered
when you're creating apartments for space. And I don't I I don't think we discussed that. And um I think that's something to consider. So that's my concern is theif the number the 15 and the impact that it would have. Okay.
Thank you. What I'll offer is that they can be demolished. There is a process to go through to have them demolished. So it's not not 100% that's that's completely inlausible because if the building wasn't structurally sound,
it can be knocked down. So So there are provisions for taking down a building. It's not that they're prohibited that there are steps that need to take place and there are waiverss and there are provisions for dealing with mass historic for having buildings taken down. We're going through the same process with with the uh Bank Street
Armory. So there are processes in place that allow for the demolition of these buildings. So to say that it's not this is nowhere near it and we know that I'm I all I'm saying is that it is not impossible that there is a
process Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition? Yes. Hi, Christine Stoick. I live at 511 Rock Street. I'm a neighbor of Maria and Allen. Um, I just want to say I agree with Connie um and other people who
spoke. Um, and I want to add that I do believe we're a young couple that moved into this neighborhood and bought an old home. And I really do believe that these houses need to be preserved, but they also need to be they need to survive and we need to reimagine them and like think
about them in more creative ways. They used to house single families with large staffs and like we I'm not against re I'm not against reszoning or changing the initial use, but I I do
agree that 15 seems like a really big jump from a two family. Um, I realize it's spread over two buildings, but it seems like a really large impact and two 16 lot parking lots just seems like a large impact to the historic nature of the neighborhood as well. So, I thank
you. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. Patricia Rebello, 197 Rock Street. I just agree with everybody with what they're saying that it's going to be a large impact on the look of the street and I just would like to see
everything preserved the way it is. Anyone else? Sir, Jason Kilini 544 High Street. I lived in the house for 11 years. It's wonderful neighborhood. Very quiet. It's loud, but it's mostly quiet people chilling out doing stuff. Um, I'd like to take the exception with a couple
things. First of all, with 15 units, we don't know that the structure doesn't have to be modified. That's that's completely untrue. We need to look at that. We need elevation maps. We need internal maps to see what these structures are going to look like inside, how they're going to be able to escape for the fire department. And we also need a traffic study. So, those are
the things I asked for in my my letter and I'd like to ask for those again officially. Okay. So just to understand so the request that they're asking for this board can grant. If they can't live within the that approval or those conditions of approval then they can't build it. So anything that they need to
do excuse me no I'm the director of engineering and planning and you asked a question so I want to respond to you. So let's back up again. This is the zoning board of appeals and we deal with zoning issues not building code issues not construction. The representation of
attorney Celenino is that there'll be no exterior modifications to the structure. Now that may have implications when we when that they go to build and that has to now deal with Mass Historic, the historic district commission all beyond the purview of the zoning board of appeals. There are many other permitting
authorities that this project will have to go through before they can do any construction at all. This is the first one which is dealing with zoning only. So if if they can't live within the representation or this approval, then they can't build. I understand that. But the zoning board actually has to take
into effect into account the neighborhood and the traffic and that's different than what you just said. You you just you just said that you couldn't No, I did not say No, you just said I was just correcting. You were talking about exterior renovations and you you want all of these things to be decided
now. They're saying they don't need it. I want to make sure that we have this and first of all I think it should go to historical commission because it will have to I guess eventually right it's in the 40C district which we need to litigate this is not the historic commission zoning board
that's all I have to say so this is this is the zoning by if it's not in this book then this board can't consider it I know you can't read it online so of course you can read it online it's not effective online it's not correct no what what online says is that you should go get the printed copy available at the
planning office and the city clerk said not to rely on it. I just said don't. It says go get this. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
Excuse me. I think I have. Aren't we all supposed to be on the same site for the beauty of Fall River? If we don't care about the old fall river number one, what's your name? Maria Bash.
Okay, hang on. How many people here have taken apart an antique house piece by piece, numbered everything and rebuilt it someplace else in order to save it? You know what? I the only guy with his hand up right now. Okay, I could. So, I do
care about Hang on. We have two people standing. Not good. Hold on. Okay, I've done it. I care about historic homes. I wouldn't have bought in a city if I didn't care about historic homes. But our purview has to do with the use of the land, the use of the property. Can
this use be you can can this use be done at this property? Do they allow adequate parking? Do they you know what what setbacks are going to change, etc. That's all we can control. Okay? That's
why there are a number of other boards such as the historic commission, such as site plan review that take into into consideration the things that are not in that zoning bylaw. Are we all on the same side? We all want to see Fall River thrive.
And that's going to mean its antique buildings, its waterfront, the Bank Street Armory, all of these all of these things that we have that make us special. Yes, we're concerned about
that. But I can't bring that in to this meeting. Yes. Okay. I can't. So, are we all on the same side? I hope so because we're all paying taxes to the same city and we're all voting in the same city to try to make sure the city stays on track. We can agree on that.
But I mean, but I have this thing that when once you have a big building, any build building or a house with a lot of apartments, I mean people are people. You have good
people, people who like to keep your house clean, people who don't. You're falling in that emotional zone that I said we stay out of. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, I'll stay out of it. So, I I guess I guess what I'm hearing is we
want that big house to be a two unit house. Is that what I'm kind of hearing from everybody? Not necessarily two. It's an zone. I'd be curious to hear proposals for like a slightly less impactful change if there's other options. Yeah, it's so
nice to come into a city. That's why we go on vacation and you go into these towns and we see wow it's like um um when you come into um Fall River and I remember long time ago there was a
beautiful church and they all said that it was full of We're way way off track. Okay. All right. Uh, I'm sorry, but you know what? I like I'm proud of Fall River and I like to see nice things. I
don't want to see a building with people just hanging out there. Okay. I'm proud of that. Yes. So, what I wanted to say is u based on what she said and you were a little bit insultive about old homes. I bought my house in
1993. It was dilapitated, falling apart. Danny, you know this. I lived it. She did a great job there. Okay. I still have the original slate roof. I spend a ton of money. I am not rich. I was a hardworking nurse. So was my husband before he died. And we established the
preservation society of Fall River. And we established the 40C. We're very proud of our neighborhood. And we're proud of the homes. I know Allan and Maria are very proud of the neighborhood. And so to say to people that old homes need to become something else. My home is a two
family home. I use it as a one family, but it is a two family. It's huge. You know who lives there? Me. Since my husband died, that's it. Home. The homes are You talk about emotion. They are emotion because they're our homes. It's where we live. It's where we hang our
hat at the end of the day. And we Why is everyone here? For the passion of the homes that they own. They own old homes that they are restoring little by little, not because money is pouring out of us, but because we have a passion for
the neighborhood and for the homes. So, please don't discredit what um the bones that a home has. I I'm I'm not trying to discredit it. It sounded that way. And that's I've preserved old homes. Yeah. I think I've gone so far as to take them
apart. That's exactly what you've all done. And so I think maybe I might have misinterpreted what he was intending perhaps. So I hope so. Anyone else? Peter, what's um what's there now? Bunch of empty buildings
with a lot of bedrooms. There lot of bathrooms inside bathrooms and a lot of bedrooms. Yeah. It's set up at almost I'd call it like a dorm. Multiple showerheads, multiple toilets. Oh, from the convent from the convent. Right. Right. Right. But it's it's currently vacant. All 100% all three
buildings. Yeah. Um there may be one none remaining. Okay. I believe she's physically out but she hasn't removed all of her items. Okay. But that's not in the main house. The main house has been vacant for quite some time. In the annex, the back house um is where she
resides. I had no idea there was any left there. Okay. Got a couple of other letters that I need to read in for folks. Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak? Okay, some of your neighbors did write
us letters and Gail Fittado to whom it may concern. I've resided in Fall River my entire life. Upon graduating from college, I decided to remain here and start my professional career. I believe in our city. I wanted to see it grow. I
became an owner at 697 High Street uh for approximately 40 years. During my residency uh at Dr. Nathan Dury House, I have become very interested in the history of the historic islands. I've seen many
beautiful homes turned into residential and group homes for various clientele. Uh some are well-maintained, others are not so much. I agree to have our homes placed in the 40C local historic district and have followed its
development. Respectfully, I must oppose the apartment complex at 5570 Rock Street for various reasons, some of which um are uh there would be a precedent shift of zoning from two
family residents to highdensity apartment complexes. This is unacceptable in in my opinion and the Mass General law 40C local historic district neighborhood. We are doing our utmost to maintain a historic district. While these neighborhoods, these
neighborhoods were not built for high volume traffic, parking, and let's not uh forget services such as sewer and gas. I could go on. Um nevertheless, I believe you get my point. I fully support the proposal. I I'm fully
opposed to the proposal and it is my sincere hope that you take this into consideration respectfully submitted. This one comes from Susan's opposition. I am formally opposing the proposed 15 unit apartment complex at 570 uh 55570 Rock Street in a two family
R4 zone. If this is allowed along with the other proposed developments in the area, it will create a sufficient hazard nuisance and con uh congestion along with safety risks and traffic congestion. Property values will erode.
of that one and will set a precedent on a large scale development and um overbuilding. The neighbor was not built to see I'm sure that meant neighborhood was not built to ever intended for high density housing
as one of these as one of the nicer neighborhoods in the city full of character and historic significance. It is essential that it be preserved. Please do not be shortsighted to allow overdevelopment and provide um
detrimental that will prove detrimental in the long come long run. Remember that oftent times developers are thinking more about money than what is best for Fall River. Um more is not always better. Sincerely Susan 858 High
Street. This one comes from Jack Shipley and John Silva. opposition. The uh the com the complex at 850 870 Rock Street uh in a two family R4 zoning um district
will definitely increase many already great present challenges from in our neighborhood. Safety risks and traffic congestion. We are already seeing an increase of traffic congestion violations and accidents.
Um there are very congested side streets in this area that can barely support the parking and traffic as it stands today. Eg Prospect Street uh in the proposed block as well as winter parking uh bans
in this uh in this entire area. Second strain on infrastructure. Our neighborhood was not designed to be a highdensity housing neighborhood. Uh this will risk overloading services such as emergency response, uh water and
sewer. Item number three, uh approving this special permit and variance will erode our property value and will serve as a precedent for further largescale developments in the area. There are already proposed plans at 8 uh 909 High
Street, uh 551 Rock Street, 386 High Street, and 72 Belmont Street, which will cause more challenges as it stands. Final item is developer does not have a valid hardship, which would allow a variant such as prayer, Mass General
Law, chapter 4A, and ZBA rules. We want to promote protect our neighborhood for further from further development such as this. We our neighborhood ask you to keep our current zoning uh laws in this area and keep our neighborhood safe. Uh
we are opposed to this um this development. And again, Jack Shipley and John Silver who live at 635 Rock Street. This one is handwritten so bear with me. Uh zoning board members, this letter is presented to the Fall River
Zoning Board to expect my express my opposition to the proposed 15 unit apartment complex at 55570 Rock Street which is in a two family R4 zoning district and
um can't read the word uh historic district. The variance approval would cause a dangerous precedent to the stability of our historic neighborhood and create unnecessary burdens of traffic congestion.
Um especially in the Maple Rock intersection uh and as a gateway uh street to downtown Fall River uh as well as safety risks. um pollution and uh and property
values. Um let me read this this last sentence. Uh please give this matter your utmost attention consideration to the current populace and the pride of our historic neighborhood. Thank you. That's from um
Mary Holmes. Mary Holmes. Mary Holmes. That was it for correspondence. Care to respond? I would. So, first, relative to Mr. Amarol's allegation that he had to pay $5,000 for his backyard. I want to clarify that when Mr. Ramsey purchased the property, they had a
survey done. There was an encroachment discovered in the survey. There was a discussion relative to purchasing a sliver of land to rectify the encroachment. So I think it was sort of presented like it was extortion but in fact it was settlement of potential litigation. Uh next relative to Mr.
Silva's personal letter um and preservation society type business when I was researching different historic structures in the neighborhood one that I was involved in uh sellers attorney 263 Pine Street uh it's nine units it has six parking spaces and I only bring
that up as a data point because we can't have it both ways. I thought when we prepared and packaged this proposal that providing all the required parking was better than to ask for a waiver. Um, so I want to call that out. He has the floor. I'll recognize you
may go out. Okay. Yeah. And lastly, uh, Mr. Ramsey, as I said at the opening, was worried about what may happen at this property. Um, and I know we've heard a lot relative to the historic district and single family homes. Um, but it's a fact that zoning doesn't
apply to group homes and various uses like that. And one of his major concerns here would be that something that was um zoning exempt could be put in this site that could be far and away worse than what's proposed. Okay. Is that it? Yes. Hi, I'm James
Silva, 148 Purchase Street. Just to correct Mr. Selenino's comments, um it's good to know that he's doing background research on potential opposition speakers. It's actually one of the reasons I don't submit letters to the ZBA ahead of time anymore. Um the Fisk
House was actually single family, converted to 10 apartments around 100 years ago. When the preservation Society purchased it, it was eight and we've actually reduced it to seven to increase lower the density of the neighborhood. So there you go. Thank you. So in
response then it still doesn't have two parking spaces per unit. Guys, we could go all night. Please go ahead. One more shot. This is it. Sure. The preservation society's actually gone as far as to purchase an adjacent parcel to actually try and remedy its parking situation by
increasing the number of parking spots. So thank you. Thank you. Anything else from your side? Anything else on the planning side? No. Anyone else in opposition? Members of the board from the youth standpoint,
council, personally, and I'll telegraph my vote, I'd feel better if we were at 12. Okay. Okay. I I would feel better if we were at 12 because then with no edu because then
we're at what could be done if this was a big empty lot. Okay. Can I add something to that? You don't mind? Yeah. Petition petitioners engineer Jeffrey Jeffman East engineer. I knew
you couldn't sit there quietly. Um yeah. Yeah. The only thing I would say that if this were vacant, right, there's enough land area there to get four uh two family lots in one single family lot. He's short less than 10 ft
of frontage to get that fifth two family lot, which and he owns all the property to the south with an abundant amount of frontage. He would simply have to be himself 10 ft of frontage, no additional land area to get five two family lots
with ADU units. it brings it to the 50. We went in um I walked in all the structures with an architect and his initial assessment converting these into condos was it was 21 condos in all three
buildings. Sufficient space 900 to,00 foot condos could fit in these structures. That proposal was unacceptable. We tailored it down to the 15 that you see now. And I think it's reasonable with the 15 given the fact that with that
additional limited 10 less than 10 ft of frontage that he could beat himself, he could be at the 15 units if it were just a vacant piece of property or going through the proper channels to do it that way. Another hand.
Yes, sir. I have a question. Um, that he just mentioned the lot in between. So, I wanted to ask, is there anything going to be built on the lot in between? Is that we going to get something that says it's not going to do I know he's put them together making it part of the 4C district now, but he uh he has that empty lot in between this house. Is he going to build on it? Because he just
said he could build on it. He could if he chose to, but that's not what's but that's not what we that's can't include an abing parcel. He can mention it's not part of the landscape. The same way I can give no credence to Mr. Tolman's argument that he could take
10 ft away from it because that's not what you could do by right with these two parcels that we have here. We can only deal with what's in front of us. Decision time, gentlemen. What do we want to do? I'm sorry to have
discussion. I don't know person. Mr. Chairman. Yes. With the um we would have to start with the special permit, correct? No. No. Variance comes first. You don't need a special. I'm sorry. I I was looking at the special permits only have to do with lot coverage. And actually, you could do
away with requests for lot coverage if they use porous asphalt. So, the variance is what will drive the entire project because if you don't grant that number of units, you don't need that much parking. So, right. Is there going to be uh I'm asking this from the petitioner's perspective
because it's tough to advise a client with this much poker face. Is there going to be more discussion uh on the board here or is we're going or is it going to go to a vote right now? It look like we're headed for a vote. Yeah, I think the hearing is closed. I was going to make a motion. Um is there anything else? Is there
anything else the applicant would like to change or add? At this point, the applicant would submit to the condition that it' be 12 units as the chairman suggested. Um, with that I would only ask how would
they be enumerated in each structure? I just don't want to see them overloaded into one building. Fair. No pressure, Mr. No, I mean uh I think I mean I'll just make a very quick statement. I mean I think I share the same exact fear of everybody who has
spoken in opposition. I' I'd suggest I have even more fear because, you know, there I mean I have a great neighborhood and I'm the one with four children who play on that yard right next to all this. Um I've also seen what's happened in New Bedford and in Fall River with
homes just like this. These extremely large homes that have been used in a group setting for decades. Um they are being converted into or they they stay a group home. It's very difficult for somebody to come in because it hasn't been really maintained in decades and
decades. Everything in there is old and not ready to move in condition. So, um you know, I understand the concerns here I have I share the same exact concerns. So, I mean, one of the reasons why I
said absolutely not 13 units in the main house was because I thought it was too much myself. And then, you know, there's there's some concern about what happens if you have too large of a unit. That was what I was I hear over and over again. If you have too large of a unit,
you're asking for problems. Um, you know, the idea was to keep in the two bedrooms, but you're talking about 7700 square ft in the big house itself. Um, I mean, square footage, it easily lends itself to seven, but you know, I've always thought to myself,
potentially to keep the integrity of the internal part of the house, it's very easy six. Um, there's two front doors essentially. There's a left side, there's a right side. Um, it would be it would probably I don't have a mind to create all sorts of things, but it looked like six when you walked into it.
So, reducing that by two would make sense. Okay. Well, it could be it can be eight, two, and two. It can be any combination of of the 12 units amongst the three buildings. I mean, I'm not really the architect, but I mean, from me, from my standpoint, I thought that the big
house six would probably be fine. Um, there was a little room for the architect to they wanted a little bit of ability to see what exactly what's there and make the final decisions. But, I mean, I think the plan potentially was to keep six even if you granted eight.
So, I think that's an easy reduction there. Okay. So, we looking at six, three, and three for a total of 12. Um, that would keep the carriage house at three. That would reduce the proposed rear building from a four to a three. It would probably make more sense to 6,
four, and two. Okay. However you want to do it. Just It just needs to be shown here. If Jeff thinks that that's Yeah. The the only thing I would say is it's a little premature to to try to figure that out because we're going to need an architect to do a thorough I know but you've already had an architect. Yeah.
So if you haven't done it thoroughly enough, they shouldn't even have a petition asking for this many. We had an architect go through and petition now. So if you if you can't come up with a reduced number of units and designate them in the building, then we can't maybe you want to table until you get
that answer. Do a maximum of seven in the main house. Six or seven in the house. This is not negotiation. No. The last time we went down this road, it it didn't go well. You want to table and come up with a unic? Uh, yes. I would like to make a motion on behalf of the petitioner to table to the next meeting
so that we can address the concerns and come up with a revised plan. Almost there. And at that point, you you could theoretically look at a reduction in parking spaces by six. That's what I just told Mr. Ramsey. Less less impervious surface. Maybe you don't need the lock coverage variance a special
permit. Well, that might be the best idea. And maybe consider some buffering somehow that can be worked in that will make some people happier. My question 58 ft. Sorry. Is there a question? No. Okay. All right. So,
petitioner makes a motion to continue to the June meeting to address the concerns raised this evening. Can we have a motion on that, please? John, you're thinking I can smell it. Well, everybody else has had a chance to talk. So, I just wanted to say that this
was uh I agree with pretty much all parties that are here. This is a is a fantastic neighborhood that needs to be preserved. I believe the developer is attempting to do that.
He lives in the neighborhood. We know the fears of what could potentially go there and we're trying to find the best use for that building. If you are looking at keeping it at two, that's probably not feasible with the
size of the building. Um, I agree with the thoughts of maybe reducing the size. I would not agree with reducing the parking. If you can make more parking spaces, we want more parking spaces, especially on that neighborhood. We
could be more creative. Like Dan was saying, impervious, to pervious fill would make a difference. Um, but again, you want to make it look good. You want to keep it. Sidewalks don't have to be concrete.
They could be pavers. Not not there's a lot that could be done that could preserve the historic integrity of this building. And I think that's um we need a little bit more. And I think that's what we were trying to get to tonight. the board, the the all the parties that are here um seem to be definitely deep
involved in it. So, I think maybe a conversation wouldn't be helpful, you know, all the way around to maybe help preserve, you know, part of the neighborhood just like they are. So, um making it work, you know, that's all I have to say. Make a motion to get the
vote. I make the motion that table. Have a motion to table and a second. On the motion, John, yes. Jim, yes. Dan, yes. Ricky, yes. And Karen Prairie, yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Let us
take a five. They said they can't do it from inside the building. They can only do it externally. Ask the janitor. Quiet down, please, and move on to the next item. Uh, where's Ricky?
Finally, a two. Good evening. We'll have a small musical interlude while we're waiting for uh Mr. Sah to return. Don't forget my hearing. So, don't worry. There he is. related to
I know. I thought that's where you were going. Item number six on new business. The applicant is Family Homes Construction Company, Inc. Care of attorney Peter Celino. I'm just trying to get Yeah, is
overrated. I've got my boss. Property address is 189 Wellington Street, map S17, lot 45. The applicant is requesting a use variance to allow the following. One, to subdivide the existing parcel into seven parcels and
construct three single family dwellings and three two family dwellings waving the requirements of section 8636, attachment two of the zoning ordinance. The proposed parcel will meet the area and dimensional requirements of
the WTO zoning district. The existing structure will be converted into a 9-unit apartment building on the remaining parcel. The property is located within a WTO TOD waterfront and transit oriented development zoning
district. Good evening. For the record, Peter Selino on behalf of the applicant family homes construction. Uh with me to my right is Mr. Thomas St. Pierre who's the principal of Family Home Construction. Uh Mr. St. Pierre is proceeding pursuant to a purchase and sale agreement which is contingent upon
zoning approval. Um the dasis owns this parcel. The parcel is to the south of St. Michael's Church. You can see it's labeled church in the top right. Yep. Yeah. You want me to close the door? No, he's going to close it.
Sorry. Yeah. Good. Okay. Good. parcel is located to the south of St. Michael's Church and again it's a dasis property. Um the unique thing about this site is because it's in the WOD zoning
district single family and two family houses are not allowed by right. So as the U agenda reads this is a request for use variance in the WTO. The lots otherwise comply with the zoning district. The proposal consists of the construction of uh three single family
homes, three duplex style homes, and then parcel 7 again is the existing building um with uh which is proposed to be a multi-use building. So really simplistically, I'd submit to you that the hardship associated with the petition is the shape of the site and
the existing structure to the far east of the site, uh which obviously lends itself to limited development potential. I'd also like to note for the record that Mr. St. Pierre has a significant track record on these types of properties having done uh for instance Immaculate Conception Church, buying
from the Dasis, creating these types of homes and repurposing the land and putting it back on the tax roles. Uh so I'd submit to you that this one is much easier than a lot of the petitions I've had uh tonight and I would ask the board uh to grant the variance requested for
the reasons suggested. So the existing building, thank you very much. The existing building, you're saying nine units? Yes. Okay. What What's in there now? How many units are there now? It's It's a vacant building. It's a former rectory. That was the rectory. Okay. Yes, sir. God save us all.
New Pope doesn't want it for anything. I don't know. Jim, if I could. Yeah, please. Speed this along. So, very important. The only relief required is to allow single family or duplex. Correct. The conversion of the structure allowed by
the WTO. Right. The lots only required to be 2500 square ft. Yep. No relief is needed with regards to lot size, building setbacks, lot coverage. Parking is uh as shown meets the requirements for parking. The only concern I had
about parking was that the fact that we have a garage and two stack spaces in front of it. But I do believe they could reconfigure parking and still need the required parking for that uh for that parcel. So although relief is needed for this when we look at the singular parcel
and the WD district intent was to create housing. Correct. So if we remove the lot lines in this proposal doesn't need to be here. He could he could just build this as right and they could be condominium. Condominance. So again, the
relief being requested is very narrow, very minimal, just to allow single families and two families. And I would offer that in combination with the renovation of the larger structure to become multi- family, not multi-use as attorney Seleno had stated. So I want to be clear
that this is multif family structure. Yep. Right. Um for up to the nine units, I would say that it needs to apply as well. That's all I have. Okay. Thank you. And what was the zoning of this before WTO?
I I I want to say it might have been general res. Yeah. So, and Tom and I have talked about this. If it was under the old zoning, we would have been flip-flopped, right? And they would have needed a variance to do the apartments.
Not even 60 or one half a dozen of another. I think that the way that the zoning changed definitely decreased the amount of relief being requested. with that he decided to come forward with his own. Excellent. Any questions from the board?
How many? One, two, three, four circ Wellington. On Wellington. Yes. One, two, three, and then one for the multif family building. Yes. I think there's one now. Right. There's yeah, there's at least one or two. There's there is an existing on on either street
and um it just there's no currently there is no parking on the on the east side of St. Mary Street and the south side of Wellington Street. So, we wouldn't be impacting any current off street parking. Y right.
Okay. Very good. in the audience. Is there anyone to speak in um favor of this in support? Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition? I thought your hand was going to go for a minute. Peter, you
worried me. Sorry. They're hearing none. Mr. Chairman, considering the minimum uh relief required for the granting of this, I move that we grant the uh petition as requested. Very good. Motion and a
second. Discussion on the motion. Dear hearing none. Ricky, yes. Dan, yes. Jim, yes. John, yes. Jeremy Prairie, yes. Thank you. Best of luck with that. Thank Thank you very much. Thanks. [Applause]
Item number seven, Hyde Development LLC care of attorney Thomas Peak Lauren. We've changed. Hi, Tom. 8 uh zero Slade Street, a portion of map H17, lot 2. The applicant is
requesting a special permit to allow the following. One, to construct three triplex buildings for a total of nine units in the CMD district, pursuant to 86-36 attachment 2. Item number two to
construct uh to construct parking which is not located within a structure to be located within 10 feet of a lot line person to 86-444B1 and 86445. The property is located within a
CMD commercial uh district zoning. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, attorney Thomas Kellerin Law is at 350 North Main Street, Forever, Massachusetts. I represent the applicant high development
LLC and I'm sure you'll all be happy to be given a break from attorney Celenino at this point. Uh as the chairman stated um we're here before you tonight um for the proposed development of three triplex units uh for a total of nine
residential units. Um this will be located on parcel A on the plan that's before you. Uh the parcel itself is a little over 100,000 square feet. 10 102625. Um there's a significant portion of the parcel is wetland as is shown on
the plan. Uh the proposed triplexes will have one fronting on Slade Street and then uh two other triplexes up on Bay Street. Uh this is in a commercial mill district. Uh so the proposed use uh residential use is allowed via a special
permit. Um there are two off- streetet parking spaces uh per unit. Um as the um as the application indicates uh some of the parking spaces, particularly with regard to the triplex um that fronts on Slave Street, the parking spaces are
within 10 ft of the um of the lot line. I would suggest they really serve more as like a a typical or standard driveway. Um, in terms of the the use itself, as you can see, much of the surrounding area, uh, even though it's in a commercial mill district, um, is,
uh, utilized for residential purposes, mix of condominium development, single family residences, some residential, and then as you move to the south of the property, um, there are some, uh, commercial uses. Um, so again, I I I would strongly suggest to the board that
the proposed use, residential use, is certainly not more detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood. I think it's in conformity and harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. And if the board was to take a look at the allowed uses in a commercial mill district, this is certainly much more benign um as
opposed to what could go there, such as industrial or factory use, um trucking facility, uh distribution center, warehouse. Uh so again, I would suggest what is proposed is certainly not more detrimental as opposed to what can be used as a matter of right um and
certainly in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. Uh, with that I'll I'll yield and and certainly defer to any questions from the board. Triplex will be two stories. Two stories. Two stories, three bedrooms, two and a half baths.
Three bedrooms. Three bedrooms. Okay. Total of 81 units, right? No. No, that's the next petition. Next one. We're only looking at this end right now. Triplex triplex triplex. Yes. So it'll be it'll be nine units, three triplexes.
Okay. I see on the other side of the actually two different uses. So, is lot A going to be or parcel A, is that going to be divided? That's going to be its own separate lot. That's correct, Mr. Chairman. If you look, there's there's a note along that property
boundary line that labels where the existing land called parcel line is. Y and that's really what has procluded these parcels from ultimately being combined before this petition. So, technically they sit on separate lots now and that's why they file those as two separate applications. Okay, thank
you. Two separate de references, two different sections of the registry of dates. I will the only thing I really have to add is that um when the applicants first entertain this this proposal, I did recommend that they reach out to a wetlands consultant, have
the wetlands lines delineated, they did submit that information to the conservation commission, so these lines are accurate. So this isn't just an estimation. So they did do their due diligence with that. Okay. But they've not yet gone to KNSCOM then, right? For construction? No. Okay. The permit to
approve where the line is so that they know what So it's just just a wetlands delineation has been done at this point. Correct. I didn't realize it was that wet out there until a big piece of land. Realize how big is it's pretty wet. And then I'll also offer that currently on
this portion of the site there are no buildings. That would be the correct. Yep. Okay. Which is wise to do it this way. Any other questions from the board at this point? This portion is fairly straightforward. Before we turn to the
public to the general public, is there anybody here to speak in favor of this particular item for the triplexes? Sir uh Fred Manx Wayland Mass
and I'm I represent uh Mount Hope LLC which is the property uh abuing this property to the south to the south. Okay. And uh Mr. Chairman, members of the board, we're in favor of this petition. Very good. Thank you very much.
Okay. Anyone else to speak in favor? Anyone to speak in opposition? one back there. I'm sorry. Identify yourself. No, go ahead. Joe, I live on Bay Street. What's your
What's your address? 1085. Okay. All right. What he's proposing is what? Three bedroomedroom apartments there. Okay. He's only a park for two cars in each each slot. Correct. Correct. That's correct. That's what That's what the ordinance requires. There's two spaces per unit. It could be 10 bedrooms or it
could be one bedroom. The audience does not distinguish. So, you know, if you got three bedrooms, chances are you're going to have adult children in there somewhere. Where are they guys going? Again, we enforce the bylaw. We can't over enforce the bylaw.
So, they've met the requirement of two parking spaces per unit. And that's all we can ask them to do. If they were asking for a reduction in that number, then that would be a conversation. But they're not asking for a reduction in the required parking. No.
But from what I understand, when you get to the whole thing with the 81 units, this is we're not we're not on the next unit. We're not on the next one. This one's broken up by itself because they deleted some parking. Let's talk about that one when we get there, but I don't believe so. Okay.
We'll deal with that. Sir, my name is Douglas Rosenberg, 128 Slate Street. That's a procedural question before we start my time. Sure. Am I going have to repeat myself for the next one or can I uh just ask you to take under adisement what I
say now for the next item? I would wait. I'll gladly repeat myself twice. No. Well, yeah. So, because there's a there is a record of each hearing. So, awesome. Um I'm going to I apologize. I'm going to uh object to this uh both objective and subjective reasons uh with a big
asterric at the end. Um objectively the petitioner hasn't met his requirement um that the use is going to be not more detrimental than the current use. This property is not used at all. So putting this property use at all is inherently
more detrimental. Inherently has to be. There's nothing there now. Putting anything there is more detrimental. He hasn't met that standard. Objectively under 4A, I think you're inclined. You have to reject this. Subjectively, this while taken
separately is largely tied into a huge development that we'll get to soon. 81 total units. The discussions about traffic and parking, and I'll save most of it for later. The fact of the matter is adding 500 cars a day to Slate Street, some of
which will come from this property is a massive, massive detriment to the neighborhood where this property is currently generating zero cars. The property we're talking about now and the property that's coming up next, inherently detrimental. I'm going to urge the board to vote no um on this and
I'll save my longer comment for the next time. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else to speak in opposition? So, sir, Doug McKenna. Uh, I live in Mhook Condominiums across Slate Street,
unit 66, 919 Bay Street. Um, I think that this is uh would be better taken after the next piece. Okay? Because they're proposing this all as one. I mean to you guys they're breaking it up and this is a little uh it sounds
like you guys ready to slam dunk this in but I think discussing the first part first. You'll apologize for that. It's how they sit down. I I Okay, I understand. But but the the the next part is where there's I believe they're going to be we
can approve one and deny the other. Correct. Agreed. Okay. So, so I'm just saying as it would Okay, I would I would just like to see the other one discussed first and then take this one with it, but Okay, anyone
else? Council, any comment or rebuttal on uh Well, I I I would just point out that the special permit standard is you take a look at the proposal um and it's for this board to determine as to whether or not it's uh substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood as
opposed to what is allowed as a matter of right, not necessarily the fact that it's vacant land. Um and and again being in a commercial mill district, there are substantial number of uses that would be far more detrimental to this neighborhood than the proposal uh for three triplex buildings, nine
condominium units, which again I would suggest is very much in concert um with with much of the uses in this area inclusive of the Mount Hope Bay condominiums that were just referenced where I believe this there's 58 units down there. um and to somehow suggest
that uh this would create some kind of overcrowding or density issue uh when you can take a look at that condominium develop and how many units are on that parcel of land and how closely they're built to one another. And I'm not knocking that project. Um but but I find it a bit disingenuous to, you know,
somehow have an issue with what's proposed here uh versus that project. Yep. And if this were if this were park land, I could agree with the gentleman who says there's no way that we can approve this. It's vacant land in a
CMD. It's an attractive nuisance being unused. My opinion, you gave me yours, I'm giving you mine. Um, if I may add to that, Mr. Chairman, one thing is and I apologize. Actually, I I
spoke with the the uh the gentleman who uh is here on behalf of the property owner to the south. Um and they verified what my understanding was is that uh parcel A as well as a portion of parcel B um has been utilized for a long period
of time by as kind of like a a homeless tent city. I think it's been cleaned up to a degree. Um, but it's still going on down there. And I would suggest to the board that, you know, putting this land to use and I think a responsible use um is in the best interest of the city and
the surrounding neighborhood. I found it interesting that your mention of it is the first mention tonight of that misuse of the property. I'm more than familiar with it. So, okay. Anything else from the board?
Excuse me. Do you wish to speak in opposition? Uh, yes. Okay. Um, name address, please. Um, 919 Bay Street, Unit 54. I'm curious what you're talking about
the homeless because we don't seem to have a homeless problem at this point in time. A few years back, we had some issues, but I was just questioning where you think there's homeless because we
walk in that area all the time. I visited a homeless camp in part of this land last winter. You um on the other end where Yeah, there was another issue there. Tough to tell where the property line is. Property the other other side of the
property line where they were on the homeless were on our property. U M Mr. Chairman, uh Jeff Tolman who did the um did the plan would would like to address that if you may. Yeah. Ju just a couple of things. Um down the road on the homeless thing, but was that I said
I don't want to get down the road on the homeless. No, no, but ju just a couple of things that um things that have been mentioned. Uh Jeff Tolman, Northeast Engineers and Consultants. the the wetland line that you have shown on this particular plan was placed on this plan prior to um the wetland flags being
located. Okay. Um the actual wetland line is within I'd say 90% of it is within the boundary that you see on this plan. So this this wetland line shown here is conservative. This actually smaller than what we show. Um, but the only thing I would say is that when my
survey is all locating the equipment flex, which was done in the past month or so, they did run into a lodge encampment on the property as they were locating the flex. So, there there is an I know, like I said, it's a it's an attractive nuisance.
So, all right. Anything else from planning at this point? Anything else from the board at this point? Ricky, you got anything? No, this is a bifurcated proposal. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I find that the proposed
use is less or is not substantially more detrimental than any other proposed use of MIP in the area and move that weation as second. Two motions, right? Yeah.
Yeah. Let's just get that. That was a bification only taking them both at once. That was You want to take them both at once? Yeah. more detrimental. What's a second? Not substantially more detrimental. Right. Special as drawn
and that is your second. Okay. Discussion on the motion before we vote. They're hearing none. John, yes. Jim, yes. Dan, yes. And Ricky, yes. And Chairman Furry, yes. Thank you very
much. Okay. Item number eight, applicant High Development LLC care of Thomas P. Lauren 0 and 47 Slate Street, map H17, lot 27 and a portion of lot two. The
applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following. one to construct 72 residential units consisting of six multifamily buildings each with 12 units in a CMD district. Personal to
8636 attachment two two to construct parking which is not located within a structure to be located within 10 ft of the lot line pursuant to 864 444 B1 and 86445.
Three, to eliminate the requirement of one loading space for each multifamily dwelling containing more than 10 units pursuant to 86441 and 86455. The prop property is located within a CMD commercial mill
district council. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Again, for the record, attorney Thomas Kellen, Law says at 350 North Main Street, Florida, Massachusetts. I represent the applicant high development LLC. Uh before you um on this petition uh is a proposal to
construct six um multi-unit dwellings each unit, excuse me, containing 12 units in total for a total of 72 units. Um as you can see, the buildings are dispersed uh throughout the throughout the site as is shown on the plan. The
parcel itself is uh 166,000 uh square feet of land uh roughly. Again, the property is located in a commercial mill district. Uh the relief that we're asking for is a special permit to allow for the construction of more than 20 units uh on this site as well as to
allow some uh really just a small portion of the parking to be located within 10 ft of the boundary. And then lastly, to eliminate the requirement to have a loading space for each of these buildings, which is uh can be allowed uh via a special permit. uh without trying to uh be too redundant here, I would
suggest to the board that again the relief that's being sought um is simply a special permit and and again the standard is that we need to demonstrate to this board that the proposal is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than what is allowed as a matter of right. Again, what is allowed
as a matter of right in a commercial mill district is far more intense than the proposed residential units that are before you. Again, it could be used as a factory, industrial purposes, a research facility dealing with hazardous chemicals, uh trucking facility, um and
again it could be an asphalt plant or concrete plant. Again, that would require a special permit. But again, these are some of the uses which I would suggest are far more intense uh than what is presently uh being proposed by the applicant. Uh each of the proposed buildings uh would be three stories in
height. Again, in the commercial mill district, you're allowed to have upwards of six stories or 80 feet, whichever is greater. So, what is being proposed here is substantially less than what could be allowed. Um, I understand that there's going to be some neighborhood
opposition. We've already heard uh references to it uh to the number of units that are there. Uh, but I would suggest given this large tract of land, given the commercial mill district that it's located in, there could be far more units proposed on this site. We could
have buildings before you today that go upward 80 feet in height uh which would double the number of units that are proposed. I would suggest that that what is being proposed is more than reasonable and is a responsible development of this property and more importantly there are two parking spaces
for each proposed unit. Each proposed unit will have two bedrooms. Um so we comply with the parking requirements and that is something that we were particularly sensitive about. We understood that that would probably be a point that would be raised either by this board or the neighbors or both. Um
so we wanted to ensure that we would not need any relief from a parking standpoint. So we made sure that we provided for two parking spaces uh per unit. Again, if you take a look at the surrounding neighborhood in particular, if you go right across the sle, excuse me, right across the street to Slade
Street, uh you have that condominium complex that's there. I believe there's 58 units there. uh if you drive through that uh development and and it's an attractive development and I'm certainly uh don't have any issue with it but it's a fairly dense fairly intense use. A
number of the buildings have in very close proximity to to each other. All the buildings that are proposed here comply with zoning in terms of in terms of setbacks. Uh again what is proposed here is in concert with this neighborhood and how it has been
developed over the past decade plus. Uh so I would suggest again uh that this proposal is certainly not uh more detrimental to the neighborhood. Um is certainly when you take into consideration what would otherwise be allowed as a matter of right. And again
not to belabor this point um this land and I think more on parcel B than on parcel A um has served as an attractive nuisance um and it will be a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood to clean this property up and to put it to good use. Well, the chances of it being used
for commercial mill again is rather slim. So, Dan, would you like to um comment? I did. The only thing I didn't hear was the size of the existing building that's actually coming down. So, this is not a vacant piece of land. This is a piece of
land who that historically has been used for a number of different types of commercial uses, driveways, garage doors. Um, so we're also removing what you could consider a more detrimental use, not only with what's allowed in the zoning district, but actually removing
one. That's all I have. Again, what is the special permit? Do you know roughly what the um what the size square footage of the footprint of the existing building is, Tom? I don't I don't have that exact number,
but trace it out and I'll I'm following the hash lines. It's a sizable building. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest it's probably equal to about three of the proposed uh I'm just trying to pull up 12 units. If you if somebody wants to pull up
uh AssessPro, if they have the ability to get on GIS, I've got to guess it's probably it's going to be all of let's say 150 by 200 probably whatever that comes
out to an area just general footprint probably. existing asphalt, existing concrete pads. I mean, it's and something else I'll offer is that the existing property, and this is an environmental issue, the existing property has no storm water controls
whatsoever. This this proposal would have elaborate storm water controls, groundwater infiltration, and storm water treatment as well. Yeah, that is pretty big. Okay. Can you see it on there, Tom? I've got it on Earth. It's pretty big.
Um, let me I can pro Let me see that. I can probably tell I just don't see the building on here. Value. I just don't see the square. Yeah. No, it would it would be on one of the addition of the other sheets, but
Yeah, it doesn't give a square footage, but okay. Well, you can pass that down just so the board can see generally what I found it here. It's uh just under 30,000 square feet in size as a footprint. The footprint of the building. Yeah. Okay. And what's the footprint of one of your 12 unit
buildings roughly? It's got to be bigger than that. What are they going to say on the 60 by 100? The Patriot property card. I mean, just looking at the the the shadow of it on on the plan, it certainly looks larger than
Well, what did I say? I said 100 by 200. What did you say? 30,000. Yeah, just under 30. Just about. Yeah, the footprint's just about that. The building, never mind the dueling engineers. My eyes are getting
old. My my old self is getting old. just tonight. Um, anything else, folks? This is a big one. John, anything? I defer to your expertise. I'm just looking at I'm just looking at what relief we're looking at.
Yeah. same relief as the previous with the exception of the caveat of the loading spaces because the way that this the way that the bylaw is written that it assumes a singular building but the reduction of the loading space is not that's not a
variance special correct it's all special permits Yes. Questions now. Maybe comments will spur some questions. Maybe comments from the audience will spur some questions for the board members. So, moving to the uh moving to the
public. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in favor of this petition and support? Sir, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Mr. director and madam clerk. Uh I'm Fred Manx, Willland Mass, the
Mount Hope LLC. Um we're in favor of the of of this project as I stated before, but I I'd like to add, which I usually don't, uh the homeless situation. I know it's not part of your uh your purview,
if you will, but uh if you go down there, it's I' I've never seen anything like it. It's it's an encampment and and in our estimation activity is the only thing that's going to stop this this issue. Lot lot of ways to stop it. A big part of it on your land, right? There
is. Oh, there is. No question about it. No question about it. And and u you know it's drifting and that's why we're in favor of it obviously. See to see activity down there would would be good for us. It'd be very good for the neighborhood because it's going to it's
going to creep up. But anyhow, we said enough. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone else wishing to speak in favor? Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Ken Fiola. I'm the executive vice president of Bristol County EDC, and I'm here tonight to
speak in favor of the petition that's before you. Um, as you know, this off my office has been intimately involved in the creation of more market housing throughout the city. We're trying to diversify the overall housing base within the city so
that the city doesn't have an overdependency upon public or subsidized housing. And this project in particular helps us in that initiative given the fact that all of the units are being proposed will be market rate units. There will be no subsidized units
as part of this overall development. If you look at the parcel of land itself where it's located, it's located at the end of Slate Street. You know, it's a beautiful waterfront possible, right? Those people there to extent that this is passed the property itself and the
residents that live there will actually be able to have that beautiful waterfront view much to the same as the condo association neighbors uh have to the north of the facility. So, the project I think is going to be an improvement, not only improvement to
the neighborhood, but also improvement to the condos because you're not going to have a chemical plant there. Okay? Today, you have a chemical plant if this project doesn't move forward. And as attorney stated, you could have a much more noxious use there than you
would for residential. You could have a multi-story manufacturing facility. You could have a distribution facility. You could have an assembly facility. You can have a lot of different uses there that would increase traffic much more than
what these condos would. You have 4 acres of developable land here. This is a large parcel. You can put a large building here. Okay. that large building would in my opinion decrease the value of your properties as opposed to having
a chemical plant there which also has an impact on how your property values by having a conducive relationship in uses along the waterfront I think is best for all parties because it's going to be homogeneous in the fact that it's the same type of use having been involved in
the securement of the initial variances for the condo association years ago. Okay, this was the same type of property. This was all it was an oil petroleum facility. If you look out there, you see the remnants of the docks that were there. The land that the condo
association was on was once sealed was once CND, I believe. The only difference right now there's a WD that just stops just short of this parcel. Right. You are located in WTO. You are the southern boundary of
that WD district. If that t if that WTO district extended one block to the north, we wouldn't be here tonight because this would be done as a matter of right. So I would just say that you know and I understand nobody likes James. I understand that the unknowingness you know creates some
anxiety but please keep in mind that I've listen I do development across all spectrums here from residential to industrial to commercial to service. There's not a lot of industrial zone land left in the city. This is a very
very valuable piece of property that if it doesn't go residential, there's probably a high propensity that it will remain in the CMD and you may have a use here that will be a lot more noxious than I don't even know how you could
consider residential notches, right? So, I'm just, you know, and I get it. Nobody wants to change and I get traffic and I get all these other things, but at least you know what you're getting when it's residential. The alternative is you don't know what you're getting. And I know people can shake their heads because they don't believe that to be
true. But if you can get a use that comes in there that doesn't require any zoning and it's going to be there and it's going to be big and it's going to be potentially loud and it's going to be potentially noxious and it's going to have an impact on traffic. For my money, it's better to have a residential
neighbor than it would be to have an industrial neighbor. That's all I ask. Mr. ask you a question. I I know recent industrial properties have been utilized for large freezer buildings. There are many of going up in the industrial property where we've been able to keep that kind of development up in that end
of the city. Um how I know there's one or two already. How tall are those freezer buildings? Those are typically five stars maybe. Got it. Yeah. And they're big. They they take up the whole lot. Oh, I know. And we we've had to permit a number of them.
I'm just I have something a use like that. The land availability in the industrial park. There's virtually no land. Nothing left. Right. In the commerce park, there's no land left. In the technology park, there's some acreage left, but there's another um I
think it went through, it didn't go through zones, but I think it went through site plan review for another large uh cold storage facility there. I believe 100,000 120,000 square feet. So within a matter of four years, all that land's going to be gobbled up and people are now going to be looking to infill in
the city for these types of uses. And that's, you know, a lot of the old mill buildings are now being converted for residential use. So these CMD parcels of land, especially in that location, I think, you know, is going to become very valuable. you. Thankfully, the O'Huran
family who ran that chemical plant did a very good job with it. They tried to be good neighbors. They kept it clean. They kept the noise down. It was not a bad use for a neighbor. Probably impacted your insuranceances that you didn't know about because your insurance premium is a little bit higher being next to a
chemical plant. However, there's no guarantee that the next use may come that would be similar to how the odors are how the odors are in it. Anyway, it's up to board. I understand the the concern about this, but residential and
residential seems to be focused there. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in favor? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Sir, what he's talking about makes it sound
pretty. That's nothing more than another sunset. All right, sir. Okay, you had to say. Thank you. Doug McKenna, unit 669 Bay Street. Again, um
so first of all, to compare this to our neighborhood um is is not the same because we have spread out over a larger parcel of land, excuse me. Um, and yes, the buildings are close together, but it's spread out.
We've got front yards. We've got lawns. The place is beautiful. We have a pond. We have a pool. We have a clubhouse. This is just buildings and parking lot. Okay? And to say that you could double the size of the height of these buildings and the number of units is
disingenuous because then you won't have the parking required. That's what parking decks are for, under buildings. So don't Okay. Okay. So, uh All right. So, then my only other concern is the traffic involved. Uh Slate Street and
Bay Street. There have been some accidents there. When you're coming out of Slate Street onto Bay Street from our neighborhood. Oh, and that's the other thing is we have three entrances to our our setup. Yeah. So, two of them on Slate and one on Bay Street. Um when you
come out Slate Street and and you want to go left or right, you can't there are people often parked on Bay Street and it's very difficult to see oncoming cars and there have been several accidents there and that will certainly increase with this as if if this is built back.
Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Sir Douglas Rosenberg 128 Slade Street. Uh but address the parking first. Um in the traffic, 72 units, 144 parking spaces.
If everybody leaves the house and comes back once a day, there's 432 vehic excuse me, 280 vehicle trips. If just half those people leave a second time and come back, there's 432 cars add in front of the street. Uh you're right, the Horns were great neighbors. Um they took care of their neighbors, cleaned
the spot, and had 20 trucks a day and their five five or 10 employees. Um, so that uh 432 uh vehicle trips doesn't include your half dozen Amazon deliveries, your 20 Door Dash deliveries, UPS, FedEx,
USPS, Dominoes, and all the other common carriers that can be coming in this property. So, we get 500 vehicles a day probably to and from here. And there is a big uh visibility issue. Um when you travel east on Slate Street, you come to Bay Street, you
can't see left. even people parked legally that mine illegally. Uh there's been a number of serious crashes in 2022. A police officer was critically injured trying to pull off a Slate Street onto bay responding to a call in that exact intersection. So, we now have 432, we'll call 450 additional
chances of crashing, serious bodily injury. Um, anybody that says it's going to raise their property value, um, or think it's going to raise my property value, I welcome an offer for a person sale tomorrow, if you got to buy my property and then sell it in two years or
whatever the increase is going to be. And if you're not willing to do that, then I'm going to guess that you got buy into the fact that this will raise property values. you are regarding the uh homeless enc regarding the homeless encampments. Um it's unfortunate that people are
going to come in this room and admit to housing people illegally on their property. Hope they get that cleaned up so they don't face any liability when these people continue to get hurt and die these camps. Um but we certainly can't use people squatting in heinous conditions on property as a reason to um
say that this is improvement to the neighborhood. I disagree. Um, and I'm gonna end it with this. I don't know what the right number is. 72 units down here. I don't know what the right unit is. Number is probably more than one. I'm opposed to this. If it was the right development, I'd be the first
person to speak up. As a proponent, I go door to door trying to get support for it. But just as um I think during number five, they said, "Hey, this number is too big. We want something smaller." That's just how I'm feeling. Again, 72.
It's massive. No one here would be voting in favor of this if this was going in their backyard. They were getting 500 extra cars in front of their house. You hear? Not one person in this room would vote yes if this was going to be a budding their property and putting
500 cars in front of their house, diminishing their property values and all the nonsense that's going to come with the apartments. Um, if that's how you'd vote, if it was your neighbor, I'm asking you to vote the same. I just want to clarify uh one
last thing. The condos, they have one or two stall parking garages for every unit uh inside the unit. So, that's why they are able to get um more use of the land compared to this. So, thanks for your time. I appreciate it. Okay. Thank you.
Anyone else in opposition? Yes. First of all, I'm kind of appalled that I just need your name and address first, please. Norman Messia, uh, 109 Bay Street 919 Street, uh, unit 102.
There you go. I'm appalled at how people are making that neighborhood sound like we have encampments all over the place. We've lived there for 19 years and
you know I I don't know where all of you are coming up with that. There it has there been somewhere on the opposite end down by the water. Yes, there was one and we had the call and the city got
them cleaned out. I see this project as a developer trying to get as much as he can out of that particular piece of land. And I know attorney Karen has
said, "Well, we could build higher. We could get more on that." I don't know how many or how you would even try to project how many families are going to be in the area. And when I say families, I mean with
children or teenagers. Where are they going? In a parking lot. There's no common sense to this project right here. Um, and I would agree that that property could be used
for industrial or commercial and it would be worse. I'm just saying I think this project needs to be cleaned up and touched up a little bit with some concerns, well some thoughts going into
the neighborhood and to you know I know every unit is money. I know that and that's what it's all about. But I think you could have a beautiful project here with a little more
consideration of the actual community. With that, thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Sir, uh Joseph Kabalo, uh 919 Bay Street, Unit 51. I'm also a trustee on
the board for Malto Condominiums. Uh I just don't understand. We I personally I learned of this yesterday when I received a letter in the mail and that letter came from uh Slate's Fairy I'm sorry Slate's neighborhood group as a
butters I don't think anyone in Malto condominium ever received a letter from the from the city. So what happens? So what happens is the assessor's office produces a certified or butters list.
They determine who gets notified and it was most likely the association that was notified as the land owner, your building owners within the condominium. Um I'm president of the association received the letter. The
list should be in there. If I didn't receive this letter and I think a lot of other my neighbors there's quite a few neighbors at time that anyone received a letter we didn't receive if I didn't receive this letter yesterday I had no idea Mount Hope
Condominiums care of MHBC LLC 38 Lewis Street Marian Mass is that the mailing address for Mount Hope Condominiums not at all that's what they that's what the tax that's where the tax bills go to that's the tax bill but that that's the mailing address that's on record at the
assessor's office. That's where they go. That's all we can go by. That's what the law requires. The applicant submits a letter to the board of assessors. They produce this list. They don't produce the list. We don't produce the list. That's No, D. I understand that. But when you No, I don't think you do understand because you're questioning
it. What I'm What I'm saying as an abut I think homeowners, which I own my home and all the other You own a home within the parcel alignment. So Joe, would that be the would that be the address of merkantile? It probably is the right. So they should have forwarded the letter to
but all I'm saying is individual homeowners on that property and we all pay we pay our taxes. We should have been notified that this hearing was tonight. So abunders aren't considered a building owner. It's a land
owner. It's across the street land owner and that was they were notified. We don't make this list. Don't listen. I'm just saying I the list is prepared in accordance with Massachusetts general law. That's so we have to live with not the actual building.
So my point was I which I understand what you're saying. Yeah. That has to that's going to have to be corrected. But being that we only been noticed, you know, last night when we get this that we have no time to prepare what the effects of this, you know, and hardship
that's going to be, you know, to our community. So, I wish that this could be postponed or continue to another time. That'll be up to the applicant and and the situation with this I've I've been on that side of the table and had the
same situation when I've had developments and you know suddenly I've got 300 people sitting there. Yeah. I mean I just they never get a notification. Their management company did not send them a notification. You know that's but again you know I
know what you said that it went to Merkantile Property Man but Merkantile Property Management only pays our bills. I understand but the list is prepared from the tax assessor's office. That's where that's where they that's where the tax bill
goes for the land. Can I have a point of clarification? Cond associations don't pay taxes only the individual owners. So my whole condos don't they have to be owner of the land though they own the So you you pay assessment fees for your condominium. So you pay taxes on your
building. You pay a fee towards the taxes on the piece of land. So the assessor's office has this map and lot number which is singular with a mailing address and that's where the bills go to is to the address that's listed in condo associations tax bills only. So
listen, if we get separate tax bills from So I'm saying no tax bill because it's a tax bill for a building, not for a parcel, whatever way this if you feel you're agreed because we got to reel this back in. We got to reel it back in. But I
don't I don't want to walk out the door and have breakfast. We understand that you're notified. You're here. We were only notified question yesterday by a letter in the mail and we were none of us knew that this was this hearing was taking place tonight. The condo uh
no let's not have this discussion anymore. No slaves office made the list. That's that's who that's who everyone was notified. So I guess all I'm asking then with that error it's not an error. It's
not an error. It's okay. By Mass General law as far as how they send those up. If you feel you've been agreed, you have the you have the ability to appeal, right? No, I'm just saying it's not we all pay our own tax bill. Like you said, which I didn't understand that it was
was on a land. So anytime you used to own a piece of land, you'd be notified. You'd be paying a tax bill on a home. You're not notified. So you had So you've had conservation commission filings. Okay. on your on your piece of land. Who did you list as the applicant?
I did. I will be No, no, no. As the association, not you personally. I put Maltto Condominium Association. So that's who owns the land. That's correct. Not everybody who owns a building signed on as an applicant. But all I'm saying is Merkantile property has nothing to do with it. But that's
who's listed as the owner. So it's Mount Hope Condominium of Merkant, especially as a member board. listed as the owner. They were listed as the addressy. It said it's just the address. It said Miles, right? And when it should have
that said Monotop Association unit 16 at 919 office and then we could forward Merkantile built if Merkantile doesn't have anything to do with it anymore. more reason in the world to go and get it squared away at the assessor's office
because they may decide not to not to deal with the notice at some future date. So common with condos. Where are we? Anyone else in opposition? You have any rebuttals to anything? You're good. Just wait till the end.
I just want to say that I'm in totally agreement with Douglas over here that a smaller proposal would be extremely preferred. That's all. Okay. Thank you.
Yes. Um Joanne Gautia 919 Bay Street, unit 103. My um perception of this is this is beautiful land and and I'm sure that Paul River wants it to remain beautiful. putting that amount of of
apartments in in down on the waterfront does not make sense. I don't think any of us are opposed to utilizing that land and putting adequate housing in there. But this is to to our agreement. I
believe that this is just for the de developers to make money. Why can't they put condos? They can put 50 condos. These could be beautiful down there. These could be condos if they chose to make No, I mean condos, individual condos. We're living in condos because the developer that has this under
purchase and sales agreement wants to build this proposal that's before this board rental property. Again, like we said in we said in the previous petitions, this is not a negotiation between us and the applicant. They submit what they what they want to do. This board acts within the purview of our
proof colored book as everybody wants to refer to it. All right. And one other thing I'd like to address regarding the homeless. The homeless are going to be in front of those places too. I intend to disagree and this homeless thing has gotten out of hand. So it has
homelessness and I'll preach. So it's not really the purview of this board. We get people saying they're there, they're not there. I know they're there. So one more sir, please. Sir, 919 Bay Street, Unit 44.
We were notified of your decision. Yesterday, you're not giving us a time to evaluate what is going on. And every one of us
here pays quite a few taxes to this town that you're working for. And you're not giving us a chance to even digest this thing. I understand. But but what you have to understand is is that notification was provided in
accordance with the law. If your management company had didn't notify you all, that's on them. and that and your grip should be with them is how did you not notify us? So, they may have gotten the certified mail and threw it in the trash. I don't know. But this applicant
met the requirements of the law and they're here tonight to give the presentation and you are here. And again, as I offered before, you have the the ability to appeal any decision of this board in favor or in opposition the same way that the applicant, if denied, has the same appellant rights to appeal
that decision. Okay. I I understand that. I understand the concept of of what you're asking. However, unless this gentleman, Attorney Karen, requests for the matter to be tabled, then this board has to vote. That's it. We We don't have the
ability to say you have to table this. We We don't have that ability. Thank you. But thank you. Yes, Lauren. I'm not here to walk 919 Bay Street, unit 74. I am actually my
unit is going to be directly across looking at the plot plan, which I just got in the mail yesterday, even though I did know about the meeting because I happened to see it on a Facebook post. Um, I didn't realize that I would be
actually looking out my side window at a three-story building. My view to the side where I can normally see Tidan is going to be blocked. We paid a lot of money to be
able to get the views that we have. But apart from my scenery, you're taking a street that I'm not good with dimensions, maybe a football field long, if that, probably half of that.
going from a 60 unit development and I think four houses on the street to now you're looking at 81 units with at least most likely two cars per unit going up and down this street. The noise
pollution that is going to be there is going to be ridiculous. Regardless of whether a business can go in there, even if I hear trucks from 9 to 5, I will not be happy. But it would be better than listening to 160 cars going up and down
the street, music blaring from all these units, 81 units that we can't control the noise control over. And you have taken a nice quiet familyoriented community that we own our
property, not the land, but we own our homes and opening it up to whomever wants to pay market value and God knows what they can be doing there. And we have absolutely no control over this. Okay. But but
understand the commercial mill district and and it's important to understand what's before the board. It's a special permit with regards to the proposed residential use. And what the board has to consider is what are allowed uses in that district. So to say that it could
be 9 to5, it could be 24 hours a day doesn't not just did not limit the commercial milk district does not limit the amount of time that a commercial operation can take place. If you're going to look out your window and you're going to see a three-story building, you could see an 80 foot tall freezer
building by this by this. So land will be developed that ultimately this piece of land will be developed in some form or fashion. So one, we have what's there now. Two, we have this proposal. Three, we have what potentially could happen.
And that's really what this board has to weigh. The option of nothing happening there is not before this board. That that's not one of the options that this board has to vote on. They have to determine are these six units, six buildings, is that substantially less
detrimental or not substantially more detrimental than for say the 80ft tall 400 square 4,000 square foot or 40,000 foot freezer building or anything like that that trucks are back and forth bringing seafood in to be frozen
overnight. So that's there are so many different uses and and I think that's just I think you just don't understand what's allowed on that piece of land and how detrimental it could be to that neighborhood. So basically what you're saying is the devil we know is better
than the devil we don't know. Correct. To to to a certain extent. Yes. Yeah. Well, to me, the devil that I know is going to be 81 units of at least two people per unit.
That is a lot of detriment to just that very small area. I don't know if any of you have been onto Slate Street on this short little street. That is a lot of traffic to be
absorbed. and and if this required a variance. So a variance is a different level of zoning relief. This is not a variance. This is a special permit. And that's where that's what comes into less detrimental. Any development could be classified as detrimental. Whether it's
this small or whether it's this big, right? To a varying degree of detrimental and and to to anybody's perception of it. What's before this board is look at this. It's going to be let's say detrimental 20 out of 100 to what could
be built and they may classify that as 60 out of 100. Well, which one is less detrimental? This one. And that's all that's before this board. No one is saying that this project will not have an impact to the neighborhood. No one is
saying that. But what's before this board is will it be less than what could happen. That's what that that's all in the narrow scope of what this board has to act on. But neither one of us have that crystal ball. No, we don't. So, all
we can go by Yep. is what is being presented now. And at this point, it's 81 units in a very small area with the potential of a lot of traffic, a lot of
noise. Yeah, you're bringing in a lot of people that is going to possibly they're not going to be owners. They don't know they can move in and out. Well, I they could be condominiums. That hasn't been presented.
We were told it was apartments. That's what I I think apartments and unit Well, it said units unit counts, but there had been no representation of whether or not those would be condominiumized. You could have a singular building be condominiumized. That's not before this board.
I guess I as the homeowner, I am looking at the potential of introducing more people to a neighborhood, just saturating the neighborhood, opening ourselves up to the liability of more
people tracing through our property, even though it's marked private property. Um, and we don't know the kind of people and we never know who's going to be moving in next. Well, and I wasn't part of the petition, but when when your
property was developed as condominiums, I'm sure people said the same thing. Why can't there only be four units? Why can't there only be 20 units? Why does there have to be so many units? So, no matter what, whatever, no matter what's proposed, people will always want less,
right? So the this board hears everything that everybody's saying. There will be more traffic. There there there will be more people. There will be people living there. But what they need to look at and determine is that less than what could be. It's very narrow the
scope that's before this board because the zoning bylaw has a box that says multif family residential by special permit and then there are rules for granting of a special permit. If it if it didn't say SP, special permit, then this would be a variance and this would
probably not even come close to happening. Two entirely different petitions and sections of the law. So, is there any way legally that it can be
switched that we can go for that variance as opposed to the special? No, no, no. That's that's the law. the laws. We can only work within the guise of the law. They've submitted a special permit. Now, if the board determines
that this is substantially more detrimental and it doesn't meet the the the level of a special permit, then the applicant can refile as a variance, which is a more difficult permit to get. But this board has the ability to say, "No, I I I think this will be substantially more detrimental than what
could happen there," then they denied it. But then the the applicant has the ability to either change the project or refile as a variance. Let's let's pull it back on. Let's pull it back on. Thank you. Thank you, Attorney Lauren. Any rebuttal? Mr.
Chairman, I I will be brief. Um there were just a few points that were raised that I I would like to address. I I think one of the first comments um in opposition indicated this project was going to be Sunset Hill and repeated it a number of times. that could be any further from the truth. Um I would suggest to the board that uh this
developer has a reputation for doing um upscale developments within this city. These are going to be market rate units. Um there is not going to be subsidized housing and I think Mr. uh Fiola made that point clear to the board. Um I certainly wasn't trying to be
disingenuous when I suggested that these buildings could go up in terms of height. There could be more units there. Um as Mr. Aggie arm indicated um there could be parking decks that were utilized and again we would still all be under the guise of only needing a special permit to do this. Uh this
applicant was sensitive to the neighborhood um when they determined the number of units to put there. They could have come in and for lack of a better term tried to be pigish um and like I said gone up another two three stories um and they certainly did not do that.
And in terms of the the complaints about about noise and music blaring and cars going up and down uh Slate Street, again next door and the the condominium project next door, there's 58 units there. And again, we don't have this issue, I'm assuming, because I haven't
heard it, of people blaring music, driving up and down the street um and over congestion as a result um of that development. The development that we're proposing is not very different in terms of the number of units as opposed to what is next door. And if you looked at
the potential uses that can go there, and they could be there on a 24-hour basis, you could have multiple shifts coming in with potential for 100 plus employees coming in all at once, leaving all at once. That would create, I would suggest, an overcrowding on Slate Street
and Bay Street. What you're going to have here is a residential use. And it's disingenuous to try to tell this board that everybody's going to be coming and going at the same time of day. I would suggest to the board that the traffic increase would be negligible as a result of this. And sure, they're going to have
Amazon deliveries or maybe pizza deliveries, but just like the condominium development next door has those things and the de delivery driver goes onto the property and they makes their makes their delivery and and leaves. They don't come in, make a delivery, leave, come back 5 minutes later. Again, this is not going to be
very different than what already exists across the street. And these types of developments do not uh lend to, you know, a mass exodus coming and going of cars all at once. And they're typically going to be spread out over the course of the day.
Thank you, Attorney Corin. Has there been any consideration in this at all about um any type of open space, play area, green space? I there's not a lot on this project. Um
and I think that the oversaturation of this lot is a concern that I have. Um well, that's that's a swamp. That's not really They can't play. No. So So I Right. I I understand, Mr. Frank, and and I think as Mr. Caukins pointed out, there is a large vacant green area, but
I understand that's wetland. So, I'm not going to misrepresent to the board and say, "Well, there's your open space." Um, but I I I don't think that it's a requirement under the bylaw, and I I don't think that um it's something that would necessarily be required for this type of use. We're talking about
two-bedroom units here. I don't think it's going to be overly conducive uh to family type setting. Um, so I I I think given it it's its current uh configuration um is more than reasonable. I think it's tight too, Tom. I think I
it it's where's the green space? I mean is and that's not necessarily our purview, but the land usage is I agree. It's crowded. That's three board members that just
said that. Yeah. M Mr. Chairman, could we get I'm sorry, Mr. S. Could we get a fivem minute recess I could just discuss with my client? Sure. Thank you. I appreciate it. Next one. Attorney, Mr. Chairman, thank you for
the uh indulgence to give us a a time to huddle up and and take into consideration the neighbors and the board's comments. So, what the applicant has authorized me to propose is the three buildings that front along Slade Street, uh, we would eliminate those
buildings and, um, keep the existing structure that remains. And then the three units on the southerntherly side of the property. So, the two that front along what I'll call the water or the the railroad land and the one that's kind of situated in the middle of the lot, those would remain. U, but we're
going to reconfigure um, the size of the units. Um, so it' be 16 units in each building. Um, for a total of 48 units, but again, the three that front along Slave Street would be
eliminated and that would obviously reduce a significant amount of the uh asphalt area needed for the parking. Um, will also free up some area for us to put some additional green space. Mr. Chairman, can this be considered or does this have to be a separate proposal at another time? I think it's going to have
to be a separate proposal. This cannot be considered that again. Say that again. You said keep the existing building. Keep the existing structure. Correct. As a commercial building. As a commercial building. Yes. So that has to be that's a separate proposal that must be considered at another time. That's not just simply a
reduction in unit count. So that would have to be revertising. Yeah. I mean, we're going from eliminating Yeah. eliminating the choice to go forward tonight or table. So, we would ask if the board would
table this petition, uh, give us an opportunity to see if we can reconfigure a plan and come back in uh, with something that the board can actually see on paper. So, what I would come up with an idea, run it by us, and we can determine whether or not it can it can continue
under the table petition or if it needs to be a separate petition. Understood. Okay. Appreciate that. I just don't want to get to the meeting and then find out we have to tell you. No, we have to we have to withdraw. Yeah, I I agree. Appreciate that. No comments over. I want to know how I get a letter for
this next meeting. June 26 on a continuence. You wouldn't get 26. But you check with your your head of your association over there. He's going to be on it. who's who's going to be at the office tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman, if I could, um, are you asking to table this to the next meeting or do you need time afterward to the July meeting? How much time do you need? We're asking to table to the next meeting. To the next meeting, which is June 26th. Yes. Okay. Care to make a motion? I would make a
motion that we table. And also, I'd just like to make a caveat to that is if you do come in with a new proposal, we'd like to see if if you're talking about bigger buildings, differentiz buildings, whatever it may be, if we could get a potential rendering of what we're actually looking at. I think that might
quell a lot of concerns too to people. I I I understand that's always the cart before the horse because we don't know the number of unit counts and so on and so forth. But a potential uh this is what it's going to look like. uh you know uh that will help with a with a lot
of concerns. Understood. Thank you. So that's uh so we have a motion to table. I second. We have a second from Dan on the motion then. Ricky. Yes. Yes. Dan. Jim. Yes. John. Yes. Myself. Yes. So everybody in the audience just so that
you know we do not accept plans within a week of the hearing. So 26 - 7 the revised plans have to be in our office. So at that point so what that 19th whatever so so the 18th by the 18th they will have had to have submitted the
revised plan. So at that point if you want to call and check in with the planning office we can provide copies of what this new petition would look like. Okay. On the 18th. On the 18th. Thank you very much. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you everyone for coming out.
I'm kind of curious about that weather meeting with that. Can we just talk outside guys? Leave the room take the conversation down the hall. We have more work to go through. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for coming.
Item number nine, applicant of Shaker Investments LLC, Kub Jeffrey Tolman. Woodbine Place map M25 lot 54. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. One to construct a two family dwelling on an existing
non-conforming lot of record waving the requirements of section 8635 attachment one as to building setbacks lot area lot frontage. Chairman, wait one second, please. Ken Ken, can you have Tommy fill this out? Request a table
form. Sorry. Go ahead. Ken, thank you again. Waving. Where did I just go? Setback, building setbacks, lot area,
lot frontage, lot coverage, the quad facto. The property is located within a General Residence zoning district. Jeffrey, good evening. Hopefully I can get you back on track yet. For the record, Jeff Fulman from Northeast Engineers and Consultants uh here on
behalf of Shaker Investments LLC, the petitioner for this application. Um the property itself is possible ID M25 lot 54. Uh it's located on the north side of Woodbine Place. For the those of you that don't know, Woodbine Place is a small little dead end street off of
Grove Street about 200 ft south of Prospect Street near the hospital. Uh this property is located in the general residence G zoning district and the lot itself is a uh an existing non-conforming lot of record due to uh
non-conforming in a sense due to frontage. Uh does not have the required 50 ft. It only has 49.51 ft of frontage. Um this property has been owned by the same owner since 1983. Um what I realized uh after um I submitted the
petition and when I was preparing for the meeting tonight that there was actually relief. This lot was part of relief that was granted back in 2006. Um or no was I'm sorry was granted relief back in 2006 to construct a single family dwelling. Um that that um
petition was approved at 50 vote by the board. Uh but obviously nothing was ever done. that was never acted upon and this property's sat vacant since. Um the current petitioner um who has been before this board several months back owns the property or purchased the
property directly across the street. I don't know uh for you those of you that might remember there's an existing dilapitated warehouse uh directly across the street with a loading dock that kind of sticks out into the road. Yep. um that's going to be demolished in a new two family dwelling um which would be
the exact same dwelling that we're proposing here is going to be constructed on that lot that's already been permitted. They just have to go through a site plan review. Um I've talked to them about doing that and uh this lot became available. They wanted to kind of hold off on that one, see what they could do on this one and and maybe build them at the same time if
this does get approved here tonight. So, uh, the relief we're looking for, um, is we're looking to, um, we're asking to wave lot area and lot coverage requirements. Um, lot area in the sense that the the lot is a conforming lot for
a single family. It has, uh, the over the 5,000 ft. We're looking to do a two family on it. Um, which does require the 6,500 square ft in this particular district. Um, and then the lot coverage, uh, we're asking to, uh, expand that and to go to,
I want to say it's, uh, 60% that we're proposing, um, on this particular piece. But, uh, as you know, when this does get approved, it would go through site plan review. Um, and we'd be putting in adequate drainage, uh, for rooftop runoff and stuff like that to, uh, uh,
eliminate any drainage concerns. Um, and I would submit to the board that due to the uh the shape and the pre-existing non-conforming nature of this property, a little literal enforcement of the ordinance would place an undue hardship on a petitioner uh by denying a reasonable use of the property which is
um when you look at the other properties in the area, uh would have less density on this particular site as you have on abundant properties. Uh so it would be in conformance with the the rest of the neighborhood. So, with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board might have.
Is Is this the same footprint as we approved across the street? That's correct. The 10-ft sideline setbacks. That's correct. How big was the lot across the street? Um, the plan should show, but it doesn't. Yeah. I don't know. That's a good question.
Um, I'm not exactly sure. The lot I I know they're comparable in size. I don't know the exact uh I don't know how they got missed on here but yeah I don't know off the top of my head if I could board members. So we've talked about this a little bit tonight. Um yes the
lot exceeds the lot area for a single family home. Correct. Um or what I would caution is so it would require a half a foot waiver of frontage maybe because
this could be considered I'm assuming a lot of record that the frontage is grandfathered in. What I'm trying to get to is could probably build possibly build a single family by right and an ADU by
right. Right. Okay. Um, if it's an ADU, they don't need to provide all four parking spaces. So, balance the two. But again, consider if you're going to allow it to be a two family, then you need to
prohibit any additional ADUs in the future. So, no matter what happens here, I think we we'll end up with two units. Correct. But could be two without four parking spaces. So, the four parking spaces then leads us to the lot coverage
issue. Um, again to the concrete side because the sidewalks need to be concrete. Could they be pavers? Could they not? So, the lot coverage thing could be reduced even if you weren't comfortable with the lot coverage variance. But as far as use and density, I think either way they'll they'll have
the ability of getting to to the two units. Either way, we get to a two a two unit. Yeah. And maybe not done as well as this and matching the lot across the street. Not that the Lost Street has much to do with it, but um visually it would be nice if they matched. That's
all. Yeah. And the petitioner would have no objection to u eliminating the potential of an ADU on this property given the fact that this would be a two family. Yeah, that would be that would be important to me in my vote.
Anyone else? Uh Dan, I do have an answer to your question. And the lot across the street is 4,500 square ft with 50 ft of frontage. There you go. So we less area but more frontage. Okay, cool. Thank you. Awesome. All right. Anybody here wish to speak in favor of this petition?
Anybody wish to speak in opposition? Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the variance with condition that no additional units be nou. Yep. So, just so you know, we're going to
insert the standard ADU condition. It's a little bit more elaborate, but you don't have to keep repeating it. You can just say the standard ADU regulation description. Is there a second, Dan? Yeah. Discussion on the motion, anyone? They're hearing none.
John, yes. Jim, yes. Dan, yes. Ricky, yes. And Joe, yes. Thank you. Thank you. Item number 10. Item number 36. Applicant Joseph and
Stephanie Merked. Good. See, I got that one. Care of Jeffrey Tolman, Cambridge Street, map F18, lot 80. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. One, to construct a single family dwelling waving the requirements
of section 8635 attachment one as to frontage law coverage. Uh the existing garage is to remain the property is within an R4 two family zoning district. Good evening. For the record,
Jeff Tolman from Northeast Engineers and Consultants here on behalf of Joseph and Stephanie Murk, the petitioners for this application. Um, this property is Pastel ID F18, lot 80. It's located on the south side of Cambridge Street in
between Cogell and Oxford Streets. Uh, this property is located in the two family R4 zoning district. And this particular property is an existing lot of record that's non-conforming due to frontage. only has 50 ft of frontage. Uh does not have the required 75.
Um this this property uh well just what we're looking to do here. We have applied for a variance to construct a single family dwelling in compliance with the applicable setback requirements uh waving lot coverage as well as the lot frontage requirement due to the
non-conformity there. Um this is um this property would be purchased by the Merks who own the property at 290 uh Cambridge Street which is not directly across the street. It's a little offset to the to the east.
Uh that property is an existing three family dwelling. Okay. Um the Merks do have four children. So what they their plan is to build a single family house, move into this and then have the three family for their u for their children to
be able to live. So um with this proposal we would be providing the necessary off- streetet parking. Uh there would be a attached garage uh be that would be associated with this with two uh minimum of two 9 by8 parking spaces provided within them. Um, we are
also looking to uh maintain the existing 21x 21 uh garage located at the north uh east corner of the property and then we'd be putting in a driveway um to the west of that and that would access provide access to the garage for the new
single family dwelling. So, um I would argue too that the uh due to the shape and the pre-existing non-conforming nature of this property, again, a literal enforcement ordinance would um would basically prevent the use of this property uh in a in the same manner that you know the the whole neighborhood's
using their properties um on similar size lots if not smaller. Um in this again, there's many multifamilies in this neighborhood. This would only be a single family dwelling. Uh but the one thing I would add if the board um does find this vote favorably upon this
petition, I would ask that they not put the ADU restriction on this because again having mentioned that the Merks do have four children, uh the plan would eventually at some point possibly do an in-law apartment uh within the uh footprint that you see here uh to create
an additional unit. Now, it is zoned for the two family. Uh they're not looking to construct a two family at this time, but we don't want to rule that out in the future as their children get older. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Dan, is this site plan review because of the coverage?
Well, the whole the whole any construction activity does require site plan review and in my comments, the only comment I had was that you should consider the ADU restriction as well. Um I think with the release that you are granting
um having that level of comfort that this will not become a larger unit. I mean it doesn't doesn't meet the area requirement for for a two family doesn't meet the frontage requirement for a two family. your waving lot coverage and just about everything around it is directly around
it is single family which could pop an ADU but Yep. but aren't he requesting relief? That's a narrow lot. Is the garage the 21 by 21 is that conforming? Like what
are the setbacks? Um let's see. Actually, no. It's impossible to be conforming because it would need to be four feet on the side and then it would have to meet the front yard set back which it doesn't. Yeah. Yeah. It's like 3 feet three and Yeah.
It is not conforming. Yeah. Pre-existent nonconforming. Yeah. Cannot be made conforming and end up with anything big enough to live in. Frontage is 75, front is 15, sides are 10, which we're at, and rear is 10 with 30% lot
coverage. But the driveway as it's drawn is probably about 20% of the lot coverage right there. Is the elimination of or the requirement of the ADU restriction a deal breakaker for you? It's it's not whether it's a dealbreaker or not. It's a condition that you can
impose. If they don't want to live with it, they can appeal it. Yeah. So, this isn't a negotiation. If you feel if you feel it's warranted, then I want an answer to the question if I may have it, please. Um,
because can I I obviously I have four kids. Everybody's hope is to take care of their kids at some point in life, make sure everybody's covered. So, I wouldn't be looking to put anything bigger than the only thing I actually thought about would be probably the garage later on for one of my children. I'm not saying anything other than that.
Right. But, so he he represented that. It would be an in-law apartment for you. That's not No, no, for one of the children. Well, that's not an in-law apartment. I didn't realize it would be the garage. So, okay. I I stand corrected and I don't know. Petition
knows better than I Well, I I we did want the option to have another unit. So, that is something that we were looking to have. Yeah, I know. Not on this size lot. So, you would do
the single family just not an ADU, right? That's Yeah, that's fine. That's fine. Okay. Any other questions from the board? Comments. Let's roll. I'll ask the question anyway. Anyone here to speak in
favor? Anyone here to speak in opposition? Belongs back to us. Mr. Chairman, I move that we grant the variance on the condition that there be no additional ADU.
Okay, we have a second on that. I'll second. Second from Dan. Discussion hearing none. Ricky, yes. Dan, yes. Jim, yes. John, yes. And me, yes.
You good? Thank you. Item number 11, applicant BPH Holdings LLC, KR of Jeffrey Tolman, Goodwin Street, Mack, AO6, lot 28. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow the following.
Construct a single family dwelling waving the requirements of 86-35 attachment 1 as to front front yard setback, rear yard setback, and lot coverage. Uh the property is within an
I8 single family zoning district. Good evening. For the record, Jeff Tolman from Northeast Engineering. Uh I'm here on behalf of BPH Holdings LLC. um the petitioner on this application which is on parcel ID
A06 lot 28. Uh this is a vacant parcel. Um well I shouldn't say vacant because there is existent garage located on it but this is a uh a parcel of land located on the south side of Goodwin Street. Um it's located between Myrtle and Papa Street. Uh this is located in
the single family R8 zoning district and the lot itself is a conforming lot. uh meets the area and frontage requirements of the RA district. Um this lot was created by relief that was granted in 1993. Um it was originally attached to
uh the property at 420 Woodman Street uh which is now the Bento property um lot 19 on a map A6. Um and it was divided again back in 1993 after a vote by this board to allow the division. Um and the
the basically the relief was for the um for the existing house lot um not so much this because this is a conforming lot as I had mentioned. So the plan is to construct a single family dwelling. Uh what we're looking for is relief in terms of uh front yard setback, rear
yard setback and lot coverage requirements. Um what we're looking to do is to utilize uh the developed portion of this lot as best we can. We're going to maintain a portion of the existing driveway which is located on the west side of the lot and we're going
to uh demolish the existing garage and and and basically build plan is to build the single family dwelling in that location and uh we'd have minimum um development on the undeveloped portion of this property which is the the eastern portion. uh there's a portion of the house that would stick up into that
part of the property, but uh we're trying to limit that. And th that is basically the basis of the relief that we're looking for. Um with the bulkhead at the back, we do need the rear setback relief. And with the bump out the front of the house, um you know, if we were to
maintain the existing footprint within that particular zone, the the depth of the lot of the house would be 28 ft. We're looking to go slightly bigger. Uh but we if need be I guess we could shift the house further uh to the west but that would involve uh basically um
disturbing all the undisturbed part of this property which we're trying to maintain. So um with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board might have. So right now as far as the rear setback uh it is only the bulkhead that's going to be protruding into the
orffecting that setback. That's correct. Okay. I haven't seen a square house in a long time. It's scaring me. And and there is um I I would throw this out there too. There is the potential to eliminate that because we're looking at different
grading uh designs on this and it could be a walkout style on the east side, in which case we wouldn't need the bulkhead and that would be eliminated. But um until we resolve that, we're still we've asked for it so we want to keep it on the table. And you've got the uh you do have the room on the east
side. So y I don't have any questions on it. Um Mr. Tolman, anybody your opinion from planning? Our opinions get shorter as the night goes on. Yeah. Trying to be
quick. I just again in the comments that I had previously presented again just to consider the ADU restriction. Yep. Um, but I just to recall that we do have a letter in opposition which I think you you should have. You're right. It's right here. And it just and it's funny. It's actually it's the abuter that was
granted to lot created this. Yeah. And well, it wasn't this person at the time, right? Um, and it was obvious that the relief needed today was because of the relief granted then. Although they did create a conforming lot, they wanted to keep that shed with the lot that was on Woodman and that's what bumped that rear
lot line in. Otherwise, it would have been straight across. the shed was the problem there. But you should 100%, you know, read. This is from David Bento. My name is David Bento of 420 Woodman Street, Fall River, Mass. I'm emailing the zoning board of appeals of Fall River Mass because I am unable to attend
the meeting due to a work schedule. One, I disagree with BPH Holdings/Jffrey Tolman uh of Goodwin Street Map A06, lot 28. um wanting to build a single family home
because one of the because one the lot isn't big enough uh to build a home there. Two, it would be too close to neighbors. For example, if something happens at the house, like for example,
a fire might damage your someone else's property or even mine. So, I'm definitely not comfortable with wanting to build on the piece of land. I wish I could be there to um explain my point of view for a better understanding to why I
came up with my decision. Thank you for taking your time on my behalf. I disagree, but that's why we have public comment. Mr. Chairman, I move that we the variance as requested as requested.
Uh not sure about including the uh restrictions. I'll accept an amendment to that if anyone wants to add the I think we should add the ADU. This is going to be tight. Okay, we'll add no
future ADU. We have a second on this. Second the race Dan won. Um discussion. No discussion. John, yes. Jim, yes. Dan,
yes. Ricky, yes. Joe, yes. Thank you. Item number 12. Lucky Baker's Dozen. Applicant Thomas Alba Edison Building LLC. Ko Peter Acelino. Thank you. I figured you'd be
coming back in sweats or something. 60 H Hotwell Street, N21 05. The applicant is requiring a sixmonth extension regarding the time uh to act on the previous relief granted by the
zoning board of appeals on May 16, 2024. Uh correct. So, I told Patty we'd be done by 10, so I'm going to make this brief. Uh approximately 1 year ago tonight, we had a momentous hearing in this room relative to 60 Hartwell Street, Fall River, Mass. And that zoning decision was twofold. It had a
special permit component and a variance component. The one year obviously is tomorrow. And as a result of Mr. Cadero's other projects, specifically 66 Troy and Bedford Street, which is currently underway, this one hasn't received the attention necessary. So I'm
asking the board for an extension of six months to the variance component. The special permit component would still be viable obviously uh for two years uh so that he can do a little further homework on this site and act on the variance granted. Okay. Questions from the
board general public? Anybody for? Anybody against? Mr. Chairman, keeping with the standard practice of this board, I move that we grant the six months extension. Second
motion and second discussion hearing. No discussion. Ricky, yes. Dan, yes. Jim, yes. John, yes. Joe, yes. Thank you. Cool. Citizen input. You be quiet.
Uh, approval of minutes. Move waving to the reading of the minutes and acceptance of the minutes as presented. Second on that guys. Second on the approval of minutes. All in favor? I
motion opposed. Motion of adjournment. Ajournment. Uh motion second. All in favor of adjournment. I folks, thank