like to welcome everybody to the November 7, 2025 meeting of the forum planning board. Pursuant to the open meeting law, any person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any media. Attendees are therefore advised that
such recordings or transmissions are being made, whether perceived or unpersceived by those present, and are deemed acknowledged and permissible. The city charter section D-9-18 mandates that all municipal member bodies develop and adopt rules or policy
for public input. We have adopted such a policy which in short provides for citizen input on planning board specific matters at the end of the meeting. There's a signup sheet uh probably over there. Uh it's located on the side of the room. I'm going to do a roll call.
Um Gary Elite from Forward Government TV is here. Dan Angard, a city engineer is here. Uh Chris Lec, assistant planner is here. Gloria Pico >> here. >> Beth Andre
>> present. >> Mario Luciola >> absent. >> Mike Faras >> present. >> And I John Ferrer present as well. >> First on the agenda for new business. H >> street acceptance Brookfield Terrace
request acceptance of Brookfield Terrace extending to terminus referred by city council on August 12, 2025. >> You can read all three of them together. >> Okay. Number two, street acceptance
Fieldstone Lane request acceptance of Fieldstone Lane extending from Hayfield Lane to Courtney Street referred by city council on August 12th, 2025. Number three, street acceptance Stony Brook Circle request acceptance of Stony Brook
Circle extending from Fieldstone Lane to Terminus referred by city council on August 12th, 2025. So, in your package, board members, you have a memo uh from me regarding these three streets. Uh Fuel Stone Lane, Brookfield Terrace, and
Stony Brook. These are three streets that were part of the Highland Farms phase 2 subdivision. It's not the entirety of the subdivision. Look like this. Yeah, I wonder on the side right there. >> Um, so in that you'll see that I've explained the three streets, the length
of the streets, the right way with with the pavement similar like we always do with with all of the streets under the comment section. Um you will see that theations for the subdivision roadies, utilities and storm water management systems have been satisfactorily constructed in accordance with the
approved plans excluding the required wetland verification area and Brier Wood Lane. So this Highland Farms phase 2 subdivision was sold to two different developers if you're not aware of that. Brier Wood Lane section and some of the Courtney Street work um were sold to AIS
which was Kenstein. The other half, these three streets were sold to Bristol Pacific Homes. Gary Michael is here this evening representing them. So, it's that portion of the subdivision that we're dealing with tonight. Those three streets, their utilities, and their storm water management systems
exclusively, not the entire subdivision. U satisfactory as plans have been submitted and approved by the planning office, engineering office, community utilities, and the third party uh construction inspector, Grossman Engineering. There are documents in the package um from both of those offices as
well as signing off on the project. Last week, the for conservation commission issued a certificate of compliance with this portion of the subdivision as well. Um so tonight, what you're being asked to do is a couple of things. The first is the fall river planning board shall
act regarding the completion of the construction and the release of the shity uh by letter of credit of $10,000. If you remember back in September, we reduced that final line item down to $10,000. So that would be the first action that you'd be um requested to
take today. Then subsequent to that, the for planning board should act regarding a recommendation to the city council with regards to the acceptance of the ways associated utilities. And I would offer that they should be subject to the following conditions and they're in the subdivision approval anyway. uh the
applicant shall provide all required street acceptance plans and legal descriptions suitable for recording at the forum of a registry of deeds. And then secondly, all required easements shall be conveyed prior to the vote of acceptance by the city council. You'll see page two there is a list of
attachments. I've added a copy of the recorded subdivision, copy of the recorded planning board decision, copy of the asville plans that memory utilities, the letter from Grossman Engineering, and a copy of the letter of credit dated September 8th, 20
and 2025. So, if you have any specific questions, I'd be more than glad to answer. >> Now, number number four, the $10,000 shy, is that per um >> that was just for this section of the subdivision. We held back 10,000 for these three streets. We held back three for the three all together.
>> For the three all together. Yeah. >> One shity for those three streets. There's a separate shity for Courtney and then a separate shy for Briarwood. Those will all remain in place. >> Why would you Dan? Why would you uh recommend acceptance subject to two conditions A and B? Why not just get A
and B done and then then uh >> we can't we can't tell an applicant they can't submit something to council. So this went to council and then that starts the time frame ticking forward. So that we have to have a public hearing. We need to deal with it and
move on from that. Um so a those plans and those descriptions don't get done until the city council takes the vote to accept it. >> So they've been kind of recorded till they're voted on as well.
>> So they they've never been conveyed to date. I called attorney Celenino this morning and he said that he's going to resolve that. So you would be making this vote if you choose to conditional upon these items being addressed. You can also vote that that your
recommendation to the council doesn't go to them until we receive them either way. But in any event, all of the work is completed. There are some eyes to do across before the council can actually accept the way. But all of the fieldwork
has been expected. >> So all that it's just basically the deeds and basically looking at asbuilt drawings. >> Um >> we've already done the as >> you have you have actually done the as >> the way the process works for street acceptance is any 10 citizens can
petition the city council for street acceptance. >> Mhm. >> That document goes to the city council. They immediately send it to you for input. >> Then they take it up. They won't even look at it until you said the streets
are done. So, I've included additional information in there that I know needs to ultimately be done and I don't like to have things fall by the wayside. So, it's being acknowledged up front. So, there is a process yet for the city council to take up. This is only your recommendation. You are not accepting.
You are saying the roads are constructed completely according to the plans and that you recommend that they accept it. That process will still take another couple of months for the city council. >> Well, why don't we vote on four item number four, the $10,000 release, and
then we'll just see if there's any more discussion on five. Do I have a motion for number four? >> I motion it by Beth. Second. >> Second by >> Gloria. All in favor? Mike? >> Uh, yes. >> Beth, >> yes. >> Gloria, yes.
>> And I myself vote yes as well. Now, number five. Are there any more questions as far as uh what we need to uh the recommendation we need to move forward to the city council? >> I I would just stipulate that um it it
will it will not be um the city the city council cannot literally vote on this until these things have been accomplished. So the convey conveyance and the um yeah basically it's really the the
conveyance prior to the vote accepted by the city of council. >> Are you good with that Gloria? >> I just like I like everybody including the applicant to understand >> Mhm. >> that it's all things need to align before they ultimately get the shoe accepted. So these are two of the
outstanding items. >> I think it's great that we'll accept the streets. I have no problem with that. I just would prefer not to have these contingencies which could be taken care of so easily and then we submit it to the city council. To me, this makes more sense and avoids admin and all that fun
stuff. >> Well, you can make a motion that we don't send the recommendation until we receive them. >> I I would I I'd feel more I'd be comfortable with that. I've never done it I've never done it the other way around. We've always had those in place before. Um and and again if it the work
is done then it's just really paperwork on your side to >> save a month >> you can >> you can approve it conditional upon our receipt of the easements >> so if the attorney records them tomorrow then they don't lose a another whole month
>> for your planning board meeting but that's up to you. Yeah. I mean >> I mean you're the legal >> Noal again. We could do it either way as Dave said, but I'd prefer because it's just a matter of paperwork getting done, >> right? The short is already
>> I think if we if we hold off on getting that to city council, it'll give uh the attorneys init, you know, little push to get it done right away because this is just paperwork. It's just a matter of getting it done. >> Yeah. >> So, you want to make a motion uh that we
will um to table it to table number five to the meeting and hopefully we can have avoid >> well it's not tableing five it's the petition before you tonight is is to accept >> the roadway so you can you can just table
no recommendation at this point until you receive that >> okay I guess the recommendation we receive that receive the uh easement conveyed >> okay >> that's the whole that's the whole thing that includes number four as well the release and the These four we can't
>> four's already told us. >> It is. Okay. >> So, we already got the >> Okay. >> But this one we knew was going to be a little stickier. So, >> yeah. >> I wanted Yeah. Motion to to wait on that one until we get everything the conveyed. >> Motion by Beth.
>> Gloria. >> Gloria. Jesus. I'm thinking Beth was going to second. >> Do you have that written down? I second the motion. >> Mike. >> All in favor? Michael? >> Yes. >> Gloria? >> Beth? Yes. >> And I, John, vote the same as well.
>> Okay. Number four, roadway reconstruction, Bronson Street, section 66-185, city ordinance, considering the roadway reconstruction plan and profile of Bronson Street.
>> Uh, we just received the revised asphalt for that on Friday. Um, so no action to take on that. >> All right. Table. >> We got a motion. table up. >> Motion to table. >> A second.
>> Beth, Mike. >> All in favor? Gloria? >> Yeah. >> I vote yes as well. Beth, >> yes. >> And Mike, >> yes. >> Number six. Uh, no. Number five. For a application for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval ANR
plan of land file number 25-1644 owner applicant resendes Residential LLC property location 200 highest road cessors map U-9 lot 00017
uh >> oh Chris for the purpose of plan is to divide the property into two lots including the existing existing family existing single family dwelling uh on one lot labeled parcel one and to construct a new single
family dwelling on the second lot labeled parcel 2. Um both thoughts are conforming with parcel two out of the frontage on high crest and other than that it's pretty standard and it is recommended that this plan be awarded endorsement
pretty any questions on this one pretty I have a motion and motion to accept motion by Mike second >> you guys never you only see them when variances get granted but the varian was denied for this stuff
Oh, it was okay. >> Well, we see the results. I read those. But >> yeah, nobody ever talks about >> I always look at them though. I'm like, >> but like like there's one that'll come up here and I'll have a question on it. So, >> all right. Roll call on that. Gloria.
>> Yes. >> Mike. >> Yes. >> Beth. >> Yes. >> And I John. Yes. As well. Number six. form a application for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval and our plan of land file number 25-1645
owner applicant Robert Oldfields property location 179 Wood Street assesses map D-14 lot 0058 and 0650. So the purpose of this plan is to redefine the boundaries between lots 58
and 60 to support the existing and proposed um dwelling here. This plan received a variance on August 21st, 2025 to do just that to divide the property into two lots leaving the existing home and to construct a new single family
dwelling on the second lot waving the frontage requirements. This was granted with the conditions of a vegetative border along the westerly and southerntherly southerntherly lines of the new parcel and the no further ADU deed restriction.
It is recommended that this plan also be awarded under I do have one question. So, uh are you telling me that they had a variance on there? I thought it was a 50ft frontage and if you're looking on Wood Street on
the single family the proposed single family home you have 50 ft at least on the drawing and then you have an an additional 20 ft like a little 100 >> it's 80 I think >> is it oh 80 for this okay >> there should be a zoning table on this yeah it did get a waiver for frontage
>> okay that that's >> all right but it's also the width from the setback too so the the little jut out didn't necessarily even help the frontage Okay. I was wondering why they would why they did that if they were getting a bearing. That's why. >> Yeah, that was a little weird configuration.
>> Yeah, they just had 50 ft here and then they kicked it out. >> Any other questions on this one? >> I have a motion to accept or deny. >> Second. >> Second >> by Beth.
All in favor? Michael? >> Yes. >> Beth? Yes, >> Mario. >> Yes. >> John vote yes as well. >> Number seven for may application for endorsement of plan believe not to require approval and
not plan of land. File number 25-1646. Owner applicant Joanne and George Maris. Property location 559 Ridge Street. Excuse me. Assessor's map G-11, lot 00060.
So, the purpose of this plan is to divide the property into two lots, leaving the existing single family dwelling uh unlabeled parcel one and to create a new conforming lot labeled parcel 2. Um, speaking of denied varants, this is one that was denied back in the day and
I believe the A2 zoning change allowed this to um to be done as it is. It is for those reasons we recommend this plan also be awarded endorsement. >> Yeah, I think this is I mean just simplifies things. This is the new A2 zoning requirements. It just makes more
sense. >> It's made you won't believe the difference it's made in every application. the city of Fall River >> because everything was every A2 project needed zoning only for now it doesn't need one zone >> and and the frontage on parcel too is the 31 ft plus the 22 31.01
It was that way. >> Yeah. >> I wish they were all like this. >> I know. We had a good run this month. >> Yeah, I know. >> There's a lot of them, but they >> No, I don't. Do I have a motion to accept? >> Motion to accept. >> Second.
>> Mike, >> I second the motion. >> All in favor? Gloria? >> Yes. >> Mike? >> Yes. >> Yes. I John yes number eight for a application for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval
a plan file number 25-1648 owner applicant investments LLC property location 1601 162 Lock 1 Street, sessions map 3-19,
lot 00014. All right. Again, the purpose of this plan is to divide the property into two lots. This plan received a special permit on August 21st, 2025 pursuant to um 86423B to divide the property into two lots,
leaving the existing three family dwelling on the lot labeled A and the existing two family dwelling on the second lot labeled B. >> It goes out run >> and these are two existing ones. >> These are two existing. >> Okay. All right.
>> Yeah. Usually usually they are they label them existing and proposed like um the standard condition markers recommended that this plan be awarded. Any questions on this one?
One for a funded and 24 funded. They could do a little bit of a better printing to try to find it. Yeah, a little more. >> That's why I was like, where where is this property? I don't know. Do >> I have a motion to accept? >> A motion to accept >> by Mike. Second.
>> Gloria. In favor, Gloria. >> Yes. >> Myself, yes. Beth, >> yes. >> And Michael, >> yes. >> Okay. Number nine, form a application for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval in
our plan of land file number 25-1651. Order applicants Ryan Vala and Cheryl dea property location 271 Mount Hope Avenue map A-09
lot 0013. Purpose of this plan is to divide the property into two lots, leaving the existing three family dwelling on lot labeled parcel one and creating a second lot labeled parcel 2. This plan received variance on August 21st, 2025.
Um, as well as a special permit waving dimensional regulation, setbacks, parking layout, and parking setback requirements. There was no further ADU restriction. the condition that the garage shall be modified to comply with
the 15yard side setbacks. It is recommended that this plan also be awarded endorsement. >> We didn't get this plan in the email, so I didn't review the variance on this one. >> What was that? >> We didn't get this emailed to us. This
plan was not from the email, so I didn't review the variance on it. >> I have it printed out. Would you like to? >> It wasn't in your packet. Look, >> Lauri, any other questions? >> No. Do you?
>> No, I mean I mean we have no say over the variances anyway. I mean >> and you want to subdivide it, but to me you they're showing parking. They're going to build something here, but I guess that's up to site plan approval.
So I know in another one we have tonight the the plan list that the edu is prohibited. Um so going forward when they have that restriction could we also put that on the plan?
>> Could apply it by law because it's it references the zoning decision. The zoning decision has a number of conditions. That's not the preview of the planning. >> It's not required by law to put the intent on the plan, but as a board we require >> but we just keep adding more things but yes
>> yeah but >> we can ask for for them to do it. >> Yeah, because I know it's on another plan and that makes it much easier. So it doesn't have to hear the booking page where this is recorded assuming you guys reviewed it. >> That that was my my copy. Yeah,
>> just about every variance that we've been granting or special permits um the board has been putting that restriction on no additional ADUs because we were finding we would grant relief being flexible and then people >> So you're limiting the ADUs >> and and usually anytime that a variance
is being granted to oh >> for an additional lot or anything else Right. >> Like enough is enough sometimes, right? So, it's not we're going to let you build a single family house and then 6 months later you're coming back applying for an ADU on that single family house that you just get a better. >> Yeah. That's kind of why like I I always
scratched my head on this one is like you're subdividing this and if it's an ADU type of approach to it then um you know what what limits them from saying you know in parcel one well wait a minute we got enough space here we can get rid of the shed and you know do an
ADU unit. Yeah, >> once that decision is trended. >> Yeah. >> And that's it. It eliminates the >> It is deeed restricted forever that they cannot build an ADU in accordance with state law. >> But an ADU in general does not require a variance. >> No, >> just a building permit and a setbacks
and the 900 >> maximum square footage. >> Yeah. >> All right. Do I have a motion on number nine? >> A motion to approve. >> Mike second. Second >> by Beth.
All in favor? Gloria? >> Yes. >> Mike? >> Yes. >> Beth? >> Yes. >> And I John? Yes. As well. Excuse me. For uh number 10 for May. Application for adoption of plan believed not to require approval. ANR
plan of land file number 25-1652. Owner applicant TRM Development LLC. Property location block street Monarch Street map K-13 lot 00057.
The purpose of this plan is to divide the property into six lots labeled 1 through six and to delineate lot 7. This plan received a variance on September 18th, 2025 to divide the properties um requiring
relief from area frontage, rear yard and lot coverage for lots one and two. Area frontage and coverage for three, four, five, and six. And then area coverage for lot seven. Um the no ADU restriction as well as we just talked about. It is recommended
that this plan be awarded endorsement. >> I've got a couple of questions on this one. So we we don't have um a public road or or a private road. My understanding as of right now from how these it limit of um um Park Street
>> construction that that's done is that road has that road been installed yet or >> so they cannot they will not be able to build on these roads. They'll be coming back to you for what like the roadway improvement project. Um but for ANR
endorsement it is an existing private way building permit will be something else that they'll be able they're going to need to build and that was part of the contemplation by the zoning board for the cost associated with building these roads and the ledge and the soil
topography of of the site. So that was all wrapped up in the zoning decision as well. But you'll see this again for the roadway improvement part of it for what they need to build. Um, so right now they have to build it to your subdivision rules and regulations unless they come in requesting some kind of a
waiver. Something like Bronson Street if there's a paper street in place. You can't build on the lots until you have an approved way. I I'm I'm just going to throw this out because I I know I've run into this before where those paper roads come in, they sell the lot and then the
developer never builds the road and then they're they're looking at what not this city but other places where well wait a minute you said this is a lot. We bought the lot thinking we could build a house on here and there's no road there. They took the money and they they left. So I I'm just um I'm just cautious about this
because I have run into this init this situation. um in the past. So um again, if the the city and the zoning is going to allow this, then there might be some liability associated with it
because, you know, these people could just uh individuals could just sell all these lots with the impression that the road was going to be built and they're they're gone, you know. And this happens a lot with not on on subdivision projects where they were supposed to
have certain things and they just weren't done. Um but that's that's just my thought to the process, but >> it's a good point. >> Yeah, it's happened. >> Oh yeah. >> So like on the Bron Street when for instance when when it was through site
plan review and we we required that all of the utilities and roadways be installed before they could convey any pieces. So, >> okay. >> We do what we can on our end to hold people's feet to the fire, but the purpose of an ANR endorsement is
that your approval is not required. If it meets the area of refrontage that was granted on on the variance and it's on the way, whether it be private or public, it's still a forcement. But any stipulations when it comes time to construct
then you have every ability to put any condition or any level of construction. >> Well, like Mike said, they can sell it under false pretenses. >> Well, some people have to be responsible for what they're buying, right? So, >> we've had babysit everybody.
>> We've had a few come through here that have sold some shady deals that they never even owned, let alone own and sell. I do have a motion either way. >> I just have one other question. What's
that other lot that's to the um top of the page which uh map K-23 lot 94. >> It's uh 8,363 >> lot across the street. Just owned by the same owner, part of the same zoning
decision. Okay. So it it's put on the same plan so that anyone can reference the subdivision plan itself and also have a motion. >> Motion by second. >> I'll second the motion.
>> All in favor. Gloria Mike. >> Yes. >> Beth. >> Yes. and I John vote yes as well. Number 11, form a application for endorsement of plan believed not to to require approval and our plan of land. File number 25-1653
owner applicant 37 Park Street Partners LLC property location 37 Park Street assesses map G--06 lots 0028 and 0029. The purpose of this plan is to combine
all lots and parcels into one parcel. This plan received a variance and a special permit on December 19th, 2024 to convert the existing non-conforming structure into 68 uh apartments. There's a variance for lot coverage and area special permit for reduction in parking.
It is recommended that this plan endorsement. >> Who went to school here? >> Who went to school here? >> I'm at St. Pet. I thought you went to the account. >> I did. >> Oh, you would do that when you were talking. There you go. >> I went to school. >> Went to school then. >> I >> You did.
>> I did. And so did your wife. >> I did. Yeah. That's why I knew one of these. >> So they're going to convert this into a >> Sorry. Note three references wrong date, wrong reference to the variance. >> Number three.
>> Do you have the right one? >> I do. I believe it's >> Well, we had the revised plans in. I don't know if you taken out of your bag. >> The one here says if you look at number three, it says property subject to variance, etc. >> Uh, >> August. >> Oh, okay. So,
>> and the booking pages >> I guess. Yeah. >> So, we don't want to record this. I know I've said before to double check these. >> This one could be >> um me my speaking mistake. Is this
>> I think the engineer has just >> this is 37 Park Street. So, one of the >> one of the issues with this one was >> it got amended. >> Yeah. >> Uh like a a significant period after it
was approved. So, it had a separate um approval. And here >> that's not a that's that reference isn't correct. It doesn't exist. >> Okay. >> 112 11127 page 100. >> You have decisions.
Number three says 101273100. Yeah, that's not that's not the correct. >> The engineer can just resubmit it. >> No, no, no. I just want to make sure that we have the right time. Sorry. And then I find out >> even the legal it was done after. So when I looked up, this is the legal
reference for the deed which is here which is before7. See how that was the deed references. >> Yeah. What? Decision reported here. This is decision. These are the deep references. >> But the plan says this is here, which
doesn't exist. So I I looked up the owner. >> So when you see things like this, by all means, you can let us know ahead of time so we can get this resolved so that we don't have the circus here. >> I did it this afternoon. >> No, I know. >> And I've asked you emails quick to say, "Hey, can you have them fix this?" And we could have had him fix it, >> right? But sometimes
>> I know you meet. >> So we've checked earlier, right? Can I check early and then it gets over by that you're saying? >> No, I agree. I think it's a good project. I think all that's great, but it needs to be done. Just recorded.
>> No, it needs to be correct. >> Yeah, just do that. >> I just want to go upstairs and look it up and find out that it is correct. >> Oh, I see what you're saying. >> All right. So, what do we have? A motion to uh table it. table. >> A motion by
second by Gloria. >> All in favor, Michael table. >> Uh, yes. >> Beth, >> yes. >> Gloria and I vote yes as well to table. Number 11. Number 12 for May.
Application for endorment of plan believed not to require approval and our plan of land file number 25-1654 owner applicant Charles J. Ogawa property location 163 Brain Avenue
SS and WS Oxford Street assesses map F-16 lot 0037. The purpose of this site is to divide the property into two lots, leaving an existing three family dwelling on one
lot labeled lot two and an existing five-stall garage on the second lot labeled lot one. This plan received a variance on June 15, 2023, waving use and dimensional requirements um with the condition that three parking
spaces be required for the residential dwelling which um which are provided in the back of this plan. So, he's saying he's going to demo the uh the fivestar garage. >> This was already before us once before >> this section and then
>> they're keeping >> he had bought this I believe. >> Yeah. So, they just got a variance. This gentleman bought this piece from him. >> Wait, say that again. >> Okay. >> This piece years ago was cut off of this. >> Okay. >> Was conveyed to this gentleman.
>> Gotcha. They just went back and got a variance to put this line back in. So, this lot will be standing by itself with the garage. It's not a buildable lot. >> That's what I That's what I noticed on. >> So, it's not a buildable lot in lot one. >> Yeah, it's not. It says it right there.
>> Okay. I mean, that's that's all I wanted to know. >> That's Yeah, it's straight. >> All right. Do I have a motion to accept? >> A motion to accept. >> Mike, I think Gloria call Michael. >> Uh, yes.
>> Yes. >> Gloria and I yes as well. Number 13, approval of minutes September 10th, 2025 and October 8th, 2025. >> Um, motion. >> Oh, we have this.
>> Yeah. Well, you want to make a motion to accept October 8th. Beth, you were not present. >> Make a motion to accept the minutes of October 8th. >> So motion by Gloria. Second. Michael, >> I second. >> And I vote yes as well to accept the minutes of October 8th meeting.
Now the October uh September 10th meeting. Michael, you are absent. >> That's correct. >> Do we have a uh a motion to accept that? >> Motion accept >> by Beth. Second. >> Second. >> Lauria and I John Ferrer. accept as well. Approve.
Um this meetings are done. Citizens input. We don't have any. Correct. >> Mhm. >> And do I have a motion to adjurnn? >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. A second. All in favor? I opposed. No. Good.