All set. Thank you, sir. Good evening. I'm Joseph Pereira, chairman of the zoning boards of board of appeals for the city of Fall River. It is 6 p.m. on Thursday, August 21st, uh, 2025.
We are meeting at one government center in the first floor hearing room. Pursuant to Massachusetts gen uh general law chapter 3A section 20 subsection F, I hereby notify all persons in attendance that a video and audio
recording of the meeting is being made by Fall River Government TV, Mr. Michael Ferrer. If anyone desires to make a video, audio, or combination recording of this meeting, please notify me now and I will make a public announcement of
your intent. They're hearing none. Our recording secretary this evening is Miss Patty Aguar sitting to my immediate right. Uh sitting uh present this evening are regular members John Frank, James
Caulkins and alternate members uh Mr. Eric Kelly to the far left and Alexis Ensalmo. Also present this evening is Mr. Daniel Aguiar, director of engineering and planning seated to my far left. Patty, have all petitions to be considered been
properly advertised and all interested parties notified in accordance with the rules and regulations of the ZBA and Mass General Law Chapter 4A as amended? >> Yes. >> I thereby declare the August 21st, 2025
regularly scheduled meeting of the zoning board of appeals of the city of Fall River open for such business as shall regularly come before it. I remind all persons presenting before the board, including petitioners, abutterss, anyone in favor or opposed to a petition, that
your presentations or comments should be limited to three minutes. The board's rules and regulations direct the board to specifically look for information that supports the petitioner's claim. As such, the petitioner should clearly identify and factually support the basis
for their claim. In the case of a variance, a credible hardship as defined by Mass General Law Chapter 48 must be presented. Please remember this applies to variances for use as well as so-called waiverss for dimensional and
area requirements. I remind all present that the authority of the ZBA exists pursuant to Mass General Law chapter 4A and is limited in scope with the use of land as regulated in chapter 86 of the ordinances of the city of Fall River. We
require sorry we require that comments made in the hearing be limited to the scope of our authority. Additional permits, licenses, reviews, and/or approvals may be required for the petitions that are presented this evening. The action taken
by the board has a real and lasting effect on your real estate. As such, I urge all petitioners to seek competent legal counsel before filing your petition and after a decision of the board has been made. A copy of the ordinance is available at the city
clerk's office or from the planning department. I remind everyone that the building inspector is the zoning enforcement authority and you are here because the building inspector has determined that your proposed action is contrary to the city of Fall River's zoning ordinance.
The city's charter section 9-18 mandates that all multi-member bodies develop and adopt rules or policies for public comment. We have adopted such a policy that provides for citizen input on zoning board specific matters. There is
a signup sheet on the table at the entrance to the room. Let us begin. We have two pieces of old business. The first is 01. The applicant is um Maria
uh sorry Mario D. Reyes Ramos and uh Jose A. Reyes Ramos. Uh, this is KROV attorney Peter Ray Celenino. Subject property is 565 Broadway Street, map G21, lot 20. The applicant is requesting
a special permit to allow the following. To add a finished apartment unit to an existing two family dwelling pursuant to section 86426. Number two, relief from 86-445 to wave parking requirements. The
proposed uh property is located in an R42 family zoning district and this petition is tabled from the July 17th, 2025 meeting. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Peter Solino. I'm a lawyer with offices ad address at 550 Locust Street in Fall River. I
represent the applicant petitioner, uh Mr. Reyes, who's to my left. As the chair indicated, this was before the board uh at the July meeting. At the uh during the open discussion at that meeting, it was suggested that I confer
with Mr. Hathaway to see if the third unit could be construed as an ADU. I'm happy to report that we received a letter this morning that in fact confirmed that the third unit would be a I think he used the word by right ADU.
And as a result, what we're left with really is our special permit request for parking. Uh more specifically, as the board knows, the parking requirement for an ADU is one space. The plan before the board shows four spaces. So from an analysis perspective, we have two units,
four spaces, and so we comply. Um when we add this ADU, we need one additional space that we do not have. And as a result, I am left asking the board for a special permit for a waiver of one parking place. Uh I'd submit to you that this is a lot less relief than we were
asking for last month. And ultimately, uh I think the street could house one additional car. I would suggest to you respectfully that this is less detrimental or is not more detrimental than what's already there. And I would ask that the board find that a special
permit would be appropriate for the one parking space waiver. Okay. Thank you, council. Any questions from the board? We understand what happened here. So, we had a situation where we felt it could be an ADU. Mr. Hathaway agreed. Um,
therefore, we don't have to deal with approving the apartment, but we do have the parking situation. Um, any comment from uh from the planning aspect? >> Just for housekeeping, I would recommend that attorney Celeno formally request to remove that portion of the petition. So
you don't have to make a >> vote or anything in in any direction. >> We should at least withdraw that section of the petition. >> Would you like me to do that right now? >> Certainly. Petitioner moves to withdraw the request for relief relative to the third unit by special permit.
>> Mr. Chairman, I move that we grant permission to withdraw the uh special permission or the requirement for the additional unit as it falls under an automatic extension >> falls under edu law. Y
>> we have a second on that. >> Second. >> Second from Alexis. Discussion on the motion there. Hearing none. John, >> yes. >> Jim, >> yes. >> Alexis, >> yes. >> And Eric, >> yes. >> Chairman Prairie, yes. And before you continue, I I did have a conversation with the building inspector and attorney
Seleno was correct that that was the representation that he gave to me as well. One concern that he did have was when we're starting to deal with these ADUs quicker. Um we've handled it on our end when we grant any type of relief precluding additional ADUs from taking
place. What he asked in this instance, and this is really just a recordkeeping um at the registry of deeds is that a deed restriction be placed on the property acknowledging that this third unit >> was an ADU.
>> Um >> I explained to him that he could do that through his own >> process before issuing an occupancy permit, but he did ask you to contemplate that as well as as one of the conditions of your if you grant the special permit for a waiver of parking. Okay. >> Um, was that that deep restriction?
>> I think we're of the same mind on that. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Chairman, I might suggest would you just take or Dan take one minute and for the people in >> I will I will to explain what an ADU is. >> Okay. >> Um, it's an auxiliary or >> accessory dwelling
>> accessory dwelling unit. um with certain changes in state law. For those who don't know, um this allows a small unit to be built out in an existing house or building within
certain parameters. Um, as far as the number of units that that exist already, our concern, and I think the reason we're being somewhat conservative on it is some people are coming in dividing lots,
building new single family homes that would be able to add a dwelling unit down the road. So, we're being kind of careful kind of based on lot size, you know, what the neighborhood looks like, etc. If every
single family home in the city of Fall River took 600 square feet and built an ADU, you know, what would that do if half the homes in in the city of Fall River did the same thing? This is coming down from the state. It's a change in state law. So, we have to recognize that
obviously as part of what we do and u and that's that. So, we you're going to hear the term if you if if you're one of our regular viewers and and go to our our YouTube channel, you'll hear the ADU passed around a lot and that's that's
exactly what it is. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh on this matter on the U waiver of >> there's got to be question. Is the ADU use limited to a family member or relative? >> Nope. No,
>> it is not. might want to call the governor's office. Um, >> on the matter of the um special permit for uh the waiver of the one parking space, is there anyone here that wishes
to speak in favor of that petition? Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition there? Hearing none, I come to the board. >> Mr. Chairman, I find that this is not substantially more detrimental to the area and move that we grant the uh
special permit. >> Do we have a second on that? >> Second >> motion and second discussion on the motion there. Hearing none. Eric, >> yes. >> Alexis, >> yes. >> James, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Chairman Prairie, yes. >> Great. Thank you. And is there a
condition that I record a deed restriction here? It can. Glenn's going to make you do one. >> Okay. So, >> Glenn's gonna Yeah. >> Okay. No problem. I just want to make sure I have it straight. >> Okay. Thank you. So, you're all set.
>> Under ruled business, item number 02, 2573 South Main Street LLC and 2589 South Main Street LLC. Care of attorney Peter Eelino. Subject properties are 2573 South Main
Street which is at map B1 lot 9 and 2589 South Main Street at map B1 lot 10. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. One petition of seeks a variance pursuant to section 86 attachment one to wave frontage and
sideyard setbacks in the BL zoning district and frontage and area cover requirements in the R4 district to allow the subdivision of lots BO1 um-9 and BO1-10
into five lots. The two existing multif family dwellings will be placed on conforming lots and new multifamily dwellings are proposed for the three uh newly created lots. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the
following. One, relief from 86-445 to amend parking and loading requirements. The property is located within a BL local business and zoning district and an R42 family zoning district. The
petition was previously tabled at the July 17th, 2025 meeting. >> Good evening. For the record, Peter Selenino, lawyer with addresses at 550 Locust Street. With me is Jeffrey Tolman, the consulting engineer on the project. Um, Mr. Chair, should I rehash the requested relief or just go over
where we've been since we were here last time? Uh I think we need to reh one of our members was not okay not here. >> The proposal before the board is to divide the site into five total lots. Uh lot one is conforming as to dimensions
but needs a side setback waiver. Uh this would be the south side of the existing two family structure. Lot five is conforming as to dimensions but needs a side setback waiver. Um it has 7.6 ft. It needs 10. Lot two is conforming as to area, but it needs uh frontage and rear
setback. Lot four conforming as to area needs waiver of frontage and rear setback. And lot three needs a waiver of frontage and lot coverage. Um we have uh 55% proposed lot coverage and need 30. And we've asked for a special permit to relax the parking and loading
requirements. As of the meeting last time, uh the neighborhood was here and the main objection seemed to be the point on the plan that would be top corner, top left corner of the plan, that triangular strip. And so we heard a lot of testimony relative to access to
and from Summit Street. Uh we heard various allegations surrounding who had rights to that and how access would be made either through emergency vehicles and or um I believe there was a camper that couldn't be removed, etc. So, my client was sensitive to that. Since that
time, he um had the lot line staked to the west, moved the retaining wall in three inches off the line. Uh also got rid of the 90° angle that's depicted on the plan there so that emergency access vehicles andor neighbors could traverse
through that area more efficiently. Uh also pulled various permits, demolition and construction permits for the building of the wall. So, we believe that these actions have addressed the neighbor concerns that were raised at the last meeting. Um, and I believe they
were responsive to what was, you know, what was raised. Do you have anything further you want to offer? >> No, I I I believe the whole issue with the property line um has been resolved. There's no question on whether or not um the line was accurately staked in the field in the um easement that was shown
there is a 200 foot easement. Again, it's the um taking 20 feet um off at each side going at a 45 degree angle um to just make that turn around that second bend with coming into the house is a lot more uh a lot easier uh to make
as you're coming in. So th those were the changes to the plan. >> That 90° angle was there previously. Correct. That that was the existing situation. >> Correct. And there was an old wire fence that was on showing as lot three. um that went down to that property corner
and then you know headed uh east towards South Main Street. That fence was removed and the block wall was installed um you know right on that corner and I did go out and take a look at it and it it you know it's very difficult if you had a you know there was a fire engine
uh that needed to get back there would have been very very difficult to make that turn if they would have been able to make it at all. With this scenario um they'll be able to get around that corner. >> Okay. Thank you. Were there conversations with the neighbor? And I know you're not quite done with the presentation, but why while that section
is is being discussed, were there discussions with the neighbors? Has anybody come out said anything? We can we can cover it when we when we get to public comment, but I just want to make sure that the developer or the engineer was proactive considering the situation
and took the opportunity to speak with some of the neighbors out there regarding their concerns. >> Yeah, the developer uh did have some conversations. I didn't have any conversation myself with any of your owners. >> All right, continue. I'm sorry. >> Um, well, I think we're okay. I think
that's our presentation. I think unless anyone wants me to go back over again, the relief seems like a lot, but it's not actually a lot. The the number of lots uh with the exception of the frontage all conform, the number of units is allowed based on the area calculations in the BL uh district and
the R4 district. >> Can can you just discuss one more time? You said you're looking for parking relief and I'm my map is showing me that there's two for every unit. >> Yes, >> it's more proximity of the parking spaces to lot lines to entire interior lot stuff like that um that we're
creating >> internally uh within the within the site. Uh has nothing to do with the >> you know aisle width and number of parking spots required. We we satisfy those requirements. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Strictly the setback of the parking spaces.
>> Yes. Any other questions from the board before I go to the public? From the planning perspective, anything new? I know we discussed >> The only question I would have is this proposed access easement, it's
intended to convey the rights to that to to property owners. Is that correct? Or who will who will have rights to that access easement? the the accessment on the property itself. >> The new one that you're creating. Yes. Not the existing one. >> Oh. Oh. The one proposed. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Whoever has rights within that easement now would have those >> rights to this new one. Okay. I got it. >> Okay. So, it's just being adjusted. >> That's >> correct. >> Any Okay. So, >> they expanded like 200 square feet. >> That's the intent.
[Music] Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak in favor of this uh petition? Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition? They're hearing none. I'm going to
assume that people are satisfied with that change that was done around the corner. It does sound complex, but let's take uh everybody's had time to think about this one somewhat since it was here last month.
>> Any other questions from the board? This is the time. >> I'll make a motion to uh grant >> two different Y. >> We're going to take the variance first. >> Yeah. Always. um
which is the waiver frontage and sideyard >> area coverage >> covered the uh only caveat that creates all of these subdivision the
separate parcels too correct >> yes correct yes >> so no internal fencing permanent markers >> and that's my motion. >> Second >> motion and second discussion.
>> Just a question. Does the creation of that you wall at the end for that new ement does that constitute a wall that would be in variation to that requirement? Uh no because it's not an internal lot line to the project.
>> It's an exterior lot line. Correct. >> And uh that's automatically site plan and correct on that. I just want to make sure. >> Yep. and uh the discussion um >> adus are we going to address that through the
building department or is that something that we should do a deed uh >> research? Well, to be consistent with how you've dealt with the granting of relief, any lot that required relief to build what is shown, you have put on a
restriction that no additional >> ADU additional ads, right? >> Be allowed. Otherwise, >> every structure on this lot qualifies. >> So, you have So, so we've got five lots. You could theoretically have five ADUs on this. So, >> is your plan amendable to that?
>> Yes. Right. You're okay with >> Yes. Yes. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So that'll be my amended motion. All right. >> Very good. Thank you. >> And the second. >> Okay. Very good. Thank you, Eric. Any further discussion on this? >> Can I ask about the fencing, please? You
said that you say interior um fencing for all five lots. >> Yeah. Is there um are there is there existing fencing now on those front two? Is that what it is? >> Yes. Well, I'm not saying that some people want a fence, you know, in
between. I don't know if that's something that's >> Well, well, the mindset is that these are all shared driveway. There'll be access easements with >> all of the interior lotines that are being created that you can't have one owner decide he wants to put up a fence
>> and do the side like in other words >> north to south >> like the lot line between lot one and lot two. >> Yeah. I'm not saying put up uh on the road, but see how see lot one. See that f how the the line goes around?
You don't want a fence on the road, but can you put it on the other side? >> You could limit it. >> You're talking the north to south area between one and two, >> right? So like if somebody wanted to put a fence here, for instance. So if you were to say no fencing within 10 ft of a parking spot, 10 ft of a driveway or
concern is a lot of these parking spaces because we're limiting the distance of from the street in if we put those fencing in, you're going to have some visual problems, I think, going in and out of there. >> It's been a very standard procedure for us when we when we divide larger lots
into >> into separate and residential lots. Could we stipulate that any fencing would have to be approved through site review? >> I I just looking at the plan, I think the two logical spots to put fencing
would be between lots one and two on that 55 ft strip and then on the south side of the driveway between lots five and four. Um even though there's pocketing spots um you know that kind of abut that kind of tightly uh it would probably it would
better separate the project from the the existing dwellings with the new dwellings that we have in the back. I think those would be the areas. >> Yeah. The reason why I'm saying is put so much emphasis on making sure I like to continue that for people too if I can. And I think some of it needs a
little bit but any restrictions is fine. 10 feet back is fine. Even if they have to go for a review of it, that's even that's fine, too. >> I mean, lot one and five can pretty much stand on their own. >> Yes. >> Because they're not accessing the common driveway. So, if you want to change it
to no interior fencing between lots two, three, >> three, and four in the back. Yeah. One that can be gonna get it's just going to get messy back there. >> Uh I'll I'll amend my motion to that. But again, site plan review on that just to make sure that we're um
so fencing allowed between lot 1 and two and four and five, but uh with site plan review, parking access and that doesn't preclude perimeter fencing. You can also add no fencing along the
access ement which would cover you four and five coming in >> as part of that in the access but you would you wouldn't want fencing. So >> Oh, in the back. Yeah. >> No, like as you're coming in I mean lots >> if it were me lots one and five I I would want a fence on that property line
>> so that so that I don't have people driving through my yard. But >> comment from >> and that's why I leave one and five. Yeah, >> one one and five with no restrictions for fencing. >> That's correct. >> The amended
>> you'll second to the amended. >> Oh, these. Yes, separate. Separate. >> These guys here, right? >> Sure. >> Okay, then on the U. >> Is there a second on that? on the >> We do have a second from Eric. >> Eric,
>> um on the motion then Eric, >> yes. >> Alexis, >> yes. >> Jim, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Chairman Prairie, yes. >> And uh on the special permit be to amend the parking and loading >> in accordance with the plan. >> In accordance to the plan. Um
that be my motion to approve. >> Second. Okay. Motion and second discussion there hearing none. John, >> yes. >> Jim, >> yes. >> Lexus, >> yes. >> Eric, >> yes. >> Jim Prairie, yes. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for working with the neighbors. >> Going on to new business. Item number one. Applicant is TNM Investments LLC care of attorney Mark Laven, 149 and 155 Mason Street, map K14, lot 79. The
applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following. One, division of the property into two lots, leaving an existing two family dwelling on one lot and an existing three family dwelling on the second lot. First went to section 86423B.
The lot is located in an A2 apartment zoning district. Good evening, council. >> Mr. Chairman, members of the board in Dan and Patty. Uh, I'm attorney Mark L1, law office at 138 Rock Street, Forville,
Massachusetts. Good evening. I'm representing TNM Investments LLC. We have a situation where we have two principal buildings that were created before 1954 on the same lot as we find in a lot of places of the city. We're
simply acting on the statutory provision under 86 uh 423B in order to request that these be separated so that they'll be on their own individual lots. Uh my client has already contracted to have the uh sewage
and water utilities separated. They haven't been done yet. They're waiting for this to happen for us and it's about it. Very simple. It is very simple >> and no changes to the structure and so
it won't be any more detrimental to what any structure would be on its own lot. It would be a preference I assume to owners to have their own lots instead of uh having additional apartments. >> Hi. Am I missing something or does this
not show the property line >> property lines are there? >> That's that's existing condition. You got to go out and then look at >> there's two pages two pages to it. >> This surveyor made up side >> by
far. >> That's what happens when you look at a little screen. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's the real problem. >> Okay. Any other questions from the board on this one? >> Anyone in the audience wishing to speak
in favor of this petition? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? >> Yeah. Question on there used to be three houses on there. Are they going to be able to put it back in fusion >> or garage? I think there's a house. >> There's still a garage in the
background. >> Garage. >> Garage is back there. >> Yeah, >> they took it down. >> It's still shown on their plan, but is that gone now? I >> I don't know. I know the structure other than >> So, in order to build anything on these lots, it would need to come back before this board to do anything. >> I mean, there's a garage there.
>> There is still >> How long ago? uh month and a half. >> This was submitted about two months ago, so it might have just missed it. >> Got it. >> Okay. >> Yeah. The the garage being torn down
would not open up the ability to just go and pull a permit to build another house in there. I don't know what you said. They used to be three. How long ago was that? >> 20 years ago, 30 years ago. No, three houses or three structures.
>> Yeah. Was it three houses or just the three structures? >> Just the three structures. >> Okay. All right. No, there's there's no concern on that then. If they wanted to do anything beyond what we're permitting tonight, they'd have to come back in. Anyone else wishing to speak in
opposition? They're hearing none. >> Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion uh to grant with the uh similar uh guidelines of no internal fencing,
permanent markers, and uh the deed restriction to no further ADUs being added onto the site. >> Separation, >> separation of utilities. >> Separation of utilities as well. >> Mr. Chairman, again to be consistent
with the request of the Department of Community Utilities, he requests that all of these require site plan review for the separation of utilities. So that they're we're finding that >> not happening. >> Well, they're they're happening, but not correctly. They're either sewer and
water lines that aren't 10 ft apart from each other. Often they're trying to do it before they actually submit here. So he's asked any relief we grant that is with that condition that it goes through his office for separation of utilities >> site plan to to you. >> Well, it gets gets submitted to to my office but he reviews only for
utilities. >> Okay. >> That's all. >> So it's not full site plan. >> Not full site plan review. So it's site plan review for utilities only. >> So it's an utility >> substantial >> on this. No >> because this is allowed by right under
86423b. >> So that's a motion. No ADUs, uh, no internal taxes, permanent markers, site plan review for utilities, >> and separate utilities affidavit will be filed. >> Okay, very good. Do we have a second on that?
>> It's a raise. >> I'm going with Eric. >> Making up the last time. >> All right. Motion and second. Uh, on the motion. John, >> yes. >> Jim, >> yes. >> Alexis, >> yes. >> Eric,
>> yes. Chairman Prair. Yes. >> Okay. Very good. >> Thank you, Mark. Don't go too far. Item number two, the applicant is Robert Oldfield. Okay. Rob Mark L1, 179 Wood Street, map D-14,
lot 58 and map D uh 14, lot 60. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. the division of property into two lots, leaving the existing dwelling on one lots and building a new dwelling
on the second lot, waving frontage requirements per section 8635 attachment one. The property is located within an R8 single family zoning district council. >> Again, Mr. Chairman, members of the
board, Dan and Patty, I'm attorney Mark L1, 138 Rock Street, For Massachusetts. I'm here tonight with Robert Ol who's the owner of the property. Um this is a request to subdivide the property to leave the existing dwelling on a
conforming lot and creating a lot that will conform to everything except for the necessary frontage that would be required under this the current zoning bylaws. Uh the hardship is basically the
fact that this is an unutilized lie. As you can see, it's an extremely large lot. It's actually one of the largest lots in the entire neighborhood. And it has a house that was built to one side of the property. When my client was purchasing the property, he was informed
by the sellers that they had a buildable lot. They were two separate lots shown on a deed and they had a buildable lot. Uh they believe that it was still a separate lot. In fact, from what I found out subsequently when I was working on
this uh when the uh applicant was going for a loan, uh that council back then inquired of the city and the building inspector. In fact, the city clerk provided him with zoning bylaws that went back to when
this property was created uh when the city conveyed 1959 to a neighbor. And I even confirmed it with the building inspector, surprisingly that he believed it was a conforming lot because it was more than 4,000 square feet and had 50
foot frontage. Uh unfortunately I had to disagree with that opinion uh under the statute and although he bought this property believing he had a separate buildable lot um I am saying it isn't I eventually was able to have the building
inspector sign off on his dial letter. That brings it up to you. I did explain to my client that he could create another building on this property alone. He doesn't have to come before this board if he wanted to build an accessory unit building or
ask for a two family accessory unit building and ask for a special permit. At that point, my client says he really wasn't interested in that. In fact, what he wanted to do is sell off the big house and build a smaller one for himself, and that's what the new lot is
for. Uh we believe that at this point the property is fairly underutilized. They designed this lot such that it is not attrusive for the new house that's going to be there. Yes, you could technically with a 50-foot lot uh build
a house within that parameter, but he carved up the lot cuz it's extremely large. Um, and he set the property toward the back that he desires for himself uh and would sell off the existing lot. It would all have their
own necessary parking. Uh the only thing that is missing is some frontage. >> Thank you. >> And I assume that that's dangerous that the second house will be a single family house. Yes. Approved.
>> Yes. Yeah. He's not looking to change anything. He he wants to have that for himself and realized he was a single guy. Bought the property, thought he had another lot, and then found out subsequently he didn't. All right.
>> It's funny. I even got the zoning things they sent them that the attorney in 1959 when they they created all this and back then this was a 4 the allowing in this area was 4,000 square foot to build a house on.
So he unfortunately was informed improperly. >> All right. He's got a good attorney, right? Um, will you be amenable to the no ADU requirement that you wouldn't be able to pop an apartment in there?
>> Another pot. Can't add it on. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. That being the case, questions from the board. None. I'll go to the public. Y'all can think about things. Uh, anybody in the audience wishing to
speak in favor of this petition? Vote on favor. >> And hang on. Anyone wishing to speak in favor? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Just give us your name and address, please.
>> Hi, Denise Taylor, 124 Norman Street. I am the little the corner on the bottom left there. Yes, that's mine. >> Um to the left, that property where he wants to put that home. All of the
properties on that street are like 20 ft back maybe from the curb. They all basically line up in a nice neat little row. They all have clearing to the left and the right of them. I have photos of the street to show that he now wants to subdivide the land. He wants to take a
home, push it all the way to the back of the lot, leaving some space between the property line, but pushing it to the back of the lot. Now, that property is mine. The one in the back belongs to her repos 143
>> 143 Wood Street sitting on her back deck. She would be looking at the front of his home. She would basically now have sitting in her on her death the house is there. She would be looking at his home. If he was sitting on his front
porch or looking out a front window, he literally could see into the slider of her living room, her kitchen. The houses in here stated that most of them are on smaller lots in reading the application.
Um the house across the street 15,1T [Music] um there's another one Chap 1100 11,400 ft. Robinson 12,240
ft. Stevenson 10,572 ft. Shamilton 17,400 ft and proposal over 21,000 ft of property. My home has 5,000 square feet. Why? It was built in 1800 something.
>> My grandfather owned all that land, >> divided it, and sold it, >> right? >> Um, now they want to put in a 50 foot driveway. That driveway is going to go by the side of her home. What is that? Those are
bedrooms. So now you're in your bedroom. Somebody's going to pull in, drive down the side, drive down a long driveway to get to their house. that's set 50 ft off the road. You're sitting in your backyard. You've
got a house there. I have photos of the property of the street. It's noted also in the application that it's a mix of multif family and single family homes. I will give him yes, there is the multif family homes. Mine's a two family home.
It hasn't been a two family home in use in 20 years. I haven't converted it to a one because it's too expensive to make some changes. >> The house next door used to be a two family home. That is used as a one family. The house down there, the next one down, two family home, family living
in the top and bottom. So, yes, there are some, but they're all family top and bottom with large blocks. So, this is what you see when you drive down Wood Street. You see a row of houses, nice neat little row.
This is where he wants to put the house. So, here are the bushes. This all has to get ripped out. And he wants to put the house back here in my backyard. Literally his backyard. But she's sitting in her backyard.
Whatever. This is her backyard. This is where the house is going to be. So, this is her deck. This is where the house is going to be. >> How far is her deck off her property line? >> The deck is far enough off the property line. The point is,
>> would you like to see them? >> No, I I was I was down the street. I said back there. >> Well, there's a lot. >> Because when you drive down the street, you're looking from the street. You're not looking from the perspective of the person living in the home. You're
driving down, you're going, "Okay, 50ft frontage. They want to put the house there. There's space. Yes, there's space. However, there's windows. There's bedrooms. There's people in their backyard wanting to live their lives and you're looking at a house over there. It's not as much space as you think it
is once you get a house planted in that spot. In addition, looking for a variance because of 50 foot frontage. You need 80 and an R8. >> He wants 50. He's saying it's a hardship because he didn't know he couldn't build a house there. That's not the neighbor's problems.
>> Total of seven. >> He should have made sure all the eyes were dotted, all the tees were crossed before he purchased the land. I feel bad if he got misinformation, but I can tell you right now, we were very, very close friends with the owners of that home that built that home with the son that
inherited from the owners who passed away. The son passed away. The wife is in a nursing home who told him that their intention was to build a house there someday. Neither one of them could have cuz one was dead and the other one's in a nursing home. He never met
her. She talked to his daughter that was in charge of it. No, you're getting you're getting outside our purview, but that's that's okay. Let You realize that he has a 25 ft setback from the back of the proposed house to the lot line. >> No, no.
>> Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. I'm looking at it. >> I'm I'm talking about her house there. So, the house is there. So, if you're on the deck at 143 Wood Street, his house is going to be over there. Her slided
home's here. Her bedroom windows are here. The driveway is going to parallel her bedroom window of the house is going to face >> a 50 foot lot that she owns that's in between the two >> and then another 20 ft. It's probably 70 ft from the back of the house across.
>> If you look at that the plan where the trees are in the middle there. >> Okay. >> And by the way, he has 70 ft of frontage proposed for that lot 50. >> Okay. Can I say something? I'm the owner of 43. >> Just again identify yourself in the address, please. Cameron Reposer. I'm
the owner of 143 Wood Street and I I live there. That house has basically been in my life for over seven years. Um that view has been there for over 70 years. Um if you're going to put a house back there, you may as well just put it
in my backyard. I'm sure if any of you have yards, which I'm sure you all do back there, and you go out, you want to enjoy yourself. You want that feeling of, yeah, I've got trees back there. I mean, I don't want
to have this long driveway coming all along the side of my house up past my backyard to their house with cars there in my backyard basically. I mean, it's the feel. It's the vibe. I mean, I've paid taxes there for years. My f my
family has paid taxes there for years. And this guy is going to come in and want to change the whole vibe of that little area >> in a year. >> In a year. And you know, it's just think of it. Think of it if you're in my shoes. >> But I think what you need to understand
is the zoning district for R8 has a required sideyard setback >> and a required rear yard setback. >> That's to the abuing property owners. He's not asking for relief. He's not asking to build closer to that lot line than he could now if he chose to. If he
wanted to expand his existing house >> and get even closer to your property line than what he's showing this new house to be, he can do it by right. >> But he wouldn't be in my backyard. >> No, no, he would be. He could build an addition to his house >> that encompass the entire backyard. >> Like what's being proposed?
>> No, it could be worse. >> The house would extend to the left. >> I don't know about that. even with her home. >> If he wanted to take if he wanted to take the structure that he's proposing now and connect it to that front house with a breezeway, he could build it even 5t closer to the side and 5t closer to
the back. So he can build a structure as a matter of right. >> What we're trying to say is the city of Fall River lately is just stamping and stamping and stamping. You want a variance, you want a variance, you want a variance. They're cutting what we have. This is one of the only
neighborhoods that you can literally step out in your backyard and not hear a pin drop. >> Quiet. >> And yes, your neighbors may be aside. I can go talk to my neighbors if I want to go talk to my neighbors, but I can sit in my backyard. There's nobody there watching me. There's no house directly
right there. When does it stop? When do you stop carving up properties to turn them into little, you know, >> cookie cutters? >> Cookie cutters. It's just enough is enough as it is. We have horrible water pressure. I had to go buy a pump
>> to help pump my water because I have no water pressure. >> Have you called the water department? >> Yeah. They didn't do a thing. >> Well, this is the zoning board of appeals. >> No, what I'm saying is they keep building I'm saying they keep building and building more and more and draining more from the utilities that are already straining to deal with what we already
>> but this is the zoning board of appeals. understand that and that's why >> the relief being requested is 10 ft of frontage. These lots both exceed the area requirement. He exceeds the building setback requirements. So this board can only act on the relief that's being requested which is 10 ft of
frontage. >> But that is the out to say no. You can decline the 10 ft of frontage to say no. You can say no to anything. Absolutely. >> The neighborhood you put that way in the back. It's going to look it's changing the whole vibe of that area. That's the
old area of wood street changing it. >> Okay. >> Just think of it. I just want you to just think of it and >> how would you like to sit on your back deck and face somebody's trying >> and and again we deal with land use. There are certain things we don't deal
with and water pressure for example. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition? >> Yes. My name is Connie Marks. We own this is Nicholas Salvadoria. We own one for each Norman Street yard um the proposed
property. Can Before I keep going, can somebody explain to me the What are you saying? 10 ft of what? >> So right now the variance that's being requested, you need 80 ft of frontage for this zoning district. He's proposing 70. So a reduction of 10. That's the
only relief he's the only thing he's asking for. Everything else he meets the requirements for actually exceeds the requirements for area and building setbacks. So the the only thing that this board is contemplating is that 10 ft. That's it. >> Um so we own the back property. So the
house would be >> you have the big the real big lot. Is that yours? >> Right in the back. >> So the back of his house would be facing our backyard. >> Also you'd be able to see into our home from the back door. We also have a pool.
There's very thin bushes that separate the back, but it's also never been a problem because both properties on all sides have enough space. So, like she does today, the privacy that it is one of the only areas I have an 11-year-old, she can be outside the safety of it. So,
um we've been there for 11 years opposed because I always call it the forgotten part of Fall River because you don't really know that you're there. Oh, I can feel that. >> Okay.
>> All right. I appreciate that. Thank you. >> Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition? >> How you do? Um I live in 180 uh 182 Wood Street. >> Your name, please. >> Uh okay. >> Um I know I don't have nothing, but um
the only problem I got is uh they're still building houses over there. Um, are you updating the sewer sewer lines for >> We don't do sewer. I I mean you I don't want to sound sarcastic. >> No, because you know >> we don't we don't.
>> So everybody every department gets their their bite at anything new that's built. Water department which covers sewage. Um you know any of the public utilities as these things come up have to get involved. >> Yes. But if you land on the house going
over there, you need to update the sewer or whatever you need because I've been living over there for 20 some years. Um, and they already built where after I've been there one, two, three, four, five, five houses and didn't update the sewer.
And I have problems now with my sewer line and you know uh everything that comes down when it rains to enter it comes down the the the street and it goes to my house my driveway. Um I don't know how you guys solve the problem. >> And have have you brought that up to the
city? No, I I name a lot of the city, but that's something that, you know, when you building house, you have to make sure you have, you know, good amount of water, good sewer line, um, access for the fire department to get to
it. That's all you guys have to see. No. >> So, >> that's part of your job. >> So, the zoning board of appeals deals with the zoning bylaw. >> Yeah. >> That does not allow him to build a house. >> There are other processes and permits that are needed. He has to go through the site plan review process. That's
where the water department and the sewer department review his proposal and they assess whether or not there's adequate water and sewage, storm water runoff, drainage. Th this is relatively new, 2016. So, prior to 2016, the city didn't
have those regulations in place, but they are in place now. and it takes people months to get through that process to make sure that that department of community utilities is satisfied with what's being built. So there there is greater scrutiny beyond the zoning board of appeals before he
can put a shovel in the ground and build everything. They they make sure it could be a comment of you know this water line is Excuse me. I'm sorry, but I don't know if they're going to make sure of that because they've been building hoses >> in, you know, >> I I'm just telling you what the process
is and and and that in that department when you snap it, it's done. >> No, it's not done. >> No, >> this all this board does is says he doesn't need that 10 ft of frontage. Okay, >> that's it. >> I thought it was you. >> No, no, no. There's there's you got to go through site plan review that goes
through engineering department, planning department, department of community utilities for water, sewer, storm water. Then you need to apply for a building permit at the building department, electrical permits, plumbing permits. So there's there are many other steps to being able to build something beyond the zoning board of appeals.
But I can tell you if you do have a problem with your sewage or water, you should call the Department of Community Utilities because that they handle those those matters. Thank you. >> Y >> Thank you. Anyone else in opposition?
>> Oh, yes. >> Um Sheila Shvelton. I'm at 150 Wood Street, which is across the street. >> Okay. >> Um and I I oppose based on all the reasons that were already given. Um I don't want to go through that list
again, but basically it's a it's a residential area. Um There has been a lot of building and we'd like to just keep it the way it is. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for your time. >> Anyone else?
>> I'll just add to it. Same thing. San Diego 182 Wood Street. I back everything that they've said as well. And it's basically, you know, we live right across the street. You look out the window. The way it's going to be developed, it's going to be an eyesore. And you know, again, with having young
children, people in their backyards, people want to just chill out, relax. They want to enjoy the environment and not have to worry about looking into people's homes or people looking outside to see what you're doing, you know, for ourselves. So, that's where I stand on that. >> Thank you.
>> Attorney, what's the sideyard setback? >> 20. >> It's required 20 in the RA. >> Oh, uh, >> thought it was required 15. >> The required is 15. We're giving 20. Do do you want to again just an idea it seems to be that the issue is with the
building being constructed in the rear of the lot. Do you want to discuss with your client modifying the lot lines meeting the 15 foot sideyard set back to the existing home and bringing that home closer up to the Wood Street portion of
the lot? Can't I'm just I'm just trying to trying to figure how you'd get a house there and still meet the 20 foot sideline or >> it's a 15 foot side. >> It's 15. I guess we could bring it closer to the repos. >> We could bring it closer to wood >> to the repos's house. Yeah.
>> So you could be at the 15 ft on both sides of the new lot because you can drag that over at least another five the new lot line >> and take that proposed house or maybe even a different shaped house and keep it in the narrow. >> Bring it closer to your house. >> Closer to No, absolutely not. Well,
that's what this should go in the other way. >> We Let me Let me try to summarize. Let me Let me try to summarize. We got a lot that's almost 22,000 square ft. It is one of the largest lots in this entire area. We got a couple two families on
5,000 square ft. Across the street, you got 9 and 8 and 12 and and 17. We are allowed by right to put an ADU. If an ADU goes in, it's going to be there. What we're controlling for you,
the board and the neighbors that if you allow this, my client's going to give up his right to have additional ADUs on these buildings to prevent them from being two or three families. Both of them will give up that. And my client
has no problem. If the if the proposals want a fence alongside between their lot and a fence behind the uh the Albuddi's lot, he has no problem putting fencing or or uh >> vegetative
>> or vegetative buffer, but it's meeting the rear sideline requirements. It's meeting all the sidelines making more than 8,000 square feet. It's almost 10,000. It's actually 11. Yeah. 10,000 square feet and the other one's going to be 11,000 square feet. So, these aren't
cookie cutter lots. I'm insulted by that. These are lots that are 8,000 square ft or more. The only thing we're missing is the fact that zoning changed and made it from a 50ft frontage that this lot was to a 75 ft frontage
>> in the other zoning. So, we're asking that 10 ft of the lot. That would be we wouldn't come before you if we have the extra 10 ft here. But otherwise, I mean, my client has no problem moving the house around. I don't think they're going to want that anyway. So, if you
don't do it, he'll be able to build what he wants to build there anyway, but he'll just have to own it, not sell it. He'll just have to rent it. >> I mean, what if it moves forward? Excuse me. What if it moves forward? >> That's what we were trying to discuss before. And you problem is not enough of width. He can only move it so far
forward. And you know, I know I've gone over my three minutes, but right now I'm having an issue with the way he's the attorney is speaking. It appears that his speaking is they don't like this. Well, if it doesn't pass, he can build it anyway and rent the other one. It's
coming across as a threat to the neighbors. >> I'm sorry. >> That's the law. But it's >> I don't care if it's the law. But it's like you're saying this. No, I I want to go by the law, but what I'm saying is the way he's saying is like, well, if you don't like this,
fine. He'll build it anyway and rent the other one, so we'll have tenants in the neighborhood. It's almost like if you don't like that, we'll make it worse. That's how I'm taking it. And I'm insulting. >> Well, we're trying to eliminate the possibility. >> The reason for an 80 foot frontage versus >> it I'm just saying the city 75. I'm just
saying the city lately seems to be just overlooking what was put in place for a reason. >> That is the issue. There were reasons for things done and the city lately just isn't doing it. They were allowing all this stuff to be done. They're waving parking. They're waving sides. They're waving punch. I don't understand. If
something was put in there for a reason, why does everybody just seem to be stamp rubber stamping everything and letting it all go? >> I see. I resent that. Okay. As chairman of this body, I resent because it's not true. comes across. >> In the in the last few years, we have
denied more applications. >> We have had people table items and come back with better plans more often just because everything's exploding in this city. There's a lot going on. There's a lot
going on and we're trying to keep a balance on it. We're trying to keep a balance on it quite honestly with a bylaw that probably should have been replaced a few years ago, but it gets patched up and we use it. We're trying here >> and that's what we're doing. We're just
trying to keep control of the area of the city we live in. This is an area that is much different than the other area. That's our >> and everybody says everybody comes in and says our neighborhood's different. Our neighborhood's different. They're all different pictures. >> That's one of the beauties of this city
is they're all unique. There's different sections of the city. >> We're on the We're right next to Rhode Island. It's not like the middle of the city. >> Okay. >> Everybody is used to just relaxing and enjoying >> We get that. We get that. >> I'm sorry, but you know, >> it's okay.
>> You'd be just as passionate if you were on the track. >> So, >> so please just understand that. >> So, for the council has the floor >> for their privacy. My client's offering to put the fencing up on the side. where Reposer is in the
back where Albagetti is. So they're so worried about people who are almost 100 feet away from their bedrooms uh to look through the window. That'll solve it. You get a 50ft lot between you
got the house that's down lower. I'd say it's close to 100 feet from the way the backyard would be, but that's my guess. I just do title work. Uh, I mean, moving it around, I don't think helps. I mean, we'd have to move it closer to the proposes and we'd have to move it up
closer to the the existing house and then maybe I'd have to come back and ask for waiverss for rear yard and front yard from that property in order to make it work. So, I mean, we're willing to give you some fencing and I'm willing to
stipulate my client is that he will not ask or build ADUs. He could go and ask as the law requires to put one on each house without coming here and or come here for a special permit to add two. So, we're giving up that where you could
have a two three families. Instead, you're going to have just the two single families. >> Is this going to be a one level? May I ask? >> Don't know. You plan a single story or a two-story home? >> Uh, it would probably be a single story.
Again, that's that's not within our control. >> Okay. >> Just a question. >> Okay. No, no, it's a fair question. >> Important question. >> We meet everything, all the density, all the sidelines and setbacks >> at just 10 ft of frontage.
>> Okay. >> With uh with no more input, we come back to the board. Last chance to ask questions before we put a motion on the table or we ask them to table. Last thoughts, folks. I have no questions.
>> Questions? >> If there's no more questions, let's get to the hard part. >> There's no question. I'll make a motion to grant >> looking at um the agreement to uh by the
owner to uh put up a either a fence or a vegetative border which should be uh reviewed at site plan >> and then no ADU provisions >> and and adding the deed restriction of no ADUs on either uh parcel
>> waiting this building. >> Yeah, it's only it's only the fun requirement. >> That's it. >> That's my motion. >> Okay, we have a second on that. >> Second. >> Second from Mr. Kelly. Discussion.
>> Eric, >> yes. >> Alexis, >> no. >> Jim, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Jim Fra, yes. >> Thank you. Item number three, the applicant is
uh Jason Cody, Kov attorney David M. Assad, 105 Pitman Street, map J19, lot 65. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. One, relief from section 86-34
C to divide the property into two lots, leaving the existing structure on a nonconforming lot and establish a second conforming lot. Two, relief from 86-35 to RA uh wave rear yard setback to
construct a duplex on the conforming lot. Three, relief from 86-35 to wave frontage, front yard setback, sideyard setbacks area and coverage requirements for the existing four family home garage and improvements
thereupon. The property is located within an A2 apartments zoning district. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is attorney David Assad. I'm an attorney licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. I maintain offices at 326 Pine Street in the city of Fall River. What you have before you is a straight petition for a variance um based on the configuration of this particular lot,
the unique shape of it. Um I'll remind the board that a year ago you granted a special permit to allow this two proposed two family dwelling and a year ago the A2 district was substantially different than what it is now. Based on
the new A2 district, we're able to create a perfectly conforming lot uh that would house this two family duplex that's being proposed, meeting all front meeting all dimensional requirements. The exception for lot number two, which
is the conforming lot, is the rear yard uh between the existing one-stall garage and the rear of the house. It would be 10 feet but would be up against the existing onestall garage. We're proposing a five-foot rear yard in that
particular location. Uh and for that we need a variance of that dimensional requirement. Lot number one, the pre-existing uh 105 uh Pitman Street um is a four family unit, has been a four family unit. We're
providing eight off- streetet parking spaces uh for that unit. Um but rather than what was originally proposed under that special permit a year ago, which ended up being kind of like a Rube Goldberg kind of uh configuration with
this two family dwelling being attached to uh the four family making it a six family. During site plan review for that project, uh, more questions were being raised, not necessarily about site plan,
but about the construction and connection of this two family dwelling. Now that the A2 district has been modified, we get a perfectly conforming lot, a perfectly symmetrical house placed on the lot with off- streetet parking meeting front, rear, sideyard
dimensional requirements. Um, >> so it is for that reason we came back before the board asking for a variance due to the hardship of the shape of the lot uh that creates what the special permit was trying to accomplish a year ago.
>> Um, simple and that's why we're before the board. Uh, some of the history of this lot if anyone's interested. This has been the Cody's Jason's ancestral home uh prior to his father acquiring the property. Uh the deed always has
these two lots in 1914. Uh they were two separate lots. The Maderas family was running a dairy from this lot. Uh and the Maderas family lived uh at 105 Pitman Street and 26 Marino Street. Um
so that's the prior history. One argument that I was thinking of making uh was that there was no merger of the lots because uh they were only connected by the rear rear boundary line. >> But when they were running the dairy,
they created uh the garage and some other things that encroached onto lot number two, which then requires us to ask for permission uh to separate the lot, create a conforming lot, and keep the existing lot. uh without doing
anything to it. The um the relief that's really required uh is to reduce the area requirement by 2,930 square ft from the 9500 that would be required for lot number one. uh increased the lot coverage by 49% from
the 30% to 79% for lot number one and wave the dimensional requirements of frontage and width by five feet from 50 ft uh to 45 ft and front yard side yard and rear yard is shown on the submitted plan. Uh no relief is requested for the
building height and that's what's before the board taking advantage of the new A2 district. >> I'll be happy to answer. I will say on my behalf I think this is a better plan than what was approved previously to be honest with
you. It got pretty creative last time. >> Thoughts from uh planning? Well, what I would offer is that we went through the effort actually at the direction of council before us to change this A2 zoning district, not particular for this piece
of land, right, >> to allow development to move forward in this A2 zoning district. I don't understand how we would make a zoning change trying to make development easier in the
A2. I'm not supported >> and then now start dealing with variances associated with it. Right? We reduce the area requirements. We reduce the building setbacks. You should be able to develop the A2 zoning district without needing relief. Otherwise, we didn't do our job with changing the A2
zoning district. Um if if what was being constructed on lot two needed no relief and met all of the new requirements lot coverage setbacks then I think we did our job and then taking advantage of the new zoning for A2 we've
accomplished our goal. What we've done here the board granted a special permit >> to allow pretty much the same thing to take place. special permit doesn't need hardship, doesn't need anything. So now we go through the effort of changing
zoning and now we're going to contemplate a variance. I have I have issue with. So I don't have an issue with the creation of the lot or the relief being associated with lot number one, but I do think anything constructed on lot two should need to
meet the regulation completely. Just my I'll go back and build what was allowed by the special permit. Anyone else? >> May I comment, Mr. Chairman? >> Please. >> So, the only So, I end up with a
symmetrical properly placed lot building on lot number two, which is a perfectly conforming lot, but for the existing the existing one-stall garage, it would it would meet it. >> No, no, I'm not worried about lot one. I'm fine with all the relief you're
asking for. >> No, it's lot number two. The variance is only for that 5ft setback. >> That's lot one. You need the five foot setback. Lot two, you have a rear yard setback of 10 ft to the proposed duplex. >> That's what I have an issue with. So if
if the proposed duplex could meet all of the zoning requirements, I would have no issue with it because now you've got a completely conforming. >> But it does and it's only on lot one, which was the pre-existing lot. Are we am I missing something
>> on lot two? The rear >> lot two which is the conforming lot. >> The rear yard required rear yard setback is what? >> 10 ft. >> No, you have proposed 10 ft. The dash line you have is the ex is the setback by zoning. The A2 zoning district rear
yard setback is 15 ft. Look at the zoning table on the top and there's a dash line that shows you're encroaching on the rear yard setback. I am encroaching on the rear yard setback between the existing one-stall garage and the lot.
>> This is 10. >> That's correct. >> This is the setback 15. >> And that's the 5T that >> I'm not I said nothing on lot one there's an issue with 5 ft. Fine. This lot that you're saying is now conforming >> Yes. >> needs rear yard relief because you're
not meeting the You're not meeting for 15 >> 15 ft. I'm asking for 10 ft. That is >> correct. That that's the point. >> So if if you could build this, >> if if you could build this and that's the rear line and you're meeting the 15 ft setback, then you would comply with
the A2 for this law entirely. >> Correct. >> But that's not what's being requested. I'm I'm just off. >> No, no, that that's not that you are correct. That's not what's but it's the same dimensions that were being >> same house same dimensions of the special permit. No, there was no lot line in between.
>> No, no, no. What I'm saying, what you've done is you've taken it from being connected by a 2x4 >> between the existing garage and making this connected. So, it's one similar to the other singular property ownership. That is correct. >> That's not what you're asking for here.
These can be converted to separate properties. >> That is correct. Setbacks. Go. I'll be quiet. Good. >> No, that's all. It's it's apples and oranges. Right. >> So again, if you're going to make the assertion that creating a conforming law >> Yes. Correct. >> than building in conformance with the new bylaw. I think we've we went well
beyond >> No, no, there's no question. But again, our zoning bylaw has the option even with the new A2 >> that when you're confronted with this uniqueness, you're creating the uniqueness. >> I Well, I am. It exists and that's what
I'm looking for the board to act on to give me relief so we can construct the two family dwelling in this new symmetrical fashion. That's what I'm asking the board. >> So you went with a 30ft deep structure. >> I went with the same thing that was there before >> without the 2x4
>> without the 2x4 connecting it. Correct. >> Yeah. But now we're going to have two separate potential two separate property owners. >> Yes. So if this building was only 30 ft deep and it met the 15t rear yard setback, you would need no relief for lot two
>> 33 feet deep. >> Well, it's it's 38 and a 4ft job. >> So the so the other hardship, the financial hardship maybe is when Mr. Cody was getting ready to build this two
family dwelling. The all of the struts um all of the hardware to build the house is constructed for this particular building. So that was >> created that hardship. >> Okay.
>> Who's saying? >> Yeah. No, it's Yeah, Jeff, can >> I just add one thing? When you look at a lot like this being a corner lot, >> the if we the house is facing Alden Street, >> correct? >> But if we assume the front of the lot to
be Marino Street and a 15t set back there, 10 ft on either side and then is it 12? >> That's not what you have showing. >> We don't. We have 12 ft coming off Marino Street. >> Well, that's because of the deck, but we could eliminate the deck, put a patio. So, so do you want to table it and
reconfigure the building so you meet the board only act with what's before them? >> I understand that. What I'm saying is the building would still face all the >> If you want to table it or the if the if the attorney wants to table it and reconfigure it, you have the right to ask for that. This is not a negotiation.
>> No, no, I'm not asking you to nobody's but I'm asking for clarification on frontage >> that can then go see the building inspector. you've submitted a plan that requires zoning relief. If you want to come back with a different plan that doesn't with some interpretation, then the board can act
on that. >> Well, if we eliminate if the decks are eliminated, it's not the it's not the structure itself. It's the decks that are going into that sideyard that's causing >> No, it's going into
>> right now. It's going into the rear yard. That doesn't that doesn't resolve the the rear yard situation. >> Well, of course it doesn't resolve the rear yard situation. It's the 10 foot proposed 10 x 12t deck that's causing the that structure to encroach into the
rear yard. >> Unless my math is wrong. No, >> that's that sideyard because the front of this building is going to be Alden Street. Correct? Yes. Two. Yeah, that was so it wouldn't be. >> So the rear yard requirements 15
>> I just drew it on there for you. >> Yeah. No, I know you put the line on it, but that was the decks. Was that the building? >> The building 40 that 44t dimension is the rear line of the building. >> Forget the decks. Decks don't exist. This is the rear line of the building >> at 10 ft.
>> There's only >> I'm saying if you make the rear line of the building >> Yeah, I know. I thought that was the line of the building. This is the rear line of the building. >> Okay, >> I'm saying if this is the rear line of the building, then you can meet the 15. I just have an issue with after the
exercise of reducing the A2 zoning district by 50% with all area dimension that we have someone still asking for relief on top of that. >> Jeff from So, okay, Jeff, can I share Wasn't that the line for the building?
>> Yeah, that's the building. >> That's the building. It's not It's not up there. >> Assuming Assuming Alden Street is the is the front hot line >> in Marino Street is a side. >> So, unless I'm missing something, I'm still getting you got 44T.
Okay. >> He has the building setback drone on the plan >> between >> and you you're in it. >> It's right there. It's along the 10 foot set back from the proposed lot line. >> It's 10 It's 10 ft. Yes, I see that. But
that that's the building, not the decks, right? >> That has nothing to do with the decks. That's a building itself. >> For a point of clarification, people build houses in the city that have turned sideways, right? That don't face the street. >> Then change the plan and come back and label that a sideyard and the board can
contemplate it if that's how you want to proceed. That's not what presented. >> I understand that, but I'm just trying to clarify something. >> There's nothing for this board to clarify. It's a zoning enforcement official. All we can look at is the plan that's submitted. Period. If you want to approach it a different
way and decide what's frontage, what's rear, what's what's side, then then you have the right to do that. But that's not what's before us. You have drawn on here building setbacks. Typical. You're encroaching on it. You're asking for that relief. >> Yeah. >> I say we table it and come back.
>> Yeah. No. Well, >> but do you can I have a moment with my client, please? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can I have a moment with my client? Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So, >> do you have no
You can actually go wider. >> It's not what we want. What we what we're trying for is conformity. So >> yes, I mean that's what this plan was supposed to do, but for that one setback and >> but that one setback was
>> No, no, I I got it. I I hear the argument. I hear the argument. >> I hear the argument. It's not I don't think that was even covered. We did. You asked to wave rear seat. >> I'm That's the That's the singular issue I was asking for on that. >> You can make up that square footage in width because you're nowhere near the
sidelines. >> Well, I can go sideways. >> You can go bigger this way. >> All right. >> And meet the building setbacks. The board can move tonight with all all proposed construction on lot two must
meet the A2 zoning district. Then you can get a decision tonight. But when you get what's submitted for a building permit needs to meet all of the requirements for the A2 district on lot two.
>> So that being the case if the board we can using the dimensions bringing it down. You think you can do that? >> Show him on the plan where Jeff show him where he'll be able to fit a building on.
>> So this just go wider on each side. Right. >> Yeah. You can't go 38 deep. You could only go 33. >> So it's not going to be 38. But but the trusses if you want. >> How about the trusses? Everything that you bought. >> That's fine. I >> They're going to have to take them
apart. I didn't tell them to build them. >> Okay. So if that's the case, then I'll ask the board to entertain that this we split the two lots and whatever building gets constructed on lot two meets all the dimensional requirements of the A2.
I have no you don't you don't need to come back here for site plan review. You'll now show what the building is that you want to build on this lot by itself and it has to comply to all the building setbacks lot coverage >> parking and you're all set.
>> So just have um my my architect redraw it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> To make something that fits inside the building setbacks >> like All right. So go wider and >> let them let them deal with it. Let >> whatever it takes to make it >> us then. >> All right. >> Would just go to the building department
to get a building for you. >> But we need to split the lots. >> Like I said, lot one, the relief that's being requested for lot one is lot one. But if we're going to build something in the A2 district, it should comply. >> So you would withdraw the request for
the variance. >> No, you need the variance. the varian but we wouldn't >> no to split the lot but I'm talking about for the for the for the setbacks that are being asked for for lot two >> the vote the vote will be that >> the vote will be that >> it conforms the district any construction on lot two must be in
complete conformity with the A2 zoning district >> but I we haven't even heard >> let's let that rest for a minute >> yeah let it >> let's go to the uh let's go to the audience hope you're all fully entertained like I am anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application.
>> Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> It's back to us, kids. >> Well, are they going to propose that officially? >> Yes, I'll Yeah, I'll make that. Yeah. split the two lots and whatever is built on lot two, the conforming lot, will be
in conformity with the A2 district without asking for any uh relief from the board. >> Mr. Chairman, I move that we grant the division of the property and the variance required in lot one
that cover. Yeah, because a lot of a lot of the variance on lot one is pre-existing. So, >> all right. Uh, I have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on that motion? >> Yes. Site plan and ADU. No ADU.
>> No. >> And that's on lot one >> on both. >> We're just talking about the variance on lot one right now. >> Right. But he's saying a condition. >> Yeah. I don't >> condition. Yeah. No. No. So set it as a
condition. No ADUs. >> Correct. As a condition of the grant. Correct. >> Correct. >> On either >> on either on either law. On either >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> No. >> And and I'll make my own comment when when you're through voting about I think that's how it should be done rather than
having uh deed restrictions on a separate thing making a condition of the various. >> Here's what happens is we have land owners that don't know that decisions get recorded at the registry of deeds. So this is once we're all gone, it needs to be recorded somewhere officially.
>> Yes. But that's why it needs to be in the >> it we don't >> they can't do it if they're recorded. >> You are an incredible closing attorney. There are many others that are not >> that would not read the decision and see that an ADU is precluded. So we've gone a step beyond that.
>> You can appeal that if you don't like that. >> No, no, no. But what I'm saying is just procedurally y >> if you make it as part of your decisions instead of as not >> imposing the building inspector having them issue similar to a a restriction on
a septic system. It can't be more than a two two >> yep house right >> twobedroom house. uh the building inspector I don't think is qualified to do that but this board with its decisions when it gets recorded it now becomes part of the chain of title
>> correct but not everybody goes and looks for that >> you wouldn't have a job if every attorney did their job so >> okay I don't know I give up >> if you can't read the decisions you don't know what the board's doing
>> so anyway that that's that's where we are no ADUs I accepted the amendment to the original vote to to divide the to accept the variances on one. Uh no further adus can
be rec uh on either one or two. >> We just created the loss. You do >> that's correct. It'll be it'll be it'll be conforming to all dimensional requirements in the A2 district. >> Well, I
>> All right. That being the case, any discussion on the motion? Motion has a second from Alexis. >> Then on the motion, John, >> yes. >> Jim, >> yes. >> Alexis, >> yes. >> Eric, >> yes. >> Chairman Prairie, yes. So, attorney
Assad, the reasoning behind a deed restriction is that precludes you from coming back to this board and asking for new relief that would override relief that just stated no further adus. >> A deed restriction. >> Where's my brother, Mr. Leven? We'll
we'll have that discussion about whether or not restriction. We can go to lunch. No, no, but we I I know I don't want to take much, but but I think you always have the right to come back before the board and ask for relief and the deed restriction depending on depending on how deed restrictions there. That's a
little bit more >> but it depends on who who grants it and how it gets granted. I think this board has the power to dictate that type of use. Uh and I would prefer I'd prefer the board doing it than having the building inspector. >> No, the building inspector is not. >> Oh. Oh, you were saying that the
building inspector was going to require >> No. Okay, guys. >> All right. Let me >> when we don't deal with it, >> Mr. Chairman, members of the board, thank you very much. >> When we don't deal with it here, cuz a lot of ADUs don't come before us. >> No. Correct. >> So on a regular ADU, he's doing his own thing. >> Correct.
>> And requiring it as well. So >> Oh, really? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So this is just to be >> No, I'm just All I'm concerned about is this board exercising its power to make sure that what you do prohibits those things happening. >> Yes, sir. >> You are right. Thank you.
>> And on that note, thank you, Mr. Always a pleasure. >> Always. >> Good night, David. >> Item number four, the applicant is 1301 Fall River Holdings LLC, Care of Jeffrey Tolman, subject property 283 and 289
Fifth Street, map I15, lot 46. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following. the division of property into two lots leaving the existing two family dwelling on one lot and the existing three family dwelling on the second lot pursuant to
section 86 two uh 423B properties located in A2 apartment zoning district Jeffrey >> okay for the record Jeff Tolman from Northeast Engineers and Consultants and I'll try to get you back on track here uh this is a repeat application of
something that came before you back in June of 2020 23. >> Um, apparently the owner of the property, well, after that special permit was granted, um, the project kind of went dormant for a while. Hadn't heard anything until um about a month or
so ago, uh, when the the owner of the property um, came in and and I guess to the planning department and was trying to figure out what, you know, what was going on with the property and he realized that the special permit had expired. Um so quite simply we're here
um under section 86423b uh to reinstitute the uh the division that was allowed back in uh 2023 in the same exact manner that was approved by this board at that point. >> I remember this expired like a what like
a month when he came in was like less than a right around a month or maybe even less. Okay. >> Yeah. questions from the board. Having been here, I remember this one. >> I know he was looking into putting in off streetet parking and he was trying
to like finagle something there and and that kind of slowed it down and then it kind of just went dormant. >> We got a copy of that with >> it's the same. >> Yeah. But what were the specifications? >> This standard um separation of
utilities. Um I I believe there was no >> between fencing on this one because it's such a long >> tight it's only four feet. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And what was it anywhere within 4t closer to the building? So like if you wanted to put a fence in the rear yard or >> Yeah.
>> or something. I think it was fine. >> So um I have a copy of the decision. All utilities shall be separated. standard. Um, the required utility work shall not be formed until a site plan has been approved by site plan review committee.
No fencing on or between the lot lines. Period. So, if you want to change the fence, >> yeah, uh, water is separate, I believe, to both buildings. I think the sewer from 289 does go into 283. So, that will be have to be separated. >> You can approve it with the same
conditions. >> Well, hang on. Any other questions from the board before we go to the public? Anybody here wishing to speak in favor of this petition? Anybody wishing to speak in opposition?
They're hearing none. Balls on our floor. Make a motion to grant. with uh special permit with uh no uh division, no uh fence between the property lines, permanent boundary
markers and site plan review, separate utilities for that reason and uh no further ADUs to be on either property. >> It's comprehensive. Do we have a second?
>> Second. >> I'll give this one to Jim. >> Okay. In that case on the motion, Eric, >> yes. >> Alexis, >> yes. >> Jim, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Chairman Fer, yes. >> Thank you, thank you.
>> Number five, applicant is Rezendi's Residential LLC care of attorney Peter Aselino, 209 Highrest Road, map U19, lot 17. The applicant is requesting a variance
to allow the following. wanted the division of property into three separate parcels, leaving the existing single family dwelling on a conforming lot, establishing a conforming lot upon which a single family house is proposed, and establishing a non-conforming lot upon
which a single family is proposed. Waving lot area and frontage requirements per 86 attachment one. Property is within an S single family zoning district. >> Good evening. For the record, my name is Peter Selenino. I'm a lawyer with
addresses at 550 Locust Street in Fall River. I represent the petitioner applicant Rosendis Residential LLC. With me to my right is Steve Rosendis, the principal of the LLC. The site is located uh as the chair read at 200 Highrest in the Highlands. It's a single
family zoning district on which there is an existing single family dwelling labeled 200 Highrest on the plan. I think we can all agree that the shape of the lot is highly unique. um both on the west and the east. Mr. Rosendis is proposing to divide the lot into three
lots, leaving the existing dwelling on what is shown on the plan as parcel one. That lot is completely conforming as to use, dimensions, and area. Uh parcel three, which is to the left, is also a completely conforming parcel as to
dimensions, width, area. Parcel two is a non-conforming parcel as it relates to frontage and area. Uh the district requires 12,000 uh square feet of area as you can see per the plan it is 8875
and there in lies the deficiency. Um in terms of looking at this proposal and looking at the site I've indicated in my petition that the hardship associated with the petition is the shape of the existing site. And as we've heard in a couple of petitions tonight so far, I think part of the argument here needs to
be what would be allowed in terms of ADUs if we were not before the board. And based on the engineers calculations, I think we'd end up with two single family houses each that could have an ADU, which leads you to four structures uh across two lots with rental
capability. Mr. Rosendis felt like this design was more appropriate for the neighborhood and would accept a condition of no ADUs provided that he received the three single family lots. I also want to point out that there's a shaded area on the plan that says no
structures. It's drawn that way to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood and the proposal would be to have some vegetated buffer there. Um but that's in the frontage calculation and that's why it's drawn that way. Um, so I don't think the proposal is inconsistent with the neighborhood in
terms of the use of the neighborhood as single family residential dwellings. Uh, and again highlighting the point here that there are two lots by right and the proposal is to do three without the ADUs. Uh, with that I'm happy to take any questions that the board may have and certainly Mr. Rosendis or I could
answer them. 12,000 down to 88. It's pretty big nonconformity setback. So we get 153 to the other lot line from parcel two to parcel one. That's not bad. That's a relatively small house that's
being proposed for parcel three or parcel two then correct. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> So the question was the house size for lot two. Is that your question? How small that is? Yes. Yeah. It's >> it's not a a very big structure. Um
twotory more. uh I want to say it's somewhere it's under 1,800 ft² I believe just based on that calculation times two part of that dimension includes the deck um as well so I was making sure that uh you know everything was fitting within
the uh the setback requirements um additionally I also you know I understand the 100 feet of frontage that's shown on lot two partial two is not uh it doesn't conform widthwise u I'm just trying to make every effort to try to hit all the uh key points that I
could. Um so, >> and and I know some of this is coming down to financial considerations. Had you considered just going with two conforming lots? Had you run the numbers on them?
>> I have. Um and I mean it's just, you know, I think Peter hit it right on the head. Um um the idea is you know uh eliminate that that uh dividing line between parcel one and two sorry between
parcel three and two it would look the same exact way um if it were um an ADU in terms of house location. Um, and based on the math, if if you know the re reconfiguration of the lot, I mean,
there could actually be another structure on parcel one. Um, obviously that wouldn't be the uh layout of parcel one at that point, but it would be reconfigured where par where you'd have two lots. Um, that would both uh that would meet the uh meet everything
essentially uh with an additional structure. Um, and again being that that's mainly residential, um, I don't know that there's any multifamilies in the neighborhood. I just thought that, um, this would be more, uh, conforming with the neighborhood.
>> Any other questions? >> Can I get a planning perspective, please? >> Where are we parking? Do we have two parking spaces for each lot? It's not showing. >> Okay. >> I don't only because then I don't know if there are garages here. I don't know
if there's two 9 by8 spaces. Did that change lot coverage? No. Fair enough. >> So there's So that's one question. Okay. >> Um again, you stated all proposed decks are going to fall within the footprints you have shown here because there are no decks shown.
So if on lot three, for instance, you're going to build a 52x40 house, you there is no room for a deck. >> So correct. No, it would definitely everything would fit within that within that footprint. Um, and I think I'm sorry. >> What is the square footage of the
footprint on parcel two? >> You know, >> so if I I mean the house styles missing one dimension so I can't do it in my head. >> Yeah. Um I want to say roughly if it was a twotory um so part of that bump out in the front as you can see on um is it
okay to go to the board here? >> Yeah, we didn't get we didn't have that. So >> yeah, I apologize. I didn't realize that. Um So part of that bump out in the front represents this little bump out of this this porch here. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um this is not showing I don't
believe you can't see it from any of these angles. Uh barely catches there the deck but I want to say this house is >> I mean it might be you know anywhere between 16 and 18. I want to say it's close to 60 >> cuz the only the only I I asked that
because if it was an ADU y >> you're limited to 900 ft correct which would be a one-story building >> correct >> not in a position of a two-story building in proximity to the neighboring properties. >> Okay. So my question so I couldn't do it from and I could be mistaken. So I
couldn't Does the AD law say that you can't do a twotory? You can't exceed 900 ft. >> Correct. >> Right. I mean >> it could be two 450 square foot. >> Yes. Like the tiny house though, right? >> Yeah. I mean I think you can do you know a little bit larger on the on the on the
first floor with some sort of like uh almost like a cape style type of house. Um but either or um >> that's the only questions I have. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions for the board? >> We didn't get an answer on the parking.
>> Yeah. >> We don't have an answer on the >> Well, they're not asking for a waiver of parking. So, if we grant this relief and through site plan review, they can't accommodate two parking spaces for each or if they exceed lot coverage because of it, they're going to need to come back. >> Yep.
>> They don't want to do that. Let's go to the audience, please. Anybody wishing to speak in support of this petition? >> Anybody wishing to speak in opposition? >> Yes. >> Attorney Mark L1, law office at 138 Rock
Street, Court of Massachusetts. I was hired earlier today and present to the board a couple petitions that my client was able to get in the neighborhood of about 30 neighbors in opposition to this. Also
quickly put together a brief excuse me why >> this was Dr. in NASA's house right >> next door. >> Oh, okay. >> He's he's the neighbor that I'm representing. >> All right. Well, because you and I
worked on his piece years ago, and I couldn't remember if this was the piece or not. >> We couldn't get him. Now, the building got out of >> correct >> 30,000 square ft. So, um, as to the uniqueness of the neighborhoods, I do agree it's very
unique. These homes are in an S district requiring 12,000 square foot frontage uh 12,000t lot and 100 foot frontage. My client Monica Nasser and Mila Nasser, the
trustees of the Nasser family trust, the actual owners of 120 Highland Roads three and two on this puzzle above that nine. He's there. the light tenants
uh Bassam Nasser and Darus Nasser are the light tenants and they occupy there and they're also my clients in opposition to this. I feel bad I know Mr. Rendes he's a great builder. I have great respect for him and I explained that to my client
this morning but their concern is they're going to have two small houses on top of them and this lot although it's a little unusual their lot's unusual too. In fact, most of those lots are oddshaped lots that are in there that all have more than 12,000. Some
have my client has close to 30,000 and he once thought about doing a lot there, but we couldn't figure out how to get that lot there to be conforming. So, we didn't go there. This neighborhood has changed over the years
and it used to be just where that little culde-sac went around there. So it was less traffic. Few years back there was a large subdivision that comes off the back of that property of about 59 homes. And where that high crest road used to
be serving about 12 houses now serves about 60 houses as people come in and out there. So it was a lot of traffic that they didn't have before. But that developer complied with the zoning requirements. He didn't come before you.
He he once did come before you and you denied it and he wanted to do smaller than 12,000 and he went back reconviged and he got 12,000 square foot lots out there. So your zoning bylaw is very particular in that section 86321
says you can't reduce a conforming lot to make it non-conforming. So what do we have? We have a lot with a conforming house. There's no hardship saying that house can't exist as it is. What does he have? He has extra area in frontage that
he could manage to have a second conforming house. And I've explained that to my clients and he says I don't have a problem with more one more house. I do have a problem with three houses on that that two of them just above my property and overlook my pool and
backyard. And again, privacy is a thing that I understand that earlier tonight we try to resolve, but there's no reason. There's no hardship here. What is the shape and soil condition that prevents him from having two conforming
houses on the slot? Nothing. Okay. So, there's no hardship for topography and and shape because most of the shapes are odd shaped in this neighborhood, including my clients. So, does he have a
substantial hardship? Can he reasonably use this land for what the zoning requires? Can he have one house? Yes. Can he have two houses? Yes. Can he have three? No. In the law, it's very particular that a potential economic
advantage for Mr. Rosendis to maximize his profit does not qualify as a substantial hardship. And that's under the Breie Hingham case back in 1962 and that's never changed. Now that may be a factor
as to if he had ledge on that property and says I can't build a second house cuz there's ledge. So I have to move it somewhere else on the property and I'm going to leave need a sideline set back reduced. And here there's no hardship.
He's actually in your application he's told you he has no hardship. He is asking for two conforming lots and one non-conforming lots in violation of your zoning by. So my client's concern is that it's
overburdening the density. They've already got impacted by a large subdivision behind them that no fault of the developer and someone can build that. And my clients have no problem when I talk to them. I said he can build a second house. Let him build a second
house. If it conforms the zoning, we have no objection whatsoever. Now, does this affect, you know, the third thing, is this substantially harmful to or deraggating the city's zoning bylaws? Obviously, there's no
substantial hardship here. There's no and it does not help to have three houses to protect the zoning bylaws in this area of single family homes of 12,000t lot giving them
the amenities of less traffic and usage and privacy than the statute provides. Your statute says you can't do it. So there is nothing here that has that premises. My CL clients are agreved
as in a butter to two lots now because they already have a water problem with wetlands on their property. This is just going to make it a little bit worse because you're taking up purgous materials. it obviously it's just
because the building's there and again they may have to face that with one house extra but now putting two houses because the popo goes down to the southwest to their property and that's where they have a problem the back
already with their pool but right now there's plenty of land around there they make do of it once this is built and everything you got another problem out there um they've already have already been injured by illegal conforming use,
which is a subdivision. With all the traffic coming here, they now got to face another driveway right to the side of their home where their their property is and one to the a house in the back. uh their position is that the bylaws say
you can have two houses and I think maximizing the profits you can get for a little bit larger house that conforms in that neighborhood is going to be far greater than just putting small hope homes there that don't conform at least
one of them would not conform to zoning and the the fact of putting Greenland on the street doesn't help my client my client's the butter to both the two new lots being created behind them. There's no buffer there. So, we're asking the
board based on the statute and that you do not have any any three of the determinations that you would have to find in order to grant a variance and we ask you to deny it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, councel.
>> Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition? >> Yes. Hi. Um, Juliet Almeita. Uh, my husband and I live at 141 High Press Road. >> Okay. >> We live directly across the street from Par >> and I do know it's a conforming lot. So,
obviously we're not can't object to that, but we can certainly support everything that um, attorney Leven mentioned about the traffic and there will be ledge by the way. U, we live on ledge in that area. That's nothing grows. Um so that's a going to be an
issue. Um we just feel that the area and we've been there over 20 years. The area has mushroomed beyond belief. We've gone from 15 houses on high press to um 60 to 70 houses in addition. But we know
that things change, but I think the conforming lot is more than adequate with the house that's already in place. So, the two lots certainly would be more than enough. And I would like to see a picture of the proposed houses that um
Mr. Azendes has you um suggested for the for that property. Which one would be High Crest and which one would be Herman Street? >> Well, this is this would be High Crest. Uh yeah, this would be High Crest. This would be >> I'm sorry. >> What would you suggest would be the selling price of that house?
>> I couldn't tell you to be quite honest with you. I mean, I there's been some suggestions here. I understand you know >> which and which one is Herman Street? >> This is Hermist Street. Yeah. >> In terms of >> we want to we want to remind you that that's a very high tax neighborhood and we'd like to keep it that way. So
whatever you suggest that you want to build conform to the neighborhood and I think we can stop there. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? May I respond, Mr. Chair?
>> Please. Okay. Uh, relative to the assertion that there are wetlands, uh, to the extent the board's familiar, Brandon Fannet flagged this for, uh, or did the analysis for Mr. Rosendis and there are no wetlands. And second, relative to the buffer for attorney Leven's clients, uh, Mr. Rosendis would
be willing to accept a condition of a buffer should the board find that necessary or wish to impose that condition. If I couldn't clarate, it wasn't saying there was wetlands on his property. It's wetlands, my property, my client's
property, and the topo goes down to it. So, they're concerned about water being impervious on that property running into going down street. >> Yeah, >> that's all. The big colonial house that's there now does sit very
prominently high and tails actually the land comes down too high for us to >> no weapons there probably but there is >> Yep. No, I hear you. >> Anything else from the board at this point? >> Questions or comments?
We do have a petition uh with the names of 23 of the neighbors. Petition just reads the uh the undersigned neighbors and abutters are against number five of the new business
on 20 August 21st 2025 meeting of the city of Paul River zoning board of appeals. The undersign hereby states that they're opposed to the var uh variance application applied for by resendis residential LLC to
divide the premises located at 200 highest road, Fall River, Massachusetts into three lots. One lot contain the existing dwelling uh thereon and creating two new building lots for a single family house each waving dimensional requirements for the third
parcel. So that's part of record. See if I can make motions. We'll be home. >> You can put my memo in as part of the record, too. >> Yes. >> Was this the only copy of the >> I gave one to everyone? >> Attorney Seleno, um, >> have you attempted to purchase an extra
3200 square feet and make a conforming lot out of this yet? >> No. >> No. certainly would be willing to do that if the person I just >> Yeah, you need a willing seller. >> No, no, no, no. I understand. I just didn't know if if that had already been attempted. >> It had not. >> Okay. And then that's also land cost. So,
>> yeah. >> I think uh I think three lots is uh it's too much for this area. >> I'm with you on that. >> Telegraphing my vote, but I'd rather telegraph the vote and give you an opportunity.
I can't that that third non-conforming lot is pretty small when you look at the other lots in this neighborhood and the nature of some of the architecture in this neighborhood, including being right across the street from one of the most spectacular
mid-century modern homes in the whole city. Yes. >> Nobody's mentioned it, but across the street towards the east, there are two huge homes, right? Huge lots across from this house. And those three houses
comprise one of the nicest areas in the city. >> So, they're going to change this lot. Yeah. The ones across on the right. They're not pictures. Yeah. There they are. >> Yeah. No, >> those there acres of land there. So you're conform that other house fits
perfectly with those other two. >> What they're proposing, >> we prefer to have it the way it is. >> Are you speaking in opposition? >> We went beyond that. >> Are you having you didn't give your name and there was an opportunity to speak, but >> I'll be quiet.
>> No, I'm not telling you need to be quiet, but there was a time for that. >> I just wanted to point out that those houses were not meant. Uh the chairman actually just mentioned that but we uh and in my opinion I think the uh uh three three smaller lots in this area is
not suitable. And with that I will make a motion to deny. >> Second have a motion and a second. We got discussion on the motion. The motion is to deny >> Eric. >> Yes.
>> Jim, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. and chairman prayer. Yes. Thank you. >> That's okay. >> Where are we? Number six, >> ACN
Tra LLC attorney Peter Celino 547 Highland Avenue, map M18, lot 27. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. One, relief from section 86 attachment two to erect a
medical office uh building in in the S zoning district waving lot coverage requirements per 86 um section 86 attachment one. The property is located within an S single family zoning district.
>> Would you like me to start or you want people to clear out first? >> Mr. Dory, can you take it in the hallway? >> Guys, if anybody wants to talk, please do so out in the hallway so that we can continue the hearing. Thank you. >> Hi. Everybody standing in the doorway.
>> We take it outside, please. >> Please take it into the >> Please stay and be quiet or take it outside. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, good evening. For the record on this petition, my name is Peter Celino. My office address is 550 Locust
Street in Fall River. I represent the applicant uh which is an LLC. Uh with me is Dr. Nehar who is the principal of the LLC. Uh his son is also seated behind us. The site is located at 547 Highland
Avenue. By way of historical perspective, this petition or a similar petition was before the board in 2015. Um the petition uh sought to demolish the existing structure and rebuild a medical office building that would operate Monday through half day
Saturday. Um the petition was allowed. It was recorded. Uh site plan review was completed and my client received a site plan uh approval letter. >> However, the timing was the issue. Uh more specifically, his office at the time was in the handover building. The
handover building was sold. He got a 30-day eviction notice and had to vacate. And so he didn't have enough time to build the building on this site. And as a consequence, he chose to buy a building across from Dery on Ellbury Street where he currently operates Fall River Spine and Disc.
Now he's in a little bit of a different situation. That is to say that his son, who is sitted seated behind us, is going to uh graduate from chiropractic school in the fall, and he is coming home to Fall River with the intention that he join his father in practice. And as a result, my client has decided that now
would be the time to come back to the board and seek to build the building uh in order to house his office. Um I'd also like to note because I expect this to come up that this is a single family zoning district certainly and he has tried to sell it as a single family uh
lot for about seven or eight years with no takers. And so with that opening, the petition is to erect a medical office building in an Sz z zoning district waving use requirements and uh lot coverage requirements. The proposal would serve
to provide all the necessary off- streetet parking for the building as designed. Uh the parking is on the east side of the building which would be rear to Highland Avenue. The scope of service that my client seeks to offer the people of Fall River is chiropractic, massage,
neuromuscular, skeletal rehab, nutrition services, and general wellness type services. All of which he's doing on Elsbury Street now. Um he would seek to operate uh Monday through Friday 7:30 to 5:30, uh Saturday 8 to 5:00, and Sunday
8 to 12. Um, I have submitted that the hardship associated with this petition is the site itself and the hole in the ground and the inability to make the highest and best use of the property because it has been unable to be sold. And while I certainly understand uh that it's a single family zoning district, I
think it's unequivocal that it's uh four or five addresses from the hospital. So, I think a medical use, if any use, would be complimentary to the zoning district. Um, in addition, there are letters of support in the file which I've emailed to Chris Lec. I believe Mr. Fiola who's
away also submitted a letter of support. So, Mr. Tolman's the engineer on the project. Obviously, the client's here. We're happy to answer any questions uh relative to the proposal or the petition um should the board see fit to ask us them. to the 2015
um approval that was received. >> Is it I I take it it is not in your opinion that that was perfected by the demolition of the house. >> Uh so good question. >> Expected that that would be right at the top of the list.
>> So in my opinion, yes, but I am not the zoning enforcement officer. So, yes, the first line in the decision indicates the request to demolish the existing structure and construct a two-story medical office building that was done and there's a site plan approval letter as well. Um, but I can't get Mr.
Hathaway to commit that to writing and so we're here. >> Okay. >> I will admit I agree with you because the demo if the demo hadn't been done I feel differently.
Um, how does this plan differ from the original plan from 2015? >> Certainly. Do you want to address that one? >> So, first of all, we uh shrunk the size of the uh building to be less intrusive to the neighborhood. We put the parking
in the back where prior it was in the front and the side. And one of the reasons is that I wanted to be very sensitive to the neighbors, not to create any commotion, to be synergistic, to be harmonious. The facade of the building is very consistent with the historical approach. So all in all, we
wanted to be very sensitive. We wanted to show the traffic flow is in and out. We're we're we're a small chiropractic office for 25 years service here in our community. I'm not from Fall River. I'm from the Midwest. Uh my son is here to
entrench, you know, the roots in the soil of Fall River. we're about to, you know, explode of the things we can do with me being in practice for 25 years and you got a superstar who's just going to really change the dynamics and set the trajectory of health and wellness in
our community. So, it's really excitable time and I and I and I'm excited for River to experience uh this opportunity to uh provide good service for our community. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank Mr. Chairman. The last plan was more of a narrow longer building. You
are absolutely right. >> Right. Like a rectangular shaped building. Unfortunately, I think I've been here longer than that, so I remember this one. And um >> it it went >> the parking was to the south. My my direction.
>> Yeah. Closer to the hospital. >> Closer to the hospital. Right. And um it was it was more a sideways building instead of what this plan is. >> Right. and and it won't be an obstacle to the neighbors. Um the way that our engineer designed the flow, very stream,
very and and again it's we we shrunk it down a little bit in size in regards to its footprint. We added more parking. Um so we wanted to be sensitive to those issues. The only reason why I didn't develop unfortunately I was in the handover building at that time. We had done the engineering. We had done the
architecture. We were starting the process. But uh the handover building had sold to South Coast in which um I was unfortunately evicted in 30 days. So I had to act quickly and we put this on pause for some time. But now um I'm
anticipating my son who went to school out in California who school in Iowa. Let's bring them back. We educate them. Now let them come back, buy a home, buy food, buy a light bulb in our community. Thank you. Um, just to the nature of the
neighborhood, I realize it is it is a single family s single family neighborhood, but you've got a number of other medical buildings, etc. almost immediately adjacent to you. Correct. >> We do. Across the street from us is um I
believe Dr. Looney has a um facility there and one of the occupants is absolutely going to blow up. She's on Housewives of uh Rhode Island. So that is going to really perpetuate um you know there are talks of making that whole area a medical health district so
that those conversations are on the line. So I'm just anticipatory that what better time than now to provide an added um ancillary care for our community. All of which was extremely sensitive to
the neighbors, extremely sensitive to uh the historical component and trying to be as congregate, as synergistic, as harmonious as one could possibly be with its only available application. It's somewhat of a commercial use. I I I I was on the market. There was no single
family um individual who was interested in that property. >> Understood. It does change the nature of the neighborhood when you've got an expanding hospital as a centerpiece. So, it kind of can't help but change, right? >> Time is changing. Healthc care is
changing. >> Has the uh Can we turn the easel so the public can I don't know if we have We don't have these images, do we? >> Not on the screen. We have the full You need to turn it further.
>> Turn it around. >> That's really nice. >> And the size is is less than the size of the adjacent uh the nursery. So, um, we kind of made it, it may look a little daunting because it is a picture, but it
is very consistent with the neighbors other than the one right next, but the nursery or across the street. >> It's really good. >> Okay. Uh, questions from the board on this one? >> It's a big one.
>> Um, how about uh I see parking um and then lot coverage is is a question. Uh, yep. Like 70% we're looking at. Is there any suggestion on uh pvious surface asphalt or something like that
that might assist in the >> So what he's asking >> what he's asking is could you do a parking lot? That's not all. >> Let me maybe I can add to that. Um I would have looked at it previous if I knew that John was going to ask this question. We should be able to figure out
relatively closely what was the lot coverage when the nursing home was there. >> It was a good portion of it was >> but we need to know what that percentage is because that's a different comparison. Right. Right now the comparison is from zero >> zero. So >> so >> there's a big jump.
>> So if if it was 80% before then maybe this is you can actually look at this as a reduction. >> Um so we may want to know that number. Um, so there's that question which was >> well there's three pieces then >> there's what was there?
>> Yep. >> What had been approved and what coverage did that have? >> Yep. >> So had that had that happened >> 10 years ago, what would we be dealing with? >> Hold on. >> We have we have the decision but >> um >> would that be in the site plan review then? the old
>> uh what? >> It'll be on the plan, but it should say >> site plan review should have it recapped in there somehow. >> Would you like a copy of the letter? >> Sure. >> It It's probably not in the letter. It'll be on the plan. It's >> going to be on the U.
>> Thank you. Um while they're getting through that two-story building. >> No, it'll be a three-story building. >> Threetory. All right. So, the plan says we've got 3,454 square ft gross floor area >> for the first two floors and the third
floor. Obviously, the way that the shape is, there's the almost like an attic appearance where it'll be. >> So, what would be the gross floor area for the building total? Cuz this says gross floor area. Is it 3,400 ft or is it more >> if you had the first floor, the second floor?
>> Gross floor area, whatever gross floor area would be calculated as. Only because if we approve this plan, You can only build 3454. >> That's the footprint of the building. >> Well, that's it says gross floor area. >> What? >> All right. >> So, so, so I'm just asking what that
number is. >> Footprint that we're showing of the of the building now. So, we >> So, three times that. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Well, third floor would be uh slightly reduced, right? >> It would be Yes, it will be reduced. It's not the full >> Do you have an architectural drawing that shows each floor like how it's laid
out and the square footages? >> Not. >> That's the first floor. That is the first floor. >> And what would the other floors be used for? >> So, the second floor will be doing rehab, um, chiropractic treatments, and so forth.
>> Only six employees in this building. >> Well, if he's being a superstar, he may bring more right now. >> No, but you're limited to six by this plan. So, I want to make sure that what you're presenting is what you can live with >> because parking is based on employee numbers. Yes. So I don't want you to dig
yourself into a hole that you can't get out of without additional relief later. So >> um >> because you are actually over for parking by the initial calculation >> which is advantageous to us. >> It is especi but but you may want to contemplate that now because so right
now the board views it as hey there's extra parking but if there's 12 employees well then now there's not but we don't know that because it's not on the plan. >> So you're saying this plan says six employees >> correct? Yes. >> So, I don't want you to be stuck with six.
>> We can live with six. Absolutely. Yes. >> Um, of course, hours of operation, signage, I don't know if there's signage, proposed, um, freestanding signage or building signage. Any signage would need relief. Um, so I don't know whether you want to include that in
this. Um, otherwise, you're going to need to come back again for anything signwise as well. Separate application. So, something to think about. >> Beyond that, No, I I think size and scale. >> Um, again,
>> yeah, the green space. I see there's a seems like a lot some green space all around the outside, which is >> fitting with the neighborhood. I just brought up the point of looking at the 70% of uh lot coverage, we might if
there's a way we can work on that or uh >> or at least >> or at least see if it's less than >> complet Yeah, exactly. an analysis of what was there and what was previously approved. >> I have the old plan. There was nothing listed on the old plan either under the existing condition or what was proposed in 2015.
>> Okay. >> But does it shows an existing condition that you could theoretically scan and come up with a lot coverage? >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> I mean just by eyeballing it looked like the proposed condition back then was a lot had a lot more >> a lot more. Right. Yeah. >> It was almost completely paved.
>> It was Yeah, it was a lot. I don't have anything else. >> I have over 200 signatures from friends of the photo spine. Okay. >> All right. Let me Any other questions from the board
and that that uh percentage does not show up in the U site plan review letter unfortunately. Let me go to the assembled audience. Is there anyone to speak in favor of the
petition? In support of the petition, sir. The blue shirt. >> My name is Paul. Hang on. 750. >> I said the guy in the blue shirt. So, >> Paul 750. I'm in favor of this proposal because
that land has been >> Wait a minute. You're in opposition. No favor. You're in favor? Okay. >> This land has been empty way too long. It's an eyesaw weeds and high grass and it's time that
someone like this gentleman took over and put a nice building in that area. Make the area look a lot nicer. >> Very good. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. And the gentleman in the blue shirt >> 1282. My daughter also went to Ninth Street
Daycare right next door to it and then twice a week do the walk walk and my wife goes right across the street the old Christian which is a used to be a school. I actually went there when I was about first and second grade. They
have a medical place in there that has a lot more traffic than probably most places do in that street. Um, I think Raj building beautiful building the way it's going would be great addition to that neighborhood, especially since he took the time to
redo it the way it was approved last time before and made it this pretty aesthetically pleasing. >> Okay, very good. Thank you. Anyone else in uh support? >> Yeah, lady in blue. There we Hi, my name
is Joan Bralt and I live on 24 Manson Street and I happen to be a patient and I have to say after suffering a car accident with a tractor trailer on Route 195, the doctor is in the business of
alleviating people's pain and I think that's beneficial to all of the residents in Fall River. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Good evening. My name is Jeffrey Maderas. My residential address is 261
Ara Street in Fall River, Mass. And I am speaking out in favor of uh the petition. As um attorney Selena was pointed out, it's a large lot. It's roughly 24,000 square feet, I think, in an S district. I think that would be the
best use of the property to put a commercial um doctor's office, especially with the one that's adjacent right across the street in the close proximity to the um hospital. Also, with the services that Dr. Ner is going to offer to the community, it's it's a good
improvement to offer alternative medical services as well as the fact that Dr. Nerra employs people at his current location. um he converted that space into a nice building on the inside. I've been in that building, went from a hair
salon to a medical office that is pleasing in appearance and the services that it provided. So therefore, I'm in favor with the petition since it has parking, green space, and an aesthetic pleasing building. Thank you. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Yes,
>> honey. Uh even though I can't speak to the aesthetics and the issues involved with what you consider, I've known Dr. Nero now for over 20 years. My address is a professional office building even though he's born and raised in Fall River. My office is located 277 Bedford
Street. I've been practicing attorney now for over 40 years. I can tell you that he's best-in-class when it comes to his profession. um as well as being a solid citizen. What it gives back to the community on personal level with individuals as well as civic organizations are for the betterment of
the community and I would wholly support this project going forward because it would be a benefit to the city not detriment. >> Thank you very much. >> I'm sorry your name again. >> John Angelo. I'm so sorry. >> John Angelo. Thank you. Anyone else in favor? We have a number of letters uh in favor
as well that I'll just read the the names of the uh the sendors on those. But um anyone wishing to speak in opposition? >> Sir in the back. >> You sir. >> Yep. My name is Lucian Jandro and I live at
573 Highland Avenue which is right next door to this proposed building that was denied five, six, seven years ago. It was only two stories then. Now it's three stories. Now he's going to have this driveway that comes in one way out the other way. I don't be afraid to take
my trash out without getting run over. I'm opposed to this. It's a single family dwelling neighborhood. We would like to keep it that way. Um I don't even know where the front of this building is from these three pictures. I
have no clue. Is anybody going to tell me? So this this is the facade facing the Highland Avenue. >> Oh, so that's just a facade. >> Okay. This is the uh >> the front of the building that is facing Highland, which is what you're only going to see. >> Which one is the front?
>> All All three of them represent the front just in a different angle. That all of that represents Highland A. That's the front. That's the front. That's the front. Anything you see in essence is the front to which is the only view you'll have. You will not see the back. I am.
>> There's no confusion. That all represents the >> confusion. I'm opposed to it. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. In the uh white. >> Yes. >> My name is Dr. Lars Bowman. I am
directly across the street on Highland Avenue, 548 Highland Avenue. I lived there for 25 years. I was a physician at Charlton Hospital for 20 years. Um this building is I appreciate the aesthetics of it. I appreciate what
you've created here of the visual. Um everyone obviously uh is sees that it's a uh pleasing structure. This is an enormous structure. You have on the plan that you submitted uh you've submitted a waiting area with 11 seats.
You have five treatment rooms. You have large flexible areas. Now you've added a second floor and you've added a third floor. So you have over 3,000 square feet on the first floor. You're going to have another 3,000 square feet on the second floor. I'm sure there's going to be
people more people up there. And you have a third floor. Back in 2014 2015, it was a sidewise building that was limited to 5,000 square feet, limited to admin only on the second
floor. Now you have an elevator and stairs so we know what's coming. I ran an office for 20 20 years, a surgical office. I had patients crowded uh waiting room. People come in, they're
looking for parking. They're going to be circling around. They're not going to find enough parking in the back. They're going to be coming out again. We have a a preschool next door and parents are pulling up and they're uh they bring their cars uh you know to the preschool
and they're letting children out their preschool their parents that are parking across the street trying to use the crosswalk to bring their little kids across. We already have a problem with too many cars on Highland Avenue, cars that are speeding. The hospital is a
campus. I don't consider that to be medical clinics in our neighborhood. It's a hospital campus. The only other structure that we have on Highland Avenue is the old the previous Christian day school which was preserved as a historic structure. There was a there
was a um elderly woman trying to live in there. That didn't work out. But that building was preserved. You knocked down the historic building that was on this property without any effort to save it and to rehab it. You knocked it down and you left a vacant lot which is overgrown
with the chainlink fence around it. You created an eyesore purposely with a with a giant pit in the middle of it and once or twice a year you have somebody come by with a weed whacker to knock down some weeds. You created an eyesore on Highland Avenue. I don't care what a man
on Daveall Street says about the ugliness of your property. You've made it ugly. What we would like is a smaller structure than that, a single family home because that's what our neighborhood, that's what our district is. We have a historic district. It's on
every sign, street sign on every block in our area. Single family residences, historic district, not a medical complex. And I admire the fact that all these people are supporting your good work and your
son you speak highly of and how much he's going to grow. Do you know how many people you're going to be attracting to this? Many people every day, 50, 60, 70, 80 people are going to be going through all looking for parking on Highland Avenue. Do you think they'd want to go into this driveway on the side, which
when the snow comes, where are you going to put all the snow? Driveway on the side. and they're going to creep around looking at 18 parking spots and you bet on your second floor, third floor, you're going to have more employees than just six. Where are all those people going to park? You don't
have enough parking. You've got a building that is far too big. It won't work. Stay on Ellbury Street. Go up on some other You do not need to be near a hospital. Okay? Sick people are in the hospital. Chiropractic care is not
related to hospital services. You don't need to be close to the hospital. You have good intentions. You have a good reputation. You'll succeed anywhere in this city. Find a better property. This one's too small. This h this building is too big.
>> Thank you. Anyone else in the back? Ma'am, >> I run the daycare on the side. >> Name and address, please. >> My name is Susan Mur and run the day here at 533 Heisman Avenue. Um, we have 36 children per day.
I'm worried about the traffic flow for my children as it is now. Um they put these signs in the middle of the road where the crosswalks are cars flat. They don't even put one there now, but the traffic flow is going to be a lot
heavier. Um we allow our parents, our staff won't park in front of our building so that our parents can drop off right in front of our building. Our parents are going to have to park way down the road to bring a 22y old
into the building and it's just so dangerous for them. So I have a problem with the traffic flow, the parking. Um, and I agree with him. The building is huge. How many officers are going to be in that
building? You say there's only going to be six employees. You're going to have a receptionist. You're going to have people doing the chiropractic. You're going to have more people in there than six people for employees.
Um, it's h you >> valid concerns. Thank you. >> That's my concern is the safety of the children. >> Anyone else speak? >> Yes, sir. >> Hi, my name is Rick Dro. I moved here from California 20 years ago and bought
the propert. I'm sorry. And and your address? 526 Highland. >> Thank you. >> I moved here from California 20 years ago into what I thought was a nice neighborhood and uh slowly I see it
being beat up. Uh it cost me a lot of money to refurbish the property I have. I now live next door to the clinic that was once a Christian school. It's not uncommon. In fact, it's more common for me to be picking up litter and garbage
out of my yard from the parking lot next door to my house. Uh, including cleaning the sidewalk in front of the clinic because they don't I understand that there are restrictions. For example, one of the restrictions I understand at the
clinic is one sign. They now have three large signs. So, apparently it doesn't matter what the restrictions are because no one enforces them. I adamantly against having this uh proposal across the street. It's an historical district.
I spend my life's earnings to be in a building that I spent a lot of money renovating and I try to upgrade it and make it suitable for the city and to have it this thing moving across the street and be another commercial
district in Fall River. I think you have a lot of commercial districts in Florida that are available for this kind of thing. You don't need to move them into our single family residential area. I oppose it and I want to be clear how much I oppose it.
>> And if you do burn us with this, I hope to do something about our taxes. >> That would be the city council. >> They probably as good as these guys. >> Okay. Anyone else in opposition? here. >> Yes. Hi.
>> Hi. >> I'm Luis Colomo. I live at 461 Highland. >> Okay. >> Um and my husband Rick and we've been there since 1979. Um as everyone else has mentioned, it is
a res. And we also have issues with the building across the street that used to be the um Christian Day School. um signage that that is inappropriate
and hours that aren't what they said they would be initially. So, we feel that um we've absorbed about as much as we can in our area and we are a historic neighborhood and we would like to keep it that residential. As
much as I appreciate the chiropractic um people who want to move in, I I understand their needs, but I think that we have to be um understanding of our
needs as well. >> Okay. >> Anyone else in opposition? Uh we did receive a set of uh of letters uh one from >> uh Dr. John Padradi
um at 277 Pleasant Street in favor. Another from Dr. Christopher Jonas 203 Plymouth Avenue in favor more than this. There we are. Southeast
Rehab Association, which is based >> single family, single family, single family, single family. >> Whoops, my acrobat reader just flipped out on me. It is a big get out.
>> I am trapped looking at plan wise that should be about the same size. >> John, can you can you pull up the uh letters of support? This thing just >> John John already got the extra one that works. >> He only brought one.
Is there one in the name [Music] my whole life? >> Peter, while the chairman's looking for that, um, can I ask a few questions while you're looking for that? >> Sure, just go ahead. Um,
we didn't discuss any uh potential hours of operation. We didn't discuss uh >> signage a little more specific what what we're talking about. >> Yeah. So, I >> and that the just to clarify for some of the audience, the entrance is to be located in the rear of the building. Correct. Not on Island Avenue.
>> Correct. Uh so relative to hours I had offered in my opening statements Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. >> Saturday 8 to 5, Sunday 8 to 12 days a week >> and uh signage.
Have you looked at the >> audience? I don't know what >> Hang on. We're in the middle of a discussion up here. I I've got a I will get back to you. You also had your time. Um >> signage >> signage. Have you gone through the regulations regarding what you're
limited to here by right? >> I don't think anything's allowed. >> Right. >> Right. Right. and no relief. >> And you're right, at the old at the old day school, >> I drove by there the other day and I can't believe there's this pylon sign
out there, which is ridiculous. >> Um, but I'm not the enforcement officer. >> We'll have to do signage separately. >> You do have to. Yeah, you're going to have to deal with that as a as a separate issue. >> Um, just going through quickly. There
was a Dr. Morani Ajit Morani from South Southeast Rehab that sent a letter in favor. Was that all of them? I thought there was more than that. Five. There were five in total
there. That's one. There was a second uh physician from um Bakarama. I'm gonna I'm sorry if I just hit that. And he wrote over his he signed over his last name which I believe is >> Dr. Ananta. He's a physiatrist physical medicine.
>> Yep. >> Practicing here for over 35 years. >> Okay. So, he was also also wrote a letter in support of you. and uh Steven Behringer uh located at um
Shore Drive, 700 Shore Drive is business address in Fall River uh in support. Yeah, those are the ones we received. Um yes, I have another point. Uh I'm not um
contending that his services aren't value because you're quoting all these people who supported do not live in the neighborhood. Okay, I understand. But one second. >> No, I have one second. >> I know they don't live in a neighborhood, but letters of support
came in. We have to recognize them. >> Okay. >> If somebody walked in here right now that lives in another neighborhood and wanted to say something about it, they could. We can recognize them. That's why we always ask for address because we have to weight things,
>> you know, are you across the street? Are you the immediate nextdoor neighbor, etc. Or are you, you know, in the Niagara neighborhood, you know, what's what's, you know, what's what. Not that the person that lives in Niagara neighborhood is not important with an opinion that comes in here.
>> And it also should be pointed out that we've had these in advance and have read them and know what the recommendations are. So we can wait them according to what we >> and that's why I mean I'm not fooling >> it's just they have to be
>> I identify the addresses so you know in fairness to everybody here so they know what's going on sir. Yeah. Again, you know, the first time he was here, he didn't have seven day a week service. It was a five day a week service and
possibly half day on Saturday. He only wanted one floor. Then he said, "Well, maybe I want to have a second floor so I could have more help." Now he's got more help. >> I got snake oil to sell you if you're going to believe everything. major point >> that that that's being said over here
because there's going to be more than six people. There's going to be seven days a week. We got church to contend with. We got the school to contend with which is no problem. It's there all >> we don't need any more of it. >> That's Thank you. There was someone else. Doctor,
>> yes, you presented new evidence and clarified the hours and agree with what um Mr. Jendro said. Uh, Sunday was never included previously in the 2014 2015 application and it was only a half a day on Saturday. Um,
we're not questioning the professional abilities of the doctor >> and we're not and we're not making a decision based upon professional. It's the property owners who are abutters who are concerned about um the ser the the scale of the building and the volume of traffic that is going to occur the
number of patients that going to be going in and out and we just cannot accommodate it in the neighborhood. This building is too large. >> Anyone else? >> Yes. >> Dr. Palumbo. I live at uh 461 Highland
directly across the street from the old Christian Bay and we had a similar >> discussion when they applied for they had off street parking. There
wasn't going to be a lot of traffic. they were going to have office hours until five o'clock um Monday through Friday. All of that is incorrect with the reality of what we've experienced. So,
we have a clear model of what is going to take place when the doctor moves into this unit. The parking now from the hospital ends at our house just about
uh and uh the the proposed variance will take it all the way down to Pierce Street and around the corner. So, so and with uh office hours seven
days a week, we're going to be inundated with traffic and parking issues because with the number of people who are going to be employed and seen there, it's impossible not to be on the street
parking. And it's it's a detriment to the uh neighborhood. It's not a reasonable situation with with what happened with the previous variants and we're just compounding the problem
and it's going to change the neighborhood from a single family residence to commercial properties to President Avenue and beyond and it's not reasonable. >> Thank you, Mr. Columba. Anyone else who
hasn't spoken yet? >> I do have a point that >> hold on. >> I spoke already to speak again. >> Go ahead. >> Um I take exception about the property
that was there that was knocked down. It was the Rosewood rest home and it was in deplorable condition. >> I know >> the large company owned that a national company for years and did little or no
repairs. The doctor did a favor to the community by having that knocked down. It was a hazard and it was a place where people could could sleep there and it was in very poor condition. So he did he
did the city a favor. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Yes, >> Mr. Chairman. With regard to the property that was there previously, as you are aware from what Mr. villages stated it was the Rosewood nursing home that facility was open 24 hours a day.
>> So, uh, when Dr. Bowman and Mr. D. Rogers talks about the property that they purchased, they purchased property right across the street from the nursing home. That nursing home had ambulances, it had visitors, it had patients. So to
say that this is going to ruin the neighborhood, I think the abuters um who are against this petition, they they just they just don't see the benefit of what this is going to bring to the neighborhood. With that, I I >> Thank you.
>> Um >> one point I did have this property for sale. >> Good. Good job. >> How much is it? [Music] Uh, I lived at 548 Highland directly across from Rosewood Nurs.
>> But, but we're not talking about Rosewood. Let's stick to the case that that we've got, please. >> The issue was traffic at Rosewood and there was none. The shift change. Three cars would come in, three cars would
leave. The uh, emergency services would be once a week. It was very quiet. Okay, thank you. >> I did have this land for sale for some time. That is a fact. The only suitors I ever had with a reasonable offer were
developers who had magnormous ideas beyond to which what I'm proposing. So there was not one in the 10 years was a single family resident that was interested in that property. I just want to make it clear. I was very sensitive to the neighbors. I'm trying to be as
harmonious to them to say I want to be a good neighbor. Sometimes we have differences but as community we have to come together to decide what's in the best interest in totality. There are a lot of properties right around the hospital that are going to be soon sold.
My understanding it may be obtained by South Coast. So it time is changing now. I did put it up for sale. It was vacant. There was not one. I'm paying taxes on that. I'm paying many costs that I absorb. Not one suitor came. I had big
agencies of medical facilities that wanted that. So to their respect to them as a single family home in 10 years, I did not have one suitor. >> No, stop. This is not a debate, sir. Please. We we got to land the plane.
>> Can we uh Can I have a question? Can we um just address it? It's substantially larger than the prior. >> That's exactly where I'm going. You got 3,400 square feet first and second floor. >> The the the last proposal was a a two-story building with a second story
to be used for storage, I believe, is what it said. >> So, we were looking at a a much relatively smaller footprint in sideways. Um, but this one is we don't quite have an exact dimension number. We have a 3,400 ft footprint which no with
no dimensions on there at all. Um approximately 3 and a half 2 and a half stories tallish. So you know we could be talking 8,000 square ftish. >> To your point the rosewood was 14,000. >> I'm just guessing but we're not talking
about compared to the last approval to what this is. So I'm just trying to get an idea. Um, I I don't I don't want to postpone any decisions, but I will be willing to work with our architect and engineer to shrink it to be a little bit more suitable, but allow me to provide
the optimal care for my patients that I I I I want to show good faith. I want to be a good neighbor. I want to do everything that we can all come to an agreement on. Okay. >> So, yes, I I can, but I want I I I don't want to drag this, unfortunately. I I'd
be willing to make some contention to say yes, if that's a big area of concern of 34, I can come back with the architect um and see what we can do to shrink it and be more of a good neighbor and at some point we have to have an agreement with that property.
>> Understood. But and and I'm I'm with my I'm with my vice chair that we're probably looking at eight or nine,000 square feet. I'm finding it very hard to believe that's just going to be a six employee business. All right. Like you
said, you got a superstar back here. He's probably going to attract more people in. So, you're already planning for more, which got brought up earlier. You got to plan for that in parking, too. If you're going to take this thing to 12 employees, you got to plan on 12 on the parking spaces to support that as
well. >> So, you know, well, I was a developer. I was a builder. That's a big It is a big building. >> You are correct. I also know that a little bit times are changing. I had a front desk. We have virtual front desk.
I have a scribe. We have AI that's doing so things are changing a little bit. when you see a monroity in your eyes, unfortunately, I hate to say this, but I I have we we we what was conventional is changing and transitioning where AI is
changing some of the needs of employees and things are becoming more efficient. Um, so I want to be respectful to say again I can come back um to some degree to shrink it uh to be more congregate, more harmonious in any capacity um just
to satisfy the needs of the board and the neighborhood. >> There's one thing that you've got to look at. You know, you're presenting what you would do now. If we change the zoning on that, that stays with that building whether you leave or somebody
else comes in. And so we've got to look at what could happen if we give that zoning permission. >> So somebody So you sell this building. Again, Jim is completely correct. We build the 8,8500 foot building. Your son decides he
doesn't want to stay here. You you retire, thing gets sold. Next thing you know, somebody's in there with 20 employees, probably doing medicine, but something else, something different. And it's it's opening up the tap. It's
single fam single family tests is has been under a lot of hits and some of that I respect your decision. >> Some of that includes it's not a decision, it's an opinion at this point. >> You know, it's it's a lot. >> We're trying to get a discussion going here because it looks like um
>> there was no signage requested. That's one one concern. Uh you're going to have to come back for signage or >> no? No sign. >> I think what Dr. and you're saying is that and attorney Selenino you've heard a bunch of concerns that some of them can be addressed
>> right >> by tableabling um and the scope of the request for relief gets narrower as more per more information gets provided right >> maybe it's a floor plan for each floor so the board can understand okay well there's a large physical
occupational therapy area so but without that you anticipate the only thing you can go by is the footprint that's shown times three times the floor plan that's there. So, I think some additional information might might help everybody involved. Um, addressing a number of the
concerns, the lot coverage issue, all of those types of things. So, I think >> I know what >> I can't tell you what to do, but you know, >> the the previous building, the footprint for the previous building was uh 5,180 ft. >> Yep. >> Substantially larger than this building.
That's it was one level and then there was a second level with 2,300 square feet. >> That was so basically 75, >> right? Was going to but but was by by by decision to be used for storage only. Correct. So we had 5,100 >> square feet gross usable medical office
area. Period. This is potentially three well six seven then whatever the third floor is potentially eight or 9,000. the gross floor area unless your plan comes back and it comes back with a different number. But right now, we don't have that number.
Public comment's done. I can't We're finished with public comment. They may table it. We'll see where we go. We could >> and attorney Selena, you have about two days if you decide the table two days to add signage and we can readvertise and
renotify that it would include relief for a sign. >> Right. Just like you. >> Thank you. >> Let's make a decision, folks. We've got a long agenda. A lot of people have come out. A lot of people have expressed their opinions. Okay. The applicant makes a motion to table the petition to the September
meeting. >> Somebody want to make that a motion to the board. >> Chairman, I move that we accept the petitioner's request and table until the September meeting. >> I have a second on that. >> Second. >> Second from Alexis. On the motion, uh, Eric, >> yes. >> Alexis, >> yes.
>> Jim, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Chairman Prairie, yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Scott. Yeah, for those of you who came out for this petition, it has been tabled. There
will not be a new um notification going to you. So, know that it'll be heard on September I believe it's 18 >> 18 September 18th. Same place. Thank you
all for coming out. Yeah. >> Item number seven. >> I don't know if I'm allowed to leave. >> Let's take a quick five. Everybody [Music] >> applicant
>> senior and junior Peterino 25-31 street map 26 lot 18 the applicant is requesting a special to allow the following one the division of the property into two lots leaving the
existing three family dwelling on one lot and existing three family dwelling on the second lot with a section 86423D the property is located in A2 apartment zoning district you're up >> uh thank you so we have no computer
Chris thanks for that we'll go to the paper plan >> restarted during the break >> all right so Peter Celino on behalf of Dan Quintell uh Dan senior Dan Junior are both here this is a 423b application seeking a special permit permit to divide the lot containing um two
multifamilies. So lot A as proposed on Alex's plan is a three family. Lot B is a three family. Um the property proposed division is shown on there and the access easements are shown on there. Uh so similar to other petitions that we've
had under the 423B rubric, we're seeking uh to divide and we certainly would accept the normal conditions relative to separation of utilities and no interior fences, etc. should the board see fit to grant this request.
>> Guys, question on this from the board. We only have six of these at I am going to the public. Anybody in the general public wishing to speak in favor of this petition in support? >> Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?
>> Hearing none members of the board. >> Mr. Chairman, I find that this is substantially comp as unique as that is, I find that it's not substantially more detrimental in the ability grant the
various permit as requested uh with the standard conditions of uh separate utilities. No. >> Oh, no additional units.
>> You can't find an ADU. So, you can't make that a four family. >> Yeah, that's what Mark is for the >> Okay. My client's fine with the conditions. Thank you. >> Second. >> Motion and second on the motion.
>> Eric, >> yes. >> Alexis, >> yes. Jim, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Jim, yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Number eight, uh, Quintel Investments LLC, care of
Peter Aselino, 16162 Rockland Street, map G19, lot 14. The applicant is request requesting a variance to allow the following. one the division of the property into two lots leaving an existing three family
dwelling on one lot and existing two family dwelling uh on the second lot pursuant to section 86-423B properties located in a BL local business zoning district um and R4 two
family zoning districts thank you for the record Peter Seleno on behalf of Quintil Investments LLC this is also a 423b application uh in this instance In slot A is a three family labeled 162 Rockland Street. Lot B is a two family labeled 160 Rockland Street um
substantially similar to the last presentation looking to divide the lot provide the access easements and parking in accordance with the plan and would accept all the customary conditions. >> Questions from the board?
From the public? Anybody wishing to speak in support? Anyone? >> I actually just have a question. >> Yes. >> As far as the fencing, um, is that just where the parking area is or does that have to do with between the two houses? Because right now there
is an existing fence. >> So, it's only along the new lot lines. So, where we have access easements so that people aren't impeding. So, it's the newly created lot line. You can't have a fence. >> So, the existing >> outside fences, >> perimeter fencing is fine. Yeah. Just inside the law. >> For the record, Dan Quintel Jr. is
asking questions. >> Yeah. I kind of thought that >> 73 Columbia Streetassy >> and it has a fence currently dividing two houses
on the lot line. >> Is it where the lot line's going to go? >> Where? >> Come show. >> I'll be your van white. [Applause] >> Peter, I really appreciate you, but no. That's okay.
See, I don't know. I think it it might be a little >> So, it it can't be located where it's a shape. There's an easement to get the parking spaces on either one. >> You can't obstruct that area, right? >> It's not obstructed. >> Okay. >> Yeah, it's between That's all right.
>> So, that's okay. >> Yeah, that's okay. >> All right. >> Okay. >> Vanna says it's okay. >> Thank you, Vanna. >> All right. >> Okay. Um, anybody wishing to speak in opposition? You keep your hand up.
>> Yes. >> Having none, I go to the board. 62. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Chairman is waiting for you. >> Oh, sorry. Yeah. No, I'm looking at I'm looking at fences from Skype. So, >> Oh. Mr. Chairman, I I move that we grant
the variance >> special >> special subject to the standard conditions of separate utilities uh permit markers being installed and no fencing along the rightway for the
easements uh or the property lines. Yeah. >> Second. >> We have a second on the motion. It's not special permit. >> Alexis, >> yes, >> Jim. >> Yes, >> John. >> That's right. It said special permit.
>> I'm just questioning a >> special permit, not >> a special permit. It says variance on here, but it is actually a special should be a special permit. >> Yeah. So, that's not the application, is it? >> No. >> Okay. So, the the requested relief is a special permit pursuant to 423b.
>> What's what's on this is the >> Yeah, I know. We've got it published as a variance. Yeah, but we've always determined that a special permit is lesser relief and it references section 86423 >> is identical to the prior one. That's what I just wanted.
>> So, I modified my motion from variance to special period detrimental to the area. >> Thank you. >> Motion second. >> Second. >> Second. >> Very good. Good catch.
Um >> my brain just froze on the This is in Yeah. How about ADUs? >> They uh >> they agreed. >> They already same conditions. Yeah.
>> Very good. Uh then on the revised motion, uh Eric, >> yes. >> Alexis, >> yes. >> Jim, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Chairman Ferrari, yes. >> Thank you. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Number nine, applicant Real Estate LLC
care of attorney Peter Celino, 1438 Pleasant Street, map K12, lot 7. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following relief from section 86 attachment 2 to convert the existing commercial building into 14 one-bedroom
apartments. The applicant is requiring a special permit to allow the following relief from section 86445 varying parking requirements. The property is located in a BL local business zoning district. >> Thank you for the record. Peter Selino
on behalf of Aaron Tetro Tetro Real Estate LLC. To my immediate right is Aaron Tetro. Uh Mr. Tetrol owns the building at 1438 uh Pleasant Street. It's a I'll call it a long-standing vacant building. Uh he told me earlier
tonight that he owns an adjoining property that's and he thinks this one has been vacant since 2002 at least. >> Um so the petition before you is to convert the uh structure on the site into 14 one-bedroom apartments. Um
currently he's doing a conversion on the building next door. This uh the building 1446. So, uh, the request is, uh, for a variance to convert the existing commercial building, uh, into 14 one-bedroom apartment, waving the
parking requirements because, frankly, there just is no room to put parking. And, uh, in terms of advancing arguments in favor of why that would be appropriate, uh, Mr. Tolman's, the engineer on the project, I asked him to look at, uh, commercial uses for a
building of that size. And just to frame this for the board, uh if it were a restaurant based on one seat per 15 square ft of floor area, uh Mr. Tolman's coming up with about 55 spaces would be the parking. Thank you, Chris. That's nice. Would be the parking requirement.
So, um, what we're asking for is, um, a waiver of the parking requirements, but we're submitting to you that it's 14 one-bedroom, um, apartments, and as a result, the waiver would be relatively dimminimous compared to a commercial use that might be allowed by right.
>> I didn't get by there after hours when people who live around here would be home. So, I don't know what the parking situation looks like there in the evening. Um, I think we had another building on
Pleasant Street in the same general area. >> He owns it next door. >> He owns the building next door >> and he built a parking lot because there was a vacant piece there that he was able to we there was another one we had. It's not one of his, >> right? >> That was located. Same type of footprint. You had a footprint big
enough, I think, for a dumpster and that was about it. >> Trouble is, you couldn't get to the dumpster to get it out. And it wasn't a parking problem. And I remember driving through evening hours. >> Yeah. So I know remember when we looked at that the conversation was because of
offsetting peaks with the commercial users that go through Pleasant Street that there is on street. There's also the public parking facility at the cash street >> um city lot um within close proximity to this as well. So although not entirely linear with the the previous discussion
or previous granted relief, it was a similar request and a similar analysis. >> Okay. Questions from the board? >> Yeah. Anyone here wishing to speak in favor?
Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? back to us that has been vacant for a very long time. What are our wishes? There's no addition to this building, right? Height, nothing. Just existing space within the shell.
>> Yeah. And hopefully hopefully you can meet the building code, right? >> Yeah. Hopefully >> for egress and access. And >> what would you what what would you do for waste on this building? You can't get a dumpster in any place.
>> Is it internal? >> No. The waste would go right into that backyard of our adjacent building. >> Okay. Your other property. >> Our other property. >> Okay, cool. >> Good answer. >> And you have parking there. You added parking to that second building.
>> Yes. Yeah. >> There was a vacant lot there that he bought and so there's 13 spaces. >> 13. >> So you're saying your waist is going to be on the adjacent lot. >> Yep. >> I think that would be the rear of K126.
>> Is there a walkway between the two so that people can wander down there and >> there's walkways on both sides? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, but that's uh that's not connected in any way, shape, or form, right?
That's not uh >> No, lo leg logistically, >> you we got to find a way to connect if that's where >> you can deal with this property that you can just state that storage of trash can't be on this piece. It could be
internal to the building. There there are a number of ways of dealing with trash. Most of the trash is going to go right out the front because the ceiling already the the roof already caved in. >> He's talking about >> when people are living there. >> When people are living there a demo. >> No, no, no, no, no, no.
>> Oh, >> yeah. So, leave a 20 dumpster. >> Yeah, they're probably whatever dumpster we use for the building will be used for both buildings. >> So, back here, if you have tenants in this building, can they access >> the back of that lot? I can.
>> Okay. >> But again, my concern is >> condition upon an easement. >> Yeah. I was going to say there has to be some easement or something between the two. >> That'll be fine. >> Did you sell these two? >> You might not own these forever. >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, I'm not forever. That's for sure.
>> None of us. >> Tonight is Tonight is forever. >> So, he's fine with that condition if the if the board sees fit, right? An easement. We'll record an easement between the two lots. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. Because if I remember correctly, site plan review and everything else on the
other one showed a trash location, right? So yeah, just include that on an easement for the utilization of the existing trash facility on the adjacent lot blah blah blah. And it'll run with the land. >> And this is a two twostory all the way through. >> It's odd. No, it's not. >> It's a tall building. It has like a
mezzan mezzanine in the back. Me, how do they say it's our second floor? Maybe about 50 feet deep. >> 40 45 something like that. >> It drops in the back though. I thought it doesn't it go back to one story, one and a half in the back. >> Something like that.
>> It's like >> it's not it's not a full two stories. Not a full there. There is a change somewhere. >> This is going to be a challenge, >> but there's no modification to the >> stories are going to be a challenge. >> Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Everything's going to be a challenge. Worst comes to worse, we just cut it down a little to 12 or
something. >> Well, as in a butter when you you'll have a chance to speak in favor if you'd like an in opposition. just have to wear a hat sit on the other side of the room. Okay. Seriously, let's let's roll. What do we u what are our wishes here?
>> Mr. Tetro, >> we did. We did. >> Uh so, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I move that we grant the variance as requested conditional upon a easement be recorded
to allow for the disposal of residential trash >> to the building next. >> What's the address of the building next? >> Uh 1446-1454. >> Okay. >> Very good. Do we have a second? Second >> motion and second on the motion. John,
>> yes. >> Jim, >> yes. >> Alexis, >> yes. >> And Eric, >> yes. >> And me, yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Now, we got the special. >> I move that uh it would not be more substantially more detrimental to the
area to grant a special permit to wave the parking requirements on this property. Second >> motion and second on the motion. Eric, >> yes. >> Alexis, >> yes. >> Jim, >> yes. >> John, >> yes.
>> Me? Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Number 10. Jen 10. Applicant is Rodman Enterprises LLC care of attorney Peter A. Selenino. >> 755 Rodman Street, Mass. Uh I 22 lot 13
and 71 Robin Street. Now I 21 lot 15. Applicant seeks a variance to allow a following relief from section 86 attachment one varying the lot coverage setback >> and parking setbacks uh relief
requirements of section 86445. Property is located within an A2 apartment zoning district. >> Thank you for the record. Peter Selenino on behalf of the applicant. The consulting engineer on this project is Zenith. We want to state your name for the >> Go one more sheet. >> Go ahead.
>> Tom Morris from Zenith Consulting Engineers. >> Thank you. >> The petition before the board in this regard has been before the board before. Um the site specifically on the I think the sort of the southwest side has a
substantial ledge outcropping. And so as Mr. Grisat's team was um clearing the land, it became apparent that the previously approved proposal would not be suitable uh or not be feasible from a construction perspective. So, as a result, the uh revised petition before
you tonight, although it contains the same number of units, which is 18, and provides all the off- streetet parking, which is 36, uh the the buildings as proposed are configured differently than they were at the last hearing. And so the relief relates to uh setbacks. Um
the plan does a nice job of itemizing the setbacks, but 4.1 ft to Salem Street, 10 ft to Rodman Street, 1.9 to Holio, 13.4 uh to the rear, which would be facing Tecumptious Street. Uh looking for parking setbacks because on Rodman
Street, it's zero. On Holio, it's one. And lot coverage, um the proposal is uh containing 64.8% 8% lot coverage. So, those are the variances requested. Um, as far as the hardship argument, for the record, it's certainly the ledge, the
topography, the ledge outcropping, and the shape of the property. And, um, be happy to answer any questions, as would Tom, and Fred Gris is also here to answer any questions or consider any conditions if the board should require that. >> So, you got into construction. You You had already gotten through site plan
review. >> Where where is the ledge? Is it back in that? >> Uh, it would be in this region here. >> Okay. So, there was in that area that Peter's pointing to, there was that line of buildings extended over.
>> Correct. Yeah. >> Um, so when the when the ledge came in, the contemplation was to take those four units and move them. when they moved them, they were relocated now onto the adjacent piece where the multif family
was needing now, you had two se two separate sets of relief for two separate properties that now we need to merge. So that's really what's happening here because the first set of relief was to convert that existing three family structure to a four that was standalone,
>> right? Then the second was to deal with only this the other parcel with the multif family. So in order to relocate the buildings from the ledge, you see where they now encroach into the other parcel where the dash line is. So this this petition now merges all of the land
so that those new structures can be built over what was the dividing lot line. Actually makes for a much better project. >> I agree. >> So this is now this will be merged into a single lot though. >> Correct. >> Uh yes. And the plan shows lot line to be extinguished. >> Yeah, I see the U
dash line in there. It's good project. I actually do like this better than the last one. >> See how nature just takes its way. >> Um, any questions from the board? >> Thank you for the input.
>> There was a concern about parking or adjacent property >> Salem Street. It was in that Salem Street. >> Oh yeah. >> So if you remember the abuter across Salem Street had a concern about her existing parking in Salem Street remaining. >> Right. >> This plan still shows the same. So that
same condition that parking existing parking in Salem Street. >> I just remember she she was actually here already. That was she was going to get the Chinese food. >> So and I explained to her that that condition had not changed. >> Okay. >> Um she was >> bring those back. >> Yeah. I was just going to say what was she bringing us? I mean
>> nothing. >> It was getting too late is what she had. I'm gonna go home and eat toast. Go home and eat my pillow. Um, okay. Yeah, that was that can't change. All right. Any other
questions from the board, from the public? Anybody wishing to speak in support? Anybody wishing to speak in opposition? >> There are none. >> And I want to also, if I could, I don't want to delay this, but does anyone have any other questions? We started talking
and then you >> Yeah. Yeah. We all >> We all live behind. >> Yeah, we all we all live behind it. And I don't get it. I I I >> She's so cute. >> I I I >> Are those all buildings budding
property? >> So D and Dan, >> do you live on Tecumpsa? >> So these >> these four these units here. All right. Yeah. Come on up here. It should be noted for the record that de worked at Selenino and Sylvia for many years. >> We have her name and address.
>> Sure. Dolores Seruda somewhere on Tecumpta Street. >> 418 to come. >> There you go. Thank you so much. >> So these units and these units used to be right here. Dan, can you see that? >> So the last time this was approved, the this building and this building were
right here. Okay. But because of the rocks >> Yeah. >> they can't build the buildings here. The cost of construction is too high. >> So they're moving buildings away from your house. >> You said you live on Holio, right? >> Yeah. >> They're moving buildings away from
>> buildings are going away. They're actually coming closer to Holio. So I'm a little concerned with the parking there. Whereas when the bus company's fully staffed. >> Yeah. When they come in, they park. >> That's my biggest concern there because
I still use Holy Oak Street as like an extension of my drive. Yeah, they're not doing anything in Holio. >> Yeah, nothing's happening at Holio Street. So, except >> Oh, the width is going to stay the same because in the other the first one they were going to come out into Holio. It showed.
>> Yeah, there is >> there is still a driveway, >> which means >> our driveway is right here, >> right? >> That's the gravel driveway. >> The limit of pavement in Holio is not being changed. >> Okay.
and they meet the parking requirements. They're not asking for a waiver of parking on this. Each unit will have to have two boxes. >> So, what we're concerned, like we said, is the bus company when they come, they park on both sides of you street. >> We can't deal with the bus company. So, if you have a problem with where the bus company parks, call the traffic
department and maybe they can keep them from parking in the street. >> These two units and these two that used to be shared. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> But they just couldn't build it here because of the rocks. So that >> the unit count is the same. >> Where are all the dumpsters going?
>> So it actually looks better for yours because that building was previously closer to you. It was like halfway into your backyard, >> right? And now it's pushed over to it's behind your neighbor, >> right? Which mean >> So it's actually better for you, >> which means which means we're not going
to have it there at all. >> Right. >> So >> So that's you're in a better situation. >> You're going to live there. >> So good to see. Yeah, nice to see. >> Maybe maybe >> we might all be living. >> Thank you so much for your time. I appreciate it. >> Okay, no problem. >> I learned a lot tonight.
>> That's what we call >> some of it was probably good. I don't know. >> It was good. >> Okay. >> All right. So, you you all happy? Neighbors neighbors? You're okay. Okay. So, I have no opposition in the room.
>> All right. That being the case, No one speaking in opposition. It's back to the board. >> It's a good plan. >> Same condition of if you contemplate the same condition of existing parking in Salem Street to remain.
>> Yes. We can't touch >> it's going to be a Mr. Mr. Chairman, I move that we grant the variance as requested uh waving lot coverage setback and parking setbacks according to the plan as submitted.
>> 86 455. That's for the 445. That's for the positioning of the parking areas, correct? >> Yes. That's the setback of the parking area especially on um >> on Hoy right up against it. Okay. >> Which also qualifies as a waiver
or a variance. So will you add that? >> Well, that's a special permit. That's a separate rule. >> It's still a special permit >> or any parking requirement is a special permit. >> Is a special permit. That's right. Even if it's dimensional. >> Yes. >> God forbid. Okay. >> Luckily, luckily for applicants.
>> Yeah, you're not kidding. All right. So, first part of it is the uh >> variance which is for lock coverage setback and >> I guess that's it. >> Yeah, the parking setbacks I don't need
to be in there. >> Do I have a second on this? >> Second. >> Do we have any discussion on the motion? And they're hearing none. John, I will go to you first. >> Yes. >> Jim, >> yes. >> Alexis, >> yes. >> And Eric,
>> yes. >> And me, yes. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. I move that we grant a special permit >> to allow change in the parking setbacks as presented in the plan. >> Need a second.
>> Well, or you can throw in the condition about the existing parking in Salem to remain somewhere. >> We should can do it here. So, we have no parking rights on Salem. Is that correct? >> No parking rights? No, it's a paper street. >> Salem Street. >> I know it's paper street. >> It's a private way. There's existing
parking that went that the neighbor uses it. >> So, >> okay. >> Yeah. And we're showing that to remain on the plan. >> Just to remain. >> Yep. Okay. >> It's fine. >> Pass delineated on the plan. >> I said that. >> Okay. Second. Okay. Motion and second.
John. >> Yes. Jim, >> yes. >> Alexis, >> yes. >> Eric, >> yes. >> Me, yes. Cool. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good work on pulling that together. >> Chinese time. >> Yeah, please. I mean, come on. Number
11. Applicant is Brian Divera and Cheryl de Olivera here of Attorney Jeffrey P. Maderas. Subject property is 271 Mount Hope Avenue, map a um 09, lot 13. Lucky 13.
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. One, the division of the property into two lots, leaving the existing three family dwelling on one lot and erecting a single family residential building on the newly created lot to MGL48 section
10 waving dimensional requirements, sidelines, and setbacks. Two, the reduction of lot area requirements per section 86 321. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following one relief uh from section
86444 waving parking setback requirements pursuant to section 86445. Property is located within RA single family zoning district. Good evening. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. I will make my presentation
very brief. It's been a long evening and I'm sure with the experience of the members of the board, you can interpret the application that was provided, but just to give a brief summary, uh, this property is a pre-existing non-conforming use. It's a three family house that sits on Mont Hope Avenue. The
lot is extremely large. It abuts, uh, St. An's Fraternity on Guild Street. What the um petitioner proposes is to leave the existing three family on the larger lot and then construct a uh
single family dwelling on Guild Street with lot sizes being 7,565 ft 5,137 ft. As you had mentioned, there's a special permit uh for the six parking spaces because they would be backing out onto Man Hope Avenue. There will be um
two designated for each apartment. They'll be able to park back to back. So that's the special permit. Two parking spaces on Guilds Street and um the building envelope would be uh within
that area. We are asking for the waiver of the um sidelines and uh the setbacks for the three family house where it sits now since it's close to Mont Hope Avenue and the um the new proposed uh 10 ft on
the the sidelines. Um it is the hardship is basically the size of the lot in that area as well as if you're familiar with Mont Hope Avenue, it's a sloping uh it's a sloping grade. So that is the the hardship at hand if you have any
questions. >> Um >> it uh >> do do we have a footprint for the single family that would go in and where's the parking? >> So the parking is on guild. You see the two spaces that were designated on the
plan >> on street >> on no uh parking off street parking. that the that northeast sorry northwest corner of the lot near guild there are two spaces enumerated >> two spaces and then the six spaces that
are on Mount Hope Avenue. >> You have to look at the the detail plan on the bottom right. >> Ah got it. >> Sorry. Yep. >> Um is the uh existing fence the property line?
>> I defer that >> into the into the parking lot of the hall there. Yeah, >> like it comes out. That is the property line. It's not >> the on which >> into the into the parking lot of the Well, it used to be the FRA. It's something else now. >> There's a a fence there now.
>> That is the property line. That is the property line. I'm asking because it seems like it does encroach into that parking lot, the jut out. Want to make sure that's not >> That is the property line. Yes, >> that is the property line. That's not going further into the parking lot. No. Okay.
Okay. So, the envelope of the building is described here with the 10 foot side yard setbacks, 20 yard uh 20 foot front and rear yard setbacks. That's your envelope of the building. >> He's presuming he hasn't gone for
building uh plans as of yet. So, that's a summed envelope as I explained to Mr. uh deaivera that if the variance is granted this evening in accordance with the plan, he has to stay strictly within that building envelope. >> Okay. So, you have six parking spaces
coming in off Mount Hope. Those are those are stacked. Then you got three across. You going too deep. >> Yep. >> Yes. >> That always ends up with arguments. >> An existing that whole existing garage is staying. >> Yes. >> That's there. Yes.
>> Is that just storage now or is it used as a garage in any way or >> It's for storage. My tractor bunch of stuff that I have. >> Weed whackers, flooring, paint. >> Other questions from the board?
When I look at the lot coverage calculation, it says house and shed. Does that mean house and garage? >> I would presume that would mean house and garage, >> right? And then proposed asphalt. So understand that the relief that you're
requesting for lot coverage when you get through site plan review, that's that's all you can get. So, if there's something else on there that hasn't been shown or it's over 33.38%. You're going to have to come back. >> Sure.
>> Um only because I don't I don't know what else is out there. Um >> well, that could >> it just seems greater than 35%, >> etc. could could mess that up, right? >> What's that? >> I said something like walkways or >> anything, right? Sometimes the quality
of the plan creates a problem for >> sticking off the back of the single family. you can only grant the relief that's been requested. So on on that one and then was there any contemplation with meeting the sideyard setbacks on parcel 2 which were 15 ft? >> There was some contemplation but then
that would narrow the the front of the house. He doesn't want to put it in sideways. So >> right. But so you have a specific house or you don't have >> he doesn't as of yet. So that's why we went with the 10 ft. >> So if he told you 15 and 15 then he would design a house that fits. If you see Well, if you see 55 ft frontage,
>> so take the 20 ft away, it's 35 ft. He just doesn't know what style he wanted to put in. >> Got it. Okay. >> So, he was contemplating a a colonial 35 ft wide with the front facing. >> And on that parcel too, you're stuck
with 25% lot coverage. You understand that? Because you haven't requested relief for lot coverage on that lot. So between asphalt and building you can only occupy >> 25% 25% of 5,000. >> What would be the quick calculation?
>> I don't know. Don't ask me to do math on my >> engineer. >> 5137* 0.25 >> would uh >> one and a quarter. >> So 1,200 square ft total impervious area. That's building parking.
>> That's building and parking. Yeah. That's just the first floor. That's the footprint. >> I mean, a 30 by 30 house is 900 square feet, so it'll be close. >> 30 by 40. >> Yeah. So, you have to meet that >> 30 by 40. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I don't see. >> Yeah. I don't know. Well, but it's Yeah,
you're right. >> Yeah. I don't know. >> Was that true? >> I I'm just the the the aerial the drive by I walk by that every day just for giggles. Um the uh I'm trying to get a
55 ft dimension from the garage. >> This 10 15 foot setback that you have which goes through the driveway that's there now is the that's why I was concerned about the 55 ft is that going into the driveway >> of the restaurant.
>> So no what Mr. Deivera had just mentioned is the garage now is kind of a large structure but you're going to cut it in half. Is that is that what that's what I asked about the original because the garage is big and that's what >> Yeah. Yeah. That's getting taken down part of it. >> That's what I was asking. All right. >> So, yeah, but that doesn't help parcel
too. >> So, this plan >> garage now comes all the way out to That's what I'm saying. If you look at the Google Earth that it's a big garage. That's what I was trying to get to. >> I wasn't picturing know what that property looks like. >> And I wasn't picturing where that was.
It's a It's a beast. M. >> So the existing garage is going to be cut back to meet the 15T >> 7. Okay. Okay. Just cuz the plan doesn't show that. So that that answer your concern. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Good. >> Okay. >> Just want to make sure you didn't have to come back again
looking at it. >> Well, now he's going to have to tell his architect when he designs the plan that we're going to be restricted to the lock coverage to make sure it fits. >> Well, that should help relief because that garage is probably a fourc car garage. >> No, but as Mr. Haga says it it's relief for
>> lot one block two >> lot one is one thing lot two is the the issue >> so if you go to the 15t sideline setback you're you're really shrinking down
footprinting the building >> so uh it's going to be dictated by lot coverage at this point >> how big that building is Right. And I think that's yeah, that's going to be the driving factor is is what's it
going to be? Parking, walkways, footprint and living with the um living with the lot coverage. Can you is a big question. Had you anticipated that not going outside the lot coverage
>> since he he didn't know what style of house? I don't know if he anticipated that but so long as you stay within >> the 1200 I think it's 12 right yeah absolutely >> I mean right now you could be whatever 35 30 deep potentially somewhere >> and that's a nice size that's a nice
size >> okay you can live with the 25% that's I'd rather ask you now yes >> instead of you coming back you know for an after the fact or OG whiz you know through >> says 33% that's why that's why I asked that it
comes out 1284. >> There you go. >> So that's >> and you can use a combination of you can do pavers for the driveway, right? And not count that. So there's different ways to get around, but just >> keep in mind that that that'll be the limit that >> and your other lot one parcel one
>> the six parking spaces that you're adding that don't don't currently exist. >> Y >> right to the uphill of that property. >> Yep. >> You're going to be dealing with lot coverage there, too. If it's not, >> it's calc it says here it's the proposed parking is
>> he's included 200 square f feet for it. >> So house and shed which is house and garage plus 200 for parking is that >> using that calculation even with patio walks 4301 the calculation is
>> not right >> right here >> can't be right. Six parking spaces are gonna be more than 200 square feet. So it's not >> help. Would it help if I use crushed coral there? That's what I've done before. >> No. Parking area has to either be pavers >> or
>> asphalt porous asphalt like loose. >> Sure. Sure. >> Loose doesn't work because it drags into the street and everything else. But the way that this calculation, if you look at his coverage calculation, he comes up with a total impervious area of 4301 square ft. But then when he calculates
the percentage, he's using 2525, not 4301. >> That's why just visually it looked like about 50% to me for lot coverage. >> So if you do 4301 asphalt, he eliminated the patio and >> well, but he has So he Yeah. So he has a
total impervious area of 4301. So that lot's going to be >> Yeah. You're more like 60% lot cover. >> 50%. >> So as long as we use pavers, we're good. >> More than that. 60. >> Okay. I think that's what they're saying. >> 4301
divided by 7565. >> But Mr. Frank, we asked >> 56%. >> We asked for a variance from lot coverage. Correct. >> Right. To the specific number on this plan to 33%. >> I think it's wrong. >> Well, you're actually 56%. I mean, the
board can decide to grant you 57%. But that's up to the board. But that's not what was require. That's >> we want to make it right this the first time. >> I'm going to have to I'm going to have to look for a new engineer after >> that. >> And he has the number there. He just
used he didn't carry it down in the calculation. So, >> um, >> okay. Those are my concerns and that's why I wanted to bring them up while we're looking at it. >> You don't have to grant it. You can leave it so that it's going to be porous. That's up to you. If you want to stay clean, then only
grant the 33%. Well, the the the other the concern that I have is that way we don't have a specific >> on the garage and now now >> he's talking about having to cut it in half like he's going to do to make >> we kind of have to know otherwise >> sidelines
>> whatever we do he's stuck with and site review >> right right >> and then we would use papers and force material that would solve the problem >> what's yes okay >> yeah that's >> um yeah >> and then on the garage. But but on the
garage, we don't have a dimension. He just has to meet the 15th setback and that's it. >> Yeah. Right. And whatever. >> He's going to limit him to a lot coverage. >> Yeah. The lot the proposed lot coverage percentage on the plan, which is so lot two is going to be limited to 25%. Lot
one is going to be limited to 33.38%. >> And we'll have to find some way to get there through site plan review. Either that or members of the board, I I would respectfully request if you can bump that 33 up to about 40 just to be on the safe side if possible. Even though Mr. Mr. De Alive understands that it has to
be pavers or something that what is it, Mr. Aguar? Impervious >> porous asphalt porous. >> So it's still I would just try to make it a little bit easier so he doesn't >> so he doesn't have to come back to the board again if if he can't do it >> because of my engineer's poor
calculating skills. What's scary is they put a stamp on it. What's his face? >> Okay. What do I I didn't go to the I still have to ask. >> Yeah. >> Anybody want to speak in favor?
>> In opposition, >> how do we want to do this, guys? What do you want? >> Again, I I just uh there was there was a lot of back and forth on trying to get to where we were trying to get. >> Yes. The figure is not right. So, we we
feel we feel comfortable that we'll limit lot coverage on lot two, the new lot to 25%. Yeah, I think we passed lot coverage, but >> still look at the underlying request of a conforming lot being made into two non-conforming lots.
And >> that was my first concern was asking about the fences. It I it it encroaches into that parking lot of the club that's there and that gets madness when there's a party and stuff going on there. So, I just uh that's a concern. I just wanted
to make sure it wasn't going to eat more into the parking lot. That's why it threw me off with the garage being where it is and and the size of it. It's not on the plan. Didn't line up. >> I got past that though. >> Okay,
we're past that. Where do we want to go? >> Besides home. Let's see. >> So, are you asking to amend you are asking to amend the law coverage on one?
>> Yes. To take in consideration to the to the um pocketing size uh based on your calculations, you thought it went up to 50%. So rather than do that at 33 and a3 just to be safe, uh at least 40%.
>> I guess you get some latitude with how much of the garage you take down, etc. And what you use for for walkways and driveway. >> That's correct. >> Patio in the back that could be reworked or whatever. >> Um again, uh
>> all right. With that, um, I'll make a motion to grant the variance of dividing the property, leaving the three family, dwelling on one lot,
waving the dimensional requirements. Um, increasing the as shown on plan lock coverage to 40% from the 33% that was on the plan. also with a requirement that
the garage is being reduced in size in order to meet the 15 ft sideyard setback. So, demolition of the southerntherly portion of the garage to meet the 15t setback
and then the creation of lot parcel 2 will have that building building envelope as shown on plan with the setbacks as shown on plan. Uh, >> lock cover note.
>> Lock coverage. Yeah. Not not exceeding what's on the plan. 23. Was it >> 25%? >> 25%. >> No ADUs. >> Yeah. No further adus on either parcel. >> You have you haven't addressed the parking, Mr. Frank.
>> That's a special permit for parking, right? What was it? >> Well, is make a make a requirement of the two parking places on the newly created lot. >> Well, it's by zoning. Okay. So, that you have to comply. You're not asking you're not being granted relief for parking. So, you just need to >> Well, there's a special permit >> require parking on waving parking
setback requirements for the >> correct >> for the front one for the parcel one. >> Yep. >> We'll do that in a minute. This variance that's the variance motion second. You have any discussion? Do you have all this? >> Got it.
>> My hand is good. >> Okay, you check boxes now. You make some check boxes. >> No questions on the motion. U Eric, >> yes. >> Alexis, >> yes. >> Jim, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Emmy, yes. And as for the special
permit, I find that it is not more detrimental to the neighborhood and that we approve the waving of the parking setback requirements. Um, pursuant to 86445 uh for that would be for >> parcel one. Yeah. Yeah.
>> So, so parcel wait a minute as a question. Hold. >> What kind of career cut do we have on parcel one currently? >> None. >> None. Right. There's no parking there now. >> We're talking literally a triple. >> Yep. >> City council.
>> Yeah. He understands you'd have to go in front of the city council. >> City council. >> Okay. So, a double on uh double on guild and a triple on >> Currently, there's no on-site parking on that property. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Correct. So, >> the garage is base inside. I think
>> the doors are on the Yeah. >> interior of the property. >> Yeah. So I u I apologize for the interruption. >> That's it. I was done. >> Okay. >> Doesn't want to go second. I >> have a motion to second. Questions, discussion.
Hearing none on the motion. John, >> yes. >> Jim, >> yes. >> Alexis, >> yes. >> And Eric, >> yes. >> And me? Yes. >> Very good. Go. >> Clear as much. >> Thank you very much. Thank you very much. >> Thank you guys.
>> Item number 12. I'm going to be brief, but I do have to take a couple minutes. We have received a record number of four open meeting law complaints within the last couple of months. The first uh came
into us on uh June 17th. It was in regard to the July meeting, which I believe was on the 15th, no, the May 15th meeting. I'm sorry, May 15th meeting. It was in regard to that. that came from Erin Liry.
Um, initially because it came in two days beyond the appealing period, it was thought that that was it in discussions with the AG's office. It's uh it it needs to be dealt with. We
have one that came in on 717 from um Patrick Higgins which was basically telling us that we did I did bad in handling Miss Liry's um
complaint uh that came in on June 17th. The third one is also from Aaron Liry. It came in on July 22nd. The alleged
violation was the July 17th meeting. And the final one came in from uh Ms. Erin Liry on August 14th and the U date of alleged violation was also July 17th.
So, let me explain. And I did send out the newest uh open meeting law guide which was dated in June of this year. I sent it to all the members of the board. Um it is worth going through. I know we take open
meeting law training, but have the guide printed out. It's about 26 pages long. It's worth having. Uh pages 20 through 22 deal with what do you do when you get one? Um for a time that I'm not here and someone
else is chairing u or just for our own memory to keep ourselves in good order on these things and um and avoid this. Uh I've been chair for three years. We had none of these and all four of these have to do
with basically the same thing. So, not good. The AG doesn't need to get uh you know get our name coming across his desk, her desk frequently. Um and that's that. What we then need on
this so that a response can be made to the AG's office is a motion to refer all four of these uh to the law department so that they can um respond, interview me, interview
any of us that they feel needs to be interviewed in order to answer this. >> So moved. We have a motion to refer the four above mentioned open meeting law complaints to the law department. Do we have a second? >> Second.
>> Then on that John, >> yes. >> Jim, >> yes. >> Alexis, >> yes. >> Eric, >> yes. >> And Chairman Prairie, yes. Citizens input. We've had a lot of citizens input. uh approval of the July 17th, 2025
minutes and those were uh adjusted. I hope everybody saw the final issue that came out waving of the reading of the >> We have the right members here to approve those tonight. >> What's that? >> Do we have the right members here to approve these tonight? >> We do not. >> We've got three.
>> Wait a minute. We only have three. >> But that's a quorum and and then approval only require >> Eric was here. >> You were here. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay, we're fine. >> Yeah, >> that's fine. >> Okay, we have a motion to wave reading
and approve. Did we get a second? >> Second. >> Okay. And Eric wouldn't be holding on this, >> right? Because you were not here. >> Eric was not, so we're good. >> Okay, that's right. So again, Eric, >> yes.
>> Okay. Uh Jim, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Jim Prairie, yes. and take a motion to adjurnn any moment now. >> Move to adjourn. >> Second. Second. All
>> in favor? I guys. Thank you. Long night.