Good evening. I am Joseph Pereira, chairman of the zoning board of appeals for the city of Fall River. It is 6 pm on Thursday, July 17, 2025. We are meeting at one government center in the first floor hearing room. Pursuant to
Mass General Law, chapter 3A, section 20 subsection F. I hereby notify all persons in attendance that a video and audio recording of this meeting is being made by Fall River Government TV. Mr. Craig Salvador, if anyone desires to
make a video, audio, or combined recording of this meeting, please notify me now and I will make a public announcement of your intent. Thank you. Our recording secretary this evening is Patty Aguar, sitting to my
immediate right. Sitting uh present this evening are regular members John Frank, our vice chairman, James Caulkins, our clerk, Dan Depupier, and Ricky Sahadi, as well as uh alternate
member Eric Kelly. Also present this evening is Daniel Aguiar, director of engineering and planning, sitting uh seated to my uh 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 4A as amended? Yes. I declare the July 17th, 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 of butters anyone in favor or opposed to a petition that your presentations uh or comments 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 of their claim. In the case of variances, a
credible hardship as defined by Mass General Law Chapter 48 must be pre presented. Remember this applies to variances uh I'm this applies to variances for use as well as so-called waiverss from
dimensional and area requirements. I remind all present that the authority of the zoning board of appeals exists pursuant to Mass General Law chapter 48 and is limited in scope to the use of land as regulated in chapter 86 of the
ordinances of the city of Fall River. We require that comments made in this hearing be limited in scope to our authority. Additional permits, licenses, reviews, and or uh approvals may be required for any item that is before us
tonight. The action taken by the board has a real and lasting effect on the title to your real estate. As such, I urge all petitioners to seek confident legal counsel before filing your petition and after the decision of the board has been made. A copy of the
ordinance is available at the city clerk's office or from the planning department. I remind everyone that the building inspector is the zoning enforcement authority and you are here this evening because the building inspector has determined that your proposed action is contrary to the city
of Fall River zoning ordinance. The city's charter s section 9-18 mandates that all multi-member bodies uh 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 at the end of the meeting. If you wish to speak, there is a signup sheet on the table just outside the entrance. I have a request that was presented to us regarding item number 11.
Attorney Brilliant has uh requested to be moved to the top of the order due to a conflict later this evening. No one has any objections, especially other petitioners at this point. I would like to uh turn it over to Attorney Brook.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Even Mr. Chairman, clerk Aiel, members of the board. For the record, my name is attorney Gregman Brilliant and I am appearing tonight on behalf of Pauline Louise relative to a request to have an after the-act special permit to maintain the existing deck uh at the rear of the
property located at 1269 President Avenue. U to start off, I'll give a picture to the chairman of the actual deck and where it approaches shouldn't say approaches, but the uh the distance from the property line. Um, Miss Miss Louise has owned this property
since 1982. Um, the deck was built in appro in approximately April of 2024 under what was a mistaken belief that she could build this deck in accordance with the original building permit which is unable to be found at the building department.
Um, her significant other at the time, a gentleman named Wayne Melo was a was a developer, was a contractor. He built the home um and and at the time did not put the deck on. He unfortunately passed away of cancer thereafter and the the property stood deckless for lack of a
better word for all the time until she had enough funds that she could put the deck on. Uh how this all happened is she hired a gentleman um that was referred to her. She went out and look at his work. He had done a uh handicap ramp for a friend of hers. Done a very good job and this and this tech is very well
constructed. Done a very good job. So she hired him. um he was a Brazilian uh origin and she thought he was getting a building commit. She honestly did. He he did not and we don't we don't deny that. We want to be very transparent. He did not get the building permit. It was put
up last April and nothing was said. Um what happened was is she then was going to put a deck on the side of her property. And when she went in to try to do the deck, the building inspector came in and says, "I think you got a problem with with your with your deck." I said, excuse me. when she was going to build the shed, they came in and says, "I
think you got a problem with your deck." She immediately contacted me. I contacted the city and and at that point in time, we filed immediately. She's not she's not a person trying to she didn't do anything to try to usurp the zoning laws or the building permit law. She thought everything was above board.
She's always done things above board. The deck is a 15t by uh 10-ft deck and it's it's built of very high quality. In in a nutshell, yes, she made a mistake and at this point in time, we don't believe the deck as construction will be any uh substantially more detrimental to
the to the neighborhood. Um, which is the the basis for a special permit. We do there are I have a letter from Warner Brother and I think there's another butter here tonight to speak. I I think and I don't I'm being presumptuous. I think we do have here's the letter and
the other wants to speak for himself. I think we do have one of the neighbors who's who's directly behind it who is I think going to speak. That is where that shrubbery is from the deck. I was I stood there yesterday and I took that picture. Um you can't see in into the
yard whatsoever. Um so I I do understand that it is closer to the to the lot line than it should be pursuing to the zoning law, but we really don't believe that's going to be any substantial detriment as we said to the neighborhood. Um and again, if anybody's familiar with the uh President Avenue neighborhood, it's all
single family homes. They're all very tight and close down down down the uh street. Um so again, we as soon as we found out we came in here, I can vouch for the fact that this was not done intentionally to try to circumvent anything or get away with anything. It was like it was there for over a year,
nearly a year and a half before anything was done. And had it not been for the fact that she wanted to put a um a a shed in the yard because she has a very large lot. It's a double lot. Um, probably never would have been here because I don't think she would have known and she would have had no reason to come in for a zoning variance. So,
that being said, Miss Louise is here. I'm here to answer any questions. Um, but it's a relatively straightforward uh petition. Members of the board, it's um not uncommon for us to have people in front of us who have hired contractors who are either not licensed
or don't go and pull the proper permits, etc. Um, it's a barbeware situation. At least he did good work. The photographs are wonderful. It is very good work. If you anybody did take the opportunity to stop by it, it is very good work.
Any questions from the board at this point? Think about anybody here wishing to speak in favor of the petition, sir. You like me to come to the table? Um, as long as you can project, we just
need your name and and address, sir. I can project. Yes, you can. Kevin Palmer. I live at 1235 President Avenue. I've been there for approximately 26 years. For 22 24 years, I've looked out the back window of my house at 2x12's projecting out the back
of this house, Pauline's house. I was uh friends with the original builder Wayne Melo and I have had a couple of conversations with him when he was alive questioning the 2x12 sticking out the back and his comment was the house was
originally designed for deck and he was eventually going to get to it and if anybody knows Wayne Melo we love him like we did one of his idiosyncrasies is delay delay delay and never quite finish a project so we didn't think. So, when I
saw the construction going on in Pauline's backyard, never dawned on me. I figured the house was originally designed. She's now finally getting around to putting up a deck. The deck is definitely well built. It is I consider
it an asset to the house and the neighborhood. It's a beautiful piece of work and uh I'm totally in favor of what they've done there. Uh the work that was done. Great. Thank you, sir. Anyone else wishing to speak in favor of the
petition? They're seeing none. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the petition? Yes. My name is Amarie. I live at 29 Street. My property directly abotss the subject
property and most impacted by this nonmitted, nonconforming deck as well as its structural setback to my property line. Contrary to what's been stated, the deck is not the same footprint as
the patio. The extended point of egress is within feet of my property. This bit um the height of the structure results in loss of privacy, added light pollution, no all the way down, and
increased noise level. despite my maintaining a six-foot fence and 15 foot high. My initial call to the planning board was on June 3rd, 2024 with followup on the 18th and was told
no permit was on record. I followed up with building inspector's office on the 20th as well as filing a for excuse me a formal complaint to the planning board on the 24th of June 2024.
On July 25, 2024, I was informed that an application form was picked up by the petitioner and taken out by the homeowner. To my knowledge, that form was not submitted
to its designated city department. A call to the planning board on November 1, 2024 resulted in an assessor revisiting the property at 1269 President Avenue.
I continued contact with the building department calling again on May 27 of this year regarding the status of the resolution. Here we are July 17, 2025.
The proprietor is or has been a multi-property owner in the city and familiar with the construction trades given who she was married to who ran the construction business. Neither ignorant
of nor hardship is a consideration here. The homeowner holds responsibility for permitting oversight or lack thereof. A building permit has to be visibly
posted, does it not? Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition? Mr. Chair, if I can just make one rebuttal, I can tell you that I spoke to the bu the building department myself and I am not aware of any of this and neither was Miss Louise relative to any
prior complaints. Sorry, I can't hear you. I I'm sorry. I I'm just telling the board that relative to this issue, when we were notified by the building inspector, I spoke to the building inspector, two of them, the head building inspector and one of the um assistants, and as soon as we were
notified, I filed the application. So, I I don't know what happened in the past, and I can't speak to that, but I know that when she came to me is when she found out, and I called right away, and we filed right away. So, these other things, Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of in any capacity.
One thing I have to say too is I'm not a multi- um property owner. I own two houses. My companion that built the house, I was not married by the way. Um I was with Wayne for 39 years and moved into my house which I've owned and was built by Wayne in 2007 and he got sick
that year and died in 2008. I have his house on Home Street also very well maintained. Um so I don't know where she's coming from when she says that information. Nothing further. May I come to speak? Uh, no. Okay. Thank you.
That's fine to the board. Dan, you want to read? Uh, first I would offer I don't recall any complaints ever coming through the planning department. Any complaint regarding something like this would be referred to the building
department immediately. Um, so I don't have a recollection or at least not coming across my desk. and any any complaint like this that would have come through my staff, I'm assuming they would have directed it to the building department as well. Just regard to with history of it, what's before you tonight and what you're being asked to act on as
a special permit and was determined by the building inspector that because we have an pre-existing non-conforming structure that that non-conforming nature can be extended by a special permit if you find that it is not substantial or detrimental to the
neighborhood. That's what's before you tonight. So, not a variance. There's no hardship proposed. You can't act on a variance. You can't change the petition to a variance. So tonight, all you can do is make bifurcated hearing. One, is the deck substantially more detrimental or not than the pre-existing
non-performing structure to the neighborhood? And then two, whether to grant special permits they can stay or not. conditions. Conditions to think of would be one, you would need to acquire and file for an after the fact building permit and any and all required inspections be completed before an
occupancy permit is given. That's all I Mr. Chairman assume that we we acted on this. This is this is when they said a special and they gave that to us. Okay. No, I agree.
Thank you. Thank you, Dan. Just a point of clarification. So, uh you say that after the fact they need to apply for another building permit in addition to this one. We haven't applied for building permit yet, Mr. Sah. We have to go forward first.
No, this is what are you presenting to us? No, that was they told us what it was. A special permit that it wasn't a variance. That's from that's from the building and inspectional services. So again, as the chairman stated, beyond this board's ruling on any item, there are other permitting authorities that
need to complete the construction process. So they cannot issue a building permit or would not be able to until you acted first one way or the other. Okay. And then if you deny the request, then I'm I'm assuming that they will issue an enforcement action to have it removed.
Okay. Anything else from the board? As some of the attorneys in this room will tell you, I hate these after the fact situations, but some of them are blatantly thumbming their nose at the law and some
of them are mistakes. So, it's a mistake. This is a mistake. Seems to me, gentlemen, it's going to be a long night. Let's move. What do we want to do with this? Yes. Y
I'll make a motion that Sorry. I'll make a motion that the uh special permit uh for the construction of the deck is not more detrimental to the neighborhood. I'll second. Okay. On that here uh on that portion of
the um the motion. John, yes. Jim, yes. Dan, yes. Ricky, yes. German Prairie, yes. And uh I'll make uh the motion to grant the special permit. Second, second subject to the conditions building
permit and all necessary permit and late filing fees, whatever is necessary to uh complete the process. Um, and if there are any uh alternatives looking at the stairway,
the stairway goes straight back. The stairway could potentially be turned to go the other direction. That's a possible something that should be looked at by the building uh department. Um, so instead of having that three-foot setback, you could probably end up with a five to eight
foot if you turn that. Mr. I think I think the steps are actually I don't think the steps go that far. I mean I don't think it's that close by pursuing to the pitches. I know it says it there. I'm not sure though. Jeeoff is the steps go that close. They do. I mean that's that's the field
location that I have. Okay. You could take the bottom five steps and make a left or a rightand. Mr. Chairman, I think I gave you a picture. I just didn't think it if that is in fact the case. Let's hope the patio's not over the lawn. Huh? Let's hope the patio is not over the
lawn. That would be that would be my motion. You modify your second. Well, again, to be clear, is it is it a condition of your motion or is it a suggestion? Uh, no. I I I'll make it a condition of
my motion that the option the option to turn the stairs in either direction to point them away from going straight into the property line. So I think it's a small small adjustment. You're going to make
you're going to gain five feet maybe. Is that if if it can be done I'm going to build up. No, of course it can be done. Anything can be done. Yeah. So you're you're basically looking at taking the bottom four five steps turn it either east or west east or west.
So that way when you're not coming down the steps you're not stepping into almost the righties bushes without even looking into the you have to you would turn once you get to the edge of the deck and you're going down the steps you got to turn right or left to go down steps.
Okay. Can I make a suggestion? Would it would it make sense to um whatever the setback is? I can't read it. Looks like 3.7 ft to the actual deck. Maintain that for the stairs that the stairs must adhere to that in however fashion they have to be
adjusted. Uh whatever the deck is is can't be closer than that. Yes, I I see what you're saying. Yeah. No closer than that's what I was trying. I wasn't saying it right, Mr. Frank, but but but that's what I meant. I apologize.
He doesn't practice law. You don't practice engineering. So, I think that's fair. Will you do you think that's fair? Will you amend your Yeah. Uh Patty's got like 19 notes over there with all kinds of stuff scribbled
everywhere right now. So, so the conditions being conditions being after the fact filing fee uh late filing fee steps can be no closer than steps can be no closer than 3.7 so whatever adjustments have to be made
with that okay on the motion Ricky yes Dan yes Jim yes John yes cher yes thank you members of Mr. Jim, thank you for taking me out of the way. Thank you. I hope they treat you as well as
back to old business. Item number 01. Applicant is Rock View LLC. He's a terrible dog. Kov, attorney Peter Celino, 559579 Rock Street, Map O. Map 0 O2 lots 16 and 17. The applicant
is requesting variance to allow the following. One to convert the existing convent and carriage house on lot 16 and 17 into 15 residential apartment units waving requirements in the R4 zoning district is detailed in section 86-35
amendment one attachment one and 86-36 attachment two the follower of a zoning bylaw. The applicant is requesting special permit to allow the following. Two p uh person went to section 86-445 to adjust the dimensional requirements
necessary to accommodate the required parking spaces. Three person went to section 86-321 to increase the existing non-conforming lot coverage of each lot. Uh property is located in R4 two family zoning district. The petition was previously
tabled at the June 26, 2025 ZBA hearing. Council, thank you. For the record, my name is Peter Solino. I'm the attorney for the applicant and my office is located at 550 Locust Street here in Fall River. As the chairman read, this petition was before the board previously at the May
meeting. Um, certainly there was a lot of objection and outcry from the neighborhood. As a result of that, uh, we worked with Mr. Tolman to redesign a plan which was submitted last Thursday and is before you. The substance of the revisions are to reduce the requested
unit count from 15 units to 12 units as well as to remove the parking that was originally presented on the west of the assessor's lot number 16 and move it all up along Rock Street and therefore uh being sensitive to the needs and
objections of the folks on Gate House Drive. So to recap the last presentation, this is a pre-existing uh convent with a carriage house and an additional outbuilding. Uh my client purchased it from the Dasis. My client would like to do something with it.
Obviously uh we heard the objections, but obviously there are financial realities to being able to redevelop a site like this. And therefore uh we believe that a reasonable compromise to the objections is to reduce the unit count uh to 12 total and to alter the
parking configuration. However, it's important to know for the record that the proposed parking is sufficient, meaning that there are at least two spaces per unit as well as the required loading spaces. Uh, as far as the bedroom count and
layout, the architect was able to look at the what I'll call the big house or the mansion, which consists of 7,700 square ft, and lay that out for six total units. The units uh on one side of the house would uh which be the north side would be three bedrooms. The units
on the south side of the house would be two bedrooms. the garage carriage house, which is the structure in the middle that says existing carriage house, uh could house two units. Um, one that has two bedrooms and one that has uh I'm sorry, sorry, three units. One that has
two bedrooms and then two units that each have two bedrooms in the lower level. And finally, what I'll call the rear house, which is the westerlymost building that is labeled existing two-unit uh convent annex. Uh that would be uh consisting of two units. A
three-bedroom unit on the top floor and a twobedroom unit on the first floor. What's that? Say that again. On the last one. Let's go back to the next one again. Okay. That last one you said you only gave us two. It's three. One on the top floor,
two on the bottom floor. Okay. Sorry, Mr. Ramsey's writing is excellent. I couldn't read it. Uh so one on the top floor, two on the bottom. All twos. The top is three. Uh top is three. Okay. And then two twos on the bottom.
Two. Correct. Got it. Correct. Mr. Chairman, just a point of clarification. Um you're asking for 12 units. What we have in front of us is 15. The agenda for this evening states 15.
Was the agenda printed after or before? Where are you proposal? No. Look, it's cuz that's what was the original. So, it was just tabled. So, we can't change it. So, in the case of a tableabling, it wouldn't be changed. It wouldn't be readvertised, etc. So that they have
they have the right in tableabling to go back and make any changes. As long as they're not increasing units. If they were increasing then they would have had to have readvertised. So I understand. So just the point of clarification we are voting on 12. That's correct. That is the request Mr. Sahad. Yes. Uh
and I can offer that how we came up with that number effectively was the layout of the existing building as well as what would be allowed by right if we I know last time we were told we couldn't demo the building etc. But humor the example for a second. If in fact the structures could be demolished Mr. Tolman can draw
a plan that lays out uh four two family dwellings by right. We we actually have a plan that was submitted as part of the Do you have that? There you go. There we go. So this plan would be the alternative what I'll call the by right plan. And so we thought that the 12 units would be
consistent with this as well. So that's how the number was arrived at. And just to touch upon this, what you're looking at here is that there are four lot this property could be divided by right into four conforming lots where three new two family dwellings could be
built. Um one the the existing two family located at the southwest corner would be maintained which would be located on lot four and um an accessory dwelling unit could be added to that lot and then accessory dwelling units could be added to the proposed structures. um
on lots one, two, and three. Um bringing the total number of units on the property to 12, which is how we arrived at the uh the yield that we are proposing tonight. Mr. Tolman, and lastly, I'd like to offer I said this in my last presentation, but Mr.
Rums is in a butter to the south and doesn't want to do that. His objective was to maintain the existing structures and the historic nature of those structures on the exterior facades. And so that's why we believe what's being proposed is more palatable and more consistent with what's there now and the
neighborhood at large. I also want to state that the um the floor plan layouts are not a requirement of this board. They can be requested by this board. It is a courtesy to us in order to
uh better understand what we're dealing with, but it is not a requirement of filing. I just want to make that statement. Mr. Chairman, we can offer what the proposal is here. Thank you, Chip.
Sure. Drop it in record. One copy there. Those match your narrative. Yes. Yes. That's this. You want to take a look at this? questions at this point from the board.
Um parking is 24 spaces total. Yes. And um can we discuss uh lot coverage as far as certainly the uh existing structure and existing sites do not conform lot coverage wise. Um and sorry
the calculations are not on the screen so bear with me. Are they on the plan? They are on the it was just the orientation. Uh so on the assessor's lot 16 existing is 35%. Proposed is 45%. So it's an increase of
10. And on lot 17 it's currently 45% and the proposed is 50%. And the overall, if you combine both lots, goes from 40% to the 47.3 at the bottom.
And that's because of the massive existing asphalt that's out there now for parking, right? Because you're getting rid of that or reshaping that. Yeah. Reconfiguring the the asphalt basically. That's a dramatic improvement from what it was the last time with the parking lot in the back. Right. Correct. We had a bigger number.
Yes. Okay. Thank you. Can I see other questions? It's the same but it's less. Before we go to the public, I do want to mention that um and I'll take a um
right I'll take a um motion from the board. I have a total of two petitions that have been presented and a total of seven letters that are here in file. I don't know if there were more than that that have come in
but there are seven here. I would ask for a motion to wave reading and submit to the uh to the file. So moved. Second on the motion then. John, yes. Jim, yes. Dan,
yes. Ricky, yes. And chairman Pur. Yes. Can Can we read um from Can we read from who they are from? So we can have a uh there are people in
the audience that referring to their Sure. I have a uh petition that uh was turned in I believe by um preservation. I have a letter and that is a uh that is
a petition online petition. I have a letter and petition from the preservation society. I have a letter from Erin Liry, Esquire, letter from Darnell Maderas, letter from Connie Soul,
letter from Carl Amarol, letter from Shelley Armstrong and a letter from Susan then turn we we should make a move that has been provided to the petitioner. Yes, Mr. Caukins. I've seen the opposition. Thank you though.
Very well. Then turning to the general public, is there anyone here who wishes to speak in favor of this petition? Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition? And please, let's keep duplication down if possible. The first
hand up is lady. Yes, you. I couldn't see your face. I didn't see a hand in a bracelet, so I took a shot. I don't know if anybody else is having trouble hearing what's going on. I don't hear you guys speaking. I can barely
hear a little closer. The microphones are generally so that they pick it up for TV. Okay. So, the it does pick up a little bit here, but I don't think it what's going on. But anyway, good evening. I'm Margarite Cashman and I
have lived in 19 Highland Avenue with my husband for the last 22 years. It's in the historic district uh of the Highlands. And um I'm opposing uh this variance request. Um I've been a real
estate broker in the Fall River and surrounding areas for about 23 years uh participating in many sales of the Fall River historic district dis district D district. Um, and it's my professional opinion that if this landscape changes,
um, that it will have a detrimental effect to the homeowners who already own property. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much. Anyone else in the blue shirt?
So, I wouldn't say I'm speaking for or against. I would just like to share very quickly that uh Can I just have your name and address? Dylan Dylan Ferrer, 450 Rock Street, unit 2. Um, and unit 12. Actually, I have two units there. Uh I would just
point out uh as an owner of a condo there uh in that historic area uh we do enjoy the charm that such history has but more importantly one of the things we noticed is a bit of congestion in that area particularly to the point where we've seen trash piled on streets
and people using our dumpsters at times because of presumably the level of congestion that exists. That would be my only assumption as to why those things are happening. So, I've just asked the board to keep that in mind, which I'm sure you will in your planning, but I thought it would be useful for you to
hear what uh is happening on the ground uh in that particular area. And I have some of my fellow owners here who uh sort of suggested that maybe I rise and make that statement. So, thank you very much and have a good evening. I appreciate that. Very thoughtful. Thank you.
Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition? Yes. Hello, Alexander Silva. Uh 140 Purchase Street, president of the board of directors of the Preservation Society, Fall River. Um, we also submitted a couple of petitions that had, I think, over a 100 signatures on them. So, that
goes into the record. Uh, members of the zoning board of appeals, at the meeting two months ago, many comments demonstrated a lack of rudimentary knowledge regarding the protected historic district where 550 570 Rock Street is located in. The Circa 1863
property is just one of less than 50 properties located in Fall River's only local historic district, which is a protected district under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 4C. Massa General Law Chapter 4C section 6 says, "No building or structure within a historic
district shall be constructed or altered in any way that affects exterior architectural features unless the historical commission shall first have issued a certificate of appropriateness or certificate of non-applicability or a certificate of hardship." It later says, "No building permit for construction of
a building or structure or for the alteration of an exterior architectural feature within a historic district and no demolition permit for demolition or removal of a building or structure within a historic district shall be issued by a city or town or any department thereof until a certificate
required by the section has been issued by the historical commission." So hopefully that clears some things up for people. Uh two months ago, the Preservation Society requested that the ZBA seek out vital information such as this from the Florida Historical Commission regarding this pro protected historic district uh which it oversees.
And this was to better inform the board's decision. Fortunately, I don't believe the zoning board did so. Hopefully, members of the board had a chance to review the materials the preservation society sent last month to help detail what a 40C district is and the protections that come with it. If you did, you should see that the
proposed special permit and variance goes directly against the fall far rivers master plan which encourages the protection and expansion of historic districts. Actually, such action would also great go directly against the explicit wishes of the entire neighborhood who committed their own properties through preservation de
restrictions uh in an effort to avoid the very actions being deliberated here tonight. Considering all exterior alterations to the building and setting require a certificate of appropriateness from the Farber Historical Commission, the zoning board of appeals should coordinate with the historical commission at the very least to ensure
that any future reuse of the property is an allowable and appropriate reuse and that the zoning for the parcel corresponds with that and the city's master plan. What would be the largest development in the historic district has no valid reason for hardship as the lot was altered by the owner. The shape and
size of the building is the same as it was when it was purchased. And historical houses of similar size in the same neighborhood have been purchased as homes with as low density as a single family within the last year alone. It is not the zoning board's responsibility to make a project or property financially
feasible for one property owner over another. It is not the zoning board's responsibility to say what the best use of a property is for the whole city. It's the zoning board's responsibility to see if a valid hardship exists and then to grant relief if so. It's not to grant relief if physically possible. Please represent the residents of the
neighborhood and the people of Fall River. Sincerely, Preservation Society board. Very good. Let me respond. I hope everyone can. [Applause]
It is our responsibility to protect 86. That was your time. Congratulations. You went in less than three minutes. um is to protect the zoning bylaw. We deal
with the use of land. We deal with the use of properties. All right. We do not deal with the architectural features, although sometimes we do want to see what's happening with new especially new buildings coming up. Do they do they make sense?
So, you're telling me what my job is? Okay. I'm telling you that some of what you think my job is is not okay. With all due respect, we also do not need to refer anything over to historic. As I state at the
beginning of every meeting, there are other permits, other reviews, other things that any petition needs to go through and some are several after they go through here. So, if we say yes, it has to go someplace else. and historic
preservation is probably gonna you you are correct that nothing can be altered. All right, without those without those commentaries and reviews. I understand that. Not our job. It's not our job to say that. Well, they'll never get through that. All right.
So, and and if we say no, it's never going to go to those other places. It's never going to go to any of the other reviews. Planning will never look at it. Historic will never look at it. And that'll be that. So please let's all understand what everybody's job is and
it's why I say keep it germaine keep comments germaine to what we can control and what we do control and some of what you're asking we do not control respectfully no revol Thank you anybody else wishing to speak in opposition
yes yeah how's it going 50 on gate house drive I did submit an email um but the email was more or less pictures of traffic congestion at school dismissal time. So, if you don't want to put the pictures on the board, that's that's understandable. I'll just get to a
different point. Chris, you have those pictures in the packet. The only reason I included these pictures is two months ago. Um there were other pictures that were shown but the pictures were at very opportune times like you know 7 o'clock on on a
week night whereas just the following week after the meeting it was roughly 3:05 3:10 kids zooming out bikes buses. You'll see if you see the pictures you'll see what I'm talking about. They're pretty self-explanatory. I don't really need to narrate the video or anything like that. Um could I read what I had?
Yes, please. Okay. So, just two points I like to make. Uh, and really this is just to set the record straight. I don't want to get into like the the safety concerns and traffic and privacy concerns that I mentioned in May. Um, what I like to talk about is, um, in the newspaper two
months ago, at the end of May, uh, what I heard really flumxed me. I read that the newspaper was trying to make it seem like this was something good for the community by Mr. Rumsy making this purchase and trying to apply for the special permit. Um, truthfully, truthfully, I've been trying to stay open-minded about it, but I don't know
what I'm missing. I'm not really sure how this helps the neighborhood or the neighbors or improves the community. It seems more like by restating this in the newspaper, it's kind of like gaslighting local residents into somehow thinking this is beneficial for us, but I'm not following that logic. I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and I
think if you wait long enough, you'll see someone's good qualities. Um, and I'm trying to keep this in mind. Uh, but even after the May meeting when the board advised Mr. Rumsy to reach out to the abutters and maybe try to work something out like a buffer or something to compensate for the loss of privacy.
Um I was waiting. I still haven't received any communication on that either. Um just the security of knowing that should something happen to my house due to draining or or dig digging would go a long way. Um but we've received no asurances or anything like not even any communication which brings me to my
final point. Uh last month attorney Celino submitted the notion that in some way I was accusing Mr. Rumsy of extortion. Um, it was even in the newspaper and I just want to clear that up. Those words were never uttered by me and I never accused him of doing anything illegal. Um, but to my family and I, it felt like it at the time. I'm
going to be honest when when he first approached us six or seven years ago was a very difficult time. I don't want to get into the personal stuff, but financially it was difficult. And that's when we got received a knock on our door asking us to pay 5,000 for our backyard. Like I mentioned, we weren't the first
or second owners that lived there. We were the third owners that lived there. Um, and that had taken care of that yard and we even repaired a pre-existing fence. Um, nevertheless, we were told that if we didn't pay the 5,000, Mr. Rumsy would have the right to take down our fence and our hedge our Afrobite
bushes that have been there long before us since 1992. He said he had no plans to build back there. But his quote was, "Someday after my kids move out, I could decide to build there, and if I do, I'd have the right to take down your fence and your bushes." So, it was implied we were probably better off giving him the payment. And we agreed. Um, if we didn't
pay, we were told we would need to sign a document that would make us leaseies and admit we had no rights to the land. Uh, many of my friends and family said that we could fight this in court and probably win, but with Mr. Rumsy being an attorney and his connections, it was a fight. I don't want a chance. So, we agreed the best option was to pay the
5,000. Um, here's the thing. It was around Christmas time. Things are tough. I said, "Hold it. Hold it. We are way out of bounds. We're all over the place." And I know you wanted to defend yourself. That's okay. That's cool. You get extra points for using the word flumixed which I haven't heard in years. So get further on that
but I can't I can't let you get into history. Okay. The only history that we probably want to talk about is the history of the site and the buildings etc. Is there anything else pertinent to Fair enough. I'll just read the last paragraph. To conclude a variance is supposed to be given due to a hardship. I know that
you've already alluded to that. Um but so far we're the only ones with the hardships and no one ever helped us to get the special permit and variance. What is the hardship? Again, I honestly don't remember how it was phrased. I would like it repeated one more time if possible. And how is it possible to portray this as doing something nice for
the community when everyone that I've spoken to in our community and neighborhood feels the same way I do? In fact, is there anyone we can find that lives in the neighborhood that would feel the special allowance is beneficial to anyone other than Mr. Rumsy, his friends, and associates? At the end of the day, rules seem to thwart people
that really need the assistance um with actual hardships and be there to propel those that have the right connections and know how to legally circumvent the rules. Um I think that's it. Traffic, noise, and safety concerns. I guess we can deal with the time fs. Thank you. Very good. Thank you. Anyone else
wishing to speak in opposition? Hand up in the back, sir. Hi, my name is Dennis Cashman. I've uh lived at 19 Highland Avenue for 23 years in the Highlands. Um, I have one question. How is this a hardship?
He's an attorney. He knew what he was doing. He bought it recently. The conditions that he's trying to rectify or change were in existence. This isn't a hardship. This was a plan. And that's why we object to this. Thank you.
Thank you. Anyone else? Sir, in the green shirt. Um, so I just like to say thank you for the interior drawings. I didn't get to see them, but just need your your name. Jason Keani, 544 High Street, Historic Islands, um around the corner from this and the
interior drawings. Uh it's funny because it says in the EDA regulations that they require for apartments. So I don't understand that, but also I'd like to make they were just submitted tonight. Well, I understand that. So that's why you don't have No, I understand that. No, that's you just understand why you didn't see them.
No, I just don't understand why they were just recently put in when they were when they were recently put in because this was this was on the the agenda for three months now. Um pass them around. Sure.
You want to see that? Isn't it posted someplace? It's not posted because it didn't they put it until today. The problem they just submitted them 20 minutes ago. Comment on what we haven't seen. We can't make comments. We need time to
look at it just like you do. Then then you can ask the board for that time. You're perfectly perfectly willing to do that. You can ask. Anyone else, please? Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition? Yes.
Holly Morris, 450 Rock Street. Um, I don't have anything prepared at the moment, but I would like to say that I agree with everyone that's spoken so far. It would be a travesty to have that many units in that neighborhood that's already overcrowded, particularly during the
daytime. The condo and um I think should be reviewed further to find another way to use that property. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in the back? Yes.
Hi, I'm Connie Sol77 Street directly across from the property and that's being discussed. I'm also with the preservation society of Fall River and I'm also on the historic commission board and I'm really I agree with everyone here especially as a
homeowner living across the street. I'm disheartened though that um it doesn't seem like the board even though Alex has read what the 40C district is all about. disheartened because I don't feel you quite understand what the 40C protected
district is. And I know that he submitted paperwork so that you can understand it better. And I say this because the man in the striped shirt at the end, I don't know his name because I couldn't hear it. Um alluded to the fact that the buildings they came up with the
12 uh apartments because um they could demolish the buildings that currently exist and then build something like four family uh four houses or something that he indicated. And if any of you had read
what the 40C protected district is, um you would know that unless um it was um a uh safety concern, you would not be able to demolish the buildings. And we're not talking about demolishing the buildings. Nobody here is talking about
demolishing the buildings. and 40C does not fall under the purview of the zoning board of appeals of the city of Fall River. However, or any other stated that and that's why I'm talking, okay, because he stated it, not because I'm bringing it up. Okay. Okay. So, he because of what he said. I
just want to make sure that everyone understands that no, that's how you came off of the 12 apartments, but you cannot demolish the buildings and have this uh make believe where you can put up four properties, four houses. That's the point I'm trying to make.
Mr. Chairman, if I can, we keep going back and forth with last meeting it was you cannot take these buildings down. I think Alex alluded to in his comments tonight in support of my argument is that there's a process to take them down. Correct. Beyond this board and Miss Soul just
contradicted herself because when she first started, she said that you have to do what Alex said and then the last sentence was you can't take them down. So clear 40C does not fall under your jurisdiction. There is a process to demolish these buildings. Might be very
difficult, but there's a process and that's what I said at the last meeting. So I don't think I was I don't think I was wrong. Okay. It that's why the zoning board it's not a back and forth. Move it to the historic commission. The zoning board of appeals has to act
on what's submitted to them. Again, and I'm trying to be so clear on this. We have a channel of responsibility and it ends up being with the use of properties. There are a list of other committees and
bodies within the city that are going to have to touch several in this case several different touch points. we do our we do our part and it moves on whatever that part is or we say no and we get we'll have an appeal and that and
that's and that's where it's at. We're very aware of that preservation does not but I get frustrated month after month after month when people come in here and ask us to rule on things that are not within our purview. I can't go and and
comment on things that site that are under the purview of site plan review or historic or any or anyone else or the building inspector. He doesn't work for us. So, you know, we can certainly just do our job and and that and that's where
it's at. And that's difficult enough sometimes. So, that's my frustration is that every month somebody's trying to tell us what our job is and they don't know. It's like somebody trying to tell me I didn't read 40C,
which I read some time ago, and I'm very familiar with it. So, please do not come in with assumptions that we're all just sitting back eating Cheetos every night that we're not here. Ice cream made Cheetos. No. So,
you're being cute and I don't like it. Pardon? My opinion. You're being facitious and I don't like it. Okay. You're being assumptive and I don't like it. Okay. So, I guess we're even. So, lunch is off for tomorrow. Anyone else in opposition?
Yes, ma'am. In the back. My name is Shelby Armstrong and I live at 458 Street and I did come to express my opposition. Um I um I have a a view um from my second
floor of the intersections of um Maple High and um Highland Avenue, all which have oneway stop signs at those intersections. And um there's over the
last 18 years that I've been there quite a few and increasing accidents. Excuse me. I'm very nervous. Don't be nervous. But my concern is the increase in traffic with the increase in apartments
and um the um increase wear and tear on our infrastructure. I um um mimic your uh how the um neighborhood over the years has been inundated by um
additional um folks encroaching on us and using our dumpsters and our even our parking. There are many times when I'm not able to find a parking space right outside of my own home. Um and that's frustrating. um as I age it's difficult
and um I um have been sitting here listening to um many very different opinions and I um can um feel very strongly and understand your frustration
and um as I'm sitting here thinking um I just hope logic prevails and we all listen to what we've read and um we know about the historic mission and what it stands for and what the city um plan has
um set in place. and that um we recognize that maybe the um in my opinion the request um as it is now is um may be premature for um what needs to happen and that um we'll all keep open
minds and move forward in a respectful and um open-minded fashion that um serves both the city and our own um interests in the best way possible because it is
really about you know contributing and giving back in the best way you know that works out for all of us because there is a a meeting of mind somewhere in between.
Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? hands taking a second bite of the apple. Well, I just wanted to so I I think I speaking for myself 140 purchase street. The reason I think people are kind of hearkening on the 12
units is because the basis for that number itself is imaginary and there hasn't seemed to be any opposition or push push back to that reason. So I don't know how that could be reasoning to grant uh you know zoning changes to a non-existent reason. That's we know it's we know it's the charge you know the
point is not the perview of the ZBA if we know all that it's just the reason obviously because the zoning his plan is in accordance with the zoning Bible not taking 40C into account in accordance with the zoning what is it the subdivision plan that he
has shown 100% is asking for a special no no no the plan that you're referring to regarding the demolition and the creation of five lots the basis of that plan which was everybody money you're hopping on and bringing it back up. The basis of that plan is based solely on
the underlying zoning of the amount of frontage and the amount of area needed to create a lot. Not taking into account any provisions of 40C. Agreed completely. Okay. 40C means nothing to this zoning board of
appeals when they're looking at strict zoning and the zoning ordinance of the city of for period. So I guess what I'm just trying to say is you know the only of allowable use by right as keeps being you know quoted is what is there now
with no changes for the 40C that's that is the overarching law that you know governs it. So that's why we're saying the 12 units is a 10-bedroom condent within a week can be turned into a 10-bedroom sober house. It happened at Notre Dame rectory
just happened. We lost in court trying to fight it. Okay. That's what can happen by right regardless of 46. So why is it 10 units then? 10 units. No, no, it's 10 bedrooms. Now you you just said what can be allowed by right by zoning? It's a big building. So for zoning,
this bedroom, this cond is 10 bedrooms. It can be converted by the end of the week to a silver house. That's what attorneys is trying not to have happen. And again, they said that at the very beginning at the first presentation and if attorney
Celeno can repeat that again and I think attorney Ramsey stated his purpose for buying this was to make sure that that didn't happen. And again, this is a discussion because you want to bring up what is allowed, what not allowed by zoning, and that's all we're going to discuss. We're not going to discuss the implications of foreign se because that
comes after this. Should it though? You know, it doesn't No, it's not. It's the law. It's the law. Do Do you ask the zoning board of appeals whenever you render a decision regarding historic issues? No. That makes sense. Because you have rules to follow and
that's what governs your body. This this body has rules that it needs to follow and what governs it. Simple different sandbox for different people to plan. Just because you give somebody the right to do something in 40C doesn't mean they don't need to come here. We had the
hardship. Well, okay. So, you keep throwing up arguments and then and then they fall apart and then but again they presented the hardship and if you want to hear it again, attorney Selena will present it again. Let's wrap this up. Anyone else wishing to speak on
opposition? You think I should? Yeah, I think you should. Do we have any rebuttal from Yes. I'd like to have Mr. Ramsey speak personally in response to these things because ultimately he's continually attacked as is his proposal. So, we're going to give him the floor and let him
respond, please. Okay. So, all right. So, here's what's happened with me. I live there. I've raised my four children there. Um, and in my line of work as a lawyer, I have seen over
and over again, um, very large mansions in New Bedford, Fall River, and other lower income areas are being gobbled up by nonprofits with the specific purpose of bringing in sober home type living, group home type living. They have
attorneys who are involved in this. They are very good at what they do. They can come in as a matter of right and if you try to keep them out they sue you and they allege discrimination against them because of their disability. It's something the city of Fall River has fought against. It's the same thing has
happened in New Bedford. It's happened all across the state of Massachusetts. So when the nuns who are my next door neighbors offered to sell me the property, I honestly my first request was not to even buy the mansion because
I'm not a real estate guy. I don't like real estate. I actually don't even like it as an investment. It's I've the only home I've ever owned is on 492 Rock Street in my entire life. Um I've raised my kids there, put them through Fall River Public Schools. So, but what the nuns counter was, they were only willing
to sell me all of it or none of it. It was a one-time package deal. Um I've seen I know I'm friendly with hundreds of physicians. I know physicians who work in this city. I'm probably friends with hundreds of lawyers who work in this city. I'm
friendly with people who make a significant amount of money in the city of Fall River. And I can tell you there is no appetite for somebody to come in and buy a 7,700 ft mansion in Fall River that has not been renovated in my estimation at least 40 years. So by the
time you renovate it to live in it as a single family home, you're probably in a 1.2 to$ 1.3 million time um cost. So, I know what's going to happen with that house. It's going to be bought by a nonprofit. It's going to be a silver house. So, what I decided was not to sit
here and file a bunch of things, but to actually do something about it. So, I purchased it even though I had no desire to purchase it. And the compromise I thought was best was, you know, the idea is to have units in there probably in actually going to be condominiums
because almost although I was a member of the historic commission, I actually share many of the ideals of the people in here are speaking against it. I think I just see things that they don't. Most of the homes in this historic district are already apartment units, nonprofits, and things of that nature. But one of
the best is a condominium unit a couple houses down on Rock Street. It's a beautiful condominium unit. Somehow the person 3 months ago spoke out against it. And I asked him, I said, "You're kind of what I'm hoping to create here. Why would you speak against it? You have
a lovely condo. You love it." And he said, "Because we we were grandfathered in and we don't think any historic building should be converted." So my point is I have no desire intent. Everybody keeps using demolition. I don't think people understand the demolition argument is only about density. It's not about what I want to
do. I want to keep the historic nature. I want to preserve the historic nature. I want something that can last for decades to keep it beautiful, something I can live next to. I I mean, I think people have misconstrued. They like to talk about parking and historic nature, none of which I'm asking for. I mean,
I hope to go forward with it, but if it doesn't, I mean, I'm just afraid of what's going to happen if this isn't passed. And I think I have a more realistic approach than the people who are in opposition to the project. Thank you. Anything else, council? Yeah, I I would just like to add to the
the previous plan that we showed the what I call the byite plan as to what could be done conceivably on a property in this configuration, this size with this much frontage and area under the Florida zoning bylaw would yield 12 units. I'm not putting that up there as
a threat. this is what we're going to do if this doesn't get approved. I'm just merely showing that so that a as a basis of the number of units that we are proposing. We have no intention of doing something some development of that nature and pursuing it down the road.
But it is a justification to the number of units that we are proposing within the existing structures that are on the property. And one of the things that I looked at when this came through before you even did this or before I even saw it was what what could we do here? What
could be done if this was an empty lot? And that's realistic and and it's typically done like if you do a conservation subdivision, you're required to do a byright plan to to figure out a yield. Yeah. Same sort of process here. Same sort of process. We have no intention of doing
anything like this but again it is justification for the 12 units that we are asking for. Thank you from the board. I had a question. Yes. So I believe two months ago you had said you're not going to do anything with the
exterior of these buildings. No alterations. That's correct. That was a representation. Yes. I I can represent to you. I have spoken with the historic commission and I'm well aware that anything that we do would have to go through them. Okay. All right. That's I just wanted to
clarify that. But you know, we both decided we would talk in the future as opposed to before this meeting. Okay. Yes. I just have a question. Certainly. My name is 36 June Street which is right around the corner from
there. probably one of the only homes in the neighborhood that's still single family owned. I just have a question. You keep going back to it becoming a sober house and that being your fear, but don't do you already own the property? You already own the the property I'm asking. Yes, I just purchased it. Well, the
company owns it. I don't own it. So, if that was if that's your fear now, if this if that's your fear, if this doesn't pass, is that something is that something that you're going to do if it doesn't pass? I will sell it. You'll sell it? Okay. That was
fair question. Dan, anything else you have at this point? Nope. Nothing. I just have a question. Sorry. Real quick. I live right behind at um 540 Kimber Street. Also, is there a plan for
Oh my god. Oh my god. 59 Gate House Drive. Um, is there a plan for the plumbing and stuff for all these units that are going to be there for like bathrooms that are going to be implanted and like the the digging and the drainage? Is there some sort of like city permit that will happen? Cuz we
literally live like right where their property is and they'll be digging. What will happen if that gets passed and you know people dig and drain and what happens with that? Is there a plan? Site plan review covers drainage issues
etc. The site plan review process is is an engineering design for construction of parking lots. It gets submitted to the planning department. It goes to five different departments. The building department, uh, community utilities, water, sewer, storm water, the
engineering department, it goes to the traffic department as well. Um, and they all make comments to make sure that drainage and those types of items have been addressed. Thank you. But you also referred to to the to the plumbing and I just wanted to address
that. I mean that the plumbing etc inside the building is all under the purview of inspectional services the building department and I don't know if you see the the new plan uh can we get the new plant back up there? It does not show any they they removed the
parking lot that they were planning on in the back of the building which would abut your property I believe. Correct. So that's that's just still open space of questions. I I would first deal with the variance portion of it
just the way that it's listed. Is there a special permit? Two, there's two special permits. One with regards to parking and next with regards to lot coverage. So you can act on one, you can deny two,
three, you can act on you can approve all three. So it's but there's no sense on voting on two or three unless without handling the variance first which is wavering the requirements of the R4 zoning district as detailed section 86-35 attachment one
86-36 attachment two and you may want to ask what the exact once you get to it before you vote on special permit the first special permit you may want to ask what are the specific dimensional requirements that relief is being requested for because it's kind of vague. So yeah, I was just looking at that. What
what is that special permit pertaining to? You want to talk about spot size? The uh the parking. Yeah. Yeah. So So if you look on the plan, we we do we are showing some parking spaces within four or five feet of Rock Street.
Um there's also some additional parking spaces that are right up against Prospect Street. um roughly a foot off the uh the street line. So it's those parking spaces basically um are the ones that we're asking for the relief not maintaining a 10 foot setback. So just set back to property line.
Yeah. Set back relief being requested by special program. So it's not a dimensional uh spot. Spots aisles and aisle width uh uh space dimensions are all compliant. It's just
location um of the spaces themselves. And we already discussed number three which is the 7% increase, right? Yes. Y and it it it is 7% based upon that that mixture of the two the two lots the two lots, right?
Will the lots be combined or no? Are they going to remain separate right now? I mean they they're showing being separate. I'm assuming they're going to remain separate. Separate. Separate. The proposal would be separate. Got it. Do you care to restate your um your hardship?
Certainly. Uh it's the shape and the existing structures on the lot and their proximity to the lot lines. There's additionally uh topography going down the hill on Prospect Street. Seem to be extra attorneys in the room.
All right. Thank you for that. John thoughts on the variance? Um, out of all the uh thoughts and opposition and everything that's here, I haven't heard one potential suggestion.
And and I know we've it's not about the the threatening of that it's going to be a silver house or it's going to be this or it's going to be that. It's about the best use for the property and this is a historic property. I understand that and we do, by the way, our ignorance is not
quite as high as you believe it is. We we are well aware of what you see. Um and we do deal with historic commissions regularly. Um, the situation that I see is you're taking a person who's looking to
preserve the historic nature of the exterior of the building, which is what the commission is about, which by the way, the commission is also on the preservation committee. So, they were made aware of this before our meeting. Um, I think we're looking at something that
is a a best suited situation for the building that right now is vacant, empty, and could be sold off, could be split up, could be sold to multiple people, could be, who knows? And again, this is only step
one in 11, 12 steps to get to this moving forward to the way that you can all come back to every single meeting that goes forward. Your meeting, your meeting. Um, but I I I'm leaning. We got to start cleaning. We got to
start talking. There's no more comments. No suggestions. You could further reduce the number of units. You want suggestions? I'm sure people would love to give suggestions, but you know what? It's not a negotiation. We've had public We've had public comments. There's a couple. This is no suggestions
for No, he's correct. There have been no suggestions. It's just don't do this. It's just don't do this. No, we've had public comment. We've listened to hours of of comment on this. the first time it was heard and now and all we have is
because it's it's either stomp it right now which is all we've heard don't do this but there's no you know what if you did five condos in the in the big house we'd be happy with that all right we didn't get that we haven't
heard that and to in fairness to every to to to to everyone in this space right now I I I believe it's time it's time to make a decision. And no offense, but I know I'm right and
John's right. And that's sad that everybody turns out not to participate beyond no. And that's really a shame because sometimes no, you've you've had your shot.
Came to us. Never came to any of us. Pardon? He never came to any of us to talk about it. It could be uses R4. All the houses in are like that. They're large. I'm sorry. True. That's not true. There's a lot of multi.
There are a lot of multif family. Yes. What are we doing? I'll make a motion to approve. Damian. Yes. on the on the varants. Yes. So you're acting on item one.
Yes. Conditions we don't have to enumerate where else it would have to go from here. You would have to go by the um bedroom and unit count submitted on the floor plans. That would be the condition. I mean it's it's part of the record now. So that's what you're acting on
in the in the revised the revised plan. Correct. For the total number of units, total number of bedrooms and like I said as I presented that try to do anything with the exterior structures unless they again not our perview. Right. Yeah.
Not a purview. I I don't even want to have it on the record if it's not our purview. Site plan site plan. Yeah. We have a motion as it is. Do we have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Discussion on the motion.
On the motion. Ricky, yes. Dan, yes. James, yes. John, yes. Jim Fer, yes. No special permit. No special permits. If you grant the special permit, it
should be specific to the relief referenced by Mr. Tolman, which is with regards to parking space set back to the property line only. So as stated in as stated in the uh as stated in what's shown on the plan, right?
Yeah, that's fine. So it's not carb blanch to come back with something else that doesn't comply to 86444. It's right to comply with what the plan generally shows and no no relief greater with regards to setback. I actually think there are some improvements to where the parking has shown that I'm sure Mr.
Tolman and I will speak about during site plan review and I'm sure site plan review will take a swing at that too. So Oh yeah. Do we have a motion? Did somebody make a motion? No. No. Okay. I'll make a motion on the uh
special permit for parking. Second as stated uh for the setback requirements on that was uh what street was? Rock and rock and prospect. Rock and I think was the closest. Both streets. Oh, both. Yep. Rock and Prospect.
And it's also on the interior lot line. Um we are not maintaining the 10 ft there as shown on the plan. But yeah, also site plan review. Don't you only need five with a fence or something? If you if you put a fence up, right? Something there's there's a tree there we're trying to maintain. Second motion
before the motion. Is this bifurcated though? I don't believe it has to be, but you can make one motion to do both if you want. I I will do that. I'll make a bifurcated motion together or not more detrimental to the neighborhood and parking and to grant.
This is only special. This is only item two. This is only two. Item two. We made the second. We made the second. It stands. Discussion on the motion. John, yes. Jim, yes. Dan, yes. Ricky, yes. Chairman Prairie, yes.
And uh on the item three, the special permit for the increase of uh lot coverage. That's seven. It's 7% increase between the two properties. One of them is only a small increase. But uh have we had any talk a discussion
about imperous pavement or anything like that that might be able to assist in that? I I personally so porous asphalt pavers cobblestones aren't considered
impervious services. So if if the walkways for instance were made of pavers or cobblestone with stone dust grout it's not considered impervious. So there are some design criteria especially being in a historic property
that I think could minimize the amount of lot of coverage relief requested. Okay. So, and again, site plan review. Site plan review. I will make the recommendation that alternatives be looked at for walkways and uh you do a cobblestone apron for instance
at the driveway entrance, you know, off the back of the sidewalk or previous uh options. That's my motion. Second. Motion to second discussion on the motion. Hearing none. Ricky, yes. Dan, yes. Jim, yes. John, yes.
Jim Perry, yes. Thank you all. Can we take a five minute break? I had an emergency phone call. Thank you. 01. We'll keep this one quick. Item number 02. The applicant is Lucus Ludo Lucus
Nunes Kudo Garup Jeffrey. Going back in session, everyone, please. 1179 South Main Street, map G23, lot 20 after the fact filing. My favorites, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. One,
the petitioner proposes to make the finished depart to make the finished apartment unit located in the basement 1179 South Main Street a legal apartment, bringing the total number of residential apartments units in the building to three. two. The petitioner uh proposes
to wave requirements for off- streetet parking. Uh property is located in R42 family zoning district. This was uh previously tabled at our June 26, 2025 meeting. Uh good evening. For the record, Jeff Tolman from Northeast Engineers and
Consultants here on behalf of Lucas Kudos Lucas Kudos uh here with me tonight uh for this application. Um what I'd like to to do is um to amend the request. Um we have met with the building inspector. Um I've met with him
at his office on several occasions. He actually went out to the property today to take a look at it look at the uh the basement unit. um the unit itself uh based on his determination um even though there were some permits that were pulled and rectified from the work that
was done previously specifically the electrical work um there are a couple other things that need to be looked at and possibly addressed from a building code issue um the unit itself is a roughly 500 square ft in size uh it's his determination that it would meet the
uh standards of an ADU unit so therefore um the unit itself would be allowed by right. So, we're modifying the request just to include the the waiver on parking. Don't need to. We It's an ADU. Yeah.
Is it is it within a half a mile of the station? No, it's just that. Okay. So, we're not within a half mile of the train station or bus station. So, therefore, um I believe one space would be required. So, Yep. Yeah. So, one space would be required where um you don't get it.
We don't have it. I mean, we do have the the two stall garage, which is not current currently being used for parking. Uh, Mr. Kudo is going to make that available um for himself um to use as a tenant in the building himself. So, that would be but it but it's not an
additional parking spot because they're already there. So, basically the request falls down to we just want to wave the one parking spot that would be required for the ADU unit. That's easy. I would formally first formally request
to withdraw item one, which would be the variance. Sure. Formally request to uh withdraw the variance request and just keep it to the special permit for parking. Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the petitioner's request and withdraw the
request for second. Motion and second on the motion, John. Yes. Jim, yes. Jan, yes. Ricky, yes. Chairman Prairie, yes. All right, that's out of the way.
Questions from the board regarding the apartment before I go to the public. So, it can be an ADU. We just have question of the parking. Yeah, just parking. Just parking. Just the parking spot. That's it. One spot where there's two existing spots for the two units that
are there. You just got to wave the walk. That's all. Correct. Okay, that's clear. Going to the general public. Anyone here wishing to speak in favor of this petition? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Yes.
Am I right in saying that that was 2589 South Main Street? No. No. 1179. 1179. 1179. Okay. Yeah. Sounds like it's lucky it wasn't the other.
Any anyone else in opposition? All right. Hearing none. Back to the board. And Mr. Chairman, I would make the motion that we wave the parking requirement. Second. Motion and second. On the motion. Ricky, yes.
Dan, yes. Jim, yes. John, yes. Jim Prairie, yes. Thank you. Thank you for taking the time to get that resolved. Yeah, thank you. Very much appreciate it. New business item number one.
We're flying. The applicant is High Development LLC care of attorney Thomas P. Lauren, nine Slade Street, map H17, lot two. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following. One, the construction of 48 residential
units in the commercial mill district pursuant to section 86 attachment 2. Two, to allow parking located within 10 ft of the lot lines waving the requirements of section 86-44 B1. Property is located within a CMP
commercial zoning district. Council, good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, attorney Thomas Kellerin representing the applicant High Development LLC. With me tonight is uh Jeff Tolman, who's responsible for the site plan that's before you. As I'm sure the board uh
recalls, we were uh before the board in May um at the May 2025 hearing with a proposal that consisted of I believe it was six total buildings housing 72 units. Uh after getting the feedback
from the board at that hearing, after hearing some of the concerns that were expressed by the neighbors at that hearing, we ultimately tabled that then eventually withdrew that petition at the June hearing. Uh we revised uh our plan and what you see before you is now
presenting three buildings each containing 16 units. Uh the first two floors would have six units each containing two bedrooms. the top floor unit uh would have um four units and three bedrooms again for a total of 16
um in each structure. Uh some of the concerns that were expressed again by the board as well as the neighbors um was the congestion that would be caused by uh the number of units that we were proposing as well as just general site congestion uh lack of green area. So we we took those comments to heart. Uh we
think we reconfigured the buildings um shrunk their footprints uh put in some additional green area and as as well as reducing um the total number of structures um that we would be constructing. Parking was raised, excuse me, uh traffic was raised quite a bit at that
last hearing. Um although it's not a requirement, uh my client went out and hired Vaness engineers to do a traffic impact evaluation. Um we submitted that to the board and it's part of your record. Uh just to give a quick summary on that um the ultimate conclusion was that there would be no significant
impact um to the roadway and surrounding infrastructure uh based on the development of this nature. Um during peak hours um there was an estimate that there would be one additional trip every 1 and a half u minutes. So that's during the peak morning hours and peak afternoon hours, which again um the
traffic engineer uh indicated would not um result in any kind of significant impact or increase um in traffic flow. Uh so we're hoping that u with that additional information that we've been able to provide to the board um that would satisfy any of those concerns that
you may have. I believe it was Mr. Frank at the last hearing. I wanted to get an idea as to what the uh structures themselves would look like. I do I do think some of those photographs are being passed around. If I could ask uh Chris, I think it's part of the slides.
So there you go. I think that's that's a fair uh representation. So you can see if you if you're looking at the screen as I am, if you look to the um to to the right of the screen, you can see a walkway, gazebo area, some benches out looking over uh the water. Uh the buildings
themselves are tucked away from Slade Street. Um which again we did to take into account a number of the concerns that were expressed um by the neighbors and particularly the condominium development that's across Slade Street.
Uh so in terms of of of impact to those neighbors, in terms of proximity of these structures to those that condominium development, I would strongly suggest to the board that they're set back uh quite a considerable distance. Um it wouldn't wouldn't have any impact um on on their line of sight,
on their views. Um I I would suggest that it's very much in conformity um with the surrounding area and with that development itself. Uh from a parking standpoint, we're able to provide um I think two extra parking spaces. We have
two spaces per unit which complies with the zoning bylaw. And again, as I I mentioned at the at the last hearing, um we're not asking for a variance. We're simply asking for a special permit. at special permit um is for the number of units that we're
requesting as well as a um to allow parking within 10 ft of uh I think it's really just one of the of the boundary lines. But a special permit is a very different standard as this board knows than a variance request. Uh all that we need to demonstrate is that this is not
enough more detrimental to neighborhood than what would be allowed as a matter of right. This is in a commercial mill district. Um, in that district, uh, we could have a building that's 80 ft high. This building is going to just be shy of 40t high. You can have industrial uses,
you can have factory uses, warehousing, distribution centers, repair facilities, trucking facilities, research facilities, including hazardous waste. Respectfully, putting residential use here as opposed to some of these very
intense commercial uses is much better for this neighborhood than what could go there as a matter of right. And I think that's the standard that this board needs to apply um when making a determination as to whether or not to grant the special permit. I understand that there still been a number of
opposition letters that have come in. I think a majority of them from the condominium development that's across the street. Uh I'd respectfully suggest to this board that we took a number of their concerns uh to heart at that last meeting that we've made changes to our plan based upon concerns that were
expressed by them. I understand it or at least it appears that we may not be able to satisfy uh the concerns that uh that they continue to voice, but I would suggest that we certainly listen to their comments. We listened to the board's comments and made significant
changes to this plan. With that, I'll I'll yield and certainly entertain any questions from the board. I will certainly agree that this is a substantial change from where we were. It's good to see some green considered in here and some additional spacing in
between buildings. So, the commercial building stays. The commercial building is stays stays. Um that building has been carved out. It's on a a separate lot. Um that's not part of this development. That commercial building is intended to stay. Was always on a separate lot. Uh that is
correct. It was always on a separate lot. What was proposed last time was for them to be developed together. Uh it is staying on its own separate lot which it already is on. Okay. Thank you Mr. A for that clarification. And I will point out for you know for
the neighbors at the condos everything is pushed to the to the opposite side of the uh of the lot basically. Tremendous difference. Uh I don't have any questions. It's very
clear. Anyone else on the board at this point? All right. So we we granted the um the three triplexes, right? That that's correct. That was a separate petition at the last hearing. Dan comments from engineering or planning?
I don't I mean um relief is minimal as attorney Kenne stated. is special permit. Um, for me, just the fact that we're not constructing an 80 foot tall building here. They could have put all the buildings
into one and made an 80 story building. Sure. An 80 foot, you know, six or seven story building, which I appreciate the fact that it's not because then we're then we're dealing with blocking views and and it has been pushed down to the the subtly corner of the property. I don't have anything to add. Zoning wise,
it's really not much different than the previous. Aesthetically, it's drastically improved. Uh, and I appreciate the effort and plan preparation, architectural renderings, floor plans, and the traffic study, which traffic studies aren't cheap. It's not something that I asked for, but it
was anticipated by by the applicant. So, that's appreciated. But I have nothing else. Okay. Anyone? Anyone else? I can go to the public. I will note that we have uh one letter u
in support uh from Doug Rosenberg very well written and to your credit if you haven't seen it yet the fact that there was outreach from the developer and conversations etc
took an opponent and and made them write a letter in favor which says a great deal um in opposite Is Mr. Rosenberg here tonight? No. He had sent an email in saying that he was going to try to make it. Um, beyond
the scope of of tonight's meeting, I just want to acknowledge why Mr. Rosenberg is not here. He's a member of the Fall River Fire Department. They've had an incredibly long week. Um, but he still took the time to write this letter today and make sure that it was here. So, I wanted to thank him for his service if he was here tonight. But, um,
everybody should take a we beat up everybody that works for the city of Fall River, right? But there's sometimes you have to acknowledge when when people do extra extraordinary things and he's one of them. So much appreciated. Yeah, I agree. Move on to hardcore stuff. Go. Yeah. The real come back here.
Um which is not the real world when you're fighting a fire. Yeah. It's uh in opposition uh from J George and Karen Olivera, in opposition from uh Robert and Joan Gothier,
and in opposition from Louise, I'm going to mispronounce this Methway and Karen Anyone here wish to speak in favor of the proposal? Yes. I'm sorry. Can we have a motion to
have way reading and have be submitted to the record? So move second on that motion. Ricky, yes. Yes. Jim, yes. John, I apologize. That's okay. We move to W and send the
piece to the record. Yes. Chairman Perary. Yes. Sorry. Wasn't we haven't done it before. I forgot. Anyone in favor? Sir. Oh, you sir. Okay. Fred Maddox. I represent the owner at
the Zero Birch Street property. Zero Birch. Birch. Yep. Mono Mono Bay LC. Uh I was here before uh and I spoke in uh favor uh for the simple reason I think that area deserves a little bit
more people more more activity. I think it would be beneficial not only to our property but be beneficial to the neighborhood. Uh the conditions down there are deplorable. Uh there's a lot of homeless people and uh I think this
will be a big step forward in getting that situation under control. The city's trying its best, but it's difficult situation. Great. Thank you. Anyone else in favor? Sir,
307. I'd like to voice my report for the proposal that's here before you here tonight. As was indicated by attorney, I believe the proposed developer has taken into account many of the concerns that were raised by the body neighbors
changed to the overall of this project. Clearly, you know, from professional as an economic professional and working for BCEDC, an overall comment would be that the city of Florida really needs more additional housing with a vacancy rate
of less than 2%. Uh we need to continue to grow housing within the city so as to increase the supply of available units will ultimately help drive down the overall cost of the rental market within the city itself. This project here, you
know, is a perfectly positioned project for residential development. Clearly, um the condo association across the street also exists by way of variance. They used to be zoned industrial land and was the variance was secured for the development of the property for
residential purposes. There's a WD, a waterfront transportation orient district that stops right at the uh that would be the uh the northern edge of uh or the eastern let's see directions. That would be the northern edge of Slate
Street. That is a WOD. And if that WOD is extended across the street, we wouldn't be here because the project would be uh developed as a matter of right. I do think that, you know, people need to keep in mind what could be constructed there uh in terms of um by
right and I think attorney Karen mentioned those. I will not mention those again here today. I think this this is a project that you know represents um an increase for housing, helps alleviate the need for um
additional helps to alleviate the uh the overall vacancy rate within the city and I think will also improve property values throughout the the area as opposed to some of the alternative uses that could go there for this development. So having said that I hope
the board sees fit to actually approved the petition before tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Fo. Anyone else in favor? Yeah. Uh, yes. Susan Gimlet, Mount Hope condominiums. I do thank you for the fact that you've made some adjustments and and took consider our thoughts in
consideration. My big question is the you mentioned the the um existing building has been carved out is going to be handled separately and I would like to know how that would affect if there has to go through the whole uh process again with the uh with the zoning and so forth or is that something that once
they own that property they can do whatever they want once they I just I just want that clarified if you don't mind it's going to stay what it is right now if in the future they or anyone else that is a separate lot it is not tied It's not on the same lot as the proposed
apartment development, so it stands alone. It is a business use. Will continue to be a business use. Apparently, if someone else buys it in the future, that's a whole other that's a whole other thing. But that lot, that building has nothing to do with what
we're voting on tonight. That's been that that land area. Looking at the the application that we had previously was included. was included. Yes. And even and and would have been merged. It was a separate lot then. It's still a
separate lot now. Now the apartment development, nobody can do anything. If if this is approved tonight, what gets approved, it's what's on that plan that's in front that's that's up in front of you right now, which means that building has nothing to do with this. Thank you.
Thank you for asking. Anyone else in favor? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Sir, I just have a question. My name is David Walker. I live at um at Bay Street Condominiums, unit 74. Um if what you
just said is true, their their parking lot is aborting the building. So that means that they're encroaching upon the area that should be part of the separated as you said. Is that not true? I I can I don't understand exactly.
Their parking lot is right. Which they the the Okay. The apartments. Yes. So I'm not sure. I think I know the question, Mr. Chairman. I think you're asking the parking lot for the commercial use. No, the parking lot for the for the residential use
for the proposed use is currently right smack in front of the commercial building. It's on its it's on its own piece of real estate, right? But it is close to the property line. Correct. It's it's it's got to be within two feet of the property line. I I'm sure there's a dimension on the
plan. It is dimensioned that two feet. They're uh that's one of the that's one of the sections relief that they're looking for. I I guess what I'm getting at is if that building, you can't walk out the front door.
No, that's up to that property owner to worry about how they get out their front door. And and one other thing, the council suggested that if if they didn't do this, that building could be used for chemicals, for everything else. Why can't it still be used for that? It can be. It can be. Okay. That's that's what I'm getting at. Yeah. Yeah.
You would just have a larger industrial development than just that one building. That's all that's I think the chairman made it clear that that parcel of land tonight is considered just as an abuing parcel. It is not part of the discussion for proposal or new construction or any
change in use. not before this board. It's shown doesn't matter who it's owned by. It's an emboding separate parcel of land. It can be sold tomorrow to a different entity if they chose to uh as any other abuing parcel around it. The the ownership doesn't matter. It's actually done separately anyway.
It's what's being proposed separately. And what's being proposed has nothing to do with that building. And the representation is that that building is for the time being probably the unforeseeable future or foreseeable future going to remain as a commercial building. Is that the intent
council? Correct. Just to I I know a question was raised or a comment was made about you know is it's the same owner. It's actually not um the has it been already? Well, the building where the commercial um building is located is actually Luren
Realy Inc. And the proposed development is owned by Potter Street Realy Inc. Okay. Any other comments in opposition or any questions? Now's the time. Sir, in the back. Uh, good evening. My name's Joseph
Kavalo. Uh, I live at 919 Bay Street, Unit 51. My concern is there's going to be 48 units there. We have 60 units at MTO and that 60 units is on about 11 and a
half acres of land. I don't understand how you can put 48 units on a small piece of land as they are doing zoning. It's a different style building. This is an apartment building. The amount of people that's going to be
congested in that small area. And my other concern is everybody's going to have guests. Where's their guest parking? It's not required by zoning for have guest parking. They're they're meeting the requirements.
So where where's all the guests go? I mean, these are questions that should be, you know, be brought up. So So there's an argument that each unit doesn't need the two spaces designated to it, which would mean there's an extra space.
So when when zoning contemplates how many parking spaces per unit, it contemplates other uses other than people that live there. And the two spaces per unit covers tenants, visitors, things of that nature. Um, so
in that vein, and I was going to ask this question, can you go over what the unit and bedroom count is? Yes, I I believe I did state that. I know there's a floor plan. I will reiterate. You can talk through that. So each building has three floors. The
first two floors will have six units on each floor and those will be two bedroom units. So that's a total of 12 units on those first two floors. And then the top floor for each building will have three bedrooms.
Four units, I'm sorry. Four units and three bedrooms. So 12 bedrooms on the top floor in the first 12 24. So 24 and 12, right? So 36 total bedrooms per building. Is that right? My math. Don't ask me to add in my head.
Correct. Excuse me. That math doesn't add. Well, that's that's why I'm asking, but then somebody check my math. Floor is 16 for me. So it's 12 bedrooms upstairs. There's 12 bedrooms upstairs. Yep.
Other floors are six units at two. So 12 per floor. Yeah. So 12 12 and 12, right? Would be 36. You said that's what I said. Yeah. So, the math does work. I still have it. Basic math skills.
Sir, you still have a question? Yes. Um, excuse me. Also, um we had a meeting uh at the at the association and most of the homeowners and I know you mentioned before that we should ask the board to make a decision
and I'm going to ask the board to make the decision that we keep it uh business not residential. I know you said you you should ask the board for, you know, to come up with a a suggestion and we're going to ask please keep it uh business, not residential.
You know what? I appreciate that. I seriously appreciate that. Uh anyone else right here with baseball cap? Uh ra electric mont condominiums. My concern is I see this at the bottom
of Slate Street. Slate Street is a dead end. You're going to be taking lefthand turns into this complex. How on heck is a fire truck, a hook and ladder, okay, ever going to get on that
property with all these cars lined up on both sides? How are they going to get out of there? They can't turn around. No, nothing. It it's just if ever there's a fire in there, you got
buildings that are 44 ft tall. Okay? So that means you need a fire truck. Put a ladder on it. They are big vehicles. The ones we have here in Fall River. Okay.
It's it's that turn to get into that. This thing should have two ways out of there, not just one. The traffic on Slade Street is going to be crazy. But that's site plan review, isn't it?
Isn't that something? Oh, yeah. Through so through site plan review, well, you can require that approval from from fire. From fire and the fire signs off on every building permit. I mean, you know, that's a big problem. Try to make that corner. So if it's approved this evening, it goes to site
plan review which they can require as you're saying. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just just quickly on that as well, obviously that's something that site plan review um looks at and addresses, but we do comply with the zoning bylaw in terms of all of our drive aisles throughout all the parking
areas. So again, we're not asking we're not asking for any relief in that regard. Yep. Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing none, I'm going to come back to the board.
Mr. Chairman, um I'd like to commend you, Attorney Kai, for about taking into account our concerns and the concerns of the neighbors and what's before us this evening, I believe, is substantially different and more improved than what you had before us in May. That being
said, um this is bifrocated. Correct, Dan? Correct. It's bifurcated and there are two separate special permits. So take them. Yeah. So we can take each of the items and do a do a motion. So initially I would make the motion that this is not substantially more
detrimental to the neighborhood. You going to put it all together or you going to do it as a you can however you want to do it. And yeah and stack at the same time that they uh that the plan be approved with the site plan review of course which is required anyway. Yep. Second.
Okay. Are you taking item number two? No. Item two. You're going to take that accepted. I'm trying to write that decision. If you try to um All right. Discussion on the motion. They're hearing none. Ricky,
yes. Dan, yes. Jim, yes. John, yes. Chairman Prairie, yes. So item two which is regards with the parking setback from the lot lines
you can bump the bifrocated portion in with it as well as one motion. So um so this would need a bifurcated motion we did on the first time tonight. So let's move it all. So I would make the motion again that it's not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and
that the parking requirement be waved in accordance with the plan. In accordance in accordance with the plan as presented second as presented being specifically within 10 ft of the law. All right motion and second discussion we're hearing none. John,
yes. Jim, yes. Dan, yes. Vicki, yes. Jerry, yes. Thank you very much everybody. Appreciate everything you guys. We can just keep Can we keep exit quiet because we still
have a lot of work to do tonight. Thank you. Thank you all for coming out. Come on. Item number two, the applicant is A&E Lopes Realy LLC Care of Attorney Peter Celino, 212 Pleasant Street, map lot 8. The applicant is requesting a
variance to allow the following. One, relief from section 86 attachment two to allow construction of an existing Take it out the hallway, please. Conversion of an existing commercial unit into a body establishment. Uh the
property is located in a B1 a BL I'm sorry um local business zoning district and an AODD arts overlay zoning district body art. Good evening for the for the record Peter Selenino council to the applicant A&E Lopes Realy LLC. Immediately to my
right is Scott Lopes the owner of A&E Lopes. Uh the subject property is known and numbered as 212 Pleasant Street. This is the mixeduse building to the east of Scotty's Pub. Scotty is right here. Uh the proposal is to convert the southeasterly most unit which was
formerly a nutrition and supplement store uh into a body art establishment which is not allowed uh as an allowed use in that zoning district. Uh I've submitted in my petition that the hardship associated here is the existing mixeduse building u the fact that it has
limited setback and limited parking. So ultimately I would submit to the board that I think that the proposed use will be less dense than the former use in the sense that the former use was a retail establishment with walk up and drive up customers and my understanding of this situation is it's going to be one
customer at a time and therefore uh a less dense use. Okay. So you're going to be a single chair then? Exactly. Okay. Uh can I ask a personal question? Does attorney Celenino get the first uh tattoo in the new I'll pay for it.
Well, I'm not the tattoo artist. Oh, you're not? No. I often, Mr. Perr, I often say to my wife that someday in my age group, I'm going to be the only person in the nursing home that does not have a tattoo. And some of the others won't be legible,
but that's another story. Um, okay. all seriousness. Uh so it's a single chair establishment obviously then by appointment only. Yeah. Yes. Hours of operation that are proposed 11 to 7 Monday through Saturday.
You're sure? Am I sure? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Because this has a real and lasting effect. So if you want to change it later, you got to come back. If I was going to get a tattoo, it wouldn't be during the workday. I have to work.
That's the hours. I mean I can extend if that's what she told you then that's fine but if you I could you can always come back. Yeah, I'll come back if need be, but Okay. And that's six days a week then? Yes. Okay, guys. Anything from the board? Any signage? You need
signage changing signage in accordance with the bylaw? There's no there's been no relief request. No questions. Nothing from planning. No, I I just want to note that body establishments aren't allowed anywhere by right in our correct
in our city. I believe one location by special permit only is one zoning district. So every time we have a body establishment probably something that we should look at zoning wise to changing it's you know we allow so many other things that's way down the list of things.
I know but at a risk it forces someone to come in. So this was um in this specific instance, the proposed tenant left where she was working under the thought process that she could just move in here and it took
almost a three-month process to get before you. Gotcha. So that created a hardship for someone. So that's all. But okay, they went through the steps and Thank you. We'll take it from there. Any other questions? Any comments? Anything going to the general public? Anyone here
to speak in favor of the petition? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Mr. Chairman, I move we grant the petition variance to allow the the operation of that business in the zone
with the hours correct with the hours of 11 to 7 Monday through Saturday. signage within the bylaw. That's That's an understanding. A second motion and second discussion on the
motion there. He hearing none. Ricky, yes. Dan, yes. Jim, yes. John, we did not talk about parking at all. I apologize, but parking is not changing with from Is there pre-existing parking for the
nutrition shop? Yes. Well, on your lot across the street, there's a lot there's a lot across the street. We're not tied to this real estate. Exactly. Yeah. So, no change or increase or decrease in existing parking. No parking for Scotties either.
Yes. Okay. Yes. Help me out. We're so close. And John, yes. Yes. Thank you. And chairman Furry. Yes. Tense moments at the end here, right? All right. Thank you. I can't wait to see you tap,
Peter. All right, item number three, Madison F Properties LLC care of attorney Peter Celino, 420 Airport Road, map Z3. Send lot 8. Applicant is requesting a special permit
to allow the following. One, relief from section 86 202E to allow a paved parking lot within 20 ft of the lot lines. The property is located in an IP industrial park zoning district and an RDOD
research and development overlay zoning district. Thank you, Peter Celino. For the record, I represent the owner of the property, Madison Fall River Properties. Uh for anyone who's unfamiliar with the site, this is the uh SwimX building and re freight um on Airport Road. The
regulation cited in the petition relates to construction of a parking area within 20 ft of a lot line. here as you see to the north uh we're only seven feet from the property line as proposed. Um to the east sort of at the top right corner it's 17.7
and also on the east on the bottom right corner at 6.3. U it's submitted to you that this proposal is not in fact detrimental in industrial park but rather it's necessary to uh continue to facilitate the operation at the site for employee uh parking. So uh my client has
really expanded. They also own the adjoining building which is uh invigen and I think they're doing a great job and I do not think this is detrimental to the neighborhood or the district. Yeah. More more jobs, more people needing parking for their jobs is not detrimental. So
any questions from board comments going to the public? Anyone here wishing to speak in favor of this petition? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? They're hearing none. Comes back to us. Mr. Chairman, I find that the
uh request is not substantially more detrimental to the area and that I move that we second motion and second. Discussion on the motion hearing none. John Frank, yes. Jim, yes. Dan, yes. Ricky,
yes. Jim Prairie, yes. Thank you. It should all be that way, people, right? Number four, um Mario D. Is it Reyes or Ree? Reyes. Thank you. Be embarrassed when I get
done. Um, Ramos and Jose A. Reese Ramos, care of Peter Recelino, 565 Broadway, map G21, lot 20. This applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following. One to add a third apartment
unit to the existing two family dwelling person to section 86-426 relief from the section 86445 to wave parking requirement property is located in R4 two family zoning district council. Thank you for the record. Peter
Sino on behalf of the applicant petitioner. Uh this is similar to other petitions on Broadway oddly that I've had where the people own the building. There's some infrastructure on the third level. um they spoke to the building department and obviously it wasn't a
legal three family though you would see in some of the city records it did say three family I think on the assessor's card for example um nevertheless uh I advised the client that if they wanted to attempt this they had to pursue it pursuant to a special permit to enlarge or alter expand a pre-existing
non-conforming structure uh so the proposal is to seek that approval by special permit and also seeking a waiver of parking requirements because as you can see uh and I know stacked parking isn't the preference, but when you look at the site, there's really no other option. So, you can see that the engineer can dimension four spaces in
the driveway, but if ultimately we end up with a three family, we're short two spaces. So, I could think you could look at that waiver in a couple of different ways. You could look at it like you're reducing it one to one or um you're considering the factors cited in the uh
bylaw relative to local on street parking, etc. So again, petitioning by special permit arguing that it is not more detrimental than what is there. Was an ADU a consideration? It was not initially. Um, this this goes
back uh probably the first time I met with these folks was late February, so the timing didn't quite line up, but I understand the question certainly. Yes, because that changes this whole thing. It makes it a lot easier for everybody, right? Tony, this was this was denied
previously, right? It was. And I said I did site that. Yeah. It's in the packet. You're right. The exact same thing. The exact same petition. I think generally. Yeah. Yeah. More more or less it was the same.
It was done. Yes. It was done by an engineer though. Yes. Guess he wasn't good enough to get No, no, no jiu-jitsu. I'm just saying that ultimately that there's uh you know there was no legal
Wow. Um how how big an apartment do they want to do up there? Uh it third floor. What's that? The entire Yes. I think it would be a little bigger than 900. So probably a two threebedroom unit.
Yes. The ideal size would be three. The garage you're not counting as any parking. I thought it was I don't think we really can. I think it's a losery because you can't really right. I don't think it's a garage anymore. 950%
drive. Nobody sparking that garage, right? Questions from Dian. What do you think on this one? Whichever is small. Um, so ADU state law has changed people's
mindsets quite a bit on on zoning. Um, I do think they should contemplate what what could they do. Um, as far as ADU, I also have a fear if you do grant it, they could create an additional ADU in the garage. So you would always want to
put that condition in as well as we have on moving forward and that's what we have done with with all of these. Um the size of the unit, you know, waiver of parking if it was a one-bedroom ADU is is one thing. Waiver of parking when
you're creating a new three-bedroom unit. I I have an issue with that, but I don't vote. I know you don't, but you're thinking just like I am right now. So that's why I asked about the size of it. Yeah. Um, I mean effectively come to you
realize that you can withdraw and do an ADU although you don't have a client sitting here tonight to ask that question of or we could deny it. They could come back to the building inspector and do an ADU. Oh, they could table it. Yeah, my my head's more on the table side than that.
Your head's on the table. My head is really sweaty. It's hot earlier this morning. this evening with with the caveat that it it's going to be one unit, right? But that's the reason why discussing ADU versus understood, not the garage.
All right. I'll make a motion of table then. Somebody want to pick that up, please. Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the petitioner's request to table. Second, please. Second. Motion and second on the motion. John, yes.
Jim, yes. Dan, yes. Yes. Jim Furry, yes. Thank you. So, is there anybody here for this petition tonight? In favor or against? Just want to let you So, if you are the matters table to next month's meeting, you won't be
notified again to remind you that that meeting is next month. So, if there's nobody here, fine. You don't have to remind anybody, but um you won't get another notification and the matter will be heard again next month. Okay.
Yeah, it is hot. It is warm. Item number five. The applicant is the Sardinia irrevocable trust care of attorney Peter Celino 992 Pine Street Math M8 lot 40. The applicant has
requested a special permit to allow the following one to divide the property into three separate lots near an existing multifamily on each block pursuant to section 86-423B. Uh this is located uh with and in
medical zoning district. Good evening. For the record, Peter Celino, on behalf of the trust that owns the property, uh the grantor, the settllor of the trust, uh her two daughters are sitting here with me. Colleen Cody is the trustee of the trust. The property sits at the
northwest corner of Pine and Plane and really concisely because I know the board's had a long night. This is a 423B. So, we are moving pursuant to uh that section of the bylaw to divide the lots as shown on the subject plan uh premised upon the fact that the building cards
all show that they were erected prior to 1954. Um so, nothing on the ground changes. We've seen these many times. Um the only thing that obviously I'm expecting is conditions relative to no interior fencing andor uh separation of utilities. Mr. Tolman's shown on the
plan the various um easements that we'd have to create and I've walked the site with the clients and those would definitely be needed in order to make it workable. Okay. All right. So you'll do and uh looking at the
no uh especially on lot one. No ADU expansion in the one stall garage. Okay. There's no ADUs even in the existing which you don't have anyway.
It was just useful. No, I I know this. You don't whoever owns it down the road, you know, down whatever. So basically, no fencing separate utilities. It's so small. What's that?
Yeah, we should we should have boundary markers out there so that nobody's arm wrestling in the middle of the summertime when barbecue falls over the line. The boundary markers is serious. So standard conditions are normally
separate utilities, no interior fencing, mock property markers, no additional ADUs in any structure on the property. Let me go to the public. Anybody here wish to speak in favor of this? Anybody wishing to speak in opposition
to this petition? Hearing none. Let's button up a uh chairman approval of the varian special there's no substantial death to the area
and that would be no boundary or no uh between the the properties that they clearly marked. And that there be no uh additional units added. No use. Yeah. And separate utilities.
Separate. That's already. So they separated now. They are currently separated for the record. Yes. That's an affidavit place. Need an affidavit on file. That's all right. Second motion and second on the motion. Ricky. Yes. Dan.
Yes. Jim. Yes. John. Yes. Chairman Prairie. Yes. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you very much to explain that in English. You got item number six. Applicant is Salabby Realy 2 LLC care of
attorney Peter Celino 1459 Plymouth A2 lot 41. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following. The applicant seeks to reactivate the prior commercial use pursuant to section 86428.
property is located within an R42 family zone district. Thank you. Peter Selino for the record representing the applicant petitioner. Immediately to my right is Charlie Cibbe. He is the principal and member of the LLC that owns the property. The property itself was most recently a
Webster Bank and uh Mr. Cibbe owns Geon Farms on the other side of uh Plymouth Avenue as well as the adjoining dispensary. And so he acquired this building with the intention of moving the dispensary to it because the parking situation was much more favorable than
he has at the convenience store. Um when Mr. Hathaway advised him that because it hadn't been used as a bank for more than two years, the uh prior commercial use would have lapsed. It's an R4 zoning district. Notwithstanding the fact that you can see on the plan that the A2 and
the BL are all kind of converge at that location. So if he was fortunate enough to be across the street, for example, uh this relief wouldn't be required. So nevertheless, we're uh proceeding uh pursuant to the or seeking a special permit in order to revive the former
commercial use at the site. The section is 86428. I certainly don't think it's detrimental. Um the parking is almost double what would be required by the district and like I said, the use is already being made almost across the street. And they have a vote. That is true.
Since Webster Bank closing, Since Webster Bank closing, this has not been used for anything. Correct. Nobody went in and jumped an apartment in there or something. No, it's vacant. Um, the train left its tracks. It's running
down Pleasant Street. Do we have uh any questions from the board? Any comments from I I'll just offer that. after an exhaustive search, the building department and the planning department couldn't figure out how the bank got
there being in the off. So, so if zoning had been granted and we found a variance for a bank to be constructed, then then the use would have been good forever. The commercial use built in the 70s, right? 70s ' 80s looking at a building we could we could find nothing. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist somewhere, but we
could find nothing. So the building inspector there the build I guess only if it falls down while you're asleep I guess. So so the building department again adding time to this um for Mr. Salvie to uh to get through the
process but correctly so to make sure that the zoning is in place. No, it's the way to do it. And uh because it's going back to a commercial property, we have to ask uh hours of operation. Yes, certainly. Go ahead, Charlie. Sure. The hours operation are going to be from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Um, our
direct competition are all open those hours from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 7 days a week. Seven days a week. No change in parking layout. You're not changing the site just the way it is. Okay. Any signage request? Uh, so on the property there is an
existing sign. Uh, we're just going to put our our sign in. So, nothing bigger, nothing nothing more illuminated. Whatever was there was there was ever permitted. No, we don't. So, I guess that would go along with the bonus to use. Cannabis Control Commission allow you to
use the drive-thru or no other states. Is it Is it allowed in other states? It certainly is. Not that Let me hear from what the audience has to say. And I can't Yeah, I was just going to say anyone here in favor of this wishing
to stand in support. Anyone to speak in opposition? You're hearing none. Let's do it, guys. Mr. Chair, make a motion to grant cooperation from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 7 days a week. Uh, special
command doc. Oh, apologize. Uh, you can lump it into one. I'll join them together by not more detrimental to the neighborhood and that the petition be granted. Hours of operation 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. 7 days a week
and uh existing signage. Uh, signage will be within the accordance with the existing signage and we don't need site plan. Nothing's changing. Nope. Nope. That's it. That's my motion. Second, guys.
Second. Thank you. Motion and second discussion. I know there's none. John, yes. Jim, yes. Dan, yes. Ricky, yes. Jim Pra, yes. Thank you. Good luck. Why was somebody laughing? Thank you.
I'm serious. Wasn't compass. Um, I might have. Item number seven, the applicant is um Jason Reese and Roya Roya, I'm sorry, Brenda Roya, Garrett Peter Selenino,
1160 Meridian Street, map U17, lot 28. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. One, relief from sideyard setback requirements to allow a 10- foot wide addition to the existing dwelling person to section 86 attachment one. Property
is located in an R30 single family zoning district. Thank you. For the record, Peter Selenino on behalf of the homeowners. Uh immediately to my right is Jason Roya who is the owner. His wife Brenda is in the audience as well. Uh Mr. and Mrs. Roya own this home at 1160 Meridian Street. Uh obviously it's an existing
single family home in which they've raised their family. Um they would like to build an addition on the northerly side of the house which is depicted on Mr. Tolman's plan which is effectively a master suite. Is that a fair way to call it? Bathroom. Master bathroom. It's a big bathroom. Um but nevertheless uh he's supposed to
have a 25ft setback on that side and uh the proposal is to only have a 15 foot setback. So there's a shortfall of 10 feet. Uh in terms of speaking to the hardship because I know that's become an important thing tonight. Um the shape of the lot is certainly very irregular and I would admit that it was created
pursuant to a variance years ago. But uh I think the shape is the hardship argument here. Notwithstanding that shape and the existence of the structure. He'd otherwise be able to comply with the setback. One story. Yes. Yes.
And Jay did not get his tattoos from Scott Lopes tattoo. You could cut a deal tonight. I know. There's always more ink. Except for Peter. Um I got no questions on this. What What is
And I did not drive by this one. Who's on that side of your house? Who's that? Yeah. Okay. Oh, on on the top part. Uh north. Yeah. We are the um Karen. Which Karen? Oh, okay. It's way back there.
Yeah. Our neighbor is Mel and Josh. They have a single family dwelling on the side of us. Okay. Are they here tonight? No, I don't see them. Can't see him here either. Way back. I uh I I talked to them. I told them
what I was doing and they had no issue with it. So, if they did, we would have All right. Any questions for the board? So, we're retaining a 15 foot setback. Anybody have any questions before?
Um, that's what we got. Anybody here wishing to speak in favor of the petition? Brenda. Not Brenda. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? You're hearing none up to us. Mr. Chairman, um I would move that we
grant the variance as requested. Second. Motion and second conditions. I see none necessary. On the motion then Ricky? Yes. Dan? Yes. Jim? Yes. John? Yes. And chairman Perry? Yes.
Thank you. Enjoy. Thank you. Thanks, J. The giant bathroom. slip and slide. Stop it. Number eight applicant is 2573 South
Main Street LLC. 2589 South Main Street LLC is attorney Peter Celino. 2573 South Main Street, Map B, lot B1, lot 9. and 2589 South Main Street, M B1
10. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following petition of seats of variance to 86 attachment one to wave frontage and sideyard setbacks in the BL zoning district frontage and area requirements in the R4
district to allow the subdivision of blocks BO1-9 and BO1-10 into five lots. Everybody keep up. This is a confusing one. The two existing multif family dwellings will be placed on conforming lots and
new multif family dwellings are proposed for the three newly created lots. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following two relief from 86-445 to amend parking and loading requirements. The property is located in
a BL local business zoning district and an R42 family zoning district. Good evening. Right in this one. Uh yes. So for the record, Peter Celino on behalf of the owner applicant. Uh to my right is Thomas Martin. Mr. Martin
owns both properties, meaning the two family structure that's labeled as uh 2573 as well as the three family structure labeled as 25.89. Uh so the easiest way I think to dissect this is to walk around by lot numbers. So the proposal
as the chairman read is to divide it into five lots. So looking at what's labeled as lot one that is a conforming lot in the BL zoning district and the everything from the right of the zoning line plan right is in the BL and then everything to the left is R4. So lot one
is a conforming uh lot as to area and dimensions. The only relief that that lot needs is a setback on the southerntherly side of the building uh labeled as 7.6 and it needs to be 10. So that's less than a three-foot waiver.
The Thank you, Chris, that was helpful. Uh then the lot five, which also fronts on South Main Street, would also be a conforming lot seeking a similar waiver, but to the north of the existing structure where you see it's labeled 7.6 ft. So as to dimensions and frontage in
the BL that is a conforming lot. Uh next as we go to the rear or to the left uh of the property we have lot four. Lot four is conforming as to area but it needs a waiver of frontage and the uh rear setback.
Then uh if we're keep going plan left where it says proposed duplex. Uh that's lot three. Lot three needs a waiver of frontage um and lot coverage because although the BL to the right of the dash line doesn't have a lot coverage requirement, the R4 does. So, we're
seeking um frontage and coverage there. And then if we could go back towards South Main Street, please. Yep, that's great. Lot two. Uh lot two needs uh is conforming as to area, but needs the same waiver as to frontage and rear setback. Uh so ultimately if we were to
divide the site into these five lots, we'd be left with one and five with existing structures on them conforming parking and then uh two uh 2, three, four would be separate lots legally. Uh two and four are proposed to have
triplex buildings on them and uh three is proposed to have a duplex on them on it. Um Jeff, Tom and I did a sitewalk yesterday morning. From a hardship perspective, um we've got a bunch here. Um the existing structures, the shape,
the topography drops off uh significantly from Summit Street. There's a right of way that comes in and touches uh lot three. And so that grade change is very significant. Um, and then as to the special permit request, as we've seen on other petitions this
evening, that is to afford the required off- streetet parking and encroach lot lines. So, for example, where the cursor on the mouse is right now in lot five, that asphalt is close to the lot line. And so, that's where the special permit waiver request comes in. So, obviously,
we're happy to answer any questions about the proposal. Um, as far as the triplex uh buildings, the intent, if anyone uh has seen, there's a project to the north. Um, I believe the address is on Summit Street that has triplex buildings. Tom's objective would be to
build uh something similar to that. I think it's labeled on the plan as Summit Landing. Is that the uh so that's the design and the style that he's hoping to erect on lots and lot four. These going to be condominiums. It's contemplated to be, but I don't
know that we've gotten that far yet. Right. I think it should be, but Okay. So, madam's not. Um, Dan, when we were speaking the other day, you said something about an easement that a joining abuing property owner has. Yeah, I know that there was we had
gotten a call about a right of way, a question about a right of way that Mr. Martin has threw in an abuing piece of property which I believe is that one to the right. You hold the right way. Um yeah, he holds he holds the rightway. It's not being utilized as part of this petition. Okay. Right. Yeah. And I want to make that
part clear because I know there are some folks here that live to the west of the site and um so on lot three on the plan to the north of that if you could. Yeah. Right. Uh it says LC vacant land. Um the left right there. Yeah. Correct, Chris.
uh to the left of that between the single family and it labeled 519 Summit and Yeah, that right there. Correct. So, Summit Street comes down from South Main and that is more or less maybe a 14 foot wide driveway, something like that. Uh yeah. Yeah. Looking I mean I looked at it yesterday.
I'd say maybe 14 or so feet wide. They're three three or four mailboxes I think down there. And those come into the rear of the property. But that's not intended uh to be used as access, but rather to drive all the cars in and out through South Main. Yeah.
Dan, talk to me from the planning perspective, your concern. It's it's it's creative to minimize the amount of relief needed, right? Which is what we ask people to do, right? Um if you look at the the de the density
that's allowed complies. So, we're really just dealing with a frontage waiver. Um project as a whole, although requiring more relief or for you to grant more relief would be just to allow all of these buildings on a singular piece of land, but that's a higher level
of burden. That's a higher level of of zoning relief. Um if they're going to ultimately be utilized as a condominium association who's responsible for the shared driveway, the common driveway, because it it all needs to work together, right? So you can't these
these parcels sitting by themselves don't logistically work. But again, zoning wise, the the request for relief is minimal. Um and the bulk of this falls on the BL anyway. Yeah. Yes. But and but what happens in the BL is
you're only allowed a three-unit structure. That's why they need to be on separate parcels which then dictates you to now need a waiver of frontage. This is such a large piece of land for this zoning district and has only afforded so much frontage. So, attorney Selenino stated that the shape of this parcel is
it is narrow. Well, not narrow. I mean, it's actually 134t wide, but it just happens to be extremely deep and a combined area of just about an acre, right? Where do you see an acre of land?
And the 2577 is to be raised building in the front. 25 uh that structure is gone. Uh Mr. Frank, um it was sort of a dilapidated barn. Yeah. And since that time, uh Mr. Martin
pulled a demolition permit. Okay. Yeah. Uh so he pulled the demo permit for that and knocked that building down. Okay. So if you were to drive by there, that that building's not there. making sure it's falling down. It says it on the plan and then on Yeah, it it shows that it's still there but
not caught up yet. Um because it was falling. I take it each of these each of these properties each of these separate lots will have an easement over that common driveway. Yes, it would have to. Yes, just the three. Can we ask how that's a common driveway?
Are you talking about what goes to Summit Street that goes right to my three? No, no, no. the the proposed driveway is main their driveway. Chris, can you zoom that in? Like, zoom that in. Yeah, like that. So, there's their driveway coming in off
South Main. So, and through the property. So, you have So, between the two I'm looking at the lot lines now, so never mind. So, was that from South Main Street? Yes. All the access proposed is through South Main between two Tom's two
existing houses which is the three family and the two family. I only ask it because they're separate lots and just want fair even though it's probably going to be considered as as one operation or one apartment or one condo etc.
It gets chopped up someday when none of us are sitting here and somebody's got a battle going on of how to get to their property. All right, questions from Hang on, sir. Questions from the board. Can we just clarify because I know this is going to come up now with the the
back parcel. Y the last three and lot three. Mhm. I think it's lot three and the Yeah. So, it's only through here. Yeah. Okay. So, um, that horseshoe shaped driveway
behind it that looks like it belongs to maybe dos Santos. Uh, yeah, that's a sort of a right. That's a paved The pavement's not great, but it's paved. That was out there. Yeah, that's not part of right away. That vac where it says vacant land, that's who you're talking about. None of
that is being accessed, utilized, used to get into this. That's correct. At all. It's all coming from South Maine down that main center street or Yes. driveway. We're not going to call it a street. Call it a driveway. Yeah, there's a effectively there's a retaining wall down there.
Yeah. I just want I know years it was Miranda Lane. I don't know what happened to the street sign recently. Yeah, there was a street sign. Okay, hang on. But I'm just trying to get everything's got to come true here. Go ahead. No, that's just what I was trying to clarify to make sure because I think
that's going to be a question and concern. So, right. So, we're going to we're going to get to support and opposition in a second. I just want to make sure that any questions from the board are directed first. Okay. In that case, is there anyone here wishing to speak in
favor of this plan? So, this meeting this petition, right? Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Sir, yeah. I just want to know where he's going to put the driveway because I was told he was going to put a driveway right next to my building which is 2599
South Chris can you Yeah. Thank you. I own a bacon tackle shop there and I have all kinds of traffic there 12 14 hours a day. Yeah. So the driveway uh Mr. Chair in response would be to the north of that
gentleman's property. is labeled there on the plan. Mhm. Is it there's no existing driveway there now? There is not. There is none. The parking the existing driveway is on the north side of the building. Got it. And the parking area is more or less there, but the people access it from the
north side. Any thought of accessing those six spaces from the common drive just to eliminate one curb opening? It's certainly possible. And then there's an argument obviously that creates another on street space for his bait shop. Right. That's what I'm saying is rather than taking away from
right curb like adding a curb opening at that location when we met on site we did we did talk about that the initial intent was to keep the three separate multiamilies separate right I understand you could do three mini anyway they could still be separate it probably makes sense
okay answer your question sir that could also be done with four lot one that drive that drive is already there. Yeah, that that that's what we're discussing right now is a possibility of accessing
through the the central driveway to to access those spaces and that would eliminate that driveway and create a parking space along South Main Street or not keep maintain eliminate one. Yeah. Right.
Yeah, we put a driveway there that's going to eliminate parking spaces because I have folks pulling their own. We're trying to do away with the driveway and making those parking spaces access the new common driveway. So, there would not be a driveway next to your business anymore.
We're going to get rid of that. Maybe. Okay, keep that in mind. Anyone else in opposition? Yes. Um, can we Well, now leave out west of Los Santos about 366 Baby Street.
I'm in the back behind left. Yeah. So, I just want to clarify he does not have any rights to access that area at all. Okay. It's not part of this part. Even if it gets put in there, then down the road we'll have a bigger problem. But he just has no rights to access that
area. That's not for this board to determine that. So that's since acquiring that property, he did install a concrete barrier at the bottom, which he had somebody come and survey the land. Um, and they put pink stakes throughout the
property. He moved what was an existing fence. Um, wooded area and all the runoff is coming down. Um, I'm just going to leave my thing at this. Um, so couple years prior to acquiring it, attempted to gain access through the
driveway and was denied. He purchased the second property, approached me with a map claiming that he had rights to access my land in order to reach the adjacent property. After thoroughly reviewing my deed and se surrounding land records, I confirmed that he does not have any access. Since his
acquisition, Mr. Martin has taken unauthorized actions that directly impacted my property. He demolished much of the Thompson property and removed my existing fence, a long-standing wooding area that had been outgrown and undisturbed for over 15 years. He claimed he had a land surveyor conduct
and mark with pink states, which we don't know if that's correct or not, as such surveyor would have needed permission to trespass on my property to complete his work. There was also a gas company that had come out, trespassed on my property again, marked gas lines. Nothing has been said to me. if he would
have communicated with me, then we could have dealt with it from there. Um, but each conversation I've had with Mr. Martin, it's just I have rights to cross that, but I'm not going to use it. I just want to make sure it's clear that he has no rights to cross that property. Um, he constructed a concrete wall. Um,
it has been moved over his newly marked property line approximately 6 in where my the fence that I had previously existed on the property line. This excavation has also caused flooding, runoff, and mud onto my land, compromising the effectiveness of my French drain system that's in the front
of my house. Now, it's all mud from it's rained. We've had that torrential storm. Um, Mr. Martin promised to dig a 4ft trench to back fill it with rocks to help control the dra drainage, but yet this has not been completed and it's worsened the situation since with the big storms we've had. My dream was all
full of mud. I had to go and dig it all out. These actions have negatively impacted impacted the environment, structural stability of my property. In addition, their bigger issue, condominiums have been sat unsold since last year. New developments are underway on the South
Main Street opposing the Atlanter previously schooled. Um there's kind of undevelopment risks the overcrowding. There will be traffic issues, increased crime. We're concerned that are shared with many residents, including with the recent fire. Now, where he has put this
concrete wall, there is not a fire engine that can fit back there or an emergency vehicle. So, if I were to call 911 tonight, guess what? They're not getting back there. He's he builds a wall on your land so that you can't get to your house. He had the land surveyed.
Yeah. And they put he put up a concrete barrier y where he said his existing property line was. And you don't think it's on his property? I do not believe it's on his line because there was an existing fence there that he removed. And such concrete barriers are in the middle of where the fence was. So what used to be like grass
area is now blocked by a concrete brick wall. So if an emergency personnel tried to come down, they're not getting through. Somebody also placed a no parking sign on my area. I don't know who put that there. on my fence. So, that's got to go. Um, but we just I
would rather have more conversation before anything is granted because I just don't feel that this is Well, anything having to do with the right of way is not part of this petition tonight. Everything that you've just read, valid points if they're all true, but they should be directed to department
who is also code enforcement. And if it's if it's determined, so if you hire a land surveyor and if it's found that the wall is over the line, then he has to remove it. Um, but there's no replacing the old one or all the for It could be. No, no, it could be. So if
he's if he destroyed your property, built a new wall on your property, then he he's responsible for that. But that's not before this board. But all all the 100% legitimate concerns if if if actual. Um, but that's really the emergency
personnel. They wouldn't be able to get through there. Um, with the back side of the property, um, it also the tenant house in the back behind us is significant safety hazard for the residents and myself in the event of a fire and emergency personnel. We respond, the inability for fire trucks
or emergency personnel to reach the premises in a timely manner could lead to devastating consequences. Can can I ask how are you accessing those properties now? So we come in through Summit Street. Okay. And there's a 150 foot right of way that
she holds for 366 Bay Street as well as 382 Babiew Street. So we both have the rightway and then on my property I have a 15T rightway on one side and 18T rightway to allow the Riley's at 382 to pass through my property.
Got it. And you think that's possibly being impeded? Yes. call the building inspector and let him Okay. Again, it's not it's not within our purview. Yeah. The biggest the biggest thing we can do
to help is what what Mr. just said and that's directing you to go to. I mean, for him to add all these properties and only have one way in and out, I mean, that in itself too is dangerous. We Well, that's why so I think you saw some of the other petitions. So, that gets
reviewed. the fire department looks at it to make sure that they can get apparatus in. So he doesn't get a building permit until he's satisfied those those agencies. So even like with you're talking about you know a 15 foot right of way 15 rightways don't cut it in the real world they need to be 22
he's required to build roadway that back to our property that's it's not even a it's I mean you can consider it a driveway because you do drive on it but it's a very small you can put a car through there um a truck but it's not going to we're not changing yours. Yeah. Hopefully. I can't.
Well, and if I want to get an oil truck out there, I'm not going to be able to get that through either. If I need oil delivered, I can't have an oil truck. You can't make your right of your right away is your right of way. So, he can't make it smaller. You can't make it bigger. So, it's up to the two of you to
figure out where is the right of way. Okay? And he has to respect your rights. You need to respect his rights if there are any. So, but that's again that's separate from from this and the drainage issues that you all the drainage anything drainage issues get resolved through site plan review. So, if if work's been done out
there already, bring it up with the building department. You know, site work of substantial nature beyond demolition probably should not have taken place, but that's code enforcement, not the zoning board of appeals. And when we when we look at this for construction, a lot of what we look at is drainage to make sure that downstream
butters aren't being affected. property, right? So, it's going to be so well, it's not going to be able to run off. It's all going to have to be infiltrated under the pavement. All the roofs get recharged into the ground. So, drainage is is very expensive, but that's what we're charged with is protecting down
gradient of butter. So, yeah. Who else? Yes. How you doing? Frank 213. If you look at that concrete pre-cast wall he put up, that wasn't part of the demolition already.
Again, code enforcement building department, not here, but it's raising the grade. Okay? And that's again, that's not for this board. Understand? But if there was a fire tonight, it would be in the paper again. So I said again, call the building department. Glenn Hathaway is the code enforcement officer. He will go look at it. If he
feels that Mr. Martin has done something as a detriment to your property, he's the authority to act on it. Not myself, not any other members of the zoning board of appeals. And that could have been done when I got Had you reached out to anyone in in the
building department, code enforcement, etc. as this whole thing progressed. Building department. Um, I did go by, okay, last week and I asked to pull the deeds and I asked for some research to see if he did have rights to access the driveway or not and everything that was given to me. Well, that would and but that would be
at the registry of deeds. It wouldn't be in city hall. So, I would recommend that you hire a land surveyor. Now, Mr. Tolman's company does that service. I'm assuming that that's who surveyed the property for Mr. Martin. Um, but of course, you can hire your
own. And there are disputes of one says you own it, one says he owns it. Sometimes it goes to court to determine who owns it. That's that's the process for for the sake of Yes. Rita, speaking on behalf of my
husband, I'm sorry I didn't get your name. Rita Riley address. What's your address? 382 382 Summit Bay. So I formed the house since 1988
and we've had pregnancy. It's been very quiet. I'm last thing for the last thing that we don't need. We're going we're going to go from having Mr. Thompson is it um Mrs.
Thompson. She had a one single family with a two family shoes as a single family or a son left upstairs to a two family and then you have a three family. You've had that for years. 16. And now you're going to put in 14 units.
Eight. How was it? Eight units. Eight additional. Eight additional. It's two I'm in addition. Yeah, it's two triplexes and a duplex. Going to have three units to 14. 13. Five. Is that five units?
There's two on the right, three on the left. That's five. Now you put in three and three in the duplex. Eight edition. Eight. Eight. So more families to me it's just a bit a bit excessive.
I mean I set my rents low. I have family there. Yeah. It it's just a lot. I'm just requesting that you can maybe downsize a little bit. Can we talk later? Can we talk? All right. Let Jeff.
How did this construction happen? Before we came here, we were never informed that this was going to happen in the first place. The you were informed that my son-in-law is waiting on a TV. There's been no there may have been sight work done and we just acknowledged that. So this is
news to us that there's been some site work done. So the proper course of action would have been to call the building inspector if work was being done without a permit. So this is the third time I've said it. We did. So we have done that. All right. And so have you how have we made out with the building department? They said that he has no permit yet and
no right to do to like demolish anything, but they we've had a portaotty upside down for two years. There's been construction going on. Okay. But so the so the building So you have to ask so I'm assuming that the building will get Glenn and Frank there tomorrow. I didn't realize it was them that needed to go.
Okay. All right. So if there's a fire tonight will just be on the news again. I have somebody that needs a kidney and I have a handicapped child that lives in that house and you cannot before this happened the fire department wanted to know how my house was put there legally
because they had a hard time. Now it's 10 times worse. Right. But so I'm I'm going to say it again. So So you have so you have rights to it to to the to your driveway and to your right of way wherever they may be. That needs to be established on the ground. It may be that the driveway you
were using might be on his property as well. So I I don't know, but until you establish the facts, we don't know these things. Just because a fence is somewhere, that doesn't mean that's where the property line is. Just cuz a driveway is there doesn't mean the driveway is within the right of way. So permits to do that
to do what? To put that jersey there. No, I think we've established that it hasn't been. And that's why you need to contact the building department and have them enforce the code. Thank you. Beyond beyond what's being proposed tonight, he's not asking to build a retaining wall on your property tonight.
So, we're we're not even looking at that. It's coming to our attention that he's done some site work. And the best that I can tell you is contact the building department and ask them to enforce their code. And if he's done work without a permit that needed a permit, not all work needs a permit, but
if what they what he did does require a permit, then he should be fine or or potentially told to remove whatever he did that. But that's for the building department to do. In the back. Hi, I'm Kelsey Masarco. at 32 Baby Street. I am I was on the first floor.
Um my husband is going through dialysis. He's in kidney failure. Um on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, my son is outside playing. Um my dad is also very sick, so can't really go to my mom's too much. Um there's a lot of quiet time, so when my son wants to go outside and play, but
construction is happening so close to my house, and my 5-year-old gets told that he cannot be playing in my driveway right now. I'm emotional already because my life sucks right now. But he I I had to get I I'm friends with
Okay, I know you don't care. It's just like he's he's over in our in our property 24/7. I tried to be cool with him. Tell him my kid he needs to move because construction is happening. Maybe he's doing it too close.
Okay. Okay. We got to square away this property line situation back there, sir. You surveyed it. Yeah. Um, just to give you a little history, it um, initially we were hired by Mr. Martin to survey the property.
Um, which we did. We did perform an extensive survey on it. Um, and did stake out the property uh, boundary um, not for to for any construction related issues, but just to kind of clarify where it was. Um the fence that was
referred to that was removed was a wire fence. Um it was kind of L-shaped. It was on lot three when I what I'm showing as lot three and it kind of wrapped around um that the right away that's there. Uh that fence was on Mr. Martin's property. Um so he did have the right to
remove that fence. the the access to get back to these properties, even though they have Bay View Street addresses, is through that right away that comes in off of Summit Street. As you can see where it comes in, it takes a 90° bend as it heads south. It turns 90° to the
west. Um, I wouldn't You'd be hardressed to get a fire engine back there before anything was done on this property. Um, I don't know how it how it would happen to be honest with you. I don't know how they would do it.
And it can't happen with Jersey barriers now. Well, the Jersey barriers are on Mr. Martin's property and and they were in the same location as where the fence was previously. Uh based on what I could tell, I have not surveyed the location of the barriers or it's not necessarily
Jersey barrier. It's it's a uh prefab concrete block retaining wall. Yeah, pre-cast concrete block retaining wall that uh where the bottom section or two have been installed. That's what's out there now. Um, as soon as I found out that activity was going on, I I told
Mr. Martin to cease, uh, doing any work out there immediately, um, which he did, you know, on the wall, uh, part of things. So, um, but as far as I can tell, what I've seen when I went out there yesterday, all the work that he's done is on his property. Um, so that,
you know, in terms of the survey, you know, if in a butter wants to have the property surveyed, be my guest. I'm, you know, welcome to that. Um, but I do know we did an ex extensive survey on this property um, prior to staking it out. So, I'm very comfortable with the lines
that were showing on this particular plan and the lines that were staked in the field. So, so what do we do to get out? I know it the blocks. What do we do to get out? The blocks were not and and that's the other point I wanted to make. I mean, where the blocks were installed, they were in areas that were previously
vegetated. They weren't in areas that were paved. Um there was not that aerial was not used for access. Um he Mr. M has not blocked any access that was there ex you know prior to him doing any work. He merely took out a fence in a vegetated
area um fence that was kind of dilapitated overgrown remove that and um you know install this uh install the wall. Uh but that's entirely on this property and it's doesn't block any of the uh the paved or improved portion
within that right away or and it's not within the rightway. It's outside of the right away the work that he's done. And I mean you just asked the question how how are you going to get out? You get out tonight. Help me. Is it I don't live there. I own the property, sir.
Okay. Okay. And a car can get out. As a matter of fact, my son-in-law owns a camper and he now can't get the camper out. How did he get in before? Right. But was he going over Mr. Martin's land to get the camper in? No. Hang on.
This is not This is not land court. There's a border dispute out here that goes way outside of our purview. You are correct, Mr. Chair. Way outside our purview. You guys have to sit down. When I say you guys, everybody who feels that they they've
been encroached upon, etc., you need to sit down with Mr. Martin and get this thing worked out. I mean, and it we can't we can't do it.
So, surveys got to get involved. Code enforcement's got to get involved, but most importantly, you got to get involved with these neighbors. That's just my suggestion. Your attorney may tell you something totally different, but you got a border dispute going on back there, which makes it hard for me to sit
here and and vote on this petition tonight. That's just me. I hate just dragging things on with continuances, etc. But that's just me. I'm one guy. Four other voting members here.
I don't know how we feel. Can we get a revised plan that shows the wall? Yes. Would you like to see a picture? No, that's not a survey. Well, he did it according to a survey. So, exactly. So, I want to make sure that
So, Mr. Tolman's firm, they have licensed registered land surveyors for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that put their name and their stamp on their surveys, their plans. That wall is not shown on this plan. So, al although I honestly I can tell you has nothing to do with what's before
the board tonight. And I think the board might be overstepping a little bit by saying, "Hey, let's let's at least see what's happening here." But to address your concerns, maybe that's the right way to do it. But well, I mean, in in my case, I don't need to see what the ultimate solution
is back there. I just I can't believe this house is back there. I hate to say that. And I had no idea that that's how you got to them. Those houses have been that uh Denm 519 Summit Street. I'm the one who owns the
deed right away that my greatgrandfather um gave access to Mrs. Miranda who lived in that back house where they live right now. So those houses were back there. I'm sure prior prior to subdivision control law and site plan review. This is a public safety issue. I mean
regardless of what's happening on on Mr. Martin's property. Yeah. What that's crazy trying to consider. No conversations. Baby just ended and then started again. So that just never went through which is why that h that that happened. Look, that had to
happen years ago. Okay. So, um I do have a question though in regards to your plan. Um it says that the lot where the deed right away is a vacant lot. It's not vacant. There's a garage on that lot. Okay. In fact, I own two lots. I own the lot
my house is on and the the lot my garage is on. Okay. So, that needs to be corrected in your plans. Where is it? Because my driveway is part of that second lot. Right. Well, all I we we ask to see footprints of structures so we can get
an idea of the density of use. So, if a garage is somewhere on that property, it can be shown and labeled as a garage. But we we ask for this to be added. So, we say, is this a three-unit building? Is it a 10-unit building? How close is it to the property line approximately just for the board to
but I would ask that we discuss less units on that property because I have an acre of land and I'm not sure how you can fit that many units on that acre of land. Well, just in response to that, I mean like um Mr. A had mentioned earlier, the
density what we're proposing on this particular plan is in conformance with the the zoning requirements of the districts that we're working in. Right. So that's how we arrived at the numbers. Is that a fan? Is it really?
I thought it was me. What's your address name? I didn't need your name and address, please. I live at 541 Summit Street. Um, I bought my grandmother's house. It was built in 1960 and
I bought that in 1999. I moved in in 1992. So, I've been in this area quite a long time, probably since almost birth. Don't worry about it, Chris. So, um, the thing is is that, um, now my
property, speaking of crowding people, um, two or three years ago, was allowed to build a three-story uh three unit condo right adjacent to my backyard. I have I have close to half an
acre of land. Okay. And uh full picture windows on each floor. So, I don't know if we're supposed to retain entertain these people or what, but and that was all approved. You know, I feel like well, they haven't sold them. They've only sold one. I think it was a
relative. Um, so talk about privacy and encroaching on I mean our area if you look at the whole thing it's all single dwelling uh family homes on land. There's only one dwelling on the land and I know at the top of the street we
have business commercial. They they muddy the lines and make it residential commercial so they can get in and everything and add all these units. Uh, so there's supposed to be five uh what I want to get straight is five units and there's supposed to be two
family dwellings. Isn't that right? Isn't that what it said when that's what it said when I got in the mail? The in response 2573 is an existing two family. 2589 is an existing three family. And the
applicant proposes to build a triplex on lot two. So that's three units. a triplex on lot four three and a duplex on lot uh lot three so what's a triplex of those three that's like what's it's your the same thing that we have in your house right
oh like what's right at my house town be a townhouse so I'd say the person who's being encroached upon a lot is me I've already got the re you know literally right wait a minute but you're not adjacent to this are you yeah her rear lot line is the north
property line Yeah. Which is now his property. So, I mean, we're going to have another triplex back there. And like like my neighbors have said, it's always when I moved in there. I mean, there wasn't even that much traffic. I mean, every
house nowadays has three cars. Okay. There was probably three cars that went down that easement. Okay. I mean, uh, it was very quiet. You could hear all the church bells playing. We had like three or four churches in the area. Um, you know, it was a very nice piece of property and um, my grandparents
thoroughly enjoyed it. They was all woods and fields around where they built those condos was a wood lot for years ever since I've been there. And now I have condos there. So now I'm going to have more condos, more dwellings in back of my house. I mean, why is the city of
Fall River trying to load our area with these condos and people? I mean, and there's another one, too. I didn't even get a note on it. Where Townson Hill is, the water tower, where Blessed Sacrament used to be. We used to go to that church. I don't even
know what that is. Are those apartments, too? I believe they are. I mean, we should have gotten Mr. I need to stop everything right now. It's all over the place. Okay, we're
talking about a piece of land. We have a border dispute that's got to get figured out. I think what I'm seeing with the thought that they put in, let's just take that piece of property of those five lots and just
looking at those, they they are in compliance with density completely. Completely. making it two dwellings. What's what's in front of us is what we
have to consider. What's in front of us this evening is what we have to consider. Yeah. So, it's just uh well, what's in front of you, that's fine. But we live there. See, we have to we're going to have to deal with I just retired hoping to enjoy my backyard, you know.
Um so, I I enjoy it anyway. I don't care who's in the But they're in compliance. They're in compliance. They're in compliance. Yeah. Well, you know, you all have you go home, you work hard all day. You go home, you know, in the summer, you like to sit in your backyard or on your porch or your deck or whatever, have a drink,
you know, look at your beautiful property and, you know, I like that, too. And also, I like to make money, too. You know, I know all these illusions. Okay. Again, we're wait. We'll be sitting here having breakfast tomorrow morning at this rate.
We can't We're talking about nothing. Well, my we need to talk about we need to talk now that I have a condo next to my house. My property uh Mr. Chair, please. No, hang on. Council, yes. Can the applicant uh move to table the petition,
please? Thank you. Let's make the motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the commissioner's request to table until our next meeting. Next meeting. Is that going to be enough next meeting or? Yeah.
Yes. Second on the motion. Ricky, yes. Dan, yes. Jim, yes. John, yes. Myself, yes. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. Thank you.
Two minutes. Wait. Would you let them know that they won't be Guys, take it outside, please. Okay guys, the conversation can can continue. If I may, for the abuters, you will not
receive an additional notice because this is uh this has been tabled. So you know that it's at the next zoning meeting. You will not receive an an additional August 21st. Thank you so much.
Did you call? We're just taking a not We missing we get everybody. I don't have I don't have a secretary. And [Music] we number nine. Is this calados calessu
kodu? Okay, thank you. LLC care of Peter Celino 153 Jeffson Street, map J11, lot 38. The applicant is requiring requesting a special permit to allow the following
one to convert the existing structure labeled as 159 Jefferson Street into a second uh accessory dwelling unit pursuant to Mass General Law. Pro property is located in an S single family zoning district.
Thank you. For the record, Peter Selino on behalf of the applicant uh owner LLC. With me is Bob Chase, the member manager of the LLC. Uh Mr. Chase purchased this parcel and ultimately it had three structures on it. Uh he had his engineers look at it in a variety of
respects. In one respect considering a subdivision uh which we didn't think was a best use of the land. So he went ahead with the front unit uh 165 which is labeled ADU. My understanding of that that was the trophy shop. Yes. So that used to be a trophy shop uh
whereby the owner of the home would make trophies for little league and boy scouts and whatever. So, he went to Mr. Hathaway and received a special permit for that building. Now, the building labeled 159 uh is a vacant building that he'd like to turn into a unit. Um so,
rather than seek a subdivision of the parcel, we thought that pursuant to the uh acts that create the uh ADU bylaw in Massachusetts that we could come before the board seeking a special permit for a second ADU on an existing parcel. So
obviously it's very small, 630 ft per the plan. Uh proposing to add those two additional parking places to the south of the existing structure. Uh Mr. Chase can certainly answer any questions about the property, the makeup of the property, the occupancy load of the
current property. Um but ultimately we're petitioning as a special permit. And I'd submit that uh the proposal is not more detrimental because the structures are already there and he can provide some parking off the street. I'm concerned with a precedent regarding
ADUs. You got a three family and ADU already which is allowed. No, it's a single family. Single family. Sorry. It is a one family and this is a garage or something. Now it was a threeall garage. Yes. Okay.
Currently still is. So, how many has garage doors on it now? One uh one garage door. The rest of it was when I vinyl sided it vinyl side. Yeah, I have. So, it was parking for three cars before. Uh there was there was no it was never
used for parking, but yes, there was three cars. Yeah. And where it says paved driveway on the side of 159, that's actually parking for four vehicles. Okay. Um they the one family has a single mom that lives that one. questions from the board.
What is the unit going to be used for? Uh, onebedroom unit, ADU, accessory dwelling unit. Yes. Which, so just uh let everybody know. So by state law, you're allowed one as a matter of right. Additional ADUs can be contemplated through a special permit through the special permit granting
authority. It's the first time you've had one of these. Um, this is an S district requiring 12,000 square feet of land and 100 ft of frontage. Um, but regardless of that, if single family homes are allowed in the zoning district, they're allowed one
one ADU additional by special permit. So that's why they're here. I I think this is me. I think I would feel differently if it wasn't an single family district. I'm I'm not comfortable with it in an S
district. No bopping. And additionally, do you I mean I am surrounded by multifamilies, three families and such. I know on the side on this one picture here it shows all the ones, right? Yeah. The Well, the pain in front is a three family and I believe across the
street is a couple of multifamilies. Yeah. It's kind of looking like I was the I was the only guy in the town that wanted to have extra units. Yeah. Cross 154 Jeepson's a three. 140 140 R is a two. 1621.
[Music] 171 is a one. I need to make an argument for my client. Behind it is a one. I'm going to go to the board. Any questions on it before I go to the public?
Anybody here to speak in favor of this petition? Anybody here to speak in opposition? Mr. Chair, it's a special permit, correct? Correct. Bifificated. Yep. And we make the motion that um this is
this proposal is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and that we accept it be approved. We have a motion. We have a second. Got to have a motion to vote on it, guys. Doesn't mean you have to vote for
it or against it. So if nobody seconds, somebody can make another motion. No second. Going once, going twice, three times. No motion. Accept a different motion.
This chairman move to deny the request. We have a motion to deny. Do we have a second? Second. Motion and a second. on the motion to deny. John, yes. Jim, yes. Dan, yes. Ricky, no.
John Prairie, yes. Thank you. Item number 10. I wish that was number eight. J Pico Po Jeffrey Tolman. Uh, 687 Florence Street,
map R16, lot 79. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following to increase the existing con conforming lot coverage to construct a garage. The property is located in an S single family zoning district. What do
you got for us, Mr. Calvin? I'll keep it brief. Uh, good evening. For the record, guy in a green shirt's going to start up some stuff. I can tell already. going to keep uh for the record, Jeff Tolman from Northeast Engineers and Consultants here on uh here on behalf of
Ricardo Piba, the applicant. Um quite simply, what we're looking to do here is the um he was looking to he initially approached me um in order to construct a uh 22x 28 um garage um detached freestanding garage at the uh the rear
of the property. Um when we went out to do the survey to prepare the site plan, we realized that um he was basically right at the maximum allowable lot coverage. Um initially we thought he was slightly over um factoring in the shed,
but the shed is not on a foundation. It does sit above the ground, so um that doesn't factor in. Uh so therefore um after initially amending the the application from a special permit to a variance uh we're simply here tonight to
um to basically ask for an increase in lot coverage from the 24.4 which is currently existent on the site uh to 30.7 um which would be the proposal um due to the uh the construction of this uh
twoall garage. What about the setbacks for the garage? The the garage is going to comply. It's going to We're going to have four feet on either side. You see, 4.3 to the rear, uh 4.6 to the uh east side, and 6 ft to the existing dwelling. All in
conformance with the uh requirements for this type of garage. Naughty on the shed. Yeah. Yeah. Which I didn't believe. I don't think they were aware of. Yeah, but it's it's within the fence.
Yeah, that is true. So, okay. I don't really have any questions on this to be honest with you. That's a switch. Anybody planning? How do you feel?
Um, it's really just a lot coverage thing. Um, meets all the setbacks. This is an area that does have some drainage concerns. So, site plan review will have to deal with infiltrating all of the new roof area. Um, it should be a condition
that no ADU ever be allowed on this property to make sure that this doesn't get converted to an ADU because that would be next as a matter of right that they could apply for. Yeah. Is that gravel driveway going to stay gravel? It's going to have to. You don't you
don't allow it to be anything other than because you've not I'm sorry. You've not counted it. All you've counted is the space the size of the garage. Okay. Yes. All right. So, anything more you're going to have to come back one more.
Yeah. I like your idea of no edu because I can quickly see that getting turned into one. Okay. Anybody else from the board? Questions, comments? Anybody in the audience wishing to speak in
favor of this project? Anyone's wishing to speak in opposition? Only thing is lot coverage. Yes. Hat 26 Hemlock Street. I live behind the property and these setbacks are just
um garage four. When I went down to the building department, they were passing out flyers that said garages had to be set back 25 feet from the property line, 15 from the side. But yet, this is 4T 3 in and 4' 6
in. This does not follow any kind of code. The other thing is I live in the highlands. It's a very nice area. Single family homes, it's open. It's not in any way congested. by putting a garage where they want to is going to congest the
whole corner where I live. They have their house. There was just a huge house built behind us that's going to be it. It's two stories, but it's very high. And now they're going to put a garage 19 ft away from that house. I mean, I hate
to say it, but there's no other houses in the Highlands where this is even done. You just don't see it. And unfortunately, Mr. Paver bought the pipo, bought the house, and he I believe
he expanded his deck. I don't know if he got a building permit. He was putting in the garage. He was digging a foundation for it. And I called because I noticed they were building a footprint for a garage. Um, when he bought the house, he
apparently never had it uh surveyed, so he didn't know what his property line was. So he put in a gravel driveway that ended up being at least five feet on the next property. So when they started to build a house next to him, and I'm sure that the real
estate agent did not tell him they sold that land and that was not for his use. They had to eliminate part of his driveway. I mean, already it's it's congested right there. to put that building, a 24 by 28 building between
two other buildings with 19 ft of space. That's it in this neighborhood. That's terrible. That's terrible. We ask that you deny this. The setbacks are correct. Mr. Chairman, if I can, please. Um 86 setbacks are 43. Is that what you
I'm going to read it. I'm going to read it. 86466 private garages and sheds. Any private unattached garage or shed in any district shall be placed at least 20 feet from the street line six feet from any building and four feet from the side
and rear lot line. Period. The maximum height of an unattached garage or shed shall not exceed 18 ft. The maximum size of the unattached garage foundation shall not exceed 750 square ft or 12% of the lot area.
The only relief being sought tonight is for lot coverage. Well, then then we object to the lot coverage. We object to the lot coverage. It's It's too much. It's too much for that size lot. It's too much building for the lot he's on. I'm sorry. When he bought it,
he knew it didn't have a garage. And he he he tried to overtake some. He tried to build his own. Um it's just too much for that lot. And if you go out and see it, you're going to have his building. The garage is going to start before his
building ends and then it's going to end here and it's going to be 19 feet to the next house. It's It's crazy, but it meets the setbacks. Well, we have to It does meet the setbacks. You have to understand, and this is the 55th time
I've said this tonight, our job is to enforce or interpret or work within section 86, the zoning ordinance. And if it says you can do 4 feet and we get 4 foot three, we're fine.
So, the lot coverage, yes, is a question. You you also said that you do the best for the properties. The best thing for the property is not to be crowded with a big garage like that. and he already is almost exceeding his coverage.
We'll take that into consideration. Thank you. So, if the existing driveway and the existing walkway was converted to pavers, no relief would be needed. That was an option I did discuss with the client
and it's and so understand and again we talk about this all the time lot coverage requirements were put in place prior to site plan review and prior to requiring infiltration of runoff. So contemplate that as well. I mean the entire storm
um design storm that we utilize will be captured on this roof and infiltrated into the ground offsetting basically it would be like putting the house on piles and the space would be underneath it open just like the shed is not considered impervious. So that's all
although technically lot coverage is the relief that's required. That's And isn't sight coverage to keep the neighborhood nice and and not overcrowded? It it's really drainage related to make
sure that they're not So, like I just said, I'm sure it wasn't drainage related, but they started it all those years ago. Well, they didn't start it that many years ago. That's just the point. So, we have houses that were built I live in I live in a house that was built in 1911. You couldn't build the house today
because it's way too close to the front and way too close to the side. And every house in my neighborhood is that way. They decided to stick them in one corner and leave land. And so you were grandfathered and and show you were grandfather. So we were grandfathered. So you're
saying long time ago when they did this? No, it was it was drainage. It wasn't aesthetics. It was it was a situation of drainage. So yes, now in the single family zoning district, you have a 12,000 foot lot and
you have setbacks for the house, front front yard, rear yard, sideyard setbacks, but the garage is an accessory building. He's within his rights. And as Mr. Aguero was saying, all they need to do is change material
on a walkway and the driveway, and they don't even need to be sitting here tonight. Well, then if they do that, then that would be fine. But are they going to do that? I don't know. I can't require it. Then they could turn into an ADU if they want. What's that? Then they could turn the garage into an
ADU if they don't need. It's not going to happen. Yeah. No, no, no, no. If they did it by a matter of Right. by a matter of Yeah. Right. Because we can't put We can't put a restriction on it. True. If we don't vote on it, what are the percentages again, Jeff? Sorry,
we're we're at 24.4. We're asking to go to 30.7. Anyone else in opposition? We're back to the board, guys. I'll make a motion to grant any conditions on the uh condition that this is uh no
ADU expansion to this unit to this property. Uh and then uh will the will the the fact that it's exceeding well that's kicking on a site plan. Excuse me. Will this
it goes to site plan. It goes this is um a variance to for lot coverage. So yeah, gravel driveway ex stays existing. We're only looking at a 6% modification.
That's my motion. Okay. Have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Motion and second. Discussion on the motion. On the motion, Wiki? Yes. Dan, yes. Jim, yes. John, yes. Chairman Prairie, yes. Thank you.
Let anything. We received notice of an open meeting law complaint was filed by Aaron Liry. I'd like a motion that we refer it to legal for uh guidance.
Motion. Motion by Dan. Second. Motion and second on the motion. John, yes. Jim, yes. Dan, yes. Ricky, yes. Me? Yes. Uh, the chairman, Mr. Chairman, do we have a copy of that? Can we see that?
Yes. Well, yeah. So, what what ended up happening is it was filed after the 30-day requirement for it to be filed. So, the validity of it was in question for one. That's why nobody got it yet. So, the law
department determined that it's not valid, but we at least wanted to acknowledge, let the board know what it is. But, I can give you a copy of it. So, we don't have Just wondering what the what the uh complaint was with the uh I'll get you a copy. Yeah. With the alleged violation, I'll
get you a copy. The alleged violation as your chairman is too sarcastic. Um Mr. Chairman, I public comment. Reading of the minutes. Okay. Wave the reading of the minutes and accept. Second.
Motion second. All in favor? I the second. Did you ask for public comment? No. Second. I was going to ask Peter. No comment.
No comment. All in favor? 32. That's right.