Good evening. I'm Joseph Pereira, chairman of the zoning board of appeals for the city of Fall River. It is 6 pm on Thursday, December 18th, 2025. We are meeting at one government center in the first floor meeting room. pursuant to
Massachusetts 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 uh Mr. Craig Salvador at the board. If
anyone wishes to make a video, audio or combined recording of the meeting, please notify me now and I will make the public announcement of your attempt there. Seeing none, our recording secretary this evening is Courtney Pereira sitting to my immediate right.
Present this evening are regular members John Frank who is our vice chairman, James Caulkins who is our clerk, Dan Depre and Ricky Sahadi. Um, also present this evening sitting to my far left is Mr. Dan Aguiar, the
director of engineering and planning. And seated to my far uh right is Chris Levesque, who is our assistant city planner? Courtney, have all petitions to be considered been properly advertised and
all interested parties notified in accordance with the rules and regulations of the ZBA and Mass General Law 4A as amended? >> Yes. I thereby declare the Janu I'm sorry December 18th, 2025 regularly scheduled
meeting of the zoning board of appeals of the city of Fall River open for such business as shall regularly come before it. I remind all parties presenting before the board including petitioners abutters anyone in favor or opposed to a petition that your presentation and
comments be limited to three minutes. The board board's rules and regulations direct the board to specifically look for information that supports the petitioner's claim. As such, petitioners should identify and factually support the basis for their claim. In the case
of variances, a credible hardship as defined by Massachusetts general law, chapter 48 must be presented. I remind all present that the authority of the ZBA exists pursuant pursuant to Mass General Law chapter 48 and is
limited in scope dealing with the use of land as regulated in chapter 86 of the ordinances of the city of Fall River. We require that all comments made in this hearing be limited in scope uh to the scope of our authority. Additional
permits, licenses, reviews, andor uh approvals may be required for any petition that is in front of us. The action taken by this board has a real and lasting effect on the pro on the title to your real estate. As such, all petitioners should seek competent legal
counsel uh before filing your petition and after a decision of the board has been made. A copy of the ordinance is available at the city clerk's office or from the planning department. I remind everyone that the building inspector is the zoning enforcement authority and you
are here this evening because the building inspector has determined that your proposed action is contrary to the city of Fall Rivers zoning ordinance. The city charter section 9-18 mandates that all multi- uh member bodies develop
and adopt rules or policies for public comment. We have adop adopted such a policy that provides for citizen input on zoning board specific matters at the end of this meeting. Anyone in uh interested in making such comment, please sign the uh sheet that is outside
the back door on the table. With that said, I open uh the December 18th meeting. We have one item of old business. Item number 01. The applicant owner is River
Investment uh Properties LLC care of uh Peter Beimis. Subject property is 421 East Main Street, map G15, lot 69. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following to construct a sixunit apartment building waving the
lot area and requirements of an existing conforming uh parcel of land. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following. To uh reconstruct, expand, extend an existing non-conforming
structure waving lot coverage side and rear yard setback and requirements pursuant to uh section 86 uh 426B. Uh finally, to construct a parking facility waving dimension uh dimensional requirements in accordance with section
86-445. The property is located within an A2 apartment zoning district. This petition was tabled at our November 20th, 2025 zoning board meeting. Good evening. >> Good evening. Uh Peter Beamis, Engineering Design Consultants, South
Burough, Massachusetts. Uh thank you again. On November 20th, you did table our matter. Um in the uh interim, we were able to prepare revised plans for your consideration. When we were last before you, we were seeking a variance. We are no longer in need of a variance.
We have a u architectural plan that chose three uh town home style buildings. Um the uh units uh being at three comply with zoning. We have an 8310 foot lot. Um to fit these units on
the lot. However, we will need some form of relief through the special permit. So what I'd like to do is just itemize those items so you can understand better. The existing building um has a tenth setback from the front yard. Uh we will be able to improve that to to 91
with the current program 91 and a half. The sideyards for the existing building are tenth from the southern boundary and point 2.8 to the northern boundary. We'll be able to improve those to 8.2 on the southern boundary and 9.7 on the northern boundary.
The rear yard um is uh existing is 249. To fit the town homes on the lot, we are seeking to go to 10 ft. The max height is 34 ft. Uh we will be reducing the building to 29 ft. The max
coverage we are uh uh existing is is is well over with building coverage at 71.7. We'll be reducing that to 23.9. And the impervious lot coverage um is 72.3 and we would be 66.5.
Um the uh reduction the part there is parking that has to go on the site. So we still need a relief for that parking um because you have a requirement of 30%. So um that's the building setbacks.
There's also a need for relief for the parking um again to fit these parking spaces on the lot. We are seeking um a reduction to go to an eight foot wide space with an 18 foot long um aisle and
then a 22 foot aisle. Um we have a um 2.9 setback on the north side and a it's 1.1 ft set back on the south side. The front yard is uh three feet.
The configuration of the site plan is by engineering design consultants. Uh we do identify each of those setback requirements on the plan that's that's above you there. Um we do identify the um north south boundary and the um and
then the the west is the one that is the rear yard. Uh the front is on the east and we are going to exceed um that um with the program. The other aspect of this is that we are providing and I want you to see this on the plan. We are
providing an area for an ADU in the future. Um ADUs are allowed um with a principal structure. This principal structure after completion is uh 3825 ft significantly lower than the existing
building which was uh well over 8,000 square feet uh with an F around 1.1. So, uh, the F with this project, uh, at completion with the ADU will still be, uh, well below what you typically find in this neighborhood, uh, with the
densities on your, uh, your current lots. Um, so we do believe that the special permit, uh, provisions that we're asking you for are still in keeping with the neighborhood. Um they uh we're taking a a
massive oversized building on the lot, being able to remove that and putting on uh these town homes will look much nicer uh for this neighborhood. And I look forward to your support. Thank you for the opportunity in the table and to represent. Okay. >> Thank you for the uh thoughtful
reconsideration of design. Anyone on the board questions on this? any in fact I'm going to go to you first Mr. Director any any comments from >> so uh Mr. Be miss and I had talked about the proposal and he wanted to make it clear that the applicant intended on
still going with an ADU and I said well I I'll give you credit for showing that. Um what I want to explain is that we're far backwards with the parking. >> They're actually providing more parking than what's required. They're they're required to provide six spaces but they
are intending to create as many parking spaces to respond to any neighborhood concerns that they have. the need for getting to 11 spaces is the reason for now seeking some of the parking relief with regards to setback. Um, all of the parking area falls within the limits of
the existing building or the existing driveway. So, we're not losing green space, so I don't have an issue with with that. Um, special permit with regards to sideyard setback, completely agree. We're only 2 and 1/2 ft on one side currently and even less than that
on almost a tenth of a of a foot on the south side of the building and we're getting to 8.2 and I think it was 11 total, right? 9.7 on the other side. So almost centered. So really 2 feet of relief on sideyards where the buildings are right up against it. Now what what I
would caution is and luckily this still advertised as having a variance component is I think the rear yard setback we should move and granted as a variance because it it is now creating a non-conforming condition where the existing condition meets the rear yard
setback. So when it comes time to vote that the proper vote would be first is through a variance to wave the rear yard setback and providing 10 where 15 is required now in the A2. Um so handle it that way. Then you've got a series of
special permits. I don't think any relief is required with regards to lot coverage because they're actually improving that condition. So right now they're grandfathered to 72% lot coverage. They're actually going to be reducing that. Um, so no relief technically would be needed because
they're not exceeding the existing lot coverage. Um, other than that, we we explained to the applicant the last time and they were unaware that the A2 zoning district had changed that they were allowed a three-unit building by right. Um, and I
think they've been very forthcoming with what their intentions are. um reducing it from a six-unit building uh down to the three very reasonable height architectural drawings along with it. So I can give it nothing but support but want to caution you to
>> vote on it in in the proper manner >> for the Thank you very much on the ADU that you're already accounting for. How large is that ADU? >> Uh 900 ft. It is we documented that we wanted we just wanted it to be
transparent. So with the ADU, you're not acting on an ADU, right? >> We're not. No. >> So, but and then with regards to the sizing of it, the building department will decide what side it can be >> because whether they take
>> the square footage of the whole building or is it one unit in the building? That's for the building department to determine, not you. So, the size of the ADU presented tonight or the size of the ADU shown on this plan have no bearing on your decision. They are shown there
purposely so that we don't put a condition of no additional ADU because the the amount of units proposed on the site do meet the requirements. >> Yeah, that was my my major concern. >> Mr. Beus was listening. >> I was listening at the last meeting and I I heard you do that number of times
and I just thought I do not want to be having you make a decision and then interrupt. >> You can still make that decision. However, >> I was just going to say that could still be done. I would ask you to not consider that. Thank you. >> And if it was an overall density issue
that they were seeking relief for, then then I could understand you wanting to impose that. >> I I I'm much more comfortable with the setbacks that we're looking at at this point in time. And I think although we didn't see any type of rendering of the of the last building, it it was rather
looming just by the the overall size of it. Going to the hip roof here kind of cuts back on some of that, too. So although that's not within our purview, it it does make me a lot more comfortable. >> Yeah, the town home is a is a much we really when I left here, that was what
my thought was is just try to get a town home to fit rather than your typical two over two >> bedroom count on these two. >> Uh I believe they're three bedrooms, sir. Um on those three units, they're three bedrooms. >> Okay.
>> Three threes. And then the ADU is proposed down the road to be a two, a one, >> two, >> two. Okay. And um I'm I'm looking and looking and looking and looking at I don't know if I'm just missing it, but we go um we have 11 parking spaces and it goes 7 8 10 11. I don't see number
nine anywhere. Am I missing it? >> Shoot. Hang on. >> You are correct. >> You are correct. I remember one of the abutters had made a comment about parking when I when I was at the meeting and I just we did not want to dimin I said that to Dan we did not want to diminish parking there there
seemed to be a need on the street so we wanted to make sure we accommodated on the site our oversight that show >> so it's 10 it's 10 total just wanted to make sure that that we're looking at the right thing >> good looking John >> yeah thank you we wanted a loading zone that's Robin I think it probably started
out as being a space number and just trying to >> Somebody's going to park there anyway. >> Somebody's going to park there. >> Somebody's going to Somebody's going to park right in. That was not the intent was to have enough on site so we weren't over overloading onto the street. So, >> Mr. Chairman, >> yes.
>> Um, just a point of clarification. Uh, listening to Dan's comment, uh, you are advising us that we should request we should vote on the variance >> for the rear yard setback. Yes. >> However, um, just as a point of order, uh, that's not what's requested. That's correct.
>> Going on something that is not requested. >> A variance was requested to construct >> a six-unit apartment building. So I think anything that falls below that I think you would be acting appropriately. >> So that's you're not comfortable with that. I'm okay with it. But
>> no, I'm not uncomfortable with that. I'm just uh just as clarification. The real Yad setback falls within the request for the variance. >> I would think so. >> Okay. >> Because everything could have been done. some of the stuff was brought out, dragged out as a special permit to have a lesser burden
>> rather than put the greater burden on the variance requirement for the setback. >> The the entire application could have been done through a variance. So I think to to handle the rear yard setback under that first section of variance request I think would be okay.
>> When we started the project, we started as a special permit. We didn't know about the zoning change. So I um >> my only concern was uh the variance that you were asking for initially y >> was the six six units. Yes sir. >> And I'm wondering if if um the riot setback variance would fall within the
purview >> of that request. >> That'll be up for the courts to decide if someone appeals. >> Yeah. >> But I understand your concern as well. >> Good question. Anyone else on the board?
Let's go to the public. Anybody in the audience wishing to speak in favor of this petition? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? There seeing none, it comes to the board. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve uh starting off with the
variance for the rear yard setback of 10 ft to be approved. >> Second. >> Motion and second. Discussion on that motion. We've hit it pretty well with uh Ricky's question on the motion then. Ricky,
>> yes. >> Dan, >> yes. >> Jim, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Chairman Prairie, yes. And um and then my second motion will be to allow the special permit to uh reduce the parking. Uh the first one is
>> it's it's size of the parking size of the parking uh spaces. >> No, the first one is >> first one would be to expand extend >> y or >> extend the nonforming structure waving coverage >> in accordance with the plan something.
>> Yes. Do you get that court? Yes. >> Number two, >> grant number two in accordance with the plan. Is that the plan has the specific numbers on? >> Yeah. >> Is that a two-part vote? >> Two-part vote. >> Okay. >> Uh that it is not more detrimental to the neighborhood. >> Correct.
>> I'll make that as one motion. >> Okay. And that's strictly on item number two. >> Yeah. Uh >> y >> yes. >> Y >> do we have a second? We do have a second. Discussion >> in that case. Ricky, >> yes. >> Dan, >> yes.
>> Jim, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Jim Pra, yes. >> And last motion for the special permit will be to construct the parking spaces uh waving the dimensional requirements in accordance with the uh listed 86445 number three. And that it will be 10
parking spaces contrary to what the plan says. It will be listed as 10. >> Second. >> Second on that as well. Discussion on the motion there. Hearing none. John, >> yes. >> Uh Jim, >> yes. >> Dan, >> yes. >> Ricky, yes.
>> Chairman Prairie, yes. >> Thank you for digging into the A2 reddraft and using it to your best advantage. So, thank you very much. Appreciate the opportunity. >> Happy holidays. >> Happy holiday. >> Yeah, as long as it meets whatever.
>> On to new business. Item number one, applicant is Charles J. Ogara. owner is Rickard uh Richard T. Droyes D Roses rather care of attorney Peter Celino. Uh, it's uh no number branches on north
uh I'm not sure what your NS means, but >> north side. North side. >> North side. Great. Yo, North Side. Um, map I-1 lot 10. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow the following to construct a single family dwelling on a
non-conforming lot of record waving lot area and lot coverage requirements properties located within an A2 apartment zoning district. >> Good evening. For the record, my name is Peter Felino. I represent the petitioner, Charles Ogara, who's immediately to my left. Mr. Ogara has a
purchase and sale agreement to buy the subject parcel. That's why the record reflects the owner as Rick de Rogers, and the applicant as Mr. O'Aara. The proposal before you is to uh for Mr. Ogara to acquire the subject lot, which
is 37 uh 26 square ft, and to erect a single family structure on that lot. If the board were to find that it could grant this petition, the relief requested would be the lot coverage and lot area in the A2 district. As we know
and talk about often at meetings, the A2 was amended. Uh this proposed structure does comply with the setbacks in the district. Um unlike some of the objections I've had to A2 petitions, uh this lot is what it is, so to speak. So it's not like he could make it bigger.
Um the lot was acquired from the Corki Row Club in 2018 and uh has been like that ever since. So the petition before you seeks to uh receive a variance in order to construct a single family dwelling as shown on the plan providing the two off- streetet parking spaces. I
think clearly the hardship here is the existence of this substandard size lot. um whether of record or not, it's small. There's no question about it. But we're seeking to make the highest and best use of it and uh convert it into a single family dwelling.
>> Okay. Historically, when when the city took this property back in the 70s, was that a separate lot at the time? >> I do not know. I >> Oh, Mr. Tolman would like to His name is
Jeff Tolman. He's Northeast Engineers for the record. >> Okay. With no further introduction, Jeffrey, what do you got? >> Uh, yes, it was it was um listed as a separate parcel and it was taken at the same time as the housing authority property >> um to the east, but it was a separate
lot at that point. >> So, it was never broken off from that. >> No, >> that was my only question. >> It was listed as two separate lots. Lot 10 and I believe that was lot nine. >> That was lot n Yeah. questions from the board.
>> Is a tiny lot of median setbacks. >> It's actually it's 1300 ft shy of what the new A2. So when it was 10,000 square feet, it was really small. >> Yeah. >> Now it's really 1300 square feet small. Meets all the building setbacks, reducing lot coverage, providing the
required amount of parking. Um, simple relief. You don't even need a lot coverage. Again, like similar to the last one, lot coverage now is 100%. >> So, we don't even need lot coverage relief. This is legitimately a waiver of area from 5,000 square ft to 3,700 ft.
>> It's bigger than six of those adjacent lots. >> There we go. >> I'll do your job for you. >> Yeah. You must have a good job. >> The two is the next one. >> Sit around all day. >> All right. Turning to uh with no
questions from the board at this point. Turning to uh the audience. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this petition? Is there anyone to speak in opposition? We do have two letters of opposition, but is there anyone who wishes to speak
this evening? Okay. Uh, one of these letters of opposition is uh actually coming from Brad Paul, president of the Corki Road Club.
um in ironic since they sold it but um rewrite as an adjacent property owners familiar with the site adjacent neighborhood to register our opposition to the requested uh zoning barians to construct a single family dwelling on a non-conforming lot of record including
waving the area lot coverage u as a reason the property a small lot on the corner of third and branch street has been a parking lot not a house lot for so many years um and would require a varian as a deviation for a special exception. I
understand what it is. In order to allow a single family home to be built there, the site is something too small to accommodate a single family home and the on-site parking that would require uh construction of a number of new homes adjacent to the site in recent years has caused significant increase in traffic
on and on street parking demand nearby, requiring people that live work in the area to park further away from their homes and businesses. um given the impact I'm paraphrasing now um
that granting this unwarranted variance would have on the quality of life on and on street parking in our neighborhood. We respectfully request that you deny the pending variance request signed by Brad Paul, president of Corki Road Club. But do do we know if that's coming in on
behalf of Cocky Road Club or >> it was it was on Cocky Rose's letterhead. >> Yeah. >> And we had reached out. >> I didn't hear that >> and we never heard about asking him if he was authorized to >> so and I well and I had asked Courtney I
said reach out to be consistent >> was he was this a vote of the So sometimes we've asked it when it's from >> an actual board. >> Yeah. like a preservation site like especially city boards um a neighborhood group I don't know if their meetings are
considered public hearings you know open meeting law so we did reach out and ask for what his authorization was he is the president of the club um so take that with a grain of salt >> which takes us to the second which is a letter of opposition from the Corki Road
Neighborhood Association signed by its president but no indication of a vote Okay. >> Um, and we have inquired of of other bodies coming in front of this. Um, so I'm going to have to kind of take it where it lies. Um,
Mark Conrad is the president of Corki Row Neighborhood Association. >> I was kind of hoping he was here. Um, it is an opposition. I read on behalf of the Corki Road Neighborhood Association. We are dedicated to improving the lives of Corki Road residents and our guests.
Our opposition to adding another residence to our already congested neighborhood is parking. Parking on both sides of the street adjacent to this property is regularly congested uh for blocks. During winter parking bans, finding parking is even more difficult. Residents will testify how difficult it
is now, etc. That's the major concern here. I'm not going to read through the uh the other paragraph. >> Attorney Celino, you'll be is a current curb opening now, correct? Yes. You're not making that any bigger. So, we're not taking parking off of the
street. >> So, chances are >> Does anybody park in that now? >> Legally, does anybody park? >> Nobody I I don't believe anyone legally parks there, but I think people park there. >> I got you. Okay. >> Okay. >> But I think it's a bit of a specious >> and you're providing the required parking at two. >> Yes. Two spaces. I would just say that I
think it's a bit of a specious kind of argument to say that uh we sold the parking lot to somebody and now we don't want it used >> to do anything with it. >> Right. >> Got it. It is kind of odd. Anything else from the board?
Let's go at it. Mr. Chairman, I would make the motion that the variance be approved as requested. >> Second. >> Any conditions on that? >> I don't think we need to. >> In accordance with the plan.
>> Yes, you can. That's right. There is no ADU on this, right? No. Right. Okay. >> Pretty tiny ADU. >> Yeah. >> More like a dog house. >> Yeah. >> One room in the attic space. >> You can you can put the additional condition of no further ADUs like we
normally would. >> I mean, I guess it wouldn't hurt. No further ad use. >> Okay. Second. Second stands. Any other discussion on this motion before we go on the motion? And then John, >> yes.
>> Jim, >> yes. >> Dan, >> yes. >> Ricky, >> yes. >> Jim and Prairie, yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. For a while. >> Uh, new business item number two. Applicant owner is uh, Primos Property
Management LLC. Care of attorney Peter Aselino 70 Jeepson Street map J14 lot 46. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. One to convert the use of the existing onestory automobile repair facility into a
commercial warehouse. Property is located within S single family zoning district. >> Good evening. For the record, Peter Celino. I represent the applicant owner. Uh the LLC name is Primos Property Management. With me is Joshua Silva. uh his cousin cousin partner Michael is
here as well. Uh by way of introduction, uh my client runs a party rental business. So they rent tables, chairs, uh some of those bouncy type castle houses. Um the intent here is to take the existing structure and store their
material in there. So from an operational standpoint, they would come with a box truck. You know, if you ordered a party, let's say, they'd come with a truck in the morning. They take the tables and chairs, load the truck, and bring it to the party. That is the extent of the operation that they're
intending to make at this premises. Uh, as I've indicated in the petition, there was prior relief granted to uh create the or to allow the use as an existing auto repair facility. It's an S zoning district. Um, so nevertheless, we're
happy to answer any questions of course that the board may have as far as heading off some of the things I think you might ask me and to make it brief. um hours of operation. Mostly they operate on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, which should not be overly surprising because they're getting ready for the
weekend. But I'd ask the board uh to allow 7 to what >> 7 to 5:00 p.m. >> 7 to 5:00 p.m. 7 days a week for purposes of loading and unloading. And then obviously if it's less, that's
I would assume okay. Um, and outside of that, we're happy to answer any questions. But that's the operation. In, load the truck, out, come back, unload the truck, and leave. >> All storage inside. >> Yes. The intent is to store. I mean, it's tables, chairs. I guess you could
theoretically put a bouncy house. Not that we're asking to, but a lot of it, you don't want it to rust and it would be inside. >> Well, my concern would be dropping containers on the piping. >> I think we can in those. >> Yeah. I mean, you don't have any need or intention, right, for that?
>> No. If anything, it would probably impede normal operation. I mean, the lot does have some exterior space, but it would probably impact our ability to get in and out and load for normal operation. So, >> so you're comfortable with a condition of no outside storage.
>> Yeah, I think there is a shed on there like currently with there for >> no pallets or >> nothing in addition. No >> storage trailers or anything like that? >> Nope. Just >> what about vehicles? Any overnight vehicle parking there? >> I I would assume the box trucks.
>> Yeah, it would just be the uh operational vehicles we have at the moment. We have three. Uh those are the only ones that we would have. They'd be registered and used for operation. >> Mhm. >> Good. Signage. >> Do you intend to have any signage? >> Um there was like a signed board I
believe for the previous automotive company >> right on the building. We don't just maybe the sign the company name on it >> matching of what's there now because you haven't asked for any other signage release. So you're okay with whatever signage there is now. >> Fix it. Put up a new name on it. You're limited to that. You're okay with that?
>> Absolutely. >> No neon. >> No. >> And just understand right now you've got an existing gravel parking area. >> You understand that you can't pave that without relief from this board? completely any any improvement to the
remainder of the site is going to make you come back here. Any use difference of the property, any pavement, anything was is going to trigger additional relief that's needed here. So, >> the relief you're requesting is to use the building for a warehouse. >> Yep.
>> So, you're good with that? >> Questions from the board? Any others? >> Very straightforward. Anybody here wishing to speak in favor of this petition in support? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Hearing none. Everybody must be
Christmas shopping. >> Was that everybody must be Christmas shopping? There's nobody here. Good. >> Mr. Chairman, I move branding of the variance as requested. >> Second. >> And that would include the conditions as discussed of no outside storage.
>> Yeah. All the representations will be listed as as presented. >> You'll second. >> Got a motion and second discussion. You're hearing none. Ricky, >> yes. >> Dan, >> yes. >> Jim, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Chairman Prairie, yes. >> Thank you. Best of luck with it. >> All right. Happy holidays.
>> Follow. Thanks. >> Happy holidays. Item number three, applicant owner Joyce Fazalo and Lisa Warsley. Wolsey, uh, Carol attorney Peter Aelino, 999 Langley Street, map, R06, lot 181. The
applicant requesting a variance to allow the following to build a 20x 30 uh, foot twotory addition to the existing dwelling uh, waving sideyard setbacks and lock coverage. The property is located in an
S single family zoning district. Thank you for the record, Peter Selenino. On behalf of the applicant owner, um I'll note for the record that the applicant owner is currently undergoing cancer treatment. That's why she's not here. Nevertheless, her daughter is here and her husband is here to answer questions that the board may have. Uh the property
in this instance is located at 999 Langley Street. It's a single family zoning district. The applicant is seeking to construct the 20x30 uh addition on the uh right side or plan right side of the property. The waiverss
requested are um lot coverage and sideyard setback. Obviously, the site looking at the plan is a little bit busy already in terms of the sheds and pool and other outuildings. Um that's the reason for the location of the proposed
addition. Um my understanding of the addition is that it's going to be a two-story structure. It's noted on the plan with a roof height of 24 feet. Um, as the board can see, the easterly property line is angled. And I think that's part of the reason that the
relief could be uh perceived as severe in the sense that in the southeast corner of the proposed addition, the setback is 7 ft. In the northeast corner, it's 3.3 feet. So, uh, certainly these folks are happy to answer any
questions that the board may have. Um, >> do you use that corner of your neighbor's gazebo that's on your >> uh I thought that was Yeah, I thought that was funny, Mr. Pereira, because I, you know, I said, "How does uh how do the Pereiraas feel?" And, uh, this gentleman advised me that he's spoken to
the gentleman. He has no problem with it. And in fact, his gazebo is on my property, as you can see on the plan, >> which I have no problem with actually. >> And I will point it out. I am not related to James and Joanne Pereira. So, it's Are you? >> Nope. >> Good. >> Different village, same country.
>> Different village, same country. Exactly. >> Yeah. It is kind of unusual that the the lot has that caned shape to it and everybody just assumed that it was straight lines coming back from the street. >> Just say your name for the record. >> Yeah. My name is Mike Worsley, Lisa's
husband, >> the owner's husband. Um, just to point out that even though uh regards to this most current uh site survey that we did from measuring off the side of the house to the fence line that we actually have
established that's been there for over 25 years, it's actually a space of almost 6 feet where at the smallest point where it says three. I mean I I understand that that's irrelevant, but I just wanted to point out >> there's no fence there either where the
>> correct. Yeah. Where the fence actually the fence is here. Right. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> It's a sizable addition and I mean it is it is coming up tight to that property line. That's that's really my only concern is is that we are getting to you know that 3.3 feet that I become a bit
uncomfortable with. Um, other questions from the board at this point? >> Dan, your comment at this point? I mean, it is a busy yard and a lot going on now. >> It is. I mean, did you contemplate at all putting the addition on the other side of the house where you have plenty
of room? >> I did, but there there are sheds in the way. There's a concrete patio there. The driveway is there, >> which I just had redone last year. >> You wouldn't need zoning relief, right? So, there's >> what's that? >> You wouldn't need zoning relief if you put it on that side. >> In other words, if you built it right
here, you probably wouldn't need a setback. >> It probably wouldn't be a zoning issue. It' just be a lot more costly to the family. >> Yep. >> Um given the concrete patio, let's say, the deck that was just redone, the sheds
that are there, etc., you know, >> right? But all all those things you've done to the property. So you're you you've created the problem, right? >> I didn't expect this problem. >> No, no, no. I understand that. >> Well, I mean, you know, >> I mean, the board has it's a very
>> I've never seen the board approve a 3.3 foot setback. Did you think of a narrower addition? You know, I I can't tell you what what the board would would find. I could probably narrow it a little bit, but as I stated also, the fence the existing
fence line, which I know that there's a there's um >> but there could be a new fence >> there could be >> at any point in time that was 3.3 ft off of this new foundation. The fire department's been adamant >> about providing access around
properties, >> right? And and that's where I was going with this. So technically right now, even though this new survey says it's 3 ft, I actually have 5T, >> more than 5T. >> But if Mr. Pereira wanted to move his gazebo and put up a new fence on the
property line, it would be 3.3. >> So where the existing fence sits now >> and how much room you have to get by is really irrelevant. It's it's not you're not asking for a waiver to the existing fence. You're asking for a waiver to the property line. That's and that's locked in place. That's not make a point that
that 3.3 is based on a survey, not based on where the fence is. >> Right. Correct. >> Okay. So, don't say you've got five because if the survey says it's 3.3 and you tell me it's five, go get your money back from your survey. >> Okay. Um
I don't want to be argumentative. >> I don't want to be argumentative either, but I'm just saying it's it's a survey. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It's a standard. No, you're saying as it sits now, you you could physically get by, but when you do survey, right, it's just different. If somebody buys that house next door and decides to put
a fence there, >> that's okay. >> Um, is it possible? I think what I think what we're getting to is, uh, you're looking at 20 by 30. Uh, >> 18 by 30. >> Uh, what would you recommend? I shrink it.
>> No. And I'm not >> the 20 the 20t out. I I'm I'm >> we're trying to stay with the five 5T. >> We're going to not design for people. We're just saying we're not probably I can't speak for everybody. I'm not going to vote yes on 3.3 ft >> for the fire department. We need 5T. And
that's that's kind of what we're >> now you could slide the addition back because as the the lot line does open up space. >> So you if you go back five feet, you may meet five feet on the set on the sideyard setback. So you can still get the 20 by 30. You can you can talk to
your surveyor and come up with an idea of do you do 18 by 30, do you do 18 by 32, right? So front and rear, you're fine. But I think what what you're hearing from the board is at least one board member is comfortable with five. It would be up for you to now propose something that would at least appease
him, not necessarily everybody else. But you may want to talk to your attorney about it or I don't know if you need to go and get a revised plan. But if you want to if you want to talk about keeping at the 20 and meet five then you have to figure out okay if I slide it what does that do to the architecture of
the inside of the building with doors and how do I get from point A to point B and how does that work if you slide >> this way doesn't really affect me. So I could tell you right now that I could shrink it to 18 if that would appease the board. Have you given any consideration to
talking to your neighbor doing a swap where they were using a little bit of your land and you could use a little bit of their land? >> Well, I was trying I was trying to make that a point earlier that the fence line as it is after speaking to my neighbor >> stands. He's not going to we're not
going to argue about a couple of feet of property after all this. >> But you may not be there forever. Well, you won't be there forever. What I'm saying is >> correct. Yeah, he won't. He might not. I might not correct, >> but you could do a swap where you convey the triangle to him where his gazebo is and and that doesn't have any barrier.
But so you can still do this and you can theoretically get a triangle from him in equal land swap >> and then you can just keep it as it is if you want to entertain that. What you get for here relief today that's what you're stuck with. Then if you if you
decide you want to change something else and and go back to the 20, it it's up to you. If if you if you want to propose an 18 foot and have them act on 18 by30 tonight with a 5-ft minimum sideyard, then you can ask the board to act on that.
>> That's what I would ask the board to do. Yeah. I I'll definitely shrink it to 18. >> Okay. Lot coverage I don't have an issue with because we can deal with that on site plan review. So there's plenty of room to infiltrate roof and all. So just again a point of clarification if it's
shrunk to 18. Yep. >> Does that satisfy your concern, J? >> Well, it's 18 >> and a minimum five yard set five foot >> with that. Okay. Yes. >> Right. And and I will I'll set it at the caveat of a 5ft sideyard setback and if your plan or if you speak with your
engineer and you can >> it looks like you could probably go back >> three feet and then that's going to give you and then that's going to give you your 20 ft wide because you only need a foot and a half clearance. So if you could adjust the whole building back 3
ft >> you can adjust everything north to south and leave the east trying to get to the point. Absolutely. If you keep your size that you're looking for and construction wise, >> you can approve a 600 square foot footprint with a minimum 5 years 5 foot setback
>> because what's Yeah, >> what's proposed is 20 by 30. It is 600 square foot, >> right? I mean to shrink it to 18. We would need a new proposal. We can't do that. We have to vote on what's in front of us. >> Well, he could make the modification, >> but but you could vote tonight >> to give him
>> 600 ft >> with a 5 foot setback >> with a 5ft setback. Right. So, >> and then now when he comes to site plan review, he needs to live with those >> which means you could even reduce the the width of it and increase the length of it. >> Correct. >> Combination or a combination of the two, >> right? If you say 600 ft.
>> Yeah. >> Right. That's 5 foot minimum sideyard setback >> that should get by the fire department. We're not the fire department. Can't speak for them, but we know. And I mean, we've hit this a whole bunch of times. It gets it just gets too tight,
especially with the fence over the I have no idea. >> 600 ft. >> As long as you're within the 600 ft. No idea. If you're 18, 22, whatever you Yeah. >> I also have a question now. It Yeah. With the 600 square foot, that would be
a foundation. It would be a slab on grade. >> Mhm. >> Um on the on the second floor, >> you cannot. >> Is it possible to >> No. >> Not towards the property line. No. >> Absolutely not. >> No. No. No. towards the towards towards
the front or back. Obviously, not that way. Should be shown that way, but I don't know. You You may just want to table it and get this on paper so that we're voting on exactly what you want to do. Y >> but that's up to you. I think you understand what the board is looking for,
>> but >> and we have um >> because now we're adding too many variables in things. Now, now if you're going to extend this out two two or three feet on the front or I realize you've got the setback for it, but then we don't know what the building envelope is >> cuz if the foundation is 5T off the
property line and then you put a two foot bump out in the front yard, now that bumpout is not going to be 5T because the way that the lot line is angled. >> Yeah, I was I was actually thinking about the backyard which I know I have plenty of frontage. >> Yep. >> And it was just for a sophet and lights and a little bit of space on the
upstairs part of it. >> Understood. >> Yeah. Speaking for myself and not for the board, I think what what you're hearing is that we are receptive to the idea uh to this proposal with the modifications that were that would make us more comfortable in voting for something like this and and there are
many things being thrown at us tonight that are not on paper. So um my advice would be to table it and go back with something conc >> and uh yeah and and uh as I said I mean my my um flavor is that we're receptive
to it >> this need to go to site plan >> so it's something that I should draw up and >> can't we just >> well approve that >> it's um he's changing >> attorney Seleno so my um when I'm explaining this my advice would be there's many things
being thrown at us >> and Just speaking for myself, I mean, I'm receptive to the idea. I have no problem with this. But with all these variables being thrown at us, I mean, my advice would be to table and come back with a concrete proposal that we can see in front of us. >> And if you want to have an overhang,
show the overhang, show the dimension to the overhang >> because suppose you want to put a 10-ft overhang, >> right? Obviously. Yeah. No, obviously I don't. >> That's why we need to know that because right now you would be limited to that footprint going straight up. So if you want to do something else, just put it
on the plan and have the board act on it that way. Do >> you want five minutes? >> Uh, no, thank you. >> Okay. >> No, we're just as concrete as it needs to be. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Absolutely. >> I think we move to continue to January. >> Okay.
>> Thank you uh for the time. The applicant will make a motion to table this petition to the January meeting to address the uh questions of the board. >> I'm happy to fill out the form. >> Mr. Chairman, I grant I move that we grant the applicant uh proposal to table
the proposal till the January meeting. >> Second on that. >> Second. >> Second. >> Let Dan have that first. >> Uh on the motion, Ricky, >> yes. >> Dan, >> yes. >> Jim, >> yes. John. >> Yes. >> And chairman. Yes.
>> Thank you. >> Bonnie, if you can make a note to put more of these in the book. >> Okay. >> Hopefully nobody else wants the table tonight. >> Okay. >> Pet is going to write them by hand. >> Thank ladies and gentlemen. >> Thank you. Have a great holiday. You
also street item number four applicant owner is the Dale Street Realy Trust care of attorney Peter A. Celino
uh east side of rear Dale Street map D 03 lot 8. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following to divide the subject property into two lots as parcel A and parcel B. The proposal is to convey
and combine parcel A to the adjacent property at 10 Dale Street and to convey uh slash combined parcel B to the adjacent property on 30 Dale Street. The property is located within a CMD commercial mill zoning district.
>> Good evening. For the record, Peter Celino on behalf of I'll say both parties and and what I mean by that is I have Tom Jopam here. He owns 10 Dale. Okay. >> Um, Mr. and Mrs. Lavoy own 30 Dale. And the parties effectively are trying to um
effectuate a subdivision of a parcel so that parcel A gets tacked on to Tom's property at 10 Dale and parcel B gets tacked on to 30 Dale. So, our variance issues for the board on this petition are a couple. Uh, first, the lot at
30ale doesn't have any frontage. So, you can see as shown on the plan, there's no frontage. So, I've sought a front uh frontage waiver for that parcel, a use waiver because notwithstanding all the houses in the neighborhood, it's a CMD district.
>> Um, and then I did plead lot size for parcel A. I mean, it says it's going to be appended to 10, but I figured ask for more uh in case the board found that that was required. So, we've pled this as a variance. The hardship being the shape of the uh existing land with the
southwa pond on the northeasterly uh boundary and this kind of unique 10- foot wide private way with no frontage notwithstanding the house at 30 Dale. So ultimately this will make both parties happy. It will enlarge the size of their lots. Um and there's no intent to build
anything on any kind of a substandard lot or anything like that. That's just to affix parcel B to 30 Dale, parcel A to 10 Dale. Tom, do you want to offer anything else from a presentation perspective? >> No. >> No. >> Okay. >> I'm just encouraged to see somebody
making lots bigger in Fall River. It's >> usually the other way around. I I really don't have any questions. Um, is is this who who owns the lot currently that's being split? Is it >> uh So, Mr. Mrs. Lavoy own the lot that's
being split under the style of the Dale Street Realy Trust. The deed to their house at 30 is in their name individually. >> Y >> and so the the reason I put the owner name uh as the trust is because that owns the piece that is ultimately becoming A and B.
>> Yep. And you save somebody coming in asking for a variance to squeeze a house in here. So >> not going to happen. >> You No, it's not going to happen. So you may as well enjoy the land. Any questions from the board? >> No, >> just to say, Mr. Chairman, it's a pretty straightforward proposal. Um, very clear
and very straightforward. >> Mr. Chairman, I'll only add that I would place conditions of no further subdivision. And two, that the lots be conveyed and merged with the adjacent parcels. We we
often create these parcels and they don't properly get conveyed and merged with the parcels that they're showing to be intended to. >> Y >> so it should be explicitly conditioned that they be conveyed to the adjacent as being
proposed and merged with the adjacent. Parcel A is never to sit alone. Parcel B is never to sit alone. It is to be merged with the adjacent real estate. >> I agree entirely. >> Yeah. Is that okay? Yes, that's an acceptable condition. So, you'll have one tax bill.
>> So, ready for a motion? >> Okay, hang on. We have any Any Anybody here wish to speak in support of this petition? >> Anyone wish to speak in opposition to this petition? Hearing none, it's to the board. >> Yeah, Mr. Chairman, um I would make the
motion that the variance be approved with the uh conditions as outlined by Dan Aguion, which is um that these properties These apostles will not stand alone. They'll be just tacked on and uh >> conveyed >> and be merged. >> Merged and conveyed. >> Yeah.
>> Mered to the two receiving properties, if you will. >> And no further sub. >> No further. >> Okay. >> No further subdivision. That's okay. Also, >> and if you can squeak an AD to you somewhere, you have you have all the
right to. So, >> wow. Maybe you given away. >> Although, actually, you know what though? In a commercial mill district, I don't think single family homes were allowed. So, I don't think you would be I don't think you would be allowed. >> And that was the >> right >> that was the reason for the variance.
>> Motion on the table. >> It was tie. >> You get it. >> Give it to Dan. >> Just we're keeping score over here. >> Uh any further discussion on that petition on that motion rather? They're hearing none. John.
>> Yes. Jim, >> yes. >> Dan, >> yes. >> Ricky, >> yes. >> Jim Perry, yes. >> Thank you. >> Excellent. >> Thank you. Have a great holiday. >> Item number five, applicant owner is 37 Park Street Partners LLC. Kov attorney
Peter Celenino is leaving. >> Uh, subject property 37 Park Street, map G06, lots 29 and 28. The applicant is requesting that a variance and special permit be granted by the board ba um
wait special permit and variance granted by the board on December 19th, 2024 be extended for a period of 6 months to allow additional time uh to appropriately exercise the relief granted.
>> Thank you for the record, Peter Selino. On behalf of the applicant petitioner, this I think is a pretty straightforward request. This is the former Dominican Academy. Uh the variance was going to, I think, from a technical perspective, expire on December 16th. So, prior to that expiration, I filed a motion with
the clerk's office in an effort to extend the relief granted for a period of 6 months uh contemplating a buildout that's pretty imminent. And so, I'm asking the board to extend that relief for six months. >> So, action upon the relief previously granted will happen within six months. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Any questions? Anybody wishing to speak in favor? >> Just so that you know, and this is just how this is a bit odd. Um, when Peter had filed this, many people weren't aware of an additional permit
extension act that was put into place about a year ago that all permits valid between January 1, 2023, January 1, 2025 are extended for an automatic two years. >> Really? >> Yes. It's in it's an economic
development bill that the governor put in probably 2,000 page bill. and in the middle of it extended all of these permits which people were not aware of. So when Peter had filed this at the time we couldn't the building inspector was unaware of it zoning enforcement
officer. So Peter has been able to through Chris's help and my own provide him with that information. He has then rendered a letter stating that he is in agreement with the closing attorney for the the potential buyer for this wanted
both. You wanted the letter from Glenn saying it was good for two more years, but also zoning board giving it the additional six months. So technically the law is providing an additional 18 months than what you are, but the buyer's attorney wanted to ensure that either way they now have six months to
act on the relief. >> If they put in a water line, >> yeah, no matter what we say, there's an extension >> already beyond that. Right. So >> this becomes a safety valve for six months. >> Yeah. And I can offer the closings tomorrow morning. So I think it'll be underway soon.
>> Yeah. >> Fingers crossed. >> You famous last word? >> Nobody's nobody in favor. Nobody in opposition >> board. They came in secondly do amendments. No more parking garage.
>> He's waiting for you. >> Yes. >> You want to make a motion? >> Motion's been made. >> Yeah. Yes. >> Motion. We just need a second. >> Second. >> Thank you. Sorry. >> Second on the motion. Ricky. >> Yes. >> Dan. >> Yes. >> Jim. >> Yes. >> John.
>> Yes. >> Joe. >> Yes. >> Thank you all. >> Done. >> That's it. >> One more. >> Mr. Brilliance take over. >> Make sure you get Christopher's check in the morning. Okay. >> I'm going to go get >> item number six.
Uh, applicant is Craig Boen. Owner Jennifer Boen, personal representative of the estate of William A. Boen, Jr. Hero. >> Attorney Gregory Brilliant. >> Subject property is 69.
>> I'm sorry. Yeah. 69 Russell Boulevard, map J01, lot 82. The applicant is requesting the variance to allow the following. one to raise the existing non-conforming single family dwelling and divide the property into three lots
waving area requirements on lot one two and three uh and lot frontage requirements for lot three property is located within an S single family zoning district even gentlemen for the record attorney Gregory Ray Brilliant with law law
office at 111 Oakrove Avenue for Massachusetts I'm here before you tonight on behalf of Craig Broen um for the property located at 69 Russell Broen Boulevard. Uh as the chairman aptly stated, we are looking to um raise the
existing building uh located at 69 Russell Broken Boulevard and divide this property into three lots uh waving area requirements for lots 1, two, and three and frontage requirements for lot three. Um this particular property has been in
the Broen family for 65 years. Um excuse me, since 1965 over 60 years. They were the original owners of the entire portion of the property and that's how you see Russell Broken Boulevard. It was named after their grandfather. The subject matter property as you can see
um ladies and gentlemen is is an odd shaped lot um very much oversized um and as it shown on the plan it encompasses three lots uh excuse me three streets Angel Street, Russell Broen Boulevard and Clayton Street.
Okay, this is the this is the condition of the existing building there. Now, it's owned by the estate. Um, it's not my clients, but it's his family. It's in and I told him I was going to say this to not be offended because I was there today. In deplorable condition.
Deplorable condition. They're all they're three and the same if you want to pass them along. Um, and obviously it needs to be raised. It's an eyes saw to the to the whole neighborhood. Absolutely. And that's why when they came to me, uh, they told me about the property. I took a look at it. Um, and I
actually have to, as I always do, thank, uh, Mr. Aguya because he allowed me to come in and go over some of the things relative to this particular piece of property. Um, this partic particular piece of property, this is the original configuration of the property. um
in terms of the breakdown of the lots and why I passed this out to the board is because pursuant also to the um ordinance I'm providing you it's really two lots current because the the the properties do not merge on the rear lot
line. So therefore we have currently existing we contend two lots that can be built on as a matter of break. Um, so in doing so, we, as I went over with Mr. Aya, we technically could build the two lots, build the two houses, excuse me,
and have a ADU on each, which means you could have four units. In sitting down, again, I keep repeating with Mr. that we felt and he somewhat concurred, but I don't want to speak for him, that probably the best use of the property is to create single family hot slots
because it's far more consistent with the neighborhood and we think it would just beautify the neighborhood because it's the corner the the the parks down the road. Um and and we felt it would just look very much better for the for the neighborhood. As you can see from the petition, we're not we're we are
asking for relief relative to the uh lot size because it would require 12,000 square feet and they are they are less than that and only the frontage on lot three. Again, in dealing with the planning office, we we wanted to come into the board with the least amount of relief needed. We we didn't want to come
in relieving this and so forth and so on. So, as you can see, we can meet all the front yard setbacks, all the rear yard setbacks, and all the sideyard setbacks um in this particular zone. We can do all that and we believe that. And also, by the way, I wanted to also say that we would obviously put in the
condition that there would be no ADUs. They couldn't have anything else. It would just be the three single family homes. >> There will be three f threebedroom homes, two bathrooms, and off streetet parking on each one. And uh it's our opinion that based on the uh the uh configuration of lots, the oversized
oddshaped lots, the way they go on three streets, um we believe that's a hardship and we meet the hardship requirements and it obviously would be consistent with the neighborhood. I don't think there's going to be any neighbors here to object because quite frankly the neighborhoods neighborhood is sick of looking at this. It is a very bad piece
of property. Um it's been in the family all these years, but it has not been maintained. You can see there's and they don't they're part of the family, but they don't they're they're not the heirs of this. So I don't please don't take it out of me that you can see there's old mattresses in the yard and so forth and so on. That's not their doing. They will
clean that totally up. They're going to build it themselves for their family and um we respectfully request that the board consider um allowing the variance as submitted. Any questions? Be happy to uh answer them. Certainly going to be an
interesting shaped set of lots, especially one and two. Most of the lots in the neighborhood are larger. Of course, you do have one immediately next door. So, >> yeah, some You're right. The majority are larger. There are probably a couple.
One across the street, Mr. Prair, I think, is is relatively smaller. That one >> 209 Angel seems to be the only one I I took a ride through as well. And then the other multif family now it's a single family as well that's across the street which is really kind of packed
onto that lot. >> Yeah. And and obviously the the highway is right across the street. >> Right. >> I just think it would be a really a plus for the neighborhood and and they really are not they're really not desirous of trying to have the two and then start
adding in ADU so forth and so on. It's not something we think is consistent with the neighborhood. said we we didn't want to go down that path after, you know, much discussion with the planning office. It probably wouldn't be a uh a good idea. That's why we have no issues whatsoever in putting the deed restriction on uh on the property
relative to no ADUs at any time now or in the future. >> Mr. Chairman, the first time that Attorney Brilliant and I spoke about this was just after >> the High Crash petition, if you can remember. >> Yep. Um, and you all probably don't know what
transpired after that decision here that night where we had tried to describe to neighbors that the granting of relief and the preclusion of having ADUs would be beneficial to their neighborhood.
They didn't understand. The following day, three of them came to my office and asked, "Can he build these two homes and ADUs on each?" I said, "Yes, by right." And we we were trying to explain at the
meeting that this is an opportunity. You know, sometimes there's addition by subtraction. Right. I tell my kids this all the time, but so you you look at the overall density of the neighborhood and what the applicant was requesting to do and the limitations that that would have then put on him to ADUs was really
beneficial to the neighborhood. But sometimes neighbors just think I just want to stop it no matter what and not really understand what the repercussions are of of their thoughts or their actions. So I had I had instructed attorney Brilliant to watch that meeting and see how that transpired before he
made a decision and was decided upon between him and his uh client to proceed this way. So again, relief is to lot area. >> You could technically look at frontage on the lot three. Um it has frontage on both streets. One one street is short 11
ft and the other one's got 77. So it's really a lot area. >> Building setbacks and lot coverage. No relief is being requested. So they must comply with that. That's house, that's driveway, um decks, everything else. So that relief is not being granted. This
is simply area frontage on one lot um and the offering of no additional ADU. So overall density goes down by one unit theoretically. >> So Dan, without them coming to us, Yep. >> they could have built two houses by
>> two single families. >> Exactly. Okay. And that's exactly the presentation that I think it was. Was it attorney 11 that >> No, attorney 11 was in opposition. >> No, it was not. >> I forgot who who presented that one for >> call. >> No, it was it was attorney 11. I think
David was represented. Dr. N on the side. Correct. >> Was opposition. >> Um >> and and it's not until people understand how regulations can be altered to really create a detriment. Um, and I think we've been pretty aggressive with the no
ADU thing in protection of single family zoning districts, which is what this does. So, yes, do do you have to wave the area requirements? Yes, 100%. But at the end of the day, you're getting three reasonably sized houses rather than two extremely large houses plus two
additional ADUs. So, >> just contemplate that in your decision. >> And Mr. I do want to let you know that I do listen when I come to the board meetings because I know you don't like a whopping amount of requests for relief and try to limit the amount of relief. Don't come in for an excessive amount. And that's why we we did the plan in
such a fashion to try to meet or try to ask for the least amount of waiverss um that we that we would need for this particular proposal. >> Well, on behalf of the board, I appreciate that. >> You're welcome. >> Have uh have you spoken to any of the neighbors out there? Just curious, do they
>> I I I No one's been directly spoken to. Uh there's been some people mulling around. >> In fact, in all due respect, I think someone just got killed >> across the street. >> Yeah. Right in the neighborhood. >> Someone just got someone just got murdered in the neighborhood. I mean, really. So So I like I said, I don't
think you're going to have much. You won't have many many objectives here. I think they want to see this developed. I think they want to see single family homes. And I don't think there's any objection to three. I don't want to speak for the neighbors, but I have been told by my clients and uh
>> Yeah. Well, I I think we we're much happier seeing something like this and I can't speak for everybody instead of coming in with x amount of town homes in here, you know. >> Yeah. No, that's we we discussed that early on and that was that was a that was a hard
>> pretty hard no. Yeah, I get it. >> Um okay, any other questions from the board at this point? uh two off street per correct. >> Yep. They have to comply with everything else. There's area in front area and frontage is the only relief. >> Area frontage pardon.
>> And if that means the houses get smaller, the houses get smaller. >> Anybody here wishing to uh speak in support of this petition? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? It comes to the board.
>> Make a motion to grant >> as presented. No special >> as presented. Uh site plan review is given. No further ad >> and no further ad reiterate the ADUs. >> Have a second on that. >> Second. >> Second from Jim.
>> Discussion. Ricky. >> Yes. >> Dan. >> Yes. Jim, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Preer, yes. >> Thank you. Happy holidays to everybody. >> Happy holidays. >> Thank you very much. >> Take care. Best of luck.
>> Uh, where am I? Number seven, lucky seven. Applicant owner is Adam and Jessica Maderas, Carol Jeffrey Tolman. Subject properties 786 and 798 Plymouth Avenue. Map I14, lot 55
and 20 Smell Street, map I14, lot 86. The applicant is requesting the variance to allow the following to divide the subject property into two lots, leaving the existing single family dwelling on lot one, an existing commercial
barberhop/warehouse building. That's great combination. Barberhoparehouse building on lot two waving lot area lot fronted lot coverage and sideyard setback requirements. Property is located within an A2
apartment zoning district. >> Okay. Good evening. For the record, my name is Jeff Tolman. I work at Northeast Engineers and Consultants. I'm here uh tonight on behalf of Adam and Jessica Maderas, the petitioners on this application. Um, as you stated, the property um is 786 798 Plymouth Avenue.
Um, in addition to, uh, 20 Snow Street, uh, which is around the corner. Um, the property is located on the east side of Plymouth Avenue, uh, between Tecumpture Street and Snow Street. Um, you may be familiar with the site. It's formerly the, um, site of Modern Printing, um,
just to the south of the, uh, the Bar Altera uh, restaurant. Uh, it is located in the apartment A2 zoning district. Um it's kind of a unique property. Uh there's an existing single family dwelling located along the northern property boundary which is number 786
um Clement Avenue. Um and there's also an existing commercial building uh located at the southwest corner of the property which is number 70 uh I'm sorry 798. In 1985, uh relief was granted by this board um
to reconstruct the commercial building 798 and to um add it onto and connect it to uh number 20 South Street, the warehouse, and then also add a second uh story to that warehouse. Uh so that's how we end up with the condition that we
see uh currently. Um then in 1998 there was also relief granted um by this board uh to operate a retail copy and document reproduction business at 798. Uh so there has been past relief on this uh
property. So quite simply what we're looking to do tonight and it's not as simple that simple is we're looking to divide out the uh the existing single family dwelling from the commercial uh excuse me the commercial uses on the
property um in a similar fashion as what we would typically do with a 86423b although that section obviously is does not apply to this u due to the commercial component and I believe also probably the age of the um the existing commercial building would not predate
1954, although I didn't do the homework on that. So, um again, what we're looking to do is to create uh slightly unusually shaped uh lot around the existing single family dwelling. In the process, providing two off- streetet parkings uh two off- streetet parking spaces which would be located to the
rear of the dwelling. Um and then there would also be uh additional parking spaces added to the property uh for the commercial use. Um we're proposing to add an additional nine spaces um which would be uh for the barber shop use um
mainly to be used by employees especially at the rear of the property so we don't have customers coming in and out um I would assume that the uh you maybe the two parking spaces within the accesses at the front would be reserved for for uh customers but the u the
remainder would be for employees just because it's not all that easy to maneuver back there. cab and driven back there myself. >> Pretty wacky. >> It's pretty tight. So, you don't want to see people coming in and out. Um, but having gone to modern printing over the years, um, every time I went there, I
never parked on the property. I didn't even realize u it was allowed. I always end up parking on the street would go in and everybody that I would see that would be in there at that time would would do the same thing. So, um, the business is used to having on street parking, people coming going in that manner. Um, and there is, you know,
there's off- streetet parking. Uh there's a couple of spaces out in front on Plymouth Avenue that are typically used and there's also additional off street parking um around the corner on Snell Street that could be utilized. Um uh so we are looking for again uh the
relief we're looking for is the the the um the lot area lot frontage uh sideyard setback um all the things that you had listed previously in our um you know we will need in order to do this division which typically we don't need to ask for
again with the 86423b but due to the nature of this division um they are required uh the relief is required by the board >> so the frontage age for the single family house lot comes down to the 56.9 ft. >> No, it comes down to the 14 ft. >> It comes down to 14.
>> The 56.9 is the total frontage. Correct. Correct. >> Yeah, it's it's a nar it's a narrow irregular shaped piece of property. um and the location of the structures on
the property makes it extremely difficult um to try to come up with any way to divide it in a reasonable manner without ending up with some irregular shaped lot. But I think it would be beneficial to to
have the single family use um removed from the commercial. Then you're coming down with a 10 and then ultimately nine nine.5 foot driveway coming back. Is that >> That's correct. >> Well, all all of the driveways are in easement
>> for both parties. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Jeff, a question I have is so and I don't think this plan reflects it. Lot two is technically going to be 8648, right? because um yeah into two pieces.
>> Yes, it's still listed as um in the assessor database as two separate lots. Um but I would imagine with the you know the connecting to the building it was never um it was never stated at that time when that relief was granted that the parcels would be combined. Um but I
would imagine that with that connection I'm assuming that's what you get at that it would be um one parcel. >> So that connection has not yet been achieved. No, it has been. >> The subdivision plan was never filed to remove the lot line. The buildings were connected, which would then merge the parcels automatically, but there wasn't
an actual subdivision plan done. >> Yes. >> Yeah. So, lot two would be the the combination of what you see. Well, lot two would be what I'm showing as lot two on the plan plus the additional 4458 from lot 86 at the street. >> This is going to have to go through site
plan review as well. >> No, they're not building anything. >> They're going to strike parking. They do need to file a subdivision plan >> and that subdivision plan should remove that lot line. >> So create the new lot line for the single family >> and then the remainder of the parcel will be on the remainder of the land
will be on a singular parcel for a total of 8648. >> But the rest of this is a big chunk of mutual easement between the two properties. >> Correct. >> Something a future owner is probably not going to understand. Jeff had come to see me about this and
one of the initial thoughts was they they could do exactly what's shown here through a condominium plan and sell sell off lot one as unit one >> lot two as unit two
and still end up with the same thing. but making it even more convoluted. So, you can end up with the same thing either way. >> Yeah. I mean, and if you do and if they went the condominium route, then we would not be
assured of any parking the way that is proposed >> right now. They have to provide the parking Sean. >> They could condominiumize it right now and provide no off- streetet parking for the single family. and those people would have to park on.
>> I'm just trying to absorb it just just so such a wacky shape that you end up with. >> And not that it has any bearing on zoning. However, financing for mixeduse properties are >> is a lot different than whether they're just commercial or just residential as
well. So >> my friends, the shanks created this mess. >> Yeah. >> At Martin Printing. >> And I only grew up around the corner. Um, so the new owner is trying to resolve that. >> Okay. >> Anybody else? Any questions on this?
>> I I don't like it, but I don't see where it's doing any more harm. >> Well, it's it's Yeah. I mean, it's it's all there. So, luckily >> the damage is already been created. >> Yeah. >> No fences and permanent markers. >> No, we couldn't. We can't
>> We can do permanent markers, but we can't permanent markers. >> No fences and no permanent >> no permanent markers, no ADUs, >> merging of of the remainder of the land. >> Oh, and something else that Jeff didn't say is right. Right. I don't know if it's still there, but there used to be a big loading dock that wouldn't have
allowed this parking that load. I don't know if >> it's not there. >> That loading dock is now gone to be able to provide additional parking. Correct. So again, if they did go the condominium route, >> don't have to add parking. Didn't have to take down the loading dock. could have just sold the house as a condominium unit.
>> So there's 10 ways to common common area >> still always would have been common the same way it's technically going to be common now through easement. >> Well I'm with you Jim. I don't like it, but it already exists. So, >> it's not the worst thing we've we've
seen come before us in the city of Paul River. >> Anybody else? I I got no questions. >> I do, but they're answering themselves looking at this. >> You're proud of this one, aren't you, Jim? I can tell.
>> I drew that. It was uh yeah, it was pretty tricky once I dove into it to try to figure out how to do this. >> But as you said, there's no building being done or anything. >> No. >> And actually again being able to condition no fences
>> actually creates a better situation, right? Because again, so if they condoed it, >> they could put a fence up anywhere, >> creating a a bigger issue. So I think this this proposal leaves things as is or improves it, but you have to hold
your nose to allow the subdivision. >> Yeah. I mean, >> but the ownership ownership could be the same whether it's a condominium or whether they're buying a separate lot. >> But it defines it defines the break between the residential and the business aspect of it, which I understand from a banking standpoint, as you brought up, >> makes sense.
>> Yes. So Peter's taking notes on this one back there. I can tell >> Jeff's lucky Christmas >> questions, guys. Anybody wishing to speak in favor? Any wish to speak against?
>> Peter. No, I think it's a good >> grant the variance uh with no no fencing uh to be added to like >> and you're going to record all these easements or this
>> easement. Everything's in accordance with the plan. Y >> no easements >> and permanent markers. >> Permanent markers. No ADUs. >> No ADUs. >> Yep. >> Separate utilities, which I believe there already are, but still have to file an affidavit saying that they have
been separated. >> And uh subdivision plan. Um >> they have to file that anyway. >> They have to file any >> and the merger of the remaining land into one >> merger. That's what I was asking for. >> All right. Second
>> motion and second discussion. >> It's a great way to end the year. I'll tell them. >> Great way >> on the motion. Ricky, >> yes. >> Dan, >> yes. >> Jim, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Chair Per, yes. >> Thank you.
>> Look at you. Look at this. Merry Christmas and happy. >> A great holiday season, Joe. Me, too. >> All right. review and discuss our 26 um agenda or meeting dates.
There was some brief discussion on moving the time to 5:30, but I think we'll just leave it sit for now unless somebody has a strong opinion on it. We're the only we're the only meeting board that meets at six o'clock. Everybody else is 5:30.
>> I really like. >> So moved. Second that a motion. >> What? >> 5:30. >> You want to move to 5:30? >> I I would agree too. >> I want to I'll bring it up to the board. I don't know if anybody wants to have the open discussion about it, but earlier is better as far as >> somebody at some point in time at 6.
Always been six, right? Coming in for 30 years. It's always been 6:00. >> But everybody else meets at 5:30. All the other boards >> planning board's 5:30. Zoning boards is 5:30. Nobody in this room at 5:30. Yeah. >> So, if you want to make the change when you vote on this that you're okay
with the dates, but if you want to change the stop to six, then we'll >> as long as everybody's okay with it. >> I don't know what people's work schedules are or >> uh I'm just bringing it up for discussion. Uh but if I don't know about the other uh the two alternates,
>> they wouldn't be voting anyway. >> Oh. Oh, >> okay. They could join discussion, but they couldn't. >> Yeah. >> Uh if anybody has strong feelings one way or another, that's fine. I'm just bringing it up that I'm in favor of that. That's a potential option.
>> It's got potential. >> I like it. >> Have you put that in the form of a motion, John? >> I think if we've had every discussion on that, if everybody's comfortable with it. >> Yeah. I mean, if there's nothing the dates are the dates, we don't really >> dates are the dates. Yeah. That's just a
half hour earlier to be in conformance with the other boards. >> I'll make a motion to adjust the time to 5:30 >> accept this meeting the proposed meeting schedule and change the starting time of the meeting to 5:30. >> Yes. >> Everybody okay with that?
>> Yes. >> Uh are we allowed to add that item to the agenda without >> Time's not on there now. >> Time's not on. >> Yeah, I know. So, we're adding in on an item that's not on the agenda as all >> we're voting on the schedule for next year.
>> Yeah, but you also added the time, which is an element that Okay, >> good point. Do we have a uh second? >> Second. >> Second. >> Do you like that? >> I like that. Yeah, it's going to help walking the dog.
>> Well, if it does that then I love it. We would know >> on the um on the motion. Ricky, >> yes. >> Dan, >> yes. >> Jim, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Me? Yes. >> And you'll be able to get the swans earlier. >> You have another meeting tonight now at
Somerset. Some >> I'm just going to put on my reflective vest and walk Somerset. >> All right. Uh citizens input. No >> approval of minutes from the November 20th meeting. Mr. Chairman, I move accept or waving of the reading of the minutes and acceptance.
>> Second approval thereof and second. All in favor? >> I >> opposed. >> Motion for adjournment. >> Motion to adjourn. >> The year is over. Motion to adjourn. >> Have a second. >> You don't want to leave.
All in favor, gentlemen.