3.19.2026 Zoning Board of Appeals

Good evening. I am Joseph Pereira, chairman of the zoning board of appeals for the city of Fall River. It is 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, March 19th, 2026.

We are meeting at one government center in the first floor hearing room.

Pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 3A ch 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 wishes 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.

They're seeing no one.

Our recording secretary this evening is Courtney Pereira sitting to my immediate right. Uh present this evening our regular members Mr. John Frank our vice chairman James Caulkins our clerk Dan Dep and Ricky Sahadi as well as alternate member Alexis Ensalmo.

Also present this evening is Mr. Daniel Agui are sitting to my far left, the director of engineering and planning.

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 Massachusetts General Law Chapter 4A as amended?

Yes. I thereby declare the March 19th, 2026 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 anyone in favor or opposed to a petition that your presentations 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 identify and factually support the basis of their claim. In the case of variances, a credible hardship as defined by Mass General Law Chapter 4A must be presented.

Please remember, I'm sorry. I remind all persons that it is the authority that the authority of the ZBA exists pursuant to Mass General law chapter 4A and is limited in scope with the use of uh as 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 to that scope of authority. Additional permits, licenses,

reviews, and/or approvals may be required for the items that are the subject of various petitions this evening. The action taken by this board has a real and lasting effect on the title of your real estate. As such, I urge all petitioners to seek competent legal counsel before your filing and after the decision of the board has been made. A copy of the ordinance is available at the city clerk's office or

in the planning department. I remind everyone that the building inspector is the zoning enforcement authority and you are here because the building inspector has determined that your proposed action is contrary to the city of Fall River zoning ordinance. The city's charter section 9-18 mandates that all multi-member bodies develop and adopt rules or policies for public comment. We

have adopted such a policy that provides for citizen input on zoning board specific matters. If you are interested, uh there is a signup sheet at the rear of the room and uh at the end of the meeting there'll be a uh an opportunity to speak.

With that said, we hereby open this meeting. We go to a matter of old business first. Item number 01. The applicant and owner is Kevin Raposo.

Uh care of attorney Peter Aselino.

Subject property is 913 Rodman Street, map I24, lot 17. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow for the following. one to convert the existing non-conforming structure from six units to eight units with one ADU and an additional ADU via special permit relief uh from parking requirements. Uh this was tabled at the um February 19th meeting of the ZBA council.

Good evening. For the record, my name is Peter Selenino. I represent the owner applicant, Kevin Reposo. Uh, by way of brief background, and I'll be really brief. Um, we were here before you in the February meeting. At that time, we were seeking to convert the existing structure into a total of eight units with two of those additional units being ADUs and providing six off- streetet

parking spaces. Ultimately, uh, it was clear to us that that would not be approved and we ended the meeting with the board asking for us to provide a plan that you could vote on that encapsulated what remained. And so to be clear, what remained was a request for one special permit in the lower level and a lock coverage waiver because the existing lock coverage is about 50% and the requirement in the district of the

A2 is 30. So, what is before you on the screen, albeit a little bit tardy, Christopher, is uh a petition plan that shows one parking space um and delineates that what we're asking for is to take the existing six-unit structure and add one ADU to the basement.

So, ultimately, the remaining zoning request called down is a special permit for lot coverage because the ADU would be allowed by rent is allowed. Yeah.

So, I believe this is respon I did watch the tape again. Uh, I think this is responsive to what we discussed. Happy to answer any questions, but would ask for the board's vote in favor of the request.

Is that like going back and watching game films? Just curious.

Well, it's certainly more consistent with the A2 and uh and thank you for coming down to the 1 ADU.

Uh, and the parking space therefore is for the ADU.

Correct.

Okay. So, we're down to lot coverage. I have no particular questions at this point. Uh, any comment from planning?

Nothing.

I don't think so. Anyone on the board questions?

Turning to the general public. Is there anyone here to speak in support of this petition?

Anyone to speak in opposition?

See no hands going up. Then it comes back to the board.

Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the special request.

Special permit. So bifocation permit request.

So bifocate is supposed bifocate.

We have to mention the uh and find that it is not substantially more detrimental to the area.

Have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second. motion and second discussion on the motion. They're hearing none. John, yes.

Jim, yes.

Ricky, yes.

Dan, yes.

Chairman Prairie, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Good to be here.

Um, we're going to take things out of order, which is good.

Okay.

I, uh, for the record, I've agreed to allow Mr. Tolman and his client to proceed before my next petition because Mr. Tolman needs to leave.

Thank you, Attorney Selena.

So, we're jumping to item four.

Out of order. [cough and clears throat] Item number four, the applicant owner is Lexyl Dachson Realy LLC. I want to know the story there. Care of uh attorney Greg Valant, but in this case uh Mr.

Jeffrey Tolman will be uh will be presenting. Subject property is 5 Laurel Street and 1529 Plymouth Avenue. Map E 01 lot 71 and 66. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following to extend the existing non-conforming structure which is an auto body facility pursuant to section 80 uh 86-425A of the city of Fall River zoning ordinance. The property is located within a B1 local zoning business

district.

Good evening. For the record, my name is Jeff Tolman from Northeast Engineers and Consultants. Here tonight with me is Brian Vieira, the owner uh of the property and manager manager of the Lexyl Dash Realy LLC. Um, what you have before you tonight is a petition to construct an addition to an existing dwelling located at five Laurel Street.

That I'm sorry, not a dwelling, uh, auto repair garage. Uh, that garage is located on lot 71 as shown on map E01.

abuing that property, [clears throat] excuse me, is lot 66, which is a vacant lot. Um, which he has an auto sales license for.

Excuse me.

Okay, Jeff.

Just I'm sorry. [snorts] Acid reflux.

Um, so basically to to long story short, what we're looking to do is initially we were going to construct a larger addition on this, but um, as I did a little bit of research into this property, we found that the uh, uh, at least I found out that that there was an auto license that was issued in December of 2025 for the uh, vacant piece of property uh, next door, which is that lot 66, which

has an address of 1529 Plymouth Avenue.

Um so basically what we decided to do is cut back the addition uh cut a posel out of that existing lot which has just over 7,000 square ft of area um so that we could create um or at least put this addition on uh or at least join that parcel with the abuing parcel of lot 71.

uh so that this new addition would be entirely on lot 71 and not straddle the lot line and we wouldn't have to merge the lot lines to uh uh to get this project done. So we would keep the auto repair facility on one property and the auto sales license would still operate on the abuing property um maintaining the uh the license itself was was granted for 20 uh the sale of 20 cars.

the the license plan that was submitted along with that license application uh showed 15 display spaces.

So the um what I've done is I I I took the the license plan that was submitted as part of that application and overlaid it onto my petition plan that you see before you tonight. Um, so basically this addition would not impact the uh the sales display area um for Amy's Auto, which is the name of the entity that um has that license. Um I will also like to note that across the street on

lot 40 um that's also owned by the petitioner on a different entity, but he does control that. Um that property had been before the board I believe in 2024.

uh where they got relief to demolish the existing single family dwelling that was located there and to construct an auto repair auto sales facility. Uh that auto sales facility is part of the Amy's Auto and the repair I should say is part of the Amy's Auto Group um with the main office of the auto sales going to be located at that property at 20 Laurel Street across the street.

Okay.

So the the vacant lot 66 that we have here is strictly just going to be for display. um with the 15 spaces that were shown out in front.

Okay. And then the access to the the building is that 10- foot wide.

Correct. The access to the building would be along the the north property boundary. Um so we would, you know, come in and out from there. Uh in the event that he ever had the 15 cars in full display, uh since he's got the license, I don't believe he's ever displayed that many cars. He might have be as many as six to eight or so out there. But he does have that ability for the 15.

And the addition is strictly for the auto body. Then it's strictly for the auto body to um and you know Brian has explained to me is he has the need to uh service uh these smaller type delivery vans. Uh that become quite common. He doesn't have that ability in the body shop now.

So he needs to create these two additional bays uh to provide that additional service that um he's been asked to uh to do. So uh yeah, strictly the the addition is solely for the auto body facility and that's why I felt it best to create this parcel and convey that portion of lot 66 to lot 77 uh to keep everything clean to keep the auto sales separate from the the auto body.

Okay.

So uh with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board might have.

The uh the 5ft setback that you have that that would be then considered the rear lot line.

Correct. There is a uh there's a 20- foot alleyway behind this property. When this was originally developed back in the I think it was the late 1800s, they they had these alleyways on these blocks. Um it there's nothing constructed there. There's no uh vehicular access or anything like that.

So there's a fence running through the middle.

Yeah, there's a fence back there and the existing structure. What we're adding on to was the initial build uh the original building that was on the property. Uh you can see the dash line that goes through the existing um auto body repair facility. That's the rear portion of that is the original building. Then they added the front pot at some point along the way um that heads out towards uh

Laurel Street. That's an addition um that was put onto the building. So what we're looking to do is put this second addition on the north side of the original structure.

Okay.

All right. And that existing building has zero setback by the looks of it. uh couple of inches. I I have it as.3 feet.

Um yeah, basically zero setback.

If you need to paint something, you just use a roller and an extremely long pole.

But again, they do have that 20 foot alleyway for access and stuff. So there is room to get behind there. They do have that ability and right to use that area.

All right, Dan, any comment from uh from planning on this one? The only thing would be well it's good that the current conforming lot 66 will remain conforming. That's that's the most important thing. The only thing that I would add is that um I I think the licensing should be modified to reflect the new size of the parcel. Um we don't we don't handle licensing issues here but the license was based upon a larger

piece of land. Um, so I would just say that a condition of updating the license for 66 would be required other than that. No, I have nothing.

Any questions from the board?

Just to be clear, Dan, um, even though that's not within our peer review, it is because you're you're granting a special permit. So, you can condition everything condition. concern is what you're not conditioning licensing. You're conditioning the use of the land. So, we don't know what the licensing plan showed. Licensing plan may have shown 15 spaces.

Maybe there's a different aisle width.

Maybe they were accessing the property or using the property in a different way or contemplated. I can't tell you what the licensing board contemplated when they issued it. So, we just want to make sure that that that's not inhibited or changed by the removal of this piece of land from that overall if if it would help. I do have copies of the licensing plan and license that were granted.

Well, I I don't know even when the licensing board looked at it. So, even if it was rear area that was shown as open, that may have been contemplated for Okay, that's how you're going to get to the back of these spaces so you're not having three spaces stacked.

Okay. um zoning no issue at all. I I just want to make sure that I don't see a problem for zoning. That's a good point.

Licensing decision, right? So again, to be clear, if um if in fact we approve the proposal, y we're within our rights to approve with the condition that the license be updated.

Correct. Okay.

You can put any condition whether an applicant wants to adhere to the condition or agree to it. That's up to them. We're looking for anyone.

Okay. Nothing else from the board to those gathered. Anyone here wishing to speak in favor of the petition?

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

They're hearing none. We turn to the board.

And Mr. Mr. Chairman, then I would make a motion that um seeing as a special permit and it's bifrocated that is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and that the motion be approved with the condition that the licensing be updated.

Second motion second discussion on that motion questions I just think licensing updated through the license through the license right and that's specific to lot 66.

Yes.

Okay. Very good. In that case on the motion Dan yes Ricky yes.

Jim yes John yes.

Chairman Perry yes. Thank you very much.

Thanks for taking good luck for the rest of the night here. You've got obviously other things going on.

I think I ate too fast to get here on time. My apologies.

Yes. All right.

Back to the top of the order.

Item number one of new business. The applicant owner is 27 Lol Street LLC care of Peter A. Selenino attorney.

Subject property is 27 LOL Street Map I19 lot 4. The applicant is requesting a special permit for the following.

Reconstruct an existing nonconform yeah reconstruct an existing non-conforming structure pursuant to 86-425I of the city of Fall River zoning ordinance. The property is located in a BL local zoning business district.

Thank you. For the record, Peter Celino on behalf of the owner applicant 27 LOL Street LLC. The managers of this LLC are Jason Dart and Christopher Hubert. Uh Mr. Dart's immediately to my right.

Chris Hubert's two rows back. Uh the proposal in front of you is to take what is an extremely dilapidated building uh at 27 L Street which is uh aut 195 to the south and is sort of in the neighborhood of the incinerator or you know north of ABC Supply. So currently on that site is a very dilapidated set of pre-existing non-conforming structures that are built almost right to the property line. Uh it was a

garage. We've evicted a lot of folks from said garage and different storage type uses. So the proposal here is to demolish the existing structure and via special permit reconstruct a building that would house what amounts to 10 contractor bays and office space as shown on the plan. In terms of the arguments in support of a special permit and why this is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. First

and foremost, a new construction building at this site which could be viewed from 195 will far and away uh look aesthetically pleasing as compared to what is there now. Next, all the parking that's required is provided for and in fact exceeded significantly. Uh the requirement is 35 spaces plus one loading. The proposal is 53 plus two loading. The building or or this the footprint of the building is going to be

more favorable meaning the setbacks are going to be larger with this proposal.

And uh similarly the overall size of the structure would also be reduced. So for those reasons we've pleded as a special permit and uh I would submit to you that it is not substantially more detrimental than the use that is currently being made of the property. Uh Mr. Dart, Mr.

Hubert, myself are happy to answer any questions the board may have.

I mean, it's such a lovely building now.

Um, so is is your intent to rent these spaces to various contractors that just need places to work from basically.

Yeah. So, my client's intent is right behind where it says twotory office on the plan, which would be bottom right on the plan, is to use they want to use the space right behind that and then the others would be for third parties. Okay, good idea.

Questions from the board.

How many units total?

10 total.

Strictly limited to tradesman's complex.

Yes.

No, there's no residential component or anything like that. And the office is intended to be a shared office space to manage the complex.

No retail or on-site uh storage or or um sale sales.

No. Right. Yeah. You don't intend to sell anything out of there?

Not right now.

Yeah. Okay. [clears throat] And you wouldn't u you wouldn't allow your contractors, your tenants to store bulk materials, etc. outside on your parking spaces?

No.

No. We've we've gone over that carefully. It would be all interior in the garages.

It's not proposed. It's just garage.

And we just lost our screen [clears throat] from the planning perspective.

No. Um I've looked at this quite a bit.

Um [snorts] the uh Trao and the property, we've met probably three or four times about this, making some modifications and some changes. We conferred with the building department. Um they agree that the proposed use is uh in compliance. Mhm.

There is no relief for use being proposed or be not being asked to do any of that. So any use that goes on in this structure would need to meet existing zoning and existing parking requirements. The layout has been done so for the intent as has been explained.

Um something that we discussed you may find one contractor that wants three bays. Some may want one. Um actually the the property owner may end up using the whole thing just for his own business.

Um so it was it was set up in that manner so that we could have multiple tenants. Uh but this isn't a BL zoning district and the building official has determined that it is an allowable use.

So really the relief is for setbacks and I think it's I think it's an interesting I think it's an interesting uh concept to come up with. All the units are single floor. They're single story.

The office building will be two.

Yeah, the as labeled on the plan, twotory office, but all the other buildings are intended to be one floor with overhead garage doors.

Interesting. Any uh any other questions from the board?

You can come back. You get that deep you get that deep thought look.

Anyone here wishing to speak in uh support of this petition?

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

That being the case, it comes back to the board.

Mr. Chairman, I find that this is not substantially more detrimental to the area and that I move that we grant it.

Second.

Motion and second. I take it there's no questions or discussion on the motion.

In that case, on the motion, John Yes, Jim.

Yes, Mickey.

Yes, Dan.

Yes.

Chairman Ferrari. Yes. Best of luck with it.

Thank you.

Item number two, Abocona is uh This one's hard.

This one's hard. Thomas Alva Edison Building LLC, KR Peter Aselino, 138 Hartwell Street, map N22, lot one. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following. One, to construct a 49 unit apartment building pursuant to the provisions of section 86 attachment two of the city of Fall River zoning ordinance two, to wave the setback requirements for parking space uh parking surface pursuant to 86-445

of the city of Fall River zoning ordinance. Three to wave the required number of parking spaces from 98 to 49 ratio of one space per residential unit pursuant to section 86445 of the zoning ordinance. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. One to wave front yard setback requirements set forth in 86 attachment one of the zoning ordinance from 10 ft to 2.1 ft. The prop property

is located in a CMD commercial mill district and an AODD arts overlay zoning district. Thank you. Good evening. For the record, Peter Solino. I represent the owner applicant, Thomas Alva Edison Building LLC. The architect on the project is David Andred, who's immediately to my left. Uh we are here on behalf of Mr. Cadiro tonight to present this plan. Um by way of historical background, this site was the

Sylvia School. It is at the on-ramp when you're on uh 195 East and you get off Hartwell Street. Um recently it was the subject of a purchase by our client. The city uh ultimately it had I think three or four prior suitors for it and then ultimately our client bought it. And so the proposal before you tonight is to demolish the existing structure or structures that are on the property

which Glenn Hathaway had condemned for safety reasons and to build a 49 unit apartment building on this complex. Um I'll present this a little bit in a duality meaning the board will well remember 60 [snorts] Hartwell Street and one of the requirements of 60 Hartwell Street was that Mr. Cadero had to acquire parking within a quarter mile uh of 60 Hartwell Street. So the proposal

before you as shown uh is to build this 49 unit building seeking a waiver of the parking requirement so that we have one to one parking at this location with the surplus parking being owned and controlled by Mr. Cadero and allocated to 60 Hartwell Street.

So the plus the additional 50 Yes. plus the additional spaces. Um, so as I see it, the zoning requests here are uh zoning requests for a variance for the front yard setback as proposed.

You can see the building has to sort of sit close to Hartwell Street, closer than setbacks allow. I'd submit to you that the hardship associated with that request is the unique shape of the parcel with the um interchange with the highway there and that sort of odd lot line. Next, we look at the special permits. Uh, as Mr. chairman indicated there are two zoning districts here AOD

CMD uh CMD does not require more than tw does not allow more than 20 units by right and therefore we are seeking a special permit to allow those 20 units I think it's arguable if you need it or not in the A o but I'm asking because ultimately if we should prevail this evening these things later require financing and zoning opinions and tax credits and someone's going to ask me that question so that's why I'm asking

for that relief Um, as far as the parking surfaces seeking a special permit to wave the requirements relative to how close they can be to the property line and then a special permit seeking a ratio of parking uh, one one terms of the unit makeup, uh, we are seeking 29 one-bedroom units and 20 two-bedroom units.

With that, um, I think I'm happy to answer any questions unless David, do you want to add anything to the presentation? Um, so we're happy to answer any questions relative to the petition uh that's proposed before you.

How many stories is this?

How many stories it is? Grade level plus parking plus five stories above.

So if 66 is going to be using some of the parking on this, how is that going to be delineated? Or is this going to be catches catch can?

No, no, no. Um, I'm sorry. No, go ahead.

Go ahead.

Uh the the [clears throat] marketing team that Mr. Cado has and the the u they do a really good in the leasing team, they do a really good job of actually designating units and parking spaces. So, that will all be designated.

Some of this will be will they be designated visitor parking as well?

Yes, that's why one of the things that I had whispered over to uh attorney you say extra [clears throat] there's never extra parking spaces. There are 98 spaces on the plan before you. 30 uh 49 of which are designated for the onetoone parking. 35 of which would go towards the 60 Hartwell Street proposed project. And that leaves 14 other superfluous spaces for visitor parking in addition to the

30 other spaces that Mr. Cado currently uh leases across at the cityowned flat.

Uh what is that?

Flat. It's a flat lot on I think Fifth Street.

Correct.

And those 30 lease spaces were 466.

Correct.

They were not for 60. They were not they were not they were not allowed at the time. The variance that was given for that property was for 70 parking spaces on site and Mr. Cado had to own the parking spaces uh offsite.

That was a fun night. I was going to say very memorable night. Yes.

[clears throat] Deep breath.

No jiu-jitsu here. Even though Joe Macy's here. Okay.

I'll take that as a compliment.

It is Joe.

Take it as a compliment. I mean, it's just part of part of legend now.

Um, what do we have? 26 onebedroom and the balancer twos. uh 291 22s.

I was a little concerned after I heard comments from Mr. Gado the other day that we might be looking at three bedrooms in some places kind of changed the way I'm going to be thinking about parking one to one.

Um I may already change my mind.

Questions from the board right now?

So, we have assigned parking that's going to be taking care of something that we had permitted previously.

And that's good. We'll have assigned parking of 49 spaces for this building.

And you said 17 that 14 14 on site and then the additional 30 that he has uh in his control not only from a planning perspective.

Um I'm thankful that attorney Celino um David and Mr. Gaduro we've gone over this a few times made a few different tweaks. Um, again, as Peter stated, the relief being requested is a little bit excessive, but I understand why for financing purposes, the actual front yard setback could have been a special permit because the existing building already sits on the front property line,

but um I can clearly see the need for I I'd rather have the the variance in place, too. So, it's consistent with what we have discussed regarding the 1:1 ratio in this downtown area.

Y this theoretically this could be a 100 unit building with the amount of parking that that's being proposed. So I'll give the the applicant some credit not moving forward with a project of that size requiring all the parking. So this is a this is an investment to the entire neighborhood not just this parcel which is appreciative. I I have nothing to say about gonna look good on that corner.

Yeah.

No questions John anything Jim. Okay, going to the audience. Is there anyone here wishing to speak in support of this petition?

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

I thought Chris put his hand up for a minute. I got worried.

That being the case, it comes to us.

Mr. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to grant on the first portion of it for a special permit for the parking um bifocated that it is not more than the neighborhood and that be granted.

Second motion and second that is to the parking section of this.

Yeah. With the allocations that stated on the proposal.

Yep.

Do you want to do on this special?

This is part of the special.

Yeah. No, that's is that No, that's part of the first three are special permit.

First three is special permit, right?

So that's my motion. The special permit.

So all three sections of the special Yes.

Yeah. Very good for clarity.

Then on the motion, if there are no questions Dan yes.

Ricky, yes.

Jim, yes. John, yes.

Chairman Perry, yes.

Thank you.

And then I will make a motion to grant on the variance waving the setback from 10 feet to 2.1.

Second.

Motion and second on the variance. John, [snorts] yes.

Jim, yes.

Ricky, yes.

Dan, yes.

Jim Prairie, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

No jiu-jitsu whatsoever.

That's it.

Item number three, applicant owner is uh Emanuel Ferrer care of attorney Peter Peter Acelino. Subject property is 362 Sprag Street, map G21, lot 83. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. to convert the existing non-conforming commercial building into a barber shop and/or hair salon waving the restrictions set forth in section 86 attachment two of the city of Fall River zoning ordinance. The

property is located in a B1 local zoning business district. Good evening. For the record, Peter Felino on behalf of Manuel Ferrer who is the owner of the subject property at 362 Sprag Street. Mr. Ferrer is here immediately to my right. Mr.

Ferrer owns the subject property. Um really what's before you is strictly a request for a use variance. Uh this was previously a real estate office and Mr.

uh Ferrer purchased the property went to see the building department and asked what he could do there and the opinion was that the use the former commercial use had been dormant for more than two years and as a result he had to go through this process and seek a use variance before the board. So I would submit to you that relative to the variance argument, the hardship is the existing structure that's there, it's

clearly well suited for a commercial use based on the location of the building on the west property line together with the paved sufficient parking lot. So um what we are asking for in terms of hours of operation, our 7 days a week, 8 to 8 uh appointments are generally what Mr.

Ferrer is expecting here. So uh we're hoping for not a very dense use here, but rather an appointment only.

[clears throat] Barber, hair salon.

I see. No problem with it. So, you're just going to do some dress up of the building or you're going to clean up the outside of the building.

Yes.

Would paint it, put an awning.

I can't imagine having a barber shop in a local business district.

This was I believe this and Peter and I talked about we think this was St.

Stannis Law Credit Union originally. No, I think so.

1919 the card goes back to um a couple of real estate office.

Yeah, I was saying historically, I don't know if anyone remembers what it was, but for the last 20 or so years, I think it's been in the real estate realm, I think. So, there was Conniey's family realy, I think, and then it was uh Majestic or something like that before he bought it.

Cool.

Barber shops.

You plan to put up a sign? Yes. on the fasure of the building somewhere.

[clears throat] There's a sign on the front, but it's going to get changed to Yeah.

So, with an existing sign?

Yes. Okay.

In conformance with the ordinance, no internally illuminated, right?

Yep.

Yeah. What's there now?

Questions? Other questions?

Barber shops have have gotten to be back to what they used to be. You go by barber shops, guys are hanging around in there talking, having a good time. It's uh it is funny the uh not that I have ever been to a barber shop, but but when you go to Sheer Genius and every Yeah, like the uh on Slate Street, L's house. Yeah, they have quite a crew in there.

Yeah, it's interesting. Anyone here wishing to speak uh in support of the uh petition?

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

If you're bald and put your hand up, I'm not gonna listen. No, I'm kidding.

Too much of a wise guy. In that case, it's us.

I move that we approve the variance as requested.

Second.

Motion and second. Discussion on the motion. They're hearing none. Going down to my right. Dan, yes.

Ricky, yes.

Jim, yes.

John, [clears throat] yes.

Chairman Fra, yes. Best of luck with it.

Thank you. Thank you, guys.

Item number four, we've already done.

Wow.

Item number five, the applicant owner is uh Marcel Mascelino T. Reposa III. I like it. Care of attorney Gregory Brilliant. Subject property is 173 Stafford Road, map F 24, lot 19. And the applicant is requiring a requesting a special permit to allow the following.

One to construct uh two accessory dwelling units ADUs in addition to a byite ADU pursuant to uh Mass General Law 760 71.0.

The property is located in a BL local zoning business district. This is an interesting one.

Um, for the record, attorney Gregory Brian on behalf of Mr. Reposo. I I guess I'll I'll start off by acknowledging the fact that I know that in the recent past, um, there's been some apprehension regarding adding additional ADUs and and I understand that. I had filed this a couple of months ago. Um, I held it out for a period of time. Um, but I'm here before you tonight and uh, I I if I beg

the board's indulgence because I think this is a little bit unique to these ones that I know you have heard recently. And the reason being right from the get-go is I I could have filed this for a special permit to extend a pre-existing non-conforming use under 86425 and requested the same three story excuse me three unit building. However, I at that point in time I would not have

the the petitioner would not have had to adhere to the specific requirements of an ADU.

I again maybe made a mistake by calling it this and I'll take responsibility for that because technically I thought it was again the best way for this board to be able to control the size of those units. This is a 13,000 square foot uh building. Um and again I could have asked for a three family uh building and not limit the size of the units. This will limit the size of the units

pursuing to the ADU ordinance and and and law. Um, one of the biggest differences here, if you see the unit, excuse me, the lot, it's a very large lot. Okay. And what I did do in preparing the plan with the engineer is we've provided parking for not only the existing four family, but also the the the proposed um three [clears throat] unit ADU building, but we've done it at two units for each unit for each uh

yeah, excuse me, two parking spaces for each unit. So we've really conformed to the the other portion of that I could have gone well by meaning two for each unit. So I tried to do it that way so I could meet that particular requirement.

You'll also see that there is an existing six stall garage and I have a picture of it for everyone that's going to come down. Okay, we're going to we're going to take that down and we're then going that that's what's going to allow us to put all the additional pocket. And the reason why I sent a picture of that, I gave you a picture is because of this.

In doing so, in doing so, we're going to eliminate a building that's obviously not conforming relative to any setbacks. It's on the lot line, so we're taking that off. So, we're bettering the neighbor with that, and we're putting this in the back. Um, so, and that's going to allow us to have the 14 parking spaces. So, and we're still going to have enough parking for all seven units. Um,

as you can see, we're meeting all of the dimensional requirements. We're taking away a building that doesn't meet the dimensional requirements. And what we're putting up is a unit, a building that meets all the dimensional requirements.

This particular zoning district um does not have a lot coverage issue. Uh, the BL district does not have a lot coverage issue. Um, [snorts] so what I've tried to do is really kind of bring the best of both worlds. Saying it's going to be ADUs, which limits the size of the units, which are only 854 square ft, meet all the setback requirements, eliminate a building that is is not meeting of the setback

requirements. Um, and allowing my [clears throat] my uh client to build what he desires to build, being a three-unit building. Um, again, I in retrospect, I probably shouldn't have called it the ADU, and I do understand that, and I probably should have came in and just called it a three-unit building. Same special perimeter requirements. Um, but again, I did that because I I thought that the

board would want to basically control the size of the units. Uh, and that's why I did that. Um, I did go around. I know last time it didn't work too well, but this time I went to the neighbors that I could find and I did get a petition for three immediate abutters.

The the one to the immediate right of this project, it's closed down, so I wasn't able to get anybody there um to even discuss the petition. Um so that being said, um I'll take any questions and I want to thank obviously as I always do, Mr.

Ayaka cuz um I went over this and with him and you know he he told me about the ADU situation. So uh that's my fault and that's on me. I probably should have just asked for the special permit pursuant to 86. Um yeah and and and to that and and thank you. Um you could have it wouldn't have been so much that this gives us more control over the size. It limits it

limits you. It limits your Yeah. Again, it's not going to be I did that. Also, I apologize, Mr. Chairman, but you're right. And I forgot one item because I know the board is now becoming frowning upon any deed restrictions on ADUs. This obviously would cut that off because I'm asking for additional ADUs.

There will be no nothing else being built there.

So, I apologize, Mr. Per.

No, it's okay. My my my point is that you could have come in looking for a three unit, which actually that entire building except for one corner of it falls into an R4.

Um you could have come in with three units of the same size.

Correct.

I I just got in every every time Boston comes down and tells us what to do, I get I get anxious.

um because they'll change their mind 3 months from now and it'll be something of the next administration. Um you could have done it that way and the additional ADUs, oh give me an ADU and give me two more, give me three more. It becomes where does it stop?

And I understand that. That's why I wanted to preface my whole argument tonight by acknowledging that to the board. I appreciate that. Not that it means anything. I understand what what the petition says, but I do want to acknowledge that. Mhm.

No changes to the existing building on the street.

None whatsoever. Going to maintain that existing twostar garage. Um the one you can see on that picture which is in very good shape. The other ones aren't in such good shape. Um and we will obviously be taking all those down.

Okay.

And asphalting everything which will be an upgrade to the to the site.

Is the lot coverage going to change then? This is all either covered by buildings or or paving now.

I think Mr. to add you. I can touch on that, but my understanding is a lot there was no lot coverage.

You're allowed 100% lot coverage.

That's right, too.

So, are we considering because of the majority of the lot is uh BL, are we considering the entirety of BL?

Yeah, the building department views um parcels, the majority of of the land, whatever zoning district that falls into encompasses the entire parcel.

Questions from the board?

you've had discussions on we've talked about ADUs. I I mean tell me where you stand on this. I know it can be done.

Right. So the way again let's attorney brilliance first part of his his argument and I you'll notice that that this petition and the denial letter that dates back to early January before this board took a firmer stance on no additional aid be used by by special permit. Um, I had recently explained to attorney Brilliant, hey, this is this is the stance and I think we've told everybody,

right? We've told Jeff, we've told Peter, we're frowning upon this. Um, this petition has merit either way. Um, as this is something that we would have seen just as a 86425 extending the pre-existing non-conforming structure. Um it it may be easier for you to swallow that way um rather than call these things ADUs.

But what whatever you do decide to do um if you're not calling them ADUs, then you should still put your conditions of no additional ADUs or however you want to deal with it. There should be no additional subdivision of this piece at at any point in time because we would probably almost see that too, right, from another someone else trying to right? Someone else could come in and

say we don't need the parking area being 13,000 square ft.

Um this is BL where it's 5,000 square feet for the first unit, 1,500 for each additional. So it's but it caps it at three. That's why this is non-conforming because it's an existing four.

So I can see merit to either of the two arguments. I do like the fact that we're limiting the size of the units by calling them ADUs, but I also don't want you to open up a can of worms by approving one ADUs by special permit after you had said you weren't going to.

So, I do think you have the ability to still move it as a special permit conditional on the size of the units being as shown, but approved under 86425.

Even though it wasn't advertised that way, it's still a special permit. So I think I think it's still fair and and I have we have no objection to that. One of the and I and again I have to apologize to the board because I I know that and I know Mr. Frank, because we've had a discussion, you know, off the record regarding his, you know, his um his fear that, you know, deed

restriction may not work at some point in time. And we I guess we all may not we all might not. And that's why when I put it as ADU, I thought again it was a another protection that you don't need a deed restriction to say no additional edus ADUs. I we don't care whichever way the board wants to view this. We obviously don't care.

whatever way they think is safer for the city is is fine with us. Um, no further no further subdivision. Again, we would go along with that. No objection whatsoever. It's not his intent.

Well, and by right, they can have one no matter what.

Correct.

So, we're only we're only looking at two units here.

Exactly.

That's correct. Exactly.

Yes.

And Dan, just a point of order. Um, as as we um understand, we can only vote what's before us. So right, what's before us are two ADUs. Now is that changing it on the fly if we do the other way?

So it's technically structures. So it's three additional units. What what you call them by name. Our zoning byw does not acknowledge an ADU. It's nowhere in our bywar. So you could view this as three additional units. If you if you were more inclined to approve it under 86425 and you wanted to make sure that you're doing it correctly, we could just readvertise and move this to next month's meeting if you're more

comfortable doing that or if you're not comfortable with approving it under 86425.

I mean, personally, I have no objection to approving it in that manner. Yep.

However, I just want to make sure that Well, you're only not covered if someone appeals it. How's that?

Okay. So, if there was a variant special permit, that's that that's something else and changing what the actual relief is. But where it is still a special permit, I think you would be fine.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'm just fearful of because if we call them ADUs, it's going to open a window for Yeah. Even though and yes, every petition is different.

So, [clears throat] at any point in time, you do have the ability to vote differently. you you haven't created a a policy or a bylaw prohibiting additional ADUs by special permit. So, you do have the legal ability to do it either way.

It it's not a bylaw. And as my predecessor would say, we're not a board of um of precedent.

Correct. As I understand, Mr. Chairman, we uh we we uh said that we frowned upon, but we did not cement it. We did not, you know, make that a hard and fast rule.

No, we can't.

We're just frowned upon.

Yeah.

Basically is what we said. So, so there can be exceptions [clears throat] if see your army doesn't even label. It's unit accessory drawings, not Yeah.

You could just move to to move it as it's presented and submitted if you're more comfortable with that. Just knowing that somebody may come back in three months and say, "Well, you approved this one on staff and row."

Everyone will everyone has to be looked at under its we can't we can't set a a bylaw but right now 86 doesn't contain a bylaw regarding ADUs. This is strictly under Mass General law right no changes have been made for too long to our zoning ordinance. So it can you know it's a matter of interpretation on our part and a matter of preference.

what we feel is in the best interest of the of the city. Um, which is the way I would look at it at this point.

Did I go to the general public already?

I can't remember. We my my head is like spinning on this one right now. Is there anyone here wishing to speak in support of this petition?

Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

Okay, there being none, it's us.

Mr. Chairman, I find that this proposal is not substantially more detrimental to the area and move that we grant it as proposed with ADUs.

Granted as proposed as ADUs granted as proposed and it's not being proposed as ADUs, it's UADS on the [clears throat] Sorry about that. I'm not the engineer.

So as one so yes one by right two additional correct in accordance with state law no additional how you don't have to deal with the additional on this because now state law governs so I can't put you to come back you already got the one that would be another special permit you would have to deal with that at that time is there a second on that I'll make a second with the caveat of no

further subdivision of the property.

I was just going to say that we've have no problem with that.

Okay.

I accept the amendment to the discussion.

Then on the motion John, yes.

Jim, yes.

Ricky, yes.

Dan, yes.

Chairman Pereira, no. It passes.

Thank you. Thank you, members of the board.

That is new jiu-jitsu.

That's no jiujitsu.

No, I said new new njutsu.

Item number six, applicant owner Douglas LLC care of uh John Dusa for North Group, I'm sorry, North County Group, Inc.

Um 32 Doug the subject property is 32 Douglas Street map um H08 lot 84. The applicant is seeking a variance for the following to construct a single family dwelling waving front uh frontage and sideyard setback requirements set forth in the city of Fall River zoning ordinance. Property is located in an A2 apartment zoning district.

Good evening. Good evening. For the record, my name is Rammy Sidani. I work with North County Group. John Duza is at a hearing in Dyon. He's not able to make it today. Uh the project we have in front of us came to the board in April of 2021.

The owners at the time divided the lot into two lots to build a single family house, and the approval was never acted on.

The new owners purchased this property this past summer.

Yeah.

And uh they're looking to build a single family house. We're requesting a variance for a sideyard setback of 4.7 instead of the required 10 ft and wave a lot from 50 ft to what is existing now 46 feet.

Is this substantially the same footprint from what was uh approved previously that was never acted on?

Correct. Yes, it's uh the I have the original approval here. It says uh construct a single family dwelling waving lot size, frontage, and setback requirements in the A2 district.

So, it's still the same use single family house.

We have uh two parking spaces potentially three with stacked parking spaces and the reason the house is justified to the right is because of this easement.

Correct.

Correct. Yes.

I will offer that the original variance was acted upon because the land was subdivided. Um on that relief, the building was to be built behind the right ofway um and would have met the I believe it was a 10ft sideyard at the time. That's when the A2 zoning districts were different. So actually the only relief being requested tonight is that reduction in sideyard side.

Everything else is compliant.

Okay. I'm remembering that now. It was set way back, right? because at that time I just happened to know that the the developer wanted a wider house so he had to push it past that easement.

What is this easement for? Do we know?

Provides access to um land to the left to the west.

Oh, they don't use it but it's it's a land court posed. Yeah, land court. It's a land court.

All right. [sighs and gasps] Any questions?

substantially except for positioning what's been approved previously.

So they did act on it and divided the law, right? But it the house is showing but this would this was through coming through site plan review already.

Um and it didn't just didn't meet the sideyard setback that was approved in that initial.

So this has gone to site plan review already.

It's in the process of pending this.

Okay.

All right.

questions then from the board.

All we're dealing with a setback. Is that correct? Correct.

Yeah.

Yeah. There's no coverage issue, etc.

To the audience, is there anyone wishing to speak in support of this?

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

You're hearing none.

It's us.

And Mr. Chairman, I would make the motion that the proposal be granted as requested.

Second.

Okay. Motion second discussion.

Hearing none. Dan, yes.

Ricky, yes.

Jim, yes.

John, yes.

Chairman Prairie, yes.

Thank you for your time.

Item number seven, applicant owner is Maria El Aguia, care of attorney Patrick Matthews.

Subject property is 747 Madison Street, map S03, lot 11. The applicant has we requested a special permit to allow the following. To allow one-on-one counseling sessions in an existing single family residence.

of relief from the restrictions of section 86467 of the city of Fall River zoning ordinance. Properties located in an S single family zoning district council.

Yeah. Good evening. Um Mr. Chairman, members of the board, uh I'd like to thank you tonight for giving us the time to go over your consideration. My name is attorney Patrick Matthews. I'm here with my client, um Maria Aguiar. Um the petitioner tonight is seeking um a special permit to conduct a home occupation in a property at 747 Madison Street. Uh as I know you're all aware, home occupations are generally allowed

as a matter of right under 86-467 zoning bylaw subject to certain enumerated conditions that are in the bylaw. There's actually eight of them.

Um the only there's one that she cannot meet. Okay. the petitioner here. Um, she's a licensed social worker. She's lived in the city her whole life. She's been a so licensed social worker and therapist uh for 31 years. And she provides services to children uh adolescence and families uh with anxiety, depression, and relationship issues. Um I know that there's been I think a letter submitted by the I think

uh Judge Macy uh represents them. Uh, and so I just want to address some of their concerns before so we can get them out there. Um, first of all, I I think they uh there's a misconception I think somehow because in the letter they they they sort of characterize this as a clinic. It's not a clinic. I want to let you know this is basically one-on-one counseling. It's it's by appointment.

Um, and it really, you know, it's not it doesn't meet the the the uh the the ordinance or the bylaws definition of what a clinic is. And it's just not that. And I I just don't want it to be viewed in that light um by any stretch of the imagination. Um, as I said, the petitioner satisfies every one of the um conditions of the bylaw with the single exception of the ability to

meet with clients under sub subsection C uh of 8647.

Uh, that the distinction that distinction is very very important and because um this is not uh uh the your bylaw or the city's bylaw doesn't um fundamentally pro prohibit the use. it it's a permitted residential accessory use. We only seek a modest modification of one of the eight conditions. That's what we're looking for, just one of them. And that's the one about being able to have our

clients come to the property. Um I know that uh in the letter from u the abuters, they indicate that they don't believe that this should be a special permit. They think it should be a variance. Um and once again, I respectfully uh disagree. I think this this board has all the authority that they need um and they have the right um and to to issue this based on their discretion. Um

under Mass General Laws 48 section 9 when a use is not permitted expressly prohibited excuse me the board is expressly authorized to grant the special permit for uses that are in harmony with the general purpose and the intent of the zoning bylaw. And that's the standard you should apply. Uh courts have recognized consistently that special permits are flexible tools allowed boards to evaluate sight

specific circumstances and impose reasonable conditions where they are appropriate. Conversely, a variance is much more limited in form of relief reserved for situations involving unique hardships relating to land itself. This is not what is before you. The application does not seek to upend the zoning scheme introduced or introduce any kind of foreign use into this neighborhood. It only uh seeks to allow

a a customary professional activity to operate a very small scale within uh the residents. Once I said once again I said one-on-one counseling sessions by appointments only. No employees other than that she's the only employee. No uh group sessions. No signage. no exteriors changes. Um the property obviously there's no physical change to the building itself. There's of nothing of that nature. Um so that's why this

basically is not a variance. It's a variance is not required just to I just want to mention that because I know that it was raised by the um the opposition.

[clears throat] Um as I said the home own home occupations are already permitted. Um only um the only question we have here is the condition of a status of the status of one of the conditions. Um once again we're looking this is an in low impact uh activity. It's residentially compatible with every in the neighborhood. Um and I think that you know this re this merits your review uh

on whether or not you think it's right.

it it's not categorically uh prohibit as I said the petitioner is willing to accept any kind of reasonable conditions including appointments uh which she already does by visits only a limited number of clients per day if the if the board was concerned with that obviously we are not going to have employees she's not going to have any signage um she she can she we have room and we've made a plan here

you can see that there's room for parking spaces which has been um P P1 through five. Not that she'll even need that money, but that that many, but you just want to show that she could provide off streetet parking for any client that came to the uh property. Uh if there's any concerns about traffic or neighborhood change, um I I don't see any. I think they would be speculative um and can be fully, you know, mitigated

if there was any kind of problem uh just by conditions this board might want to set. Uh, in fact, I think the volume of traffic here is going to be very, very similar. I wouldn't think it's any any different than the attendant neighborhood around it. Um, so, so basically, um, I want you to remember this is a low impact home occupation.

This maintains the residential character of the neighborhood and I think it falls squarely within your your, uh, special permit authority. Um, granting the permit would not alter the character of the neighborhood. It would simply allow the homeowner uh to uh responsibly practice her profession in a manner that is quiet, controlled, and consistent with uh modern residential life. Um wherefore we actually uh we we

respectfully ask that you uh approve this with any conditions that the board thinks is appropriate. Great question.

Very good. Let me let me ask and you're you're just using home occupation. Is that where you would fit this in under our use code?

Yes.

With the exception um Mr. Chairman, we couldn't we couldn't meet C, which is um for this purpose. Everything else she she could do the same exact job if she didn't have to see clients. Uh well, that seems to be that's that's the issue at hand.

Yes.

I'm probably the first guy you got to convince that it's not a it shouldn't be a variance. Well, I think that my understanding of 4DA is that is section 9, it that in order to be a variance, it has to be a prohibited use and it's not prohibited. This your bylaw specifically allows it. It's just subject to conditions. Okay? And there's one conditions and there's nothing in there nothing in the the statute. Matter of

fact, there's case law on on on it that that your board can fashion other conditions uh in order to alleviate any concerns you might have that you know that that that the use um you know might be somehow overburdening or somehow change the neighborhood or harmony of the neighborhood. So, so I I don't think we would qualify for a variance because we're not asking we're not there probably wouldn't qualify for a

variance.

No. And we're not looking for and we're not looking for to we're not looking for any kind of hardship based on that. You know, we're basically saying, listen, we could do this matter of right. There's just one particular one of eight that um that we can't adhere to because of the nature of the profession.

Mr. Chairman, yes.

I'm a bit confused.

Sure.

Um are you saying that that this is allowed by right? Home occupations are allowed by writing.

So why are you here?

Because we if when you look at the if you look at the item I don't have it in front of me 467 it's yeah section C basically says it says condition to a certain amount of things.

C is one that we can't we that we need a var not a variance from a special permit basically my client needs to see clients in the home. she cannot, you know, she can't operate her home occupation without seeing clients. And so that's what the one that we're asking for. And um and we allow we believe that you're allowed to do that. That's within your discretion so long as it's with within

keeps within the harmony of the neighborhood and and meets the purpose of the zoning bylaw. And in this case, this I'm sure you're all familiar with the neighborhood. Um there's nothing that I I don't think anybody from the outside would even know that that there was an occupation going on. I mean people would people would show up for an appointment. They they would be parked off straight. They would go in for their

session usually one hour and they would leave and that would be it.

And this is within the harmony of the neighborhood in your opinion?

I think so. It's no more I I I would suggest in my opinion um I think that it's no more ownorous or uh than any other kind of traffic you're going to have in the neighborhood. And I don't it's it's like people coming and visit and leaving that could happen up and down the street. There's nothing special about about the the people who are going to come to see her that would would

distinguish them from any other visitor that somebody might have.

I think a lot of the resistance you may see is that crack in the shell when you're dealing with the the some of our s single family districts have a mix. There's something across the street. There's a doctor's office over here. There's there's a convenience store.

This is one of maybe the purest S districts I would say in the city. This this particular street etc. that that has not been uh infringed upon over the years maybe when there was no zoning that some of these things crept in. So it's that crack and I think that's what some of us aware I can't speak for anybody else. I haven't discussed this with anybody else. Sorry. Um, that's that's one of the things I look

for is is where does it start? So, I'm just I'm being dead honest with you that that I do disagree.

I I understand and and repeating the same thing at this point. I I'm going to be interested to see, you know, where some of the other some of the other folks stand on this from the board and then from the general public. And I think that and I I've heard it today and I agree with I think that it's the really I mean anything you do here isn't a precedence anyway. And I

think you have to look at the type of businesses. This isn't a business that's going to I I think recognized recognizable to anybody who drove down that street. There's no going not going to be a sign. There's not going to it's there's not going to be anything that would distinguish it from any other house on that street other than maybe a car in a driveway. Uh I and it's not

like um I don't know even even a lawyer's office or a doctor's office where you're going to have probably have signs and you're going to have different things.

Could I ask is the nature of the counseling of such a nature that it cannot be do done by remote means as more and more is being done uh via Zoom or other technologies that that allow remote patient contact. Uh some of my clients are tellaalth however um I only see tellaalth clients from a certain age on because what I've experienced with little ones especially children diagnosed with ADHD it's very

difficult to keep them talking about feelings.

So clients of a certain age with certain diagnosis ha in my opinion I know other therapists have different techniques but in my opinion need to be in front of me so I can guide them and do breathing with them and certain behavioral techniques that when you when I'm doing tella health it doesn't work if I can ask do you do you have an an office space in in the city now do you

have okay that I take I'm part of the group a group practice okay but as you can tell by my gray hair it's real I'm getting old and especially during the blizzard to get to the office I was feeling like I took the whole week off so and I want to continue working I actually love what I do so it would make it so much easier if they just came to

me in my home while my crockot is making my supper or my machine is washing my clothes, that kind of thing.

Okay.

Any other questions from the board?

Hours of operation.

I'm sorry.

Hours of operation. I think they were on the application. I think hours of operation. Yeah.

Okay. Um because I work mainly with children. Um, it's not usually before two unless I have a parent that I need to see alone to discuss the child because sometimes it's parenting skills.

Um, then I might see someone at 1:00.

So, the application reads 2:30 to 8:30 p.m. on weekdays, 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 pm on weekends.

Okay. I I need to be honest that I meet people's needs.

So, let's say I myself would prefer to do 2:30 because I'm not a morning person, but if I had a a person who's working and wants to come and see me at lunchtime, I would be flexible. I wouldn't say no. Sorry.

Well, you can't you can't go because that's this is what that's why the question is because you're going to be limited by whatever action that this Okay, then 2:30 it is.

But you also have 2:30 to 8:30. Yes, I do work late.

And again, I'll go back to my question.

That's your opinion. That's that's in keeping in harmony with the neighborhood.

I I I mean, I'm I'm not in that neighborhood other than I do know it because I've lived in the area. Um I don't I don't think that she's planning obviously always to be 8:30. I know that she said to me some she likes to be done by that, but sometimes she does have to see. So, we used outer limits. That's a condition that this board could clearly if you wanted to change the hours,

we can. Yeah. you you that's with a condition that you can impose, but I don't think that um it's overly the activity itself I don't think is is is ownorous to the neighborhood. But if you want to change the hours or input any other condition that you wanted, you know, we would obviously think that that's appropriate.

Okay. Any other questions from the board from the planning standpoint?

I I will also add that that I I feel this is a variance and I felt that way when it was submitted. I did speak with the building inspector who made uh who wrote the denial letter. Um after speaking with him, he's relate to me that he thinks it's a variance and he was he said he was willing to call the applicant and tell him that. I don't know if that conversation

I I did have a conversation with Mr.

Borg just and and and I just respectfully disagree when when you know my my position based on my research based on my looking at the case law what he told me yesterday has not changed. If I think if this was a for instance, if this was a bylaw that that that said uh that said, listen, you can do this is this is a permitted use and then um you need to do the these

specific things for these other uses.

These would all have to be special permits. That'd be one thing. Or if it was an outright pro prohibition of home occupation, that's this this there's not No, it's not. But but there's also So there's a table of uses that says home occupation. Yes. And then there's a narrative section of our bylaw that spells out specifically requirements for those uses.

Uh home occupations is one of them. Home occupations as of right.

Yes.

And there is C with not seeing clients, customers, pupils, salespersons or the like.

And there's also F, traffic generator shall not exceed volumes normally expected in a residential neighborhood.

So there's potentially two that you may or may not meet.

The the reason why Let me finish. you spoke. Um there are many sections in our ordinance where we have a narrative portion. The very last line of the of the narrative section says that the zoning board of appeals may wave any of these requirements by special permit. This is not such a section. So I do not think the board has the ability to grant a special permit for this. Otherwise, it would say J like

it does in parking. all the four pages of parking requirements. The last says any of these provisions can be waved by the granting of a special permit. I don't think the board has the ability to move on this as a special permit.

With regard to F, I just want to the reason why I addressed C was because that's what it was denied upon. Correct.

Yeah. I mean, if if it would have brought, I would have addressed it. But once again, that's a condition that this board [clears throat] can control. And with all due respect, I just want to say that I did research the issue. I I didn't bring the citations and I don't think you guys want to hear them. But the my my understanding of the the case law is that is that absent that language

you talk about saying that you can't you know you can look at uh you can do these other uses or the board still has the authority under um the so long to look at it is it in harmony with the neighborhood and the purpose and the intent of the but you stated you stated Massachusetts [clears throat] general law before about dealing with a use that's prohibited.

48 section 9. Well, that's not only prohibited. That gives you the authority, right? So, you're saying we have the ability to operate by a special permit because it is not prohibited.

Yeah. It's not a prohibitive in in the table. It's not a prohibited use. But the narrative portion clearly shows that a home occupation not meeting these requirements is prohibited.

It's actually a condition. If you it doesn't say if it says provided that the following conditions conditions. So if you can't satisfy them so we let's let's take a snapshot of 86467 and you cannot meet all of these requirements.

I don't see how our ordinance gives us the ability to grant this by special permit and the building inspector now also agrees. So well yeah I caution and we're not going to get into case law because nobody sitting on this side is an attorney and there's no judge sitting here. Anything else from the board before we Yeah, there is one.

There is a judge sitting here. Okay. I'm sorry. That's like and anytime he wants to serve on this side of the table.

He knows better.

Anything else from the board at this point?

Anyone here wishing to speak in support of this petition?

Okay. Since it's the end of the night, I'll guess. Is there anyone here wishing to speak in opposition?

Yes.

Age, you going to let me sit down, Mr.

Matthews?

I'm sorry.

No, you can get up and out just so that so that has the uh the microphone.

You'll have you'll have the ability to respond.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is [clears throat] Joseph Macy.

I'm an attorney.

Used to be a judge, but I'm an attorney, simple attorney with uh an office at 209 Bedford Street, Fall River. and I'm here tonight uh in strong opposition to the petition.

I represent uh Tom Goslin who's uh on my right and has a petition to present. Uh he lives caddy corner to this building [clears throat] at um 747.

No, he lives on Madison Street at 766.

I also represent Kurt and Jod Ala Vera who live at uh 1191 uh Highland Avenue. They are directly affected because they own the house directly across the street. That's why they're listed as an ab butter. But the house directly across the street from this location abuts their Highland Avenue residence.

I also represent Peter and Stephanie Macy of 1219 Highland Avenue, my son and daughter who own the house and that property directly adjacent to Kurt and Jod.

So we certainly have standing uh to object to this request.

Now, it's been noted uh earlier in the evening that I'd been around a little bit, pretty familiar with the board and uh the law. I practice law for 58 years and I've been before this board for 55.

The three years when I wasn't before the board, I was in the army. So, I didn't count that. And I must tell you that I believe that this is if not the singularly most inappropriate request I've seen before this board. It's pretty close. Now, I'm not a fan of Alice in Wonderland. I didn't understand it when I read it and I probably still don't.

But you remember Alice in Wonderland?

You know it is, but it isn't. The Cheshire cat isn't a cat. Well, if you read this and and try to grasp it in a logical fashion, you can't because it's wrong on the law. It's wrong on the facts and it's wrong as a matter of policy.

Let me start with being wrong on the law.

[snorts] I don't understand the argument that they're entitled to a special permit. In fact, I will tell you that I believe they are absolutely prohibited from getting a special permit. 86424 of our zoning ordinance says the board of appeals may grant a special permit to change or extend a nonconforming use only if it determines that such change or extension shall not be substantially

more detrimental than the existing non-conforming use to the neighborhood.

Now they concede. They have to concede it.

It's an absolute fact. This is a conforming use in a single family residence. So ipsso facto. They're not entitled to a special permit. Period. It's not a non-conforming use. And they're not changing it. They're changing it to a whole different use. Now, somehow they've seemed to manage to convince themselves, but I hope not the board, that they could get a special permit under home applications as of right if

the board would only wave section C of 86467, which specifically says that a home occupation shall not serve clients, customers, or the like on the premises.

So, if that's waved, then it's not a business or profession incidental or custo customarily associated with a residential use.

So even if the board were to wave section C, it's not a home occupation.

Never was, never will be. Uh home occupations um customarily associated uh with the residential use may somewhere include uh counseling, but not on Madison Street and not in that section. And if I can before I go through the petition to show you how wrong they are on the facts, let's consider Madison Street. Madison Street runs from New Boston Road to and I don't want to Milton Street.

It is solely single family houses of substantial size and substantial lot size.

Uh exclusively exclusively. And it's been that way for I don't I don't know how long. Um, so it is one of the nicest streets in Fall River and it's one of the streets in Fall River that has no encroachments.

The other thing about Madison Street is it's not a cross street. And why I mean not a cross street, it's between Highland Avenue and Roberson Street. And the cross streets like Florence Street, Albany Street, they get some traffic, not heavy traffic, but some traffic because people are going from Highland Avenue to Roberson Street.

Nobody uses Madison Street except the people that live there. If they want to get from New Boston Road to Milton Street, they probably go on Roberson Street. So it is a exclusively single family area very very lightly trafficked and with not much of parking problem.

Now as I said they are absolutely wrong on the law. Start with what would entitle somebody to a special permit and the board's discretion. It's not an it's not an extension or a modification of a non-conforming use. It's a change and a change cannot be granted by a special permit. Now, in terms of Alice and Wonderland, let me let me go through their petition point by point.

The relief requested is from the restrictions of 86 467.

That's a permissive ordinance, not a restricted ordinance.

It says what you can do if you have a home occupation, which this is clearly not. And they know it because they're asking for relief.

uh they want to conduct one- on-one counseling sessions at the residence.

That's not customarily associated with home occupation. Maybe a tailor is but not a counseling session.

And they talk about why I don't know. Talk about a type of hardship.

Well, hardship is peculiar to variances when they say in their petition, "The nature of this work requires a safe, quiet, and private environment for families receiving services."

Well, guess what? People that live on Madison Street and pay taxes and mind their own business require a safe, quiet, and private environment.

The home setting provides a necessary therapeutic environment for one-on-one counseling. Well, good for them.

They say alternatively leasing commercial office space which clearly they can do would impose a disproportionate financial burden on the practice emphasizing practice.

It's not a home occupation.

Furthermore, even if it's a hardship, financial considerations do not mitigate in favor of zoning. It's not a consideration.

If it were a consideration, they they could have said so, but they zoning law does not speak to financial burden on the African.

It speaks to the process and the uh and what's going on on the premises sought.

Now, why won't the proposed use be detrimental to the neighborhood according to them?

Well, it'll be limited to one-on-one uh client sessions by appointment only.

Well, that's interesting because they have a five parking places off street. And if you look at the configuration of their five parking spaces, which uh one-on-one doesn't require five people to go there, it's like a jigsaw puzzle. You talk about traffic and inconvenience. How in the world is somebody in the parking place number three going to get out? If somebody parks in parking place two and parking place five,

you're going to have to have a traffic controller. I know it's called stack parking, but once you get into three and four, you can't get out. And I don't know how they're going to do it. The other thing is deceptive is the best word I can think of. If you look at parking place one, they've designated it as a parking place and it encroaches on half of their driveway opening. So if you park in

parking place one, you can just about get through that driveway opening. So the the parking is is just it's not elucery. It's ridiculous.

They also note that the private driveway is under construction. Well, it is and it is as unsightly as you could imagine. Now, the zoning bylaw doesn't speak to matters of taste, but I've been driving by there since I read about this and it's going to collapse whe whatever they are representing to do. They have permission to do that. The the walkway is is looks like it's going to fall in. So, if that's an example of

how they're going to treat this property, uh I submit to this board that it's totally inappropriate.

The now they tell us why the proposed use won't deriggate from the intent and purpose. Well, the intent of the ordinance is to preserve the residential nature of this neighborhood. That's true. That's one of the few accurate things they've said. The proposed use maintains this character while allowing the professional service, not home occupation, professional service to serve the needs of the

community. Well, you can see from the people sitting behind me and you will receive a petition that Mr. Gosling has with him that um the needs of the community.

This is the community and that doesn't serve their needs.

Limited in scale and will not alter the appearance or function of the home.

Well, the highway the driveway already does that. And it's interesting to claim that a use proposed seven days a week, five of those days extending till 8:30 p.m.

will not is limited in scale.

Seven days a week is not a limit. It's an expansion.

So when you look at what they ask for and you look at what's there, this is absolutely contrary to the law and to every tenant of of zoning, whether it's a variance, which they won't get and can't get because they can't prove a hardship, or a special permit, which they're not entitled to. It's just wrong. As I said, it's wrong on the law. It's wrong on the facts and it's wrong as a matter of

policy. The only thing the only thing that my clients and I think you'll find out most of these people here agree with that's in this pet petition is paragraph five.

describe the neighborhood.

The property is located in a quiet residential community neighborhood comprised of primarily single [snorts] family homes. The area is stable. It's well-maintained and it's residential in neighbor in nature.

For everything I've said, I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

We ask the board to keep the neighborhood as described in paragraph five of this petition.

Now, Mr. Goslin's with me. I'd ask him to be allowed to uh present a petition to the board uh of neighbors and neighbors to neighbors who are opposed to this. I'd like to make that part of the record. Um, so at this point, I assume, well, I don't know, a lot of these people would like to speak. Even if they wouldn't, they might want to allow the board to at least recognize that they're here and

stand up and be counted. But I just want to reiterate, and I hate to repeat myself, but I never liked Alice in Wonderland. This is a losery and on behalf of my clients, I asked the board to deny this request. Happy to answer any questions.

No, you're quite clear. Appreciate it.

You want some of these other folks?

All right. Thank you.

Yeah. So, I realize there are a large number of people here in opposition, and what I can say is identify yourself, your address, and if you agree with what Attorney Macy has said, Judge Macy has said, point to him and say, "I'm with him." If you've got something different, if you've got something additional that you'd like to to add to the um to the record, then you know, by all means.

So, with that, who else would like to speak in opposition?

Yep. And if you just identify yourself and your address, please.

My name is Steven Rogers. I live at 759 Madison, directly adjacent to the uh applicant party. I have some items for the board to review. Um there's some photographs in there just to give you an idea of the scale of what's going on at um 747 Madison.

It's going to be a hard one to follow up, so I'll try to keep it short. Um I want to start by clearly stating that this is mental health services are important. Um I've been a police officer for over 14 years. Um in my various roles, supervisory roles, I've led outreach programs where I've worked side with community uh mental health professionals in the field. Um, and personally after responding to critical

incidents as recently as the shooting in Pucket, um, I sat on the other side of their desk and and spoke and and used their services for help. Um, so I recognize the value of what they do. Um, but tonight we also have to recognize the value of our audiences um to a lot of the points that uh, Mr. Macy pointed out. Um, I don't want to repeat all that. Um, we'd like to just reiterate

that this is a 42-hour a week uh operation. Afternoons, weekends, peak residential areas. Um, personally for me, my wife is a overnight nurse in the ICU at Charlton. Um, we accept the fact that neighbors are out and there's noise when she's sleeping. Um, but this would substantially increase the noise level during the day on weekends when she's sleeping. She works Saturdays and Sundays. Um,

furthermore, the actual plan that draws it out shows a waiting area along with the office. Um, and just by definition, doing some of my own research, um, it fits the definition of a professional office, not a home occupation. And under the table of uses, a professional office is not permitted even by a special permit. Um, so I don't understand how they feel that that would be applicable to the situation. Um, in the

packets I provided, there's a a photograph of the driveway. It's 30 feet wide by approximately 70 feet deep.

That's off their own plans. Um, it speaks to the scale of the operation. It doesn't conform with the other driveways in the neighborhood. It looks particularly different.

Um, as far as the hardship, I know in the application there was a hardship about financial cost of leasing commercial property. Um, I'd like to put it to the board that the applicant actually owns a second property. uh point4 miles away from this property that's in a zoning area that would allow an office such as this um as far as I can understand from the law. So the hot

chip of not being able to get space, she physically owns another property that would allow this to operate and it's point4 miles from the house. It's at the bottom of Langley Street on North Main Street, 1700 North Main Street. It's 2 minutes from the house by car if that.

Um and I would just I would stand with uh Mr. Macy and asked the board to uphold the building inspector's denial and and help us keep our residential neighborhood residential. Um I purchased the house in Far River. We've invested a ton of money into the house. Um I love my neighborhood. We've had the opportunity to move. We've made the decision to stay um and continue to invest in the home and and keep it nice

and presentable. Um and this would this would change fundamentally change the neighborhood as far as I'm concerned.

Okay, no questions. Well presented.

Thank you.

Um to the to the issue of hardship, it doesn't even apply. Hardship only applies in the case of variances.

It it's here. I mean, the line is there to be used in the application, but really only if it's necessary. and it really didn't it has nothing to do with it. So, let's leave that off the table. Anyone else choose to be recognized to speak? Sir, good evening, board chairman.

Honorable Macy. My name is Joseph Charves. I uh live on 154 Roberson Street. Uh, I'm in very close proximity to the uh [snorts and clears throat] residence in question. Uh, so much so that I pick up the Wi-Fi at my home.

[snorts] I'd like to uh first address this zoning uh the board. You have a tremendous job of protecting our city uh and I commend you for the decisions you have to make in doing so. uh here tonight. Uh I feel very strongly about this because as a resident, a lifelong resident, born, raised, decided to keep my roots here in the city, raised my family. I have two sons.

They go to Dery. They've been public school educated in Fall River. Me and my wife are committed Fall River rights.

When I see intent, I hear that word, the intent of of the occupant, the person who bought the property. They had an intent to have a residence in a wonderful community that's a quintessential neighborhood that you really rarely find these days.

Uh and with that intent, purchasing a home um having an intent to establish a business within the home when you know that there's certain rules in place in that specific zone as it relates to a single family dwelling.

making that commitment, making that purchase with an intent to have a business in that dwelling and hopefully we were all sleeping. We didn't realize this was happening and go in and put parking lots in. If you look at the map, you look at look at you don't have to be rocket science to figure out what's wrong with this picture. Clearly there is a agenda that need that's trying to be um developed uh and uh come to

fruition. Uh I believe that this is a slippery slope as we look into the future. Um you know nobody has a glass ball but we have this predictive um what the neighborhood is going to be like if this is to happen. Um, what kind of traffic patterns is this going to create? That's, you know, or not create because there's so much traffic on Madison Street. I lived on Madison

Street, 301 Madison Street, as a as a as a kid. Like Judge Macy said, the only people going on Madison Street are the guys given car uh lessons for the drivers, driver's lessons, and people live on Madison Street. That's basically it. And when you look at something like this that's kind of being planned, if you're saying that's not going to have any uh you know u outcome on the neighborhood, it's going

to change it, modify it, it certainly will. For someone who's lived there his whole life, 55 years old, I know what Madison Street is all about. This would change Madison Street, that portion of Madison Street dramatically.

um deceptive to say the least. Uh to to position this as um someone that needs to see clients, there's ways to see clients through teleahalth. If that doesn't meet your requirements, I'm sure Judge Macy wanted to see clients at his house.

No, I don't.

Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.

It's a complete change of a single family dwelling. Um, you want to see clients or talk to clients, we have teleaalth that doesn't meet uh Miss Aguiar's um, you know, prerequisites. I understand that. but to change the neighborhood back to protecting Fall River based on your decisions. Um, I request that this be denied and that you continue to protect our residential neighborhoods and keep them residential one single

single family dwellings in the places they should be. I [snorts] mean, there are two places that are open for business. We have the corner store on the corner of Langley and Robersonson.

And we have the old Pleasant Drug.

That's it. There's nothing else around.

Uh so I will leave you with that. I thank you for your time.

Great.

Uh I appreciate it.

Thank you. Anyone else? And and I I must remind everybody, let's please try to keep it to three minutes because otherwise I'll be ordering out for breakfast and I ain't paying.

Name and address, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the board. Uh my name is Joseph Mashado.

My address is 880 Madison Street in Fall River, Massachusetts. Um I am also attorney Joseph Mashado. I have my own practice at 236 South Main Street in Fall River, Massachusetts. And I want to bring emphasis to that. There are many places within the city that are dying to have professional offices to fill up many many empty spaces throughout the city. Uh heck alone in South Main Street, we are desolate. We're waiting

for people to come over and and put some form of money into the neighborhood. I I would just bring to the board's attention that the petitioner bought the property, I believe, on January 31st of 2025 for $485,000.

I know that they put forward that there is a financial hardship potentially that they're unable to afford uh an additional area for them to conduct their business. I would argue that the money spent on this property would have purchased them potentially two to three units within the South Main area of Fall River, which would have been better suited for the petitioner to conduct her

business. I don't want to reiterate what Judge Macy and what my neighbors have already stated, but I would just bring to the board's attention that not only do I think C is in question here. So even if we take the petitioner's argument in the light most favorable to them and we grant them the benefit of the doubt and we say, "Hey, let's just view it upon the facts that's presented

and maybe we do grant it." I'd argue it's more than just C that is in question. B, C, D, and F, I think, are in question in regards to 86467.

Um, B, not more than 20% of the floor area of the resident shall be used in the home occupation. I would argue that with the square footage of this property, 553 square ft, I believe, is what would be the limitation for her to be able to meet that requirement. And I would find that to be difficult to meet if you have a waiting area and potentially multiple areas for people to

see patients. When we deal with C, the home occupation, obviously needing to see individuals there doesn't meet that qualification.

D board. I would I would argue that we already have external changes to this property that hint to it having a practice working out of it. That driveway very clearly is intended to have more than just a single individual living there. Uh at worst, it's a multifamily type of parking arrangement.

Uh or at best, I'm excuse me, it's a multifamily type parking arrangement. At worst, it very clearly already looks as if it's a professional office. Uh finally, I would just note that f as noted the only people who drive around there are its residents on Madison Street and also perhaps maybe the driving schools that go around. Uh this would certainly add to the traffic that is present there. Um I would just close

ultimately with the following for you uh board is that again even if you do take this in the light most favorable and you do assume here that they've met the burden, I would just note to you that you have discretion. You can choose to ultimately deny this. I would note that this is not in harmony with the neighborhood. Look around the people who are here who are arguing against this.

This is the harmony of the neighborhood and we are here to ultimately say that we do not want this. I am not looking to conduct my practice there. Uh there's a landscaper not looking to conduct his practice there. There's a tattoo artist not looking to conduct his practice there. The star family that owned my home before me was not conducting their practice there. This is single family

and we'd ask that you please keep it that way.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

I'll speak.

Yes.

Quickly.

A couple of points.

My name is Diane Moriceet. I live around the corner from the proposed property on Madison. Um, I'd like to say I grew up in Fall River. I moved I moved around a little bit. I went to Florida.

I lived in different places and I came back and I lived in Swansea for quite a few years as and I could conduct a business there as a real estate agent.

So I didn't have to join a formal agency. But when I moved uh to Fall River, I've always loved the Highlands.

I love the architecture.

The Highlands is the last bastion of civility and dignity in the city as far as aesthetics. Um, we pay higher taxes. Um, does anybody know exactly where this is in the Highlands? Is everybody familiar with that?

Extreme.

You know, you know how beautiful it is there and it's it's it's a really like a tourist attraction almost. Everybody wants to come and it's a historic district. And that being said, it's just probably not the only beautiful neighborhood in the city, of course, but it is the oldest probably and the most beautiful. And it is a single family and as I said when I moved here I couldn't

conduct a business and I wouldn't even have asked cuz I wouldn't do that to my neighbors. It just doesn't belong there.

Um one other thing and one last thing is this counseling proposal. Um what we're really dealing with here and I don't want to be indelicate but let's call it what it is.

uh this is counseling mental health issues. Okay, that belongs in a medical setting or like you say in a business district where people are used to a lot of traffic, a lot of in and out. And this area is not for that, nor should it ever be allowed. Because if you allow this, you're going to allow real estate agents, law offices, a doctor's office, maybe an eye doctor's office. So, if you

open that can of worms tonight, the next time, how are you going to say no? And it just doesn't belong in this area. Okay, that's all I have to say.

And I agree with everything everybody else has said here.

Uh, Attorney Macy and everybody that followed him, I agree with everything they've said. Okay.

And I hope you deny this petition.

Thank you. Thank you for coming in.

Anyone else?

Yes.

I'm Yana Hutchkins, 727 Medicine Street next door.

Mhm.

Um I just want to say that I'm very disappointed. Um today I met Maria, you know, I just see her um in this one year. um she she didn't connect with anybody and um such a waste of time and energy because if she would have connect with us she would have understand that we are really a tight community and uh um we care about each other. We care about this community

and u we we will not do something like this to our neighbors. Um that parking lot um uh it's right at the edge of all our bushes. So the bushes will you know full collap full soon collapsed but um you know that that will be the last worry.

Uh the worry is that um yeah the street and eventually the whole neighborhood will change completely and um I understand um if uh Mrs. Zaguar doesn't know the neighbors and the neighborhood then of course she cannot care but um who nowadays will open you know an office in their own house uh when they provide counseling to distressed people.

Um I I find um very very strange. Um those are distressed people and um you you can never know what they will do.

They know where you are. They will come.

They will burn your house that they will do something. There will be a shooting.

Um so yeah, I I I find it strange.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Did anyone else Yes, just for a minute or two. Uh Jimmy Nasser, I live at 240 Warren Street across the street.

I just wanted to say that I was born and brought up in the Highlands and I've seen a lot of changes that have been made in the city. I've been here all my life and my big concern is that, you know, I I I stayed in Fall River because I had the opportunity to stay where I am. I mean, I had the opportunity to buy the house that I'm in and it's great

there. And my big concern is, and I think other people have touched on it, what happens in the future? What happens to um the values of our homes, the integrity of our neighborhood if we start this and we open up a Pandora's box and and I think somebody mentioned it. Um you, Mr. Chairman, had made the point that that street is probably the purest street in the city.

I think we'd all like to keep it that way.

So, it's fine.

Thank you.

Anyone else? Have we covered all the ground?

Yeah. Real quick.

Yes, sir.

I actually want to bring down the temple in the in the room. I don't think anybody has any ill will called you. Um I just want to read my last paragraph. Can Can I just get your name and address?

Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Glenn Garcia, 1522 Robersonson Street. I am in a butter directly behind her, one house over. Um, basically my last obviously, you know how we feel.

This is a very tight-knit community. It it has a lot of elderly. There's a lot of disa disabled people on it. It's very quiet. We don't want problems here. I mean, we really focus in. So, real quick, uh, Miss Aar is seek is seeking a special permit to open her in-house uh, uh, counseling clinic on a one-on-one basis in a highly regarded and strictly enforced residential community. As a

resident of this of this area for 25 years, I have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars amongst other people. I mean, we just keep improving every year because we want the neighborhood to continue to grow and to get and to develop, and we pay a lot of taxes for that. I'll be honest with you.

Um, we also participate as neighbors. We actually help each other uh, you know, shovel the snow, help bring the trash barrels in and and watch the neighborhood for for anyone that's actually like looking suspicious. Okay.

We really do look after our our needs.

In fact, I know that Steve helped you and your son shovel the snow during this last snowstorm, which I appreciate.

It's we're very tightknit. So, I don't want you to think that this is an attack on you, but it it's it really is insulting to me personally because we've spent a lot of money. We've we stay together. We help each other. And to I'm sorry. This parking lot is a damn danger. You don't have any signs, no cones, no no tape, no nothing to warn the public of this. You have elderly in

the area. What if their grandkids come out of the car, lose the hand of their mom, and run to this to this dirt pile, and your your walkway is collapsing?

That's a concern to me. When I see this, I say, "What is she doing in terms of what are your intentions with this?"

The only reason I'm going to stop you, his comments have got to be zoning board related.

Okay.

Okay.

My my issue, I'm going to ask a question about this parking lot when we get a chance, but no, go ahead. But that that's my big concern and and and it show and I start asking questions. You're building a large parking lot. You have a waiting room.

How many people are you going to service throughout the course of the day? Then deception. Someone said deception in the Chamber of Commerce as of yesterday. You still have posted that your scheduled times are 8:30 in the morning to 8:30 p.m.

We're beyond 3 minutes at this point.

Okay. I'm sorry. It's just No, I don't I don't know. I just I'm kind of disgusted, but I I I will show the you guys these if you want them. That's a hazard.

Thank you for escalating the tone that you intended.

But like 25 years of this and it's like a as a property manager for 28 years.

My god.

I'm sorry. Okay.

That I just want to check.

All right.

Anyone else?

No, I wanted to get approved.

Okay. I think he said it all.

You can you can return. And I'm going to I'm going to open with one question.

Did you get a curb cut permit for this monstrosity yet?

I don't know if I got it yet. This is There is no curb opening.

There's been so many.

So, she has not applied for a curb opening permit, but there is no curb opening.

Only site work that's been done is on site and they have through site plan review.

Right. But my point is there is no curb opening yet.

That's correct.

And we've built Nope. She has she's excavated a site in accordance with their site.

No, no, no. I understand. But so there's no question about what's the third build.

That's 30 ft wide. No, I'm just saying, isn't it for the driveway? Yep.

Correct.

And she's applied for the permits. Just can I just address that? You see five uh six five spaces there.

She she and her son live there. This is their residence, by the way, too. This is their home. They're not This isn't somebody who's just taking a building and turning it into an office. And And you know, I've heard the word deceptive used. Um, I'll tell you right, this is this is a a a nice lady. She's worked in the community. She's served this community. People with all sorts of

problems for the last 31 years. And I don't I think it's a disservice to her to somehow characterize her by somehow being disingenuous or being deceptive.

We have laws in this in this town, in the city, and in the state that allows people to to do exactly what we're here today. And nobody's trying to and I will apologize for not stopping any personal attacks and I did try to I did try to to throttle that down.

There's no need.

This is this is a nice lady and she served people, right? And I and and I think that was uncalled for and anything to say is somehow disingenuous. We we we've we've we've looked at the law and we've asked the board we've we've said what our position is and we've asked you to consider it. Okay. That's that's what you're here for and that's what we're here for.

I love when people remind me what I'm supposed to be doing.

No. So, but let let me just with those five spaces. She's they have three cars.

Mhm.

Her her son have three cars. They live there. This is their home.

There's a one little extra spot and then there's the spot for the for for uh the visit. That's what that number one is.

It's not meant to be um uh a parking lot for all those a bunch of people. She she's only one person. She can only see one person at a time or maybe a family at a time. That's it. The other thing is is that um uh the reason why it's in the condition it is. I I I appreciate it is she's they they did the excavation. The contractor is at is stopped at the

beginning uh of of the winter. We're still waiting for some permits for things such as a curb cut and and stuff like that's why it's and I'm outside my purview. It just caught me that that's like 30 ft wide at the sidewalk and there's more to it. I He got the permit to esavate.

No, it's okay. I'm out of my perview.

I'm out of my perview. So, I'm going to I'm going to do what I tell everybody else to do and drop it.

It's not a parking lot. It's a a driveway.

It's a big driveway.

It's a big driveway. Okay.

Okay. [clears throat] Anything else, Council? I I would agree with uh Judge Macy when he said that this is this is just simply a non-conforming use and this is one of the things that you could go to a board for and ask that and that's what that's where it is. So I think I think the special permit is the proper avenue.

Okay.

On the board if there are no further questions.

Mr. Chairman, are you ready for a motion?

Yes, please. um being unsure as to whether or not a special permit is actually um within within our authority in this particular case. Uh that being said, that aside, um I would find that this is absolutely more substantially detrimental to the neighborhood and I would ask that this be denied. I would make the proposal that we deny this petition.

Second.

We have a motion. Three seconds. So in that case there should be no questions on the motion. Uh so on the motion John yes.

Jim yes.

Ricky yes.

Dan yes.

Chairman Ferry. Yes.

Thank you very much for your time. Thank you board members.

Citizen input. I don't think anybody signed up. We've had a lot of citizen input.

Approval of minutes from the January 15th, 2026 meeting.

Mr. Chairman waving of the reading of the minutes of session.

We're still in session. Please everybody take it out. Side second. Thank you.

Motion to wave reading. We have a second.

All in favor?

I uh we will not be holding executive session tonight. There was a notice that came down. I don't know if everybody saw it. Chris sent it out this afternoon. Uh council cannot make it tonight. So that'll have to get rescheduled for another time. And because of that, we can have a motion to adjourn.

Yes.

It was something from the planning committee.

Oh, yeah. I forgot about that. Thank you, Jim. Thank you.

So, there is um a letter. You know how we have our normal conditions and it doesn't have to be voted on tonight.

They're just asking you to contemplate it. Um when we do the separation of the existing multif family dwellings and we have a condition of separation utilities the planning board is asking that that work actually that the that condition be changed a little bit that that work needs to be done and the affidavit that we require to be recorded is referenced on the subdivision plan. So it does put

off the subdivision part of our conditions a little bit, but we're finding that that next step is sometimes not being followed through on that parcels of land are being conveyed without the utilities being separated or the affidavit being recorded after the fact. So we're we're trying to tighten that up. So just contemplate it. You don't have to vote on it tonight. read what the letter requests and the next

time one comes up we'll have a discussion about it. That's all.

Okay.

All right. It's reasonable. I mean it makes I mean it is cumbersome upon the applicant but if people aren't complying then people aren't complying.

Right.

Do we want to discuss it right now kids?

I have a motion for adjournment.

I'll make a motion.

I already gave it. He already made it.

Second. All in favor? I.

Thank you.

Thank you all. Thank you.