4.16.2026 Zoning Board of Appeals

Good evening. I'm Joseph Pereira, Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the City of Fall River. It is 5.30 p.m. on Thursday, April 16th, 2026.

We are meeting at one government center in the first floor meeting room. Pursuant to Mass General Law, Chapter 30A, Section 20, Subsection F, I hereby notify all persons in attendance that a video and audio recording of this meeting is being made by Fall River Government TV, Mr. Craig Salvador. If anyone desires to make a video, audio, or combined recording of this meeting, please notify

me now and I will make a public announcement of your intent. Our recording secretary this evening is Courtney Pereira, sitting to my immediate right. Present this evening are regular members John Frank, who is our vice chairman, James Calkins, our clerk, Dan DePere, and Ricky DeSardi. Also with us are alternate members Alexis Anselmo and Eric Kelly. Also

present this evening is Mr. Daniel Aguiar, Director of Engineering and Planning, seating to my far left. 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 40A as amended? Yes.

I declare the April 16th, 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, abutters, anyone in favor or opposed to a petition, that your presentation or comments be limited to three minutes. The board's rules and regulations direct the board to

specifically look for information that supports the petitioner's claim. As such, the petitioner should clearly and factually support the basis for their claim. In the case of variances, a credible hardship as defined by Mass General Law Chapter 40A must be presented. I remind all present that the authority of the ZBA exists pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A and is

limited in scope with the use of land as regulated in Chapter 86 of the Ordinances of the City of Fall River. We require that comments made in the hearing be limited in scope of our authority. Additional permits, licenses, reviews, and or approvals may be required for any of the petitions before us this evening. The action taken by this board has real and lasting

effect on the title to your property. As such, I urge all petitioners to seek competent legal counsel before filing your petition and after the decision of this board has been made. A copy of the ordinance is available in the City Clerk's Office or in the Planning Department. I remind everyone that the building inspector is a 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, Chapter 9-18, mandates that all multi-member bodies develop and adopt rules or policies for public comment. We have adopted such a rule and policy that provides for citizens' input on

zoning board-specific matters at the end of the evening. A sign-up sheet is outside the door to the room. call the meeting open. Our first order of business is to move to executive session. This is specifically in discussion regarding the appeal of decision for Little Hands College, 551 Rock Street.

Let's go up to the fifth floor. Oh, you're going to actually make a motion and then go. Okay. All right, thank you. So moved. Motion to We turn it to executive session. Yeah, very good. Do we have a second? Second. Motion and second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed?

I'll turn to open session when we're done. Can they give an estimate of time? No. Open session at 6.02 p.m. The open answer is at the top. I'll pull up the right piece of paper and we'll be all set. There is no old business. I'm going to item number two of new business, which is the applicant, Little Hands College, Inc., owner Paula Jesus, care of Richard E. Burke, Jr., law offices of Beauregard, Burke, and

Franco. Subject property is 551 Rock Street, map 02, lot 6. The applicant is requesting an appeal on action of the zoning enforcement officer to One, to agree the building commissioner's decision for the February 10, 2026 letter in regards to the special permit, section 86-441 parking requirements.

This property is located in an R4 two-family zoning district. Before we begin presentation, I'd like to call upon attorney Matt Thomas.

Good morning, Mr. and good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the board. My sole purpose for speaking right now is just to let you know the standard of review that you're going to be using. This is not a special permit or a variance.

This is you sitting in an adjudicatory fashion reviewing whether or not the building inspector correctly applied the zoning laws of the city. So it's a de novo review. It's almost as if he didn't do anything. Okay. And so that's what you're going to be looking at. The special permit means nothing here. whether it was a given or not, this is whether he did, whether he applied the zoning ordinance correctly. I

suspect Attorney Burke is going to suggest that he didn't. And then after he does that, then I'll be back to just explain to you what happened from the city's point of view. But that's what you're looking at here. Did he apply the zoning law correctly? Thank you. Very good. Thank you, counsel.

Attorney Burke. Attorney Burke. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. My name is Richard Burke.

with Beauregard, Birkenfranco in New Bedford and I represent Little Hands College. With me tonight from Little Hands College is Pearl Acerta who's the director there.

This property was originally a church. It dates back to about 1900.

The address is 551 Rock Street. In 1996,

this board granted a zoning variance for the church building and it was allowed to be used as professional offices. It was, as I understand it, medical offices thereafter. The important thing is that this building, when it was a church and when it was medical offices, it never had any parking. If you're familiar with the building, it looks like a church and there's essentially yard on either side.

There was a prior to my getting involved back in 2025, some members of the board may recall that there was a request for a special permit to waive all parking at this building. And at that time, the board denied that special permit request. I then got involved at that point and my office filed an appeal of that. denial of the special permit to the

Land Corps, which is pending right now. The argument that we're making tonight is that we don't need a special permit, that we believe that as a matter of right, this childcare facility should be allowed to open. There is a general law, Chapter 40A, Section 3. It's sometimes referred to as the Dover Act. which provides that certain types of uses are exempt from zoning

enforcement. And one of them is a licensed childcare facility, and that's part of the state's policy of encouraging the development of childcare facilities because they're needed. Our argument is that, you know, we simply cannot provide parking. Neither could the church, neither could the medical offices. The childcare facility, in addition

to what's there, they have to have playgrounds and they have to have separate playgrounds based on the age of the children. So there will be a need for what's essentially yard space now to be playgrounds on either side. Also, the building is subject, as I understand it, to the historical society. We haven't filed anything formal with them, but in discussions with them, they've said they don't, it's a

historic building, they don't want to see any changes to the exterior. Also, we don't think that the licensing board for the state for childcare would allow parking anyway because they don't, we could maybe get one, maybe two spaces if we squeezed it in, but it would be up against the playground and they wouldn't allow it even if we could even if we could do it because it wouldn't be safe for

the children. Basically, as you might imagine, this childcare facility has limited daytime hours. They essentially open 7 o'clock to 9 o'clock. That's when parents would drop off children. They essentially close between 2.30 and 5. The children are picked up. They have

So we don't think that presents a conflict with parking on the street. We did look at the dimensions of the street. There's over 1,100 square feet of linear space on both sides of the street. I'm talking between on Rock Street between Prospect and Maple Streets. And when I've been there to walk and see the property, there's never been any parking on that block. We took some

pictures, if I could, Mr. Chairman, just to show you. They go back from like June of 2025 to just this week. And I don't know if you want to see these.

I can see, Mr. Chairman, if I could submit these, that it's on the block.

And if you've been there during the daytime, I'm sure you would see the same thing. This isn't parking. The parking during the day would be for staff. And my client already operates in the city of Fall River. And they're, you know, they have a staff of nine right now. Of that staff of nine, five don't have cars. their job with, you know, public

transportation overriding with other people. So based on our count of available on-street parking, we count room for 62 on-street parking spaces. So if we had a staff of even 19, we might be able to get it a little smaller, but if we couldn't and it stayed at 19, you're probably talking about 10 staff or so based on our current experience of staff that don't,

you know, have a car to drive there. and then you have 62 available spaces.

The, in the same, you know, the drop off, as I mentioned, of parents dropping their children off, picking them up, a lot of the families have multiple children, so there, it's like, you know, one family might be dropping off two or three kids in a car, so there really isn't, and it's very brief, it's a minute or two that they're there. The, so the basic legal issue is,

We clearly are an exempt use under the Dover Act. That means that you can't require a special permit. It's a use that should be allowed. There is a, and I'm sure Attorney Thomas will tell you this, some reasonable regulation that the city can give to these exempt uses. But our argument, based on the cases that I've read and as I understand them, is that if you regulate the business

out of business, That is going too far. And if you say, or the building inspector, as he has said, is that you don't have on-site parking, that doesn't comply with our parking regulations. You need so many spaces for each employee and that sort of thing. Well, we can't do it. And if we can't do it and you say we won't let you open,

we won't give you an occupancy permit, which is what we're asking for, then you are essentially regulating us out of business. We simply can't open. And that, we believe, is not allowed by the law, by the Dover Amendment that I referred to. We are doing everything we can. As I said, we've looked at whether we can provide on-site parking where none is there now. We don't believe we can provide

any. We've looked to see if there are other places in the neighborhood that we could even rent off-site parking. So far we haven't been able to come up with anyone that's willing to rent to us, but if we could, we would do that.

We simply are at a loss. There's a question of signage, but I think that may not be a major issue. I did also argue in the appeal that we filed. This was argued before when you have the special permit.

Bylaw 86443, change in use, basically says that there can be a waiver of parking requirements if you have a grandfathered use or a use that predated the zoning bylaw. Well, this original church, as I said, that goes back to 1900, certainly predates the zoning.

As I mentioned, there was a zoning variance granted. in 1996 to allow the building to be used for professional offices. That was a change, but our argument again is that that isn't a change of use, it's a zoning variance.

It's not the one bite at the apple to take a nonconforming use and turn it into something else. I mean, the idea of a nonconforming use like this church is it's there, it doesn't have parking, what are you going to do with it?

And the simple fact that the board voted to grant a variance to allow the building to be used for professional offices when it had no on-site parking like it does now, to me, my argument would be that that's not reasonable to require then on-site parking for an exempt use, a childcare facility, when you're not even going to require it for professional offices that are

probably going to require as much or more parking under the zoning bylaw. So back in 1996, this board didn't think that was a problem for granting a variance.

Child care facilities are needed. They are protected by law. We believe we can be a good neighbor. We believe there's plenty of on-street parking for the use that they would give. and that it can coexist and legally has a right to coexist with the neighbors. Thank you. We'd be happy to answer any questions.

Any questions from the board at this point? Just curious on your opinion regarding if there are any regulations that are enforced that actually make it impossible to operate. Is that coming out of case law?

Well, yeah. It's not coming out of the chapter and paragraph itself.

It's the case law, right? It's the argument that a regulation isn't reasonable if it can't be done. And in this case, if the regulation would, as applied, would make the use impossible to have, then, which is the case here, we just can't provide the offsite on the parking. then if you require it and you say tough luck, then you don't have the childcare

facility. And since it's a protected use under the Dover Amendment, that type of regulation, we argue, legally can't be applied. Thank you. Yeah, we never, if you go back and look at the tape, we never argued that the use was a problem. We recognized the use. It was strictly a parking situation.

Anyone else from the board? Questions? Now's the time. I just have a couple of questions, Attorney Burke. So your presentation tonight, which the photos that you gave us, is that an argument that you don't need parking because there is adequate available parking, which would have been handled under the request for special permit originally? So that information

tonight means nothing. You're here to argue the building enforcement officials decision and denial. So whether there's parking available on the street or not, the logistics of the use, how many employees, how many spaces, how many kids get dropped off, that's not up to discussion. And whether or not there's available parking to meet her

needs. That argument was already given at the special permit. So the need for additional photographs is purposeful for your argument, but not for what you're asking for tonight. So if this was a daycare, that was going to provide services for 200 children needed 40 employees. At what end does the Dover Amendment apply? Is there a limit? Well, I

think that's where I would say that, yes, the issue is somewhat similar with the special permit, but it's a reasonableness question. And so when you talk about whether a regulation is reasonable, the fact that there is available on street parking, I think that's part of the equation of whether it's reasonable to say you can't open because you don't have any off-site parking. But that's not what you're

asking this board to vote on tonight. Right. But I'm arguing. Because if you only had one employee, that would be a different argument. And maybe it would be a different result at the request of the special permit. We couldn't even get nailed down during the original special permit how many employees we were dealing with. Well, that's because what the state comes in, they look at your square footage and you don't

know exactly until they do that, which is. Maybe that should have been done for us. Well, they don't do that until you have all approvals, you know, that's just the way it works. So the maximum based on what we estimate the square footage is 19 based on the building square footage. But, yeah, no, I think it's a legal argument. There is a difference from the special permit. We can't provide the onsite

parking. and to require it we say is unreasonable, but I think it's relevant to look at, well, where would the people park? If we had 400 employees and there was only room on the street for 20 cars, I think a judge would say, that's not reasonable. But, so I think it is relevant to say, well, what parking is available? And if there's plenty of on-site, on-street parking available and you're still

prohibiting the use because you say that you can't provide off-street parking, To me, that helps my argument that it's not reasonable to require it. But you're driving to the point where you can't provide off-street parking by the intensity of the proposed use that you're saying is protected, which it is protected. But the fact that you can't provide

off-street parking is because you need additional playgrounds. You want to provide service to a certain number of children and have a certain number of employees. That's just a business plan that doesn't fit to the Dover Amendment. So again, if it was for five kids that needed two spaces and one playground, you could provide enough parking on site.

It's the... No, we couldn't... No, no, you 100% could. So the fact that you're here seeking relief is because of the intensity of the Dover Amendment that just... You can't apply Dover. Suppose you wanted to build a 200-foot building.

Well, it's a building that's already there. Because you wanted to have provide services for 2,000 kids. Yeah, the building is already there. But you're saying that those bulk restrictions don't apply, period. So theoretically, you could come in and build an 80-story building Under the Dover Amendment. No, I think you have to look at what's there, and it

goes back to it being a 1900 church, you know, a preexisting building. The building is there. It's not the building. The use is exempt. The structure is not. Under the Dover Amendment, the structure is not exempt. The use is dependent on the square footage of the building that's there. That's correct. That's where you get the 19 employees from. I just, and Mike, we're going to the merits of the case here. We're

not straight. We are. No, but I want you to understand what you're voting on.

I also... And everything else is not in your purview tonight. I'm going to call on counsel in a second. I asked specifically if you were basing this on case law or on the law itself. I find it hard to believe that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and its wisdom would deprive boards in 351 cities and towns the ability to enforce their own zoning bylaws and codes within limit.

And a lot of what's happened with the Dover Amendment, and I'm very familiar with it, has been case law, case law, case law, case law. I can rattle off a lot of them because we've had to deal with them, I've had to deal with them in another place. And that Dover amendment has just changed from what the original intention was. That's all. That's just a statement. And I'll turn

it back over to Attorney Thomas. Are you all done with Attorney Thomas? Yeah, unless there are any other questions that myself or Perla could answer.

Do you want to sit, Matt? I can stand up. No, no, I'm sorry. You can come back if you want. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Again, my name is Matt Thomas. My office is at Four Park Place in Bedford, Massachusetts, and I'm special counsel for the city, and I am actually representing the city.

and you all in the land court case. My purpose to be here tonight is really not to rehash too much. It's just to provide a little bit of a clearer standard here. So, Attorney Burke mentioned that there was a variance granted once before on the property. Case law is that just because you get a variance once does not entitle you to a variance again. Since a variance is a pure

derogation of zoning, you're allowing something that zoning does not allow. So the only reason you would allow it in the first place when you grant the variance is that the specifics of that particular case warrant it to be allowed.

Those specifics have to be looked at every single time. And so just because you get a variance does not really entitle you to another variance. Attorney Burke mentioned the Dover Amendment. And Mr. Chair, as you state, the Dover Amendment has been the subject of lots of discussion. But the one thing about the Dover Amendment, which is Chapter 48, Section 3, is it speaks about a lot of different types of uses

that are covered. And when they wrote it, each paragraph is not identical to the other paragraphs as to what is allowed and what is not allowed. So I think it would be helpful if you look at the Dover Amendment. It's actually paragraph 3 of Chapter 48, Section 3. It reads, no zoning ordinance or bylaw in any city or town shall prohibit or require a special permit for the use of land or

structures or the expansion of existing structures for the primary accessory or incidental purpose of operating a childcare facility. That's the first part of it. You all admit that. We all recognize that this is protected. It's because in the Commonwealth we want childcare facilities.

Then it continues in the second clause, provided, however, that such land or structures may be subject to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures in determining yard sizes, lot areas, setbacks, open space, parking, and building coverage requirements. As used in this paragraph, the term childcare facilities shall mean

a childcare center or a school-age childcare program as defined in Section 1A of Chapter 15D. So, to Attorney Burke's point, if the regulation is unreasonable and it renders it impossible to do, then there is an argument that that is not allowed here. But what the case law talks about is if you required for every employee you need six parking spaces, that becomes kind of

unreasonable. Here, your regulation is one employee, one parking space, which is a very reasonable requirement. Now, it's true that Attorney Burke's client won't know how many employees they have until they do the final approvals with the state.

If they have younger children, they would need more employees because of the per capita requirements. If they have older clients coming in, older children, they need less. But clearly, the zoning ordinance, zoning amendment, zoning general law, the Dover amendment allows you to regulate and require compliance with parking. With regard to the ordinance here in Fall River,

that was the subject of a lot of discussion. And I did issue the opinion to the building inspector that he relied on in making his decision to deny the certificate of occupancy. It says, this is 86-443 change of use.

The change of use and use of an existing structure built prior to the effective date of this chapter shall be permitted without meeting the required number of parking spaces provided The building inspector makes the determination that the number of existing parking spaces, if any, is not being reduced. The use is permitted as a preexisting nonconforming

use in the district. And additional parking cannot be provided in a reasonable manner.

I interpreted this to read the first change out, okay? That's why he says the change in use. It does not say the change in use and any subsequent change in use. It says the change in use. So when it first came out of being the church which had been built before zoning came in, that first bite of the apple, so to speak. That first exemption was allowed.

Any subsequent changes would have required variances, or they would have required special permits, or they would have required compliance. So in my opinion, it's only that one use that comes out. and any additional parking cannot be provided in a reasonable manner. At the time this was, this certificate of occupancy was applied for, there had been no effort to try to get parking from abutters, from neighbors, from

other people. So there was no way to know whether there had been a reasonable effort taken to try to get additional parking. So in light of all of that, and when you come back to Attorney Burke's arguments, he's correct. Dover protects the use.

I would disagree with him that Dover exempts you from the parking requirements. And that's really what we're looking at tonight is the parking requirements. There are other issues involved that I think are really minor issues. It's really the parking requirements. So when Attorney Burke filed the appeal, he requested an appeal of a decision by a building commissioner

denying issuance of a certificate of occupancy authorizing the existing use of the building at 551 Rock Street as a childcare facility. So in making your decision tonight, you're going back to my initial comments, you're going back to look at did the building inspector apply the zoning ordinance correctly in making his decision to deny the certificate of occupancy. So if you believe that he did,

your motion would be to uphold the decision or affirm the decision of the building inspector. In denying the certificate of occupancy, and by denying it, requiring the special permit. Or if you feel that he didn't apply it correctly, your decision would be to reverse the decision of the building inspector, denying the certificate of occupancy and requiring the special permit. And you would be basically

sending it back to him to make a decision correctly. Those are your two choices.

Okay? Does anybody have any questions? Thank you. I think that's clear.

that I give to the public as we typically do in these cases, this is different. The scope should be regarding the opinion, not whether there's parking available. Correct. So, public input is always important to this board, but we're talking about a very, very narrow band here. So, what we're talking about is the building inspector made a decision not to issue a certificate of occupancy because

there was no special permit issued for the parking for the site. If there is anybody who wishes to speak in favor, I don't even know how to, this would be opinion. Do you agree with the building inspector's decision? Do you not agree with the building inspector's decision? If there's anybody here from the board, thank you. Can I just reverse that? Sure. Since the appeal before you is to, what you're

looking at is to overturn his decision, so to speak, then anybody in favor would be speaking in favor of overturning the decision. Anybody against would be in favor of affirming decisions, kind of backwards, the way it's playing out. So if anybody wants to speak in favor of Attorney Burke's argument that Dover should exempt him out from all

the parking, that would be people speaking in favor. Fair enough. Thank you. People speaking against would be that the use is allowed, but they still have to comply with parking. Okay? Thank you. So is there anyone who wishes to make comment in favor of the applicant's assertions this evening? Is there anyone wishing to speak against the applicant's assertions this evening? Sir?

I believe that's me. I'm a little confused going back and forth, but I'll let you know. I'm driving the bus and I'm confused. I was unsure if I could get here, so I did put some words on paper that should have been disseminated to the roof. However, we do have that one. Okay, all right, then thank you.

Then I would just like to say. But, but. It's really just, it is a matter of the parking. I read through the letter. I don't care how much they paid for the building, when they bought the building. This is, was the building inspector correct? Was the building inspector wrong? Your assertion is the building inspector was correct? Yes.

I want to thank the board for the decisions earlier. And I think any other decision is an infringement on my rights of the property and property. So thank you to the board for the previous decision, and I support the building inspectors. and I hope for the special. Okay. Thank you. And we do have a letter from this gentleman and his wife. That is us. Hmm? Yes. Yeah, Mr. William Brown.

Your address is 527 Rock Street, so he's in a butter. Mr. Chief, can you receive it and place it on the file? Yes, we do have it. We have a motion. Yeah, thank you. Can I have a motion to put this on file?

I shall move. Motion, second. Ricky? Yes. Dan?

Yes. Jim? Yes. John? Yes. Myself? Yes. Okay. So I know you already have one, but I have that on file. Anyone else wishing to make comment on this? Yes. Just registering my support of the building inspectors decision. Okay.

And your name and address? Oh, I'm sorry. It's Erin Leary, 544 High Street. Erin, I'm sorry. That's okay. No, I don't bother. I'd also say the property has about three or four parking spaces worth of frontage. So if we look to what's reasonable or what's a compromise at some point, they bought a property with three or four spaces of frontage. So maybe that's the reasonable compromise. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? I'm sorry?

I am Connie Sowell. I live at 577 Rock Street. And I also want to support the building inspector's decision in the city. Thank you very much.

Anyone else? Sir? Jason, 544 High Street, directly behind the property. I just want to support the building inspector's decision. That's all. Thank you, Jason. Anyone else, folks? Any other discussion from the board at this point? Any other questions to either council at this point?

No? And I take it we would move to a motion Chairman, I'll make a motion to uphold the building officials' determination. Second. We have a motion and a second to uphold the building officials' assessment of this and his decision. That it was applied correctly. It was applied correctly.

That should be the wording. His interpretation of the by-law.

Was applied correctly. Was applied correctly. Any other discussion on the motion? Then by roll call, John? Yes. Jim?

Yes. Dan? Yes. Ricky? Yes. Chairman Prairie, yes.

Thank you all. Thank you.

Item number three, the applicant is Brian DiBiera. Owner is, I'm going to mess this up. Demetriad and? Eric DeMoranville. What is DeMoranville? I'm thinking of the wrong one. Yeah. Eric DeMoranville, Jr., care of attorney Gregory Brilliant. Subject property is 458, Buffington Street, map, I-24, lot 45. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following.

One, to divide the lot into two. into two lots waiving funds requirements for one of the newly created lots. The subject property is located in an A2 apartment zoning district. Council. For the record, Attorney Gregory A. Brilliant, for Mr. Vieira, with a LORUS at 111 Oak Grove Avenue, Far Over Mass. I'm here today to ask for a subdivision on this particular property, which is located at

458 Buffington Street. As the board is well aware, this is an A2 zoning district.

And as they're also aware, that requires 5,000 square feet of frontage, excuse me, 50 feet of frontage. 5,000 for the first lot and 1,500 for every unit thereafter.

Again, Mr. Vieira came to my office with this particular property because under this particular zoning district, he could actually have a four unit building plus a ADU.

because this is a 10,000 plus square foot lot. So he could, by law and by the zoning variance, be allowed to do that on this one lot, okay? And sitting with him and determining what was in the best interest of the neighborhood, we both decided that trying to subdivide this property into two lots, leaving the existing single family on one lot and building another single family would be in the best interest

of the district and most consistent with the district because it will meet all of the side yards and rear yard requirements and he would be asking for an eight-foot variance relative to the frontage, which has to be 50 feet and which now with the configuration that we have, the lot would be 42 feet and the other one would maintain the 50 feet. We think it's the least obtrusive and obviously

a better use for the neighborhood. The hardship is obviously due to the shape and configuration of the lot and how the one property sits on the building and it works as a hardship to the petitioner. It doesn't derogate from the intent and purpose of the zoning bylaws, it's a residential use. And again, we do believe that this is the best and highest use for the neighborhood, all things being considered. With that,

I will entertain any questions the board may have. So the two proposed driveways are, and I didn't get to drive by this, and I apologize, Council. These, is there parking at all at this point? I don't believe there's an asphalt driveway there yet. I think there is parking, Mr. Pereira. It is. There is down in the far right corner. Okay. There's an existing asphalt where the new driveway is. Oh,

I see that. I see that drawn in. Yeah. Yeah, I think, but that's going to be redone. That's why I'm saying that it's going to be redone for that particular property as well as providing off-street parking for the newly created lot and dwelling.

And being redone, I see that's also going to be decreased in size to get it off the fence line, is that correct? Absolutely. Okay. That's really what I was trying to get to, so I appreciate you noticing that, Mr. Pereira. All right, so the jog and the property line that's proposed as you get down to the street itself? Is to get to one of them at least to be totally conforming. That'll

be 50. Okay. We could have put it right down the middle, but we wanted to at least make one totally conforming for purposes of the board and give us 42 on the other. And there are, there's quite a few multiple family buildings in this neighborhood. I grew up on Buffington Street up the top, so, and I know Mr. Agge, I grew up in this

neighborhood, so to speak. So, but we just thought this was better because on the immediate area was single family homes.

And we will do anything that the board desires relative to conditions on EDUs. I know that there's been some debate about what you want to do, but we will entertain if you so desire to put conditions. He's not looking to do any of that. So, obviously, in condition of no further subdivisions, which there couldn't be, but whatever the board desires to put in. I mean, the separation of utilities and the recording

of such certainly has to be done. We're not looking at any easement from one property to the other? No, none is required now. Mr. Tallman hasn't indicated that the one will be required for any purposes whatsoever right now. All right. Anyone on the board questions

on this one? Okay. Going to the public, is there anyone here wishing to speak?

in support of this item? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Mr. Director, comments from planning? No, just the request being, the waiver being requested is simply the.

But I will note that Attorney Browne grew up on the better end of.

I'm not sure about that, but I'll take it. You're saying it's better since he left? Is that what you're trying to tell me? That might be what he means.

That's why he speaks better. I just heard you speak. You did quite well.

All right. Then it's back to us. Mr. Chairman, I would make a motion that the variance be granted as requested. Second.

Any conditions? Do we want a condition for ADU? Do you want a condition for the ADU? No ADUs. Is that acceptable? It is. I've talked to my client. He doesn't intend on doing anything with that. No ADUs. All right. Separation of utilities. Right. Recording thereof. I don't think we have a situation here where we have to mandate no fence down the property line.

We should have bound markers, though. This has been surveyed, correct?

It'll need to be for the subdivision anyway. True. But Mr. Toman tells me yes.

Okay. All right. That being the case, that's the motion. Do we have a second?

I'm sorry. We have motion and second. On the motion, John? Yes. Jim? Yes. Dan?

Yes. Ricky? Yes. Chairman Perry? Yes. Thank you.

Item number four, applicant owner.

Demetriatus is the one you got. Demetriatus is how you pronounce it? Yes. I got it. applicant owner is Alex Demetriatus, care of attorney Gregory Brilliant. Subject property is 550-552 Maple Street. Map M25, Lot 28. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. To divide the existing property into two lots, the existing six family dwelling at 550 Maple Street on Lot 1, The lot has 3,307

Demetriatus, first of all, I do want to clear up one thing before we get started, because the plan, it was an oversight by Mr. Tallman based on an assessor's card which said two-family style. The back house to the right, 252, it's a single-family home. Okay, I don't want to make that clear. Should be correct on your iPads, but just not a- That's the new one, yeah. Yeah, I know

Jeff, excuse me, Mr. Tolman revised that, but I want to make that clear so there's no, I don't want anybody to think anything was going on here because this all stems from this. Back in 1986, okay, a variance was granted by this board, and I heard Mr. Thomas earlier saying that it kind of doesn't mean anything now, but it was granted by this board to allow,

and I got a number of copies, to allow the six families to exist, and to build an apartment above a garage in the back structure.

That was done back in 1986 pursuant to the board. At that point in time, there was no conditions put in the variance about no further subdivisions or anything happening with the property. At the time, that variance was given to Mr.

Demetriatus' grandmother and grandfather. They lived in the back house once it was done, okay, and they managed the six families. And as I said, It's important to note that there was no condition of proper subdivision, although that's within the purview of this board. In 1996, I appeared before the board and withdrew a petition to subdivide the property. At the time, his grandparents were

potentially looking to sell a single family house and give the other piece of property to I withdrew it because at that point in time they said, no, we're gonna stay here, we're not going anywhere, we're gonna maintain everything. So they really had no need to try to subdivide the property, okay? Now, fast forward to today.

Mr. Demetriotis' grandmother just died. Grandfather died quite some time ago. His grandmother just died.

Left him the property alone. He's got a brother. She left instructions to him.

and no disrespect to how this was all set up, thinking she could just give that back property to his brother. And his brother actually now lives there. When the grandmother died, he moved in there. So that's where it all ends here. We're here today to request for permission. This is not a 423B situation because the back property doesn't predate zoning. Otherwise, everything else meets the same thing if we were

asking you to do that tonight. He doesn't anticipate any change whatsoever in any building.

He's not asking to increase the size of the buildings. He's not asking to do any of those things. The buildings will stay as such 100%. He's merely asking for the lot line to be created and quite frankly, and I always try to be transparent to the board, it's solely so he can transfer the back house to his brother who lives there now based on the fact that his grandmother now has

died and he owns the property. I know in terms of hardship, I would submit that the hardship is based on the fact of the configuration of the property and the fact that there's a building back there. I know I'm probably going to get an equal argument back that we created the hardship pursuant to the variance, but it is what it is. We respectfully still submit that there's a hardship relative to the

property. And again, I just want to say we're asking nothing more. If this again was predated zoning, it'd be a 423B. I wouldn't have these issues or he wouldn't have the same type of issues. It's solely for that. We will put any conditions necessary on this variance, gentlemen, any, ladies and gentlemen, I apologize. Relative to no further

subdivisions, no ADUs. This is simply to carry out the wishes of his grandmother and give his brother that back house. Nothing whatsoever, structurally, nothing's going to change at all. It's not going to obviously derogate from the purpose of the zoning bylaws, it's not going to derogate from the neighborhood, because we again submit, and I have

to stress, there's not a thing that's going to change. Not a thing, not even the people living there. His brother's living there now, lived in Connecticut, has relocated into Fall River to take care of his parents along with him. He is a business owner in Fall River, he owns Highland Pizza. Highland luncheonette. He's a very good kid.

I know that's not part of your deliberation. He's a really good kid. He's just having problems with his brother because he can't give it to him. I know there's probably a point of contention that it could be condominimized and given to him in that fashion. I guess from that standpoint it could be. This is much easier, cleaner, and it would... I've actually subdivide the property so he could have his own property

with his own yard and Alex will continue to maintain the six family so Alex is here I'm here to answer any questions and we'll be happy to take those let me ask about excuse me the driveway and easement that back area for parking, is that to be shared by both properties, by both houses? We can condition it. It is now. It's basically, to be very honest with you, Mr.

Pereira, it's used by his brother right now. Predominantly. And the other parking is on the street. Correct? The six family is on the street. Okay. Yes. Right. It's just that. And you've specified that with the tenants and the six family that they're not parking. Always been. Mr. Pereira, always been. Like I said, this has been in Alex's family for... 50 years. It's the same owners. It was his grandmother.

Then his grandmother's grandfather. Grandfather died, went to the grandmother. Grandmother died.

Alex has it. It hit me with the Eastman situation because it really chews up that lot. There's not a whole lot of lot underneath that lot one, the house. There's not much of anything around it. It could have more. It could have parking to the right. Well, one of my, yeah, the question is, there's no request for waiver of parking. No. And we're looking at the six family, you need 12 spaces, so. Okay, I'll.

Well, I thought it was a provision of the ordinance where we wouldn't have to increase any parking or what was existing. the time we're not adding any new units but that that parking is not part of the possible of the six families yeah you're not you're not asking for a waiver though of that parcel where is this where is the access easement I'm trying to figure out which

line is on the left side of the six family the dock and area yeah but then that seems to wrap around the walkway so is the easement solely on lot one so right now lot one does not have the ability to park in those rear parking spaces correct The lot one, the six family will be left with zero parking spaces. Yeah, zero now. You just said that they park back there now.

No, they do not park. No, no. They don't. No, no, that back lot, I said it's only for the single family. Parking is only for the single family. No, no, right now, on one piece of property, with a six family and a single family in the back, can people in that six family... Can they? I guess, I guess, Mr. Agueta. Not how logistically how it's being used. I know, but can they?

Yeah, I was just about to say to you, if you say theoretically could they, I would say yes. That answer would have to be yes. I mean, it does it because Alex's brother does it, so they know that it's the quote-unquote owner's property.

But it's not going to be. Maybe moving forward, right? Either one of them could sell this. Could be so. Yes? No. On the open area? I don't know. I don't know if that was contemplated. I went out and looked at it. I'm not an engineer. Can anything be... I mean, it's 35 feet wide of open space. Yeah, there is the ability to add some parking on the east side of the 6th

family. But then you end up with a weird situation. You've got to have another easement because if you're going to put parking for the 6th family on lot 2...

Yeah, that's what you're going to have to have. You've got the driveway easement on lot 1. You can pick and choose who's using what spaces or change the lot line to make it work. At that point... I would suggest we relocate the lot line to hug the six family on the west side and bring the lot line to the east and therefore where the existing driveway is would then become part of

the back lot. And provide the safety of the front. So actually there'd be no easements necessary at that point. Agreed. That might be a better configuration to contemplate. And then you have parking for the front. Correct. To the right of the door.

still not going to meet the requirements. I want to emphasize Mr. Frank and through the chair that we're willing to accommodate with the board's desires. I mean, this is just, and again, I don't want to air someone's family issues and it's not my place, but him and his brother are in a, they're like not even speaking anymore because he feels as though this should have been

done. It wasn't done and that's water under the bridge. You can't resurrect his people. It's an oddball situation. Right. We're not trying to get into personal situations. We just want to do its best. I get it. And there was no waiver of parking requested at all. I know Jeff mentioned something about that not being necessary, but I don't know. I'm going to... You are technically reducing

parking for the six families. Correct. So it's not that you're not changing it.

Whose name is the ownership in right now? Is it in your name right now?

Yeah, it's in Alex's name. But I thought you said that the will said that it would be... No, no, the will gave it all to him. Oh, okay. And his grandmother told him, give this house to your brother. But it's not in the will. Okay. And quite frankly... I just want to make sure he didn't have any say in this. No, no. Okay. Quite frankly, Mr. Calkins, he'd still be in the

same spot even if she said give the back house to his brother Savas because it's only one line. He couldn't do it if he wanted to. I don't know.

This seems like it needs to be tabled just to look at the plan again, maybe. You can probably get five or six bases on that to the right of the sixth family, pretty simply. If it's a matter of...

I talked to my client, we have no problem tabling and I can work with Mr. Aggie, I have to try to, if that's what the board decides, to at least try to, and then we do know it's still something to a vote, but whatever we can do to accommodate the board, we are more than willing to do.

Well, I mean, we have, as one single lot, you've got the area to accommodate parking. By chopping, this is one of the things that concern me about lot one, being the sixth family, and it's a smaller piece of property. So we can't even consider putting any parking on there. It would be really great if we could get some parking off the street.

It'll help. I mean, it'll be an addition, and I do agree, Mr. Chairman. Again, I always try to be as transparent as I can. This is what's happening there now, and that's why I'm trying to say that, Mr. Chairman. And we understand the situation. What I'm looking for is something that becomes a win-win. maybe a win-win-win. The city wins if we can get some cars off the street. You get settled up

with your brother, everything gets squared away, and, you know, grandma's not rolling in her grave because there's a problem. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm not being disrespectful.

I've lived these situations, so. Yeah, and the only thing I would say, the way we proposed this development was to divide it the way the property is being used now. But it does make sense to make some... to the property and anything else from a planning standpoint you care to add at this point or the only concern that I'll have or we'll look at it once we can get

a revised plan not in front of you but we may need to read advertise if it's only if parking relief is going to be required just so that everybody's box is checked so yeah I think you'll likely add lot coverage at that point too. I think you already asked, didn't you ask for a lot coverage already? The number might be different, but the words are there. It would be different. We're still

not going to have two conforming lots. Whichever way we do it. But technically you just asked for a waiver of lot coverage, so we can deal with that. Do you want a request withdrawal?

Oh, no. Can I table it? Yeah, I will absolutely, we will entertain a table of this petition, Mr. Chairman, and work with planning to try to figure this out, as you said, so it's a win-win-win. Mr. Chairman, I moved the floor. Yeah, I want to hit the audience first. Is there any? What? Where is the table?

Motion to table. Yeah. All right. We should hear the, withdraw the motion, and we'll make sure we... There might not be anybody here that wants to speak about it. Yeah, I'm interested. Anyone here wishing to speak in favor of this petition?

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to this petition? There, we got that out of the way. Okay, Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept a petitioner's request to table with a petition to the next meeting. To the May meeting? Motion and second on the motion. Ricky? Yes. Dan? Yes.

Jim? Yes. John? Yes. Lee? Yes. Thank you all very much. Sign this and then bring the fee by your mouth. Okay. Hopefully with a revised plan, if you want to stay with me.

Thank you, everyone. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. Dan? Yes. Dimitri and yourself, Simon. Alex.

Alex, yeah. I got another great name.

Item number five, the applicant owner is David Nguyen for D&D South Coast Partners LLC. This is care of Jeffrey Tallman. Subject property is 846 Brayton Avenue, map F04, lot 20. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow the following. One, to divide a conforming 26,900 square foot lot with

109 feet of frontage on Jefferson Street from the northwest corner of lot 20 as shown on City of Fall River Assessors Map F04. To build an 11 unit townhouse style condominium on the newly created lot waiving unit density requirements, the property is located in a BL, Local Business Zoning District.

Good evening for the record. My name is Jeff Tolman from Northeast Engineers and Consultants here tonight on behalf of D&D South Coast Partners, specifically David Nugian, the principal manager of that LLC. The site we have before you tonight is the site of the former Sam's Club, located at 846 Brayton Avenue. As you had mentioned, this is lot 20, as shown on assessor's map F24. The parcel itself

is about 13.5 acres in size, and it does have a three-acre building, which is the former Sam's Club located at the southeast corner of the property.

This property is one of three parcels in this area that are located in the local business zoning district. The other two are the 14.5 acre Walmart parcel located to the north, And there's also a 28-acre parcel to the east that is owned by the City of Fall River that abuts the interchange for 195 and 24, which the vast majority of that is the Quikishan River.

These three parcels that are located in that particular zone are surrounded by the entire three parcels are surrounded by the Commercial Mill District on all the other properties around it, with one exception. which is the Cumberland Farms property that is located to the south of Crossbreaking Avenue, which is in the neighborhood business district.

So, as I mentioned, this is the former Sam's Club, wholesale club site.

Sam's Club, as you may know, closed its doors in February of 2016.

Afterwards, the property remained unused for the next five years until it was purchased by the current owner. David Dugian, who's again the president of D&D South Coast Partnership.

Prior to purchasing the property, David did appear before this board in October of 2020 in order to change the use of the property to manufacturing. David is the owner of U.S. Bedding, Inc. and in 2020 he was doing his manufacturing down the street at 451 Quarry Street in an old mill, which he had outgrown.

So the board at that time did grant the variance to change the use. So David subsequently moved his manufacturing facility from Quarry Street to this location.

As indicated within the zoning ordinance in Section 86441, manufacturing facilities have much less of a parking demand than a wholesale or retail facility. So when you drive by the site now, During business hours, what you'll notice is there's a vast vacant or mostly vacant parking lot, even when the U.S. betting is operational.

Furthermore, there was a restriction put on this property at the time of purchase. It was purchased from the Walmart Corporation, and the property is indeed restricted as to the type of businesses that are allowed to operate on it. Walmart did not want any competitors coming in and doing business on this. So even though this isn't a zone that would allow that type of use, it is restricted as to what

it can be used for. So the proposal we have before you tonight is to divide a 27,000 square foot lot off the northwest corner of this property.

The lot will have 109 feet of frontage on Jefferson Street. thus making it a conforming lot in the local business-owning district. The plan is to construct an 11-unit townhouse-style building on this newly created lot, waiving the maximum number of units allowed in the local business district, which is three. The issue we ran up against there, and when I initially looked at this, we were going to divide this

area into multiple lots, if possible. And there is sufficient frontage on the overall piece in addition to the 109 feet that we do have on Jefferson Street. There's an additional 527 feet on Brayton Avenue. So this lot that we have created, if the frontage and if the lot configuration were more suitable, we could do these three lots that would each be in excess of 8,000 square feet.

And by right, under the zoning ordinance, we could construct three unit townhouses on each of those and add the potential ADU to each one for a total of 12 possible units. So, you know, in theory, the existing lot, its current configuration has the frontage to, well, the existing overall lot, it has the frontage to create, to be divided into six lots. But because of the location of the frontage,

primary location of the frontage being on Brayton Avenue, which is closer in proximity to the existing building, doesn't make that ideal to cut lots out of that area. So this particular area up at the northwest corner made the most sense.

So when you look at this, even though the request before you is to waive the unit count that's allowed in the local business district, actually in theory more of a lack of frontage type of project in that which is the reason we're here tonight the other thing to note is that this newly created lot if it were in the commercial commercial mill district which is which it does a bought directly

to the south and like I said the majority of this parcel along the south and west portion about the commercial mill district if it had been in that district, this proposal could be done by right. The fact that we're not in that is why we're here tonight. So I would argue that the proposed development that you see before you is in harmony with the neighborhood, and it doesn't derogate from the intent

of the ordinance. And I think what we are proposing is a reasonable density given the size of the lot that we are creating for these 11 townhouse units.

hardship that we're dealing with here again is the irregular shape of the overall parcel in the location of this area that we're dealing with in proximity to the existing building. It's pretty far away given the manufacturing use of the building there would never ever be a need for parking in this particular location so it's been sitting there vacant for many years and I do believe this would be a

good use of it. So with that I'd be happy to answer any questions. So, and thank you. The hardship becomes an issue because you're creating this lot and you're creating a lot that's going to have what percentage of lot coverage between parking and building? Well it would have, it's going to be a reduction in lot coverage in the area of the lot that we're creating. The AL has

no lot covered. True. So the hardship, even though we're creating this lot, the hardship stems to the original lot in existence right now. The way it's configured with this little finger that sticks up at the northwest corner that when you look at the overall site plan, and I did submit like a site locus plan because this is a, you know, this is obvious a close-up of the development. You can see that

this is kind of like an odd little piece that really has no use. It's been blocked off. Most of the parking area on this site now has been blocked off, but this has been blocked off for many years and it's just been sitting there. So when you look at recent developments that have happened, although they're in the Commercial Mill District, it was recently, I think it was an

eight unit condominium complex or apartment complex directly to the south of this that was developed. This would kind of be in harmony with that. And the units, to give you an idea of what this would look like, the units that we have on this particular plan would be the same, if not very similar to the five unit condominium complex on Spring Street that was constructed right behind the bus station,

which is a nice looking building, nice facade. Looks great when you drive by with all the units. And I think it would be an enhancement to the neighborhood. as you're driving into Walmart, it would certainly have some curb appeal. We'd be utilizing a lot of the infrastructure that's already in place. Even though there is no lot coverage requirement, we would be adding green space to this property.

There would be a reduction in impervious material as part of this project, so there's a lot of benefits to it. It's the jump from three to 11 that's just going through my mind. John? Jeff, can you talk a little bit about reducing parking for the bigger parcel which was required to have a lot more when it was wholesale retail when it was wholesale retail yeah do we need a waiver for that

I you know I didn't run the number on that but I would I would have to say no I it is I know there's a lot of parking there but this step that's a huge So just looking at the numbers of how it's calculated for manufacturing as opposed to retail, I mean, there's no way that these spaces that we have here would ever be, would bring those parking spots down below the required level. And certainly, you

could condition any approval if you do decide to approve this project in such a manner that if it does happen, We can do a parking analysis and take a look at it, but I doubt it's even any more close. Well, to that, John.

And this doesn't affect, you said there was a covenant, or there was something to the effect that? It was what the property can be used for. Right. And it was mostly anything that could be competitive to Walmart, like retail operations and different things. There were restrictions that were put in place. This is still all subject

to that agreement. You can't change that agreement. Right, that agreement's in place. You can give them zoning permission, but that doesn't mean they're not going to get sued by Walmart. Right. That's what I'm asking. So these are new Walmart customers that'll be going in here, so I don't see them having a problem. Yeah, right. Well, they're going to be using their driveway, so. Dan, do you have the prior

relief we gave for the vetting company? Did we change the use from retail? Yes. Yeah, okay. So that can change that. That doesn't mean that it couldn't go back as a matter of right to retail, but they were limited.

comments then I mean I can clearly understand the argument for the unit count that that's not an issue and I've actually contemplated trying to move with the zoning change to reduce the capital units in a DL we just get similar to the a2 we get here with BL's BL's and you know just doesn't blend itself with three unit buildings right I just cautiously want to make sure that when we get

the site plan review, so no waivers of parking have been requested, including setbacks of property lines and everything else. So if we get the site plan review and it's determined that the setback for that parking lot to the side lot line, which is adjacent to the driveway, if there's relief needed, they may need to come back for that relief or shift the building down. You know, as long as they can, all

you're dealing here with is density, with how many units. That's the only relief being requested, I believe. And Dan, just for clarification, are we talking about just on the east side where the sidewalk is? Are we talking about on the north side where that... I'm thinking the north side. Even though that's an existing condition? I don't see...

What is the existing condition? No, yeah, it's not clear on here, but those spots, other than maybe two... Like I can see spaces on the Sutherly property line being shown. Yeah, so this... Where the 22 are, I think we're adding two...

to the west side, but the other 20 are existing parking spaces. Okay, it doesn't show that, so it just shows up. Yeah, it doesn't show up on here. Through site plan review, if you're not, if you're not getting closer, if those are spaces and you're not getting closer to that property line, then we're fine. Then we're good, yeah. Well, so I'm concerned about the property line. Is the property line in this

case the dash line? Yes. It doesn't go up to the sidewalk. Okay, so we're, so some of these parking spaces right against that property line we don't have a setback. Which is the existing condition. If it's not parking space now it may need relief to be that close. Okay. It's just not showing here or asphalt so you can't even contemplate it today but we can deal with it during

site plan review. Yeah I 100% sure that's an existing condition that we have right there. All right so we got 22 parking spaces obviously these are going to be two bedroom townhouses most likely. I want to say they're three.

I mean, one option actually would be to move the spaces to the new concrete sidewalk and use the drive aisle to the outside. It's just the wording and the regulation of parking space setback, drive aisles don't necessarily deal with it. I think we'll be able to work with that. Yeah, I think we, I mean, if we had to tighten it up, we do have some room. You know in front of the

building and we do have an aisle with a 24 where it only really needs to be 22.

Because technically that building doesn't need to be 21 feet off the South property line either.

Yeah at least it's getting something. No patios don't count. Are you contemplating green space then past the patios? Correct. Okay. Yeah you can see like that Yeah, you can't see the parking along the south property line where it extends basically.

There's a couple of light poles along that property line and it extends all the way down. It does get hidden under the shading for the new parking area. But I use those parking spots on the north side. Okay. I have nothing left. Yeah, I mean any question I have is not even zoning based. It's just marketing based. And that's not purview. Any questions? Anyone else? Going to the assembled masses. Anyone here wishing to

speak in favor of this? I stopped you intentionally halfway. I'm sorry, Ken. I'm going to say something. I'm Ken Fiola, Executive Vice President of the Gerson County ABC.

I think Mr. Tolman did a good job in identifying some of the challenges with this parcel. My office originally coordinated the purchase of the property for U.S. bedding from Walmart and utilizing the former Sam's Club property for now its manufacturing purposes. If you look at this property, as Mr. Tolman said, it's pretty much on an island of itself. It's bordered by Jefferson Street, and then

you have an access way through the property, so it's separated from the primary U.S.

bedding facility itself. The additional need for parking for U.S. Bedding is going to be slim to none as it moves forward. We've been trying to market this property on behalf of the owner for quite some time, but as Mr. Tolman has indicated, the deed restrictions prevent any competitive use to Walmart. So you have a piece of property here that virtually has no use. It's not necessary for the operation of U.S.

Bedding, and it's abutting a residential neighborhood. And we all know that we're in need of additional housing, and especially housing throughout the South End, because there's been a lot of development of housing throughout the North End. And I think the South End housing is now starting to become a little bit more fashionable, a little bit more marketable.

And I think this is a good use for the property itself. And most importantly, from my perspective, any proceeds generated from the redevelopment of this property are going to go back into U.S. betting for the purchase of more equipment. other things to help facilitate the manufacturing process that's currently underway there. So it's a win-win

from at least my viewpoint in terms of utilizing an underutilized piece of property, you know introducing a use that's compatible to abutting uses and also generating proceeds that can go back into a manufacturing businesses and a manufacturing business that can use it for equipment purchases and also resulting in additional employment opportunities. So I

hope that the board sees fit to pass this tonight. I think it's a nice project and I think, like I said, it's a good project for us. Thank you.

Ken, thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to speak in favor? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Okay, Aaron Dunn, last shot, board, for questions.

I do have a copy of the previous zoning decision. in my file you can see it for yeah quite honestly the the deed restriction enforced by imposed by Walmart actually leans towards a hardship for the property owner definitely things you can do with that yes the variance has requested and second then discussion on the motion. Hearing none, Ricky. Yes. Dan.

Yes. Jim. Yes. John. Yes. Chairman Prairie, yes. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Item number six applicant owner is Victor Vieira and Melissa Vieira, care of Attorney Peter A. Salino. 81 Joseph Drive is the subject property map U21.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. To construct a 20 by 44 foot attached garage to the existing home waving front and side yard setback requirements. The property is located in R30 family, single family zoning district. Good evening. For the record, my name is Peter Foligno. I represent the homeowners applicants. Immediately to my left is Melissa Vieira. Her husband Victor is

in the green shirt in the audience. They own the property located at 81 Joseph Drive. The proposal before you tonight is to erect an addition onto the existing single-family structure. The dimensions of that existing, the dimensions of that structure are 20 by 44 as shown on the plan. And the requests before you in terms of the proposal are a front yard setback waiver and a side yard setback waiver. I've submitted in

my filing that I believe that the hardship is the shape of the lot together with the existing structure. This is pled as a variance and the location that they're choosing to build the garage is most near to Ms. Vieira's mother and father. So they are the direct of butter, plan right. So that was the...

chosen spot, and I'd also submit for the record that there's no intended commercial use at all. Mr. Vieira has advised me that he has cars and tools that he's looking to store in the garage. I know it's been a long night already, so I think we can be probably that brief for this petition. We're happy to answer any questions the Board has. I'm not seeing too much to question on

this. You are, so it's, you're not looking for any type of commercial on it?

You're not looking to? No. plumbing truck here and pipes dragging it out at 6 o'clock in the morning when you go into job sites.

We get five and a half feet of setback on that side lot line. That is correct Mr. Pereira and I'll speak Mr. Brilliant likes to say he's candid and speaks freely so I drew my clients attention to the Langley Street petition and the board's desire to have a five foot setback at least for fire purposes so that's that setback got to be that. Okay. That's cool. Easy. Questions from the

board? And that's 20 feet the width of that driveway that's there now? About. Yes.

I guess. Yeah.

Can a single story? Single story. Yes.

Okay. Any other questions from the board? to the audience anyone wishing to speak in support anyone wishing to speak in opposition good neighbors

motion and second yes Dan yes Jim yes John yes yes thank you

Number seven, applicant owner is... Don't get giddy. Item number seven, applicant owner is A. Smith, LLC, care of attorney Peter A. Salino. Subject property, 1012 Bedford Street, MAP, L21, Lot 57. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following.

sell alcohol from the existing convenience store and gas station for off-premises consumption as opposed to hanging around the convenience store and drinking. It's located in the BN neighborhood shopping zoning district. Good evening for the record. My name is Peter Solino.

I'm a lawyer at 550 Locust Street in Fall River. I represent the owner applicant, A. Smith, LLC, which is controlled and held by the Patel family who are all here. The genesis of this petition is that Patels have a purchase and sale agreement to buy a beer and wine license from a store on Pleasant Street. When I went to apply for the transfer of that beer and wine license to this location,

Kerry sent me to the building department to ask if the use was permitted. And Mr. Hathaway gave a letter that the use of off-premises consumption was not permitted at this location. So that's how we got here. So this is incident to a business transaction and everybody's edification. This is the service station right next to Columbus Park on Bedford Street. So the ask here is that

the table of uses doesn't allow specifically the sale of off-premise alcohol and that is why we're here. So it's strictly for use. The building is there.

The building is not changing. The gas station remains. It's a mobile brand gas station.

You're very familiar with it. Say that.

So there's a mini-mart called Moe's Variety on Pleasant Street. It has a beer and wine license. They have a purchase and sale agreement to buy that license to transfer it to this location. And then that's when Kerry sent me to Glen and here we are. That store is going to continue to operate as a convenience store but not as a beer owner. So it is not a net gain beer and wine license? That's correct, right.

I suppose the only question anybody could have is it's adjacent to a park, but it's only a problem if you sell to somebody under the age of 21.

I have no questions on this. Anybody on the board?

Anybody here wishing to speak in favor of the petition? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? hearing none it comes to the board. Is Chairman a move of the variant as you requested? Second.

That being the case on the petition, John? Yes. Jim? Yes. Dan?

Yes. Mickey? Yes. And myself? Yes. Thank you. That's two fast ones.

Without jiu-jitsu. So he's now speaking freely. Yeah, now he speaks freely. Well, Greg sat in the press. He's only been 15 years. Yeah. Item number eight applicant is Jason M. Duart. Owners, Gonzales Real Estate Investments LLC, care of attorney Peter Salino, subject properties 835 North Main Street. That's a big sign.

Block O10. I'm sorry, map O10. Lot 14, the applicant is requesting the variance to allow the following. One, to construct an eight-unit apartment building in the BL District.

Two, to waive setback requirements from 10 feet to 5 feet. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following to waive parking requirements of Section 86-441 from the required 16 parking spaces. property is located in a BL, Local Business Zoning District. MR. Good evening. For the record, Peter Solino, on behalf of the applicant,

Jason Duart, who is with me, it should also be noted for the record that the owner, Louis Gonzalez, is in the back row over my right shoulder. So this petition is before you pursue into a purchase and sale agreement, Jason purchasing from Lou.

Everyone would remember this building as the Dell's Lemonade on North Main Street, which has been vacant for many years. While we're speaking freely, I think I sat in front of this board many years ago with Mr. Gonzalez to, you know, bring forward a petition on this specific property. The petition before you tonight is to convert the existing

structure into eight two-bedroom units. What's interesting to me about this site is the zoning line goes right through the middle of North Main Street, and so WTOD is on the other side of North Main Street, just not our side of North Main Street. So as a result, as we just heard in the last petition, in the local business district you can only have three units. So first and foremost, we need

a variance for the number of units. Second, seeking a variance for the side yard to go down to five feet. And third, a special permit in order to go one-to-one parking as opposed to the required two spaces. It's submitted that the hardship has to be the shape of this lot is clearly irregular, as well as the position of the existing structure, which already hugs lot line so we've had

in addition to our submission of the site plan the floor plans were submitted they're all it contemplated to be two-bedroom units I think the board has a copy of that on their iPad and we're happy to answer any questions relative to design construction that the board may have so these would be apartments not not condominium nice correct the intention is apartments yes Three-story building. Got you.

So you're providing eight parking places. Yeah. It's space. It didn't say that in your application. I just noticed it on the plan. It just says waiver of parking. So there's going to be eight spots. There'll be space, what, ten, I believe. What's a couple loading spots? I just don't want to see North Main Street any further encumbered with parking. It's bad enough running up and down North Main now.

I think that's my biggest problem is parking on this one. Dan, from a planning standpoint, could you weigh in, please? Let's compare it to the last deal that we dealt with. we had a land area that you could provide an argument that the density would be allowed on that many square feet how many how big is this piece of land so so by right you can have a three-family right right you need 8,000 square feet

the other one didn't need any parking waivers didn't need any building setback waivers this is a lot

understand you saying that is that it's a hardship but there is no hardship if you comply with the ordinance you can build a three-family here and provide six off-street parking spaces oh yeah and the shapes almost square and it is a lot it is a lot but it's a you know each one of these is apples to oranges right then we we had just had 11 units with 22 parking spaces is I was

saying in an odd location, but what else are you going to do with it?

You got a six family next door to you.

I'm not sure which one across the street. I guess my intention was when I was looking at this originally, it's, you know, we're every waterfront district right across the street from it. And I've seen a lot of the other buildings are proof with, like, one parking spot. I can fit the 10 parking spots, which would be 1.25 parking spots per unit. Yeah, but that 1.25 is only applied to buildings with greater

than 50 units. Right. So right now, the ordinance requires that you provide 16 spaces. Yeah. Right. And you're providing eight. Yeah. I guess the other thing was because of the distance from the train station is what I was looking at. Our zoning ordinance has... contemplated the location of the train station and that's why the WTOD was extended to where it was. It specifically did

not go on the opposite side further up North Main Street because of the existing character of that neighborhood and the topography and everything else that you find through that and the different types of uses that are on that side of North Main Street.

So you are in a local business district. You need to comply with local business district requirements. The fact that you're across the street from a WTOD means it means nothing. But I don't vote. Right. Any other questions on this?

We don't need lock coverage. Right. Right. Because it's within the zone.

It's just heavy. That's all. It's heavy. My client is indicating to me that he'd be willing to relook at this if we could ask the board to table the matter and see if we can reduce the number of units. We can see what the audience has to say first. Yeah. Let's see what your neighbors are saying if anybody is here. Let's do that first, okay? Is there anybody wishing to

speak in favor of this? Anybody wishing to speak in opposition?

Mr. Chairman, I move that we honor the petitioner's request to table us.

our next meeting or to the data? If it's going on the next meeting, we need to plan before the deadline for the? April 30th.

April 30th. Otherwise we'll have to go to June. You got northeast on this. So do we want to define the date?

I'm going to write it out now. The next meeting is on May 21st. Okay. Do you want to meet that or do you want to be on? Is Jeff here? Of course Jeff's gone. Yes, we'll keep that date.

Tell Jeff he's going to, tell Jeff the board voted to have him complete these plans on time. That's Richard Jensen. Yeah. It's outside our purview, but it's Jeff.

All right, we have a motion on the table.

Second. Second. Dan, thank you. On that then, Ricky? Yes. Dan? Yes. Jim?

Yes. John? Yes. Jim Perry, yes. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Item number nine applicant is the Auto Genie LLC, owner, Joelle and Joseph, LLC.

of Attorney Peter A. Salino, subject property 235 John Street, map I-15, lot 22.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following one to operate slash expand an automotive repair and auto body repair on the premises. On the preexisting nonconforming commercial property, the applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following one to reduce the number of customer parking spaces required from three spaces to two spaces.

to reduce the required parking space with proposed customer parking from 9 feet to 8.5 feet. The property is located within an A2 apartment zone district. Good evening. For the record, Peter Foligno. On behalf of the owner applicant, with me is Mr. Al-Zabak and Mr. Al-Zabak. The site is Vicks Car Wash. So we've probably all been to Vicks Car Wash. The structure that we're referring to actually

faces Fifth Street. So when you're driving into the car wash, it's the building sort of on your right. The proposal is to turn that into an auto repair. auto body facility. Because it's A2 zoning, this would be an expansion of the existing nonconforming use in the A2 district. Additionally, the relief sought is the reduction in customer parking

places from 3 to 2, and then the width. Mr. Tallman, when he measures out, he can't get the spots to be 9 by 18, so we're proposing 8.5 by 18. In terms of the variance component, I think the hardship are the existing structures and their location on the site, along with the site circulation relative to the car wash. And I think this is a great use for the city and a city

business that's looking to expand to the extent relevant to the petition or the curiosities of the board in addition the Al Zabax on the lot across John Street as well which can be used for storage if there's any concern about overflow cool so it's an existing building that's being converted it's not no new construction no new constructions proposed it's just okay no where's it being used at all where do you

have storage in there yeah just stores yeah currently it's just storage What was that originally? Wasn't it? It was a police substation. It was labby glass before that. It was a glass repair facility. Nice building. That's a good old building.

Yeah, currently we actually have a mural being painted on the entire building as well to make it look a little bit better.

Okay.

Questions, guys? None? No overnight parking. No, any overnight parking is done in the larger parking lot.

Across John Street. Or on the site that's in accordance with the original approvals for the stowing of towed vehicles. Yeah, the towed vehicles are actually at zero John Street. Yeah. Jeff actually did a very good job of delineating each space with each specific use, each specific license. Not easy to get it out of this stuff. It was late at night. feeling kind of in the mood. You should be honored really.

No jujitsu or anything. Okay. Anybody wishing to speak in favor? Anyone wishing to speak against? His dad wants to speak in favor. I'd say that. The chairman and I move the grant approval of the variance. Ever the... Sex, both I think.

and second. Give John the second on this one. All right, John. So this is two different votes, right? Yes, the variance and the special permit. Yeah, it's on the variance. Mr. Chairman, I move that it's not more substantially detrimental and then we grant the special permit as requested. You want to do the special permit first? But you already made a motion on the variance. I don't vote. We didn't vote. So we

have a motion on the variance that was seconded. Was that you, John?

No, I was saying those two. No, it was Dan. Okay, that's fine. Then on the variance, John? Yes. Jim? Yes. Dan? Yes. Ricky? Yes. Me? Yes.

Okay, now go. I move that we grant the special permit finding that it is not substantially more detrimental. Second. Okay, motion and second. On the motion, John? Yes. Jim? Yes. Dan? Yes. Ricky? Yes. Me? Yes. Best of luck with it. Thank you all so much.

Appreciate it. Have a good night. Good night as well. And we hit number 10.

We've got signs coming out. We've got overhead views.

Item number 10, the applicant owner, Charlton Mill Lofts, LLC, care of Attorney Peter A.

Salino. Subject property is at 309 House Street.

at east side of Otis Street, map B20, lot 1 and map B21, lot 32. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following. One, to raise, which is not R-A-I-S-E, to raise two structures on the property, convert the existing mill building into 174 apartment units and construct a 68-unit apartment building on the property,

use, number of units, as well as the parking and loading requirements of Section 86-441 and 86-444 as to the proximity to property lines. The property is located in a CMD commercial mill zoning district. Good evening. Peter Solino on behalf of the applicant. With me is Tim Cussin, Farland Engineering, and well, Tim's gentleman here. So, the proposal before you is 109 Howe Street. This matter has sort of

been before you previously to the east. So we came in previously relative to a multi-unit development to the east, which is currently under construction. What's before you right now relates to the existing mill building as well as a building that's proposed to be erected. The proposal includes the following, which was modified, and this is the board's packet

from what was just read on the agenda. So the proposal is to convert the existing mill into 147 total units. 55 of which are studios, 74 of which are one bedrooms, and 18 of which are two bedrooms. To construct a new building containing 68 units, 52 one bed, 8 two bed, 8 three bed.

So the total proposed number of units is 215. The parking allotment is 269 spaces, which calcs out to 1.25.

187 being with the existing structure and 82 proposed for the new structure. This is contemplated to be market rate housing development and the I don't think there's an intention to condo it, the intention is to rent it. Yeah, these are rentists. It's a really unique and neat project because it takes the existing structure and

a new structure. It's got solar components. It's got community space and then different amenities along the pond. It's all being proposed by special permit as far as use and the various waivers that you laid out in the actual application. Of course, we have the architectural renderings here. We've submitted floor plans. So we're happy to

answer any questions the Board may have about the proposal and really excited about the project. First of all, thank you for reducing the numbers because I was very concerned about the parking ratio for this thing, so I appreciate that. I'm sure the whole board does. Wow.

at this for a while. I know you like the looks of the original or the current pattern. Oh, I love the property as it stands. I can't believe we'd change that. Don't get nervous, Peter. You're turning red over. Dan, talk to me from planning. So, I mean, we've worked on a year. At least.

At least you. Yeah, at least you. With different concepts, and so I'm so glad that it finally came before us. Hope it actually gets built. We keep trying to move forward with some of these mill projects, but a lot of them we just can't get people off the dime. Everybody's been super successful with the ones that they have done. I know Mr. Custon's reputation and his track record, and it's

very impressive with regards to development, so we do have the ability to do this.

Really, the only thing that it comes down to is the parking requirement. what they what we've been able to discuss and get them to is what would be required in the WTO D so most zoning districts didn't contemplate buildings of this many units so in the WTO D the underlying zoning if we get to a building that exceeds 50 units in density the parking ratio is 1.25

spaces per unit that number even gets reduced even greater is like a commercial component into it so we're not getting into that part of it but we wanted to at least make sure I wanted to make sure that a reasonable petition came before you that at least met that number which that number was derived from market analysis unit size types of tenants that are in these buildings we found that all of the mills that have

been developed with this parking density have been able to provide enough parking not a concern. Well the trick here is you know as we developed a lot of downtown they were alternative places to park. Right. And there's no alternatives here. No, no, no, no. And that's the difference of this site compared to some of the existing commercial buildings that we've dealt with even in the vicinity of this building. So

I'm thankful that the applicant understood that and reduced the total number of units to meet that requirement. I'm in full support of it. Very well done, very well thought out. been a lot of red pen on this thing over the time right there that's all right yes that's what makes a good project it's good but we appreciate that I mean the rent reads look great I'm sure this is just such a

such a boom for this this piece of property my opinion a long guy questions from the board mr. Jim I would just echo that I commend you on this on this proposal something very well needed in the city thank you I mean, it's a great spot. It's actually a beautiful location and a beautiful building. And, you know, we've put a lot into the building so far. It's the thought of, you

know, on-site recreation for the tenants inside and outside the building. We've started the cleanup process on the building. Actually, it's pretty much almost done. So we're eager to get going, and our plan is to jump right into construction as soon as possible and move the project forward. Do we have a timeline, estimated timeline? Depending on final permitting

and everything, we'd like to be, our phase two would be the ground up building and the windows at the same time for the main mill building from a marketing kind of point of view. And we'd like to do that later this year if possible, if we can get there. Yeah, I love saving these mill buildings and the character of them is just so much worthwhile. And

we got to work with the National Park Service. It's Fall River. And they say Fall River when you drive by. It's these Fall River granite buildings, et cetera.

We have our part one approval through the National Park Service and we're working on our part two already. And they gave us feedback. We made a lot of changes based on what they wanted on the new construction of the building. And they actually gave us some great compliments. They really love what we're doing with the building and the project. So we're excited about it. And again, when you're looking at the very,

it's not a lot of relief, right? part of it, understand that meeting the parking need just for the sake of meeting parking need means no tennis courts, no pickleball courts, no community buildings. So there's room to do it, but the lane is being utilized for overall better planned purposes for the development. So it was a balancing act. And I think in the long run, somebody's going to be happy knowing,

happier knowing that they're going to get home and have a place to park instead of fighting for that last spot. Place to park, go for a swim, play a game of pickleball, and you know, enjoy. Give them something else to do inside to get a big enough building, right? We have two media rooms. We're going to have golf assimilators. We have a pool table area in there

and a recreation area also. Cool. Very good. No other questions?

Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this petition? Thank you. I'm Ken Paola, Executive Vice President of Bristol County EDC. I think a lot of the information here has already been discussed. A couple of additional points here, I think. One, I don't think it was mentioned. I stepped out for a minute, but maybe it had.

The primary mill building had a pretty significant environmental issue, and the remediation that's been taking place there. Without such remediation, the building could not be reutilized.

So there's a lot of money that's already gone into that to make it a lot usable for residential purposes that's money that people don't necessarily see but without without that investment the mill building can never be repurposed secondly I think it also unlocks one of our greatest assets would be a cook pond nobody's ever really took advantage of cook pond for you know because it's already been

always been sort of precluded from public use because of other mill building uses right and as now you have greater accessibility there thirdly It's in the south end of the city, which I'm very happy about because a lot of developments taking place along the waterfront. I think spreading the development out throughout the city makes a lot of

sense. It's also, you know, what we're finding in the south end is these types of units and this type of development is very interesting to those people on Aquidneck Island because it's such a small commute and there's not a lot of buildable space on Aquidneck Island, whether you're looking at Portsmouth, Middletown, or Newport. So you see

a lot of people moving in from Rhode Island into Massachusetts, specifically for residential purposes.

And once they're here, now they're starting to look at the other parts of the city and frequenting other establishments and everything else. So I think the rendering speaks for itself. I don't want to say what the financial investment is here, but it's multi-million dollars. This is not a cheap project. So this is not something that's not going to be done first class. Yeah, we expect $3 million in the project

so far today, and we estimate it will be a $65 million project. I do want to say that. I don't mind. So you've got $65 million of further investment coming into the city. I think, you know what, that needs to be known, and thank you for saying it. know this this this odd perception in this city sometimes you know it's they're just slapping you know wall board up and blah

blah it's it's it's huge and you're taking an underutilized piece of property that's sitting dormant and it's not being repurposed and it's a good thing so anyway thank you i hope thank you very much anyone else wishing to speak in favor anybody in opposition This is the biggest project we've had with nobody in here jumping up and down. I'm very happy to see

that. So technically, it's like the third mill complex that will have access to Cook Pond, right? We've got King Philip. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. And just to note, the single family residents also will have access to the amenities of the complex also.

very good discussion of the motion hearing none Ricky yes Dan yes Jim yes John yes and Chairman Brewery yes thank you thank you very much thank you so much for putting so much into this I appreciate it. Thank you.

Citizen input? No. Approval of minutes from the March 19, 2026 meeting. Mr. Chairman, I move the reading of minutes and approval of Senate. Second. And seconded. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Motion adjourned. Nothing else? Motion for adjournment. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Guys, girls. Thank you.