7.16.2026 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 on Thursday, 16th— Thursday, July 16th, 2026.

We are meeting at One Government Center in the first floor hearing 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 wishes to make a video, audio, or combined recording of this meeting, please notify me now and I will make a public announcement of your intent.

Our recording secretary this evening is Courtney Pereira, sitting to my immediate right.

Present this evening are regular members James Calkins, our Clerk, Dan DuPere and Ricky Sahadi, as well as alternate member Eric Kelly.

Also present this evening is Mr. Daniel Aguiar, Director of Engineering and Planning, who is seated to my far left.

Have all— Courtney, have all petitions to be considered been properly advertised?

And all interested parties notified in accordance with the rules and regulations of the ZBA and Mass General Law 40A as amended?

Yes.

I thereby declare the July 16th, 2026 regularly scheduled meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Fall River open for such business as shall regularly be coming before it.

I remind all persons presenting before the board, including petitioners, abutters, anyone in favor or opposed to a petition that your presentation be limited to 3 minutes.

The Board's rules and regulations direct the Board to specifically look for information that supports a petitioner's claim.

As such, the petitioner should clearly identify and factually support the basis for their claim.

In each— in the case of a variance, 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 Mass 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 all comments made in the hearing be limited in scope of authority to— through the scope of our authority.

Additional permits, licenses, reviews, and/or approvals may be required for any of these petitions.

The action taken by the board has a real and lasting effect on the title to your real estate.

As such, I urge all petitioners to seek competent legal counsel before filing your petition and after the decision of the board has been made.

A copy of the ordinance is available at the city clerk's office or from the planning department.

I remind everyone that the building inspector is the zoning enforcement authority, and you are here because the building inspector has determined that your proposed action contrary to the City of Fall River's zoning ordinance.

The city's charter, Section 9-18, mandates that all multi-member bodies develop and adopt rules or policies for public comment.

We have adopted such a policy that provides for citizens' input on zoning board-specific matters on the agenda near the end of the meeting.

A signup sheet for public comment is is on the table outside the doors of the room.

I thereby declare the meeting open.

Um, can I have a motion that we, um, that we delay the 2 items of old business, and a motion— 2 separate motions, please— and a motion to move to executive session?

Mr. Chairman, I move that we delay or postpone the items 01 and 02 and that we convene an executive session.

To the executive session.

Roll call vote, please.

James Calkins?

Yes.

Dan DuPere?

Yes.

Ricky Sahadi?

Yes.

Eric Kelly?

Yes.

And Chairman Pereira?

Yes.

All right.

For those of you who are here, just be patient.

We're going to leave the room for a short period of time and go into executive session and return back to open session.

I move that we return to regular session.

Open session.

Open session.

We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

On the motion, by roll call, Eric Kelly?

Yes.

Ricky Sahadi?

Yes.

Dan DuPere?

Yes.

James Calkins?

Yes.

And Joseph Prairie?

Yes.

Okay, back to old business.

Item number 01, the applicant owner is— Excuse me, before you move on to old business, can I just ask one question on your previous business?

On which previous business?

The session that you just went in.

No, we cannot discuss it.

At the end of the meeting, if you want to speak during public input, you can.

You can give input, but it's not going to be a discussion.

We cannot get into a discussion about it.

Okay.

Alrighty.

Thank you.

Item number 01.

Applicant owner is Luis Gonzalez.

This is care of Jeffrey Tallman, Northeast Engineers and Consultants, Inc. Subject property, 333 Durfee Street.

Map 08— I'm sorry, 011.

Lot 0013, the original— the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following: 1, to convert an existing automotive repair shop into 3-family dwelling, thereby expanding the existing nonconforming 5-family dwelling to a total of 8 dwelling units.

The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following: 1, relief to reduce the number required parking spaces pursuant to Section 86-444 of the zoning ordinances.

The property is located in a BN neighborhood shopping zoning district.

This was tabled from our June 16th or June 18th meeting.

Mr. Tallman.

Good evening.

For the record, Jeff Tallman, Northeast Engineers and Consultants.

I did submit a request today to have that tabled.

Until the August meeting.

Because when we started looking at making revisions to the plan to address the board's concerns, one of the, one of the issues and items we looked at is possibly using the lower level of that building for parking, which makes a ton of sense, considering it's an existing garage now, which would in turn mean that we would have to go higher with the structure, which means we have to ask for an expansion of a preexisting nonconforming structure, which would require additional— well, it would require that the petition be readvertised.

So that's why I submitted the request today.

So with that, I, you know, hope the board sees fit to grant continuation on that one.

Okay, before we act on that, one question to the planning director.

Would this require— it will have to be readvertised?

Yes.

It does not have to be a new application?

They don't have to withdraw and resubmit?

No, it will be— we will renotify.

Okay.

And we will readvertise.

Okay.

All right.

That being the case, I'll accept a motion on the request.

Mr. Chairman, I move that we grant the request to— continue our table hearing until our August meeting.

Second.

All right, motion and second.

On the motion, Eric?

Yes.

Ricky?

Yes.

Dan?

Yes.

Jim?

Yes.

Jim Prairie?

Yes.

On to item number— I'm sorry, what is the date of that August meeting?

20th.

20th.

August 20th.

Okay.

Item number 02, old business.

Applicant owner is June Perry, care of Jeffrey Tallman, Northeast Engineers and Consultants, Inc. Subject property is 311 Crescent Street, Map T-07, Lot 0001.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following: one, to divide the property into 2 lots, leaving the existing 3-family dwelling on Lot 1, a conforming 11,700-square-foot lot with 116.45 feet of frontage on Crescent Street, and creating a new 5,480-square-foot nonconforming lot for a single-family dwelling.

House with 50 feet of frontage on Valentine Street with relief from frontage use and area requirements.

Property is located in the BN neighborhood shopping zoning district.

This was tabled at our June meeting.

Mr. Tallman.

Good evening.

For the record, Jeff Tallman, Northeast Engineers and Consultants.

So in this particular application, we were kind of asked to go back and take a look to see if we because we were making the case that the lot itself being adjacent to the G District and with a small portion at the rear being in the G District, we were hoping to use the sidestep X for G. During the conversation, it was brought up, well, to see if we could comply with all the requirements, which included lot coverage within the G District, because there is no lot coverage requirement in the neighborhood shopping district.

We did take a look at that.

We did change the configuration of the house.

This configuration actually is probably very close to, if this ultimately gets approved, what will be built there, if not exactly what would be built.

There would be a 1-stall garage, same general footprint, only with the addition of the garage.

The only issue, a couple of issues that we ran into when we looked at this, the In terms of the lot coverage requirement of meeting the 25%, just because of the nature of the existing structures and the retaining wall on Lot 1, there is kind of that pinch point between like Valentine Street and where the house would be located, which causes this house to be pushed back a little bit further.

So therefore, the driveway is probably a little bit longer than what we would like.

So if we were to have to comply to the 25%, we certainly could.

We could put an asphalt driveway for a certain portion until you get back close to the garage.

And then what I'm showing on this particular plan is a paver walkway that transitions into the remainder of the driveway that enters the garage.

So with that type of configuration, we would be able to keep the lot coverage to where it needs to be at the 25%.

So if need be, this is something that we could do.

If the board sees fit, and is willing to give us— we didn't ask for it only because it's not required in this particular zone.

If we could bump that lot coverage up a little bit, we could continue the asphalt all the way to the garage, and eliminate the need for having that paver driveway, that small portion.

I'm thinking if we were allowed to go up to somewhere around 28%, in that range that would cover that additional area.

But, if need be, if we have to meet the 25%, this plan does accomplish that.

The other issue that was discussed at the previous meeting was the existing retaining wall, the stone retaining wall, which we're kind of holding the lot line adjacent to that.

We were asked to take a look to see if we could move that line to the bottom of the wall.

But, as I started getting into that, what became apparent is the retaining wall was constructed originally to level off the parking area for 311 Crescent Street.

So, it's basically, it cuts into the slope that comes down on Valentine Street.

And, we do have these 2 wing walls that do project down onto Lot 1.

So, if we were to actually move that lot line to the bottom of that wall, that wall would then be in, you know, 2 different ownerships.

Yeah, you would have the owner on Lot 1 would own the wing walls, and then the owner of Lot 2 would own the primary section, which to me would just make issues a little complicated.

The wall is there to service Lot 1.

It's basically for the purpose of Lot 1.

So the more I looked at it, the more it made sense to me to keep it on Lot 1 and have it be their responsibility to maintain it.

It is in good shape.

It's in very good shape.

It was well constructed when it was built.

I don't anticipate there being, with the construction on Lot 2, any particular issues.

I mean, we are proposing to eliminate the stairs that do go up onto Lot 2, and to close off that wall, that little opening that's there to go up those stairs, repurpose some of that stone for the wing walls on the stairs to close that off, and just call it a day and leave that wall on Lot 1.

Again, it made a ton of sense to me, but, you know, that's your call.

So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

I think that's sound reasoning.

I appreciate the change.

Mr. Chairman, this design— yes, a question.

On the suggestion of potentially changing the lot coverage and adding that, it's not a listed variance.

So it doesn't need to be.

It doesn't have to be listed.

No, what happened, what Jeff was explaining is the underlying zoning district has no lot coverage.

At the last meeting, we asked him to try to conform to the adjacent G district, which would have a lot of coverage.

So relief is not required for lot coverage either way.

It's just whether or not you want to approve the relief to be a G and not be all of the G, which I have no opposition to.

Questions?

Any other questions from the board?

I think this was very sound.

If there are no questions from the board, let me It's still wild that this is a BN district.

I mean, it just cracks me up.

It's virtually entirely residential.

That's all right.

Going to those in attendance tonight, is there anyone wishing to speak in support of this petition?

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

Hearing none, comes back to the board.

Mr. Chairman, I would move that the variance be granted as proposed.

Second.

Motion and second.

I'm just trying to remember.

The only thing I would ask for a little bit of clarification would be on the whole lot coverage issue, if you don't mind a slight increase.

So whatever you have shown on the plan is what, what they'll approve.

I don't have the plan in front of me.

Okay, so it's the 25.

You show the increase.

No, no, I was showing it complying.

Well, you don't have to comply, right?

So no, but I was asked if we could fully comply to the G district, including a lot of coverage.

So it was a request.

It wasn't a mandate?

No, no, it was just to see if we could comply with everything.

Would you do it?

We can, and that's what I'm showing.

And but there's like a 10 by 10 section of that driveway.

Yeah, I don't think it's crazy to change materials at the last minute, right?

Yeah.

You gave it your best shot.

It's not practical.

It could be— yeah, we could slide the house forward and make it work.

We would.

But there are like, you know, setback issues.

You definitely— you do have the pinch point because of the angle of the wall coming across that property and changing.

So we can get it to say 28% as opposed to 25%.

The sense of variance isn't required.

I don't think that's going to— is that going to be an issue when the When the plan hits Hathaway?

No, he wanted to see it.

Okay.

All right.

So we do have a motion and a second.

So this would not be as drawn.

So the point is, they gave it a shot, what they could do to comply to the lot coverage of the adjacent G zone.

Could achieve.

That's probably— I would just include in your motion that the driveway shown can be entirely impervious.

There you go.

As stated.

Okay.

Okay.

You agree with that on the second?

Yes.

Yes.

All right, then on the motion, Eric?

Yes.

Ricky?

Yes.

Dan?

Yes.

Jim?

Yes.

Jim and Prairie?

Yes.

Great one.

Thank you.

To new business.

Item number 2 of new business is applicant owner is Stephen T. Gomes Living Trust, care of attorney Mark Levin.

Subject property 70 and 80 Warburton Street, map P021, lot 0028.

The applicant is seeking a special permit to allow the following: 1, pursuant to 86-423B of the Fall River Zoning Ordinance, to subdivide the property into 2 separate lots, each containing 1 existing 3-family dwelling.

The property is located within an S single-family zoning district.

Council.

Mr. Chairman, member of the board, you pronounced it the way I did the first time I heard it.

Attorney Mark L. Levin.

138 Rock Street, Fort Massachusetts.

I'm here representing the petitioner of the Stephen T. Gomes Living Trust.

I will be asking you tonight to do a 2-vote bifurcation with a special permit, one being the fact that I will profess that this is not more substantially detrimental to the neighborhood as it would be had stayed on 2 buildings on one lot.

The second, to allow lease separation based on the Section 86-423.

The property itself contains 2 3-family dwellings on the property.

There's a good-sized lot for each size of the buildings.

They both have frontage.

The advantage to this is bringing more affordability to possible owners, that you could have a residential owner own a 3-family, be able to finance it, than other people that would be able to not afford to have 2 buildings and financing 6 families.

The other advantage by subdividing it gives the city the tax basis that will be increased by separating them so it's not just on one lot.

It's more more in conformity to the neighborhood, that they— that most of the lots have separate houses on them itself.

And, that's about it.

Thank you.

What is the current parking situation, and what's the parking situation going to end up being?

I am told there's only parking on parcel 2 now, and there hasn't been anything in the back.

Because it's been one owner.

They just share the front parking area.

They haven't told me how they want to describe it.

They told me they were only going to do an easement for the utilities because they run through the lots, even though they're separate, they run through the lots.

But they haven't told me if they're going to accommodate any other parking for Parcel 1.

Parcel 2 will have its existing parking.

And the only easement that— there'll be the utility easement, And then an access, which is pedestrian only.

Yeah, there's, there's a walkway right now, and they want to allow the back house to still continue to use the same location.

So where is this parking currently?

It's just in the frontage.

Yeah.

Okay.

They draw it in, unfortunately, but I was told that they just park.

All right.

Comment from planning?

I would recommend no additional ADUs.

Absolutely.

As we normally do, separation of utilities affidavit filed and recorded.

And if you remember, as Paul Paul Furlan has requested that that separation and the affidavit get recorded before the submission of an ANR, so that it can be referenced as being complete on the ANR plan.

Site plan review for the separation of utilities itself.

Staking of lot corners for the new interior line.

I don't think there's an issue with fencing.

They're far enough off of the buildings.

That would be all that I would have.

Questions from the board?

Thank you, Dan.

No questions?

To the general public, anyone wishing to speak in favor of this petition?

Anyone wishing to oppose this petition?

Hearing none, it comes to the board.

And this would be a bifurcated vote.

We can take them both at once, though.

We can, yes, absolutely.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would make a motion that number one, this proposal is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood, and number two, the special permit be granted with the provisions on no parking ADUs.

And, go ahead, Dan, what else?

No ADUs, separation of utilities, affidavit filed at the Registry of Deeds stating such to be recorded and referenced on the ANR plan.

So, the ANR plan cannot be submitted until the separation is done and the affidavit filed.

Staking of lot corners with permanent monuments for the new line and site plan review.

To deal with the separation of utilities.

And that's acceptable to anyone?

Yes, it is.

The fencing shouldn't be a problem with fencing if they wanted to do it.

All right, so that would be my motion then.

Okay, very good.

Do we have a second?

Motion and second.

Discussion on the motion?

Hearing none on the motion.

Jim?

Yes.

Dan?

Yes.

Ricky?

Yes.

Eric?

Yes.

Jeremy Pereira?

Yes.

Thank you very much.

Have a great dinner.

Yes, thank you.

And have a great rest of the summer.

I won't be back in August.

Don't threaten me.

September.

See you in September.

Let's see, where are we?

Item number 3.

Owner applicant is 422 County Street LLC.

This is care of Jeffrey Tallman, Northeast Engineers and Consultants, Inc. Subject property, 422 County Street, Lot L-06— I'm sorry, Map L-06, Lot 0098.

The applicant is seeking a special permit to allow the following.

First, pursuant to Section 86-445 of the Fall River Zoning Ordinance, to waive the requirement for one off-street parking space in connection with the proposed accessory dwelling unit, ADU.

The petitioner proposes to convert a former storefront located at grade level on the subject property into an ADU.

The subject property is located within a G General Residence zoning district.

Jeff.

Good evening.

For the record, Jeff Fahlman from Northeast Engineers and Consultants here tonight on behalf of 422 County Street, LLC.

Uh, the petitioner, uh, for this application.

So quite simply, what we're looking to do is, um, and I do have, uh, I'm not sure if they included this in the issue packet, but just so you can see what's going on here, there is an existing old storefront that does not look like it has been used for quite some time.

But I do, um, remember there being there when I was— yeah, do you want one of these?

Uh, when I was a kid, I don't know if it was a convenience store or Buzzy's Barbershop.

Yeah, is that what— oh, it was Buzzy's.

That's okay, I knew there was something there.

All right, so, um, you have this old, uh, storefront associated with this building.

Um, now this building, um, was part of a, uh, a subdivision, um, that was done in 2020.

It was all, I mean, you look at the shape of the lot, you had this particular dwelling, you had 430 County Street, 438, and then 436.

And they were all part of one big lot, and they were all separated out at that time.

When they did that particular division of land, you can see where the existing staircase is coming up to the concrete walkway on this property.

There's no vehicular access whatsoever to this property.

I mean, there would technically be room, if, you know, on this property to get a parking spot in if need be.

But, just with the grades and the walkway and the stairs and everything, we just don't have that ability with the way things are constructed now.

So, the petitioner's been, you know, since buying the property, they've been trying to figure out what to do with this area in the lower level.

So then when the ADU regulations came into effect, they thought it might be a good use of it.

So what we're here tonight is basically to, to ask that the requirement that, you know, one parking spot be required be waived in order to convert that, the old barbershop into an accessory dwelling unit.

And that would be a first, because every one of the ADUs that we've needed to approve, we've made sure they have the parking space.

So we do have an unusual piece of land here.

I agree.

Do I think a residential unit is probably a really good use for, for Buzzy's?

I do.

I just get— I get real queasy with precedent sometimes.

What says planning upon this?

I mean, our past practice has been when there's no parking on the lot even existing.

So, for the 6-family, currently, there is no parking, which would normally require 12 parking spaces.

Spaces.

If there was some off-street parking to even already be providing it for the 6, then you could potentially contemplate it.

But on petitions where there's absolutely zero off-street parking even to accommodate the current use, we have not waived the need for the additional singular parking space.

So now we would have 7 units with zero parking, technically needing 13 parking spaces.

Yeah, 13, because it's in a pretty tight area.

And where this was, I mean, there's no hardship to this building where it sits and how it doesn't provide parking.

It received a variance to sit on its own lot.

So it's created the fact that this lot is this small around this building with no parking, self-imposed.

That's all.

Questions from the board?

Comments from the board?

From an engineering perspective, is it possible to grade and remove those stairs?

It's expensive.

It'd be crazy expensive.

I mean, it's retaining walls.

I mean, other applicants have done it.

Yeah, we actually— we had just— I mean, if there's a potential solution.

So it is possible to provide one space, but we're talking retaining walls, grading.

It would be a substantial investment to provide one garden space.

One of my engineers once said, you can build anything, you just might not like the price.

So, questions?

It would just seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that rather than leave it vacant, parking aside, it's a good use.

Anyone else on the board?

In the audience, anyone wishing to speak in favor of the petition?

Anyone opposed to the petition?

Hearing none, it comes down to us.

The only other thing I would like to add too, directly across the street there is an access, a vehicular access into Lafayette Park, which is gated off.

What it does provide— the residents in the area do use it for parking— and there's the ability to provide 10 parking spots in that area maximum.

And there is parking in front of this particular building as well, which obviously is probably being used by the residents and stuff like that.

So how many of the buildings that were in the 7-lot subdivision in 04 have off-street parking?

Using Lafayette Park?

No, there's a driveway.

There's actually a driveway that goes up the middle here.

And there is parking that goes to the rear of Lot 130.

And I believe there's some parking in front of— I'm sure I have 2 130s.

But on 430, house number 430, I believe has parking in back and 430 8 also has some parking.

So they are not without parking, right?

Just not the same property.

Yeah, that driveway's okay.

Hearing nothing from general public.

No more questions.

What is our— what's our motion going to be?

Again, Mr. Chairman, special permit bifurcated?

Correct?

Yeah.

Yes.

One thing I'll offer that Jeff didn't offer.

Although this has not been a commercial use that's been in existence probably for 2 years, there could be an argument made that the offset of the commercial use space, although maybe a different time period, may offset the fact that we are now adding a residential use.

But the numbers— and you may have wanted to maybe read reactivate the commercial use.

But then even at that point, we're going to— you would still— we still have the discussion at that point for employees.

So we'll still be looking at parking.

Got it.

I'll be quiet.

But that is a very good point that given the commercial— great job.

We end up trying the same place, the nature of a barbershop, people coming in and out.

Yep.

Size of the place, you could easily be 2 chairs.

Customers to employees.

You have any idea when the last time it was open?

It's been a while.

It's been a while.

Eric, you know where it is?

I was a kid when I was about— I've actually been there.

Now that you say it was Buzzy's, I've been to Buzzy's.

So, so it would be bifurcated.

Yeah.

So you can make it as one.

So then I would propose that this is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and that it be approved as requested.

Second.

Motion and second.

On the motion then, Eric?

Yes.

Ricky?

Yes.

Dan?

Yes.

Jim?

Yes.

You're going to get it anyway, but I'm voting no.

So thank you very much.

Okay, thank you.

Item number 4, applicant is Dr. Stephanie DNP LLC, DBA Biomed Spa.

Sounds like something out of a movie.

Pardon, come on up.

Owner is Lykos Properties, LLC.

Subject property is 400 Rhode Island Avenue, Lot E-08— sorry, again, Map E-08, Lot 0048.

The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following.

One, pursuant to Section 86-422 of the Fall River Zoning Ordinance, to allow tattoo services, specifically cosmetic tattooing and permanent makeup, as an accessory use within an existing medical spa.

2, relief to reduce the number of required parking spaces pursuant to Section 86-444 of the zoning ordinance.

The property is located in the BL local zoning business district.

Please identify yourself.

I'm Stephanie DeMello.

Okay, so I own a medical spa and we are requesting to be able to add microblading services to our medical spa.

It is technically regulated under tattooing.

However, from a business standpoint, it is a very different procedure from tattooing.

It is to make your eyebrows look better.

It's something that we do by appointment only in a private treatment room, and it's not going to change how we operate our business as it stands today.

And as far as parking, we are 400 Rhode Island Avenue, but we are located within 390 Rhode Island Avenue, which is all owned by Lykos Properties, and they have stated multiple times that no one tenant within the entire property has any assigned parking spaces, and they can all be used freely amongst everyone.

And they have said that our clientele is allowed to use the entire parking lot, um, and I think that's kind of the gist of it.

So you're on— your property is a separate lot?

Yes, you have to go within.

You have to go in through there, through theirs to get to ours.

It's technically a separate lot.

Yeah.

So were they to sell this off in the future, or were they to sell the back and not, not sell this, there would have to be an easement to get to this because it'd be a separate owner?

Correct.

Okay.

Okay.

On the lot in question, how many parking spaces are there?

I don't know the number of parking spaces in total for the 390.

Not for the 390.

Just, just talking about 411.

Okay.

And what's your required parking?

20?

I think it's in the top left corner.

24, based on the calculation that Jeff provided.

But that's based on 4 separate units, 3 employees per unit assumed, and then 1 space per employee plus 3 per customer.

Our computer's flipping out.

Yeah.

I don't know.

It's been doing it.

One behind you is not.

So I don't think it's this cable.

It's like a lighted billboard.

Oh, did I just say that?

Can you just— yes, let's slide that up.

So all these parking spaces that are shown around, not over here, but on 400.

Yeah, it goes across and down.

Yeah.

And it extends all the way to Rhode Island Avenue and then down to Tucker Street.

So, the only ones that you're considering as yours on this property, let's make believe you're not Lykos, that you own the building under ABC, whatever.

You've got these, these, which actually slop over the property line, and that's it, correct?

Yeah.

And, even these are in question if the property is sold, because it's right on the lot line.

So, it's kind of an oddball situation.

Listen, this is typical of this type of plaza, etc., but usually it's all one ownership.

Well, it still is one ownership, just now.

Right, but it can be broken up.

I mean, you get situations with, you know, larger plazas with a restaurant up front on a separate lot.

If you run out of parking for the restaurant, they're back in front of Walmart or whatever else is there.

So, I guess it's typical.

The only risk to you is if the rest of it gets sold off and you're standing there with your little building and they say we're going to redevelop everything on this side of Ludlow Street into something else.

Entirely, and you end up with nothing.

That's, that's the risk to you.

Otherwise, this is fairly typical, and it's usually most of those places are one— usually they're across easements that provide everyone access.

You can get cut off on pad sites.

You're not buying the property, correct?

Me?

Yeah.

No, I wish they would let me.

Well, no, I'm just going to advise that if you contemplate buying it, include it, buy it, sort of include some type of easement for the remainder, remaining part.

Because how many employees do you have in there now?

I have 4, but I also have a med spa in Rhode Island, and we divvy our time between the two.

But you occupy the whole building right No, I don't.

Unit number 2.

So you're only number 2?

Yeah.

So who's in the other units?

So unit 3— well, technically I also have unit number 1, but it's nothing.

It's vacant right now.

Yeah.

And unit 3 is, is like most properties.

They have their, uh, their plow person sleeps there during the winters.

So this is a pretty unusual circumstance then.

We've got a tenant of a portion of a building and we're trying to nail parking to their feet.

It's kind of an oddball situation.

Yeah.

That's why I believe there was a request to waive parking as part of the application.

No, it is now, right?

Yeah, it is to waive, yeah.

So really, I mean, the use is not the issue.

Yeah, right.

To wait parking.

We don't.

I don't think anybody's going to have a problem.

It's consistent with what you're with what you're doing, but it suddenly becomes tattoo.

So I get it.

You have to.

But there's no national points as far as I know that would be associated with the additional work that they're proposing.

Is it going to change staffing?

No.

In fact, a microblading appointment's about three or four hours versus.

The alternative we have now, brow waxing, is 10 minutes.

So there'll be a lot less in and out congestion, etc.

I mean, let's just hope that Lycos doesn't decide to put a restaurant in one of these units.

Yeah, I mean, I mean, my gut right now, I don't have a problem with the wave just because of the situation for the use that's before you.

I don't see an issue with the waiver of the parking.

What potentially could happen here, depending upon— like, I had actually thought that you were in all of the units.

Yeah.

And all of the parking was available to you.

So even the, like, even the 11 spaces that you have, they're not— suppose he fills unit 1, 3, and 4.

Yeah.

And those, whatever he puts in there requires 40 parking spaces.

Yeah.

That's— well, I have 1 and 2.

And I I asked them for 3, but they said no, because they haven't.

But they will not designate beyond that.

That's kind of a courtesy to you as the owner of a business.

So you don't have to park, you know, 3 stores down or something like that.

Okay, I think this is in my— clear as mud.

In my little brain, it's, it's easy.

But you're going to be so successful, you're going to pick up and move someplace else and buy a building, and you won't have to worry about it, right?

That's— we're going to live the dream with you right now.

But we will have to worry about the results.

Jimmy, go get your eyebrows fixed.

Yeah, about time.

Fixed.

Fixed.

Yeah, fixed.

You're going to have to register them with the dog officer.

While we're here, uh, anybody— any other questions from the board?

No.

Anybody here in the audience wishing to speak in favor of this petition?

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

None.

I'm going to get you a free eyebrow job, Jeffrey, on this one, and a haircut.

It's cruel.

Anyway, then it's to us.

So we have, we have, we have the use situation.

And we have the parking.

Both special permit.

You can roll it all into one.

We can.

Anybody?

Mr. Chairman, with the use as proposed, I find that it will not substantially be more detrimental to the area and that I move that we grant it.

The addition of use?

The waiving of the parking.

Okay.

As well.

Yeah, and, and the use.

Yes.

Okay, second.

Motion and second.

Discussion?

Hearing no discussion on the motion.

Jim?

Yes.

Dan?

Yes.

Ricky?

Yes.

Eric?

Yes.

Sharon Crowe?

Yes.

Wish you the best of luck.

Good luck.

All right, item number 5.

Applicant owner is Dillon Estates on the River, LLC, care of attorney Peter A. Salino.

Subject property is 637 Durfee Street, Map 011, Lot 0006.

The applicant is seeking a variance to allow the following pursuant to Section 86 Attachment 1 of the Fall River Zoning Ordinance to demolish the existing structure and construct a 5-story, 12-unit apartment building, waiving requirements related to front yard setback, side yard setback, rear yard setback, and lot coverage.

The applicant is seeking a special permit to allow the following: 1, pursuant to Section 86-445 of the Fall River Zoning Ordinance, to modify the parking requirements as set forth in 86-441 through 86-444, including A, reducing the number of required off-street parking spaces from 18 to 12, B, eliminating the requirements for one loading space, C, allowing parking within 10 feet of the property line.

The property is located in a WTOD Waterfront and Transit Oriented Development, and AOD, Arts Overlay Zoning District.

Good evening.

For the record, Peter Salino on behalf of the owner applicant, Dillon Estates on the River, LLC.

Dillon Estates on the River, LLC is owned by Manny Sarmento.

Mr. Sarmento proposes to demolish the existing 3-family structure that currently hugs Odd Street.

It's about 3 feet from the property line as per the plan.

Plan and to erect the proposed structure with the intention of creating the 12 units that are in the legal ad.

The units are contemplated to be 1-bedroom, and I think that's important to the analysis of this petition.

The structure itself is intended to be 5 stories.

The proposed parking spaces, as indicated in the petition and the publication, is 12.

So in terms of the waivers requested in the proposal.

We have waivers for the side yard setback, which again, the existing structure, which contemplated to be raised, is only 3 feet from the property line.

We're proposing to hold that, that the WTOD requires a 10-foot setback.

And as a consequence, there's a waiver requested there.

In the rear of the property, which is actually the easterly side of the property, there's this sort of a unique 2-foot jog in the property line.

And, as a result, that rear or easterly property line is not straight.

That requires a waiver as to the rear setback, which is also supposed to be 10 feet in the WTOD.

Next, as you come to the front of the property, which would be the northwesterly corner, there's a significant inconsistency between the deeds to the property and what's actually on the ground.

Mr. Tolman has investigated it, and we— I can't find at the registry of deeds, or he can't find here any kind of a taking.

But you'll see a hash line that says parcel boundary by deeds.

And so that triangular piece of property appears to have been taken sometime in the '50s, we think.

And that creates the need for that front yard waiver, because we can't comply with the 10 feet there.

The lot coverage requirement in the district is 80%.

The proposal is 82%.

Obviously, we're trying to provide as much parking as possible, and therefore, we're slightly over that requirement.

The District requires 1.5 times parking spaces, and we're at 1:1, which, again, 12 one-bedroom units, 12 parking places.

Additional waivers in the parking realm in the special permit part of the petition relate to having parking within 10 feet of a property line and waiving the need for a loading space.

In my petition, I have pled to you that the hardship has to be the shape of this property.

The northwesterly corner that appears to have been taken but is not reflected in the deed, the jog on the easterly side, the retaining wall and slope all make this site pretty tough to design.

Nevertheless, Mr. Sarmento is hopeful that he can build a beautiful building there that's equipped with an elevator.

Elevator, and all the modern amenities close to the train station.

So we're happy to answer any questions the board may have relative to the proposal.

Jeff is obviously here over my shoulder.

He's the engineer on the project.

Representatives of the owner are also here to answer any questions the board may have.

I agree it is tough to design for a 12-unit building with a ton of lot coverage.

I'm going to hold my questions right now and I'm going to turn to my board and I'm going to turn to my planning director as well.

WTOD is already a lessened parking requirement.

It's 1.5 as opposed to 2.

We're now trying to chip that down.

I understand they're all 1 bedrooms, but— So the creation of WTOD was based upon— so the housing density of a number of units is 100% dictated by the amount of parking that you can provide.

So there is no limit to how many units you can construct as long as you can comply with the off-street parking requirement of 1.5 spaces.

Per unit.

And again, building setbacks.

I mean, this is a lot.

I mean, I don't know what you could fit on there by right.

But let's just say if you had— what are you showing, 12 parking spaces?

Yes.

12 parking spaces.

So that would allow you 8 units by right, if my math is correct?

Yes.

Did anybody contemplate an 8-unit building?

And, would you need setback relief, and lot coverage relief, and all of those things?

Because there's clearly use of the property that you can be in compliance with WTOD, and develop the piece of land.

This isn't a vacant piece of land that's got nothing on it.

It's got an existing 3-family dwelling on it.

Yeah, and the only thing I would say to the setback relief, given the— and, believe me, I've done many different parking layouts on this particular property, and 12 seems to be the max number you can get here.

In order to get those work, you're trying to position those spots so you're able to maneuver in and out of them.

That's what kind of dictates the need for the setback relief, because just to move that building in— But that's for a 12-unit building, as the chairman Well, if it was an 8-unit building, you may be able to have just a normal parking lot to the side of the building.

No, you wouldn't be able to get the 12.

I mean, we're basically utilizing the whole grade level to get the 12 spots.

With whatever scenario you want to draw up, you've got one drive aisle that has no parking off of it.

So, that's not very efficient.

Well, you have a drive aisle that has 3 parking spots, the other drive aisle has 9.

Correct.

Which, in a normal parking lot, you would have access, one singular access point, and parking off of each.

Potentially coming in from Odd Street, where you could get a longer driveway, and come off of each one of them.

The grade going off Odd Street dictates it.

It's just a grade issue at that point.

And then, you, we don't, there's not sufficient width.

By the time you get— you go north, there's not sufficient width to provide parking spots on both sides of one main aisle.

And the access off of Odd Street, the topography, although not shown on this particular plan, the topography going up Odd Street would create an issue, because it does go up pretty substantially.

So then to have to make that turn onto Odd Street, then drop back down into the site, Like you said, that information's— I mean, there's a house built there running along Arch Street, so they could apparently build a house.

I'm not going to add anything else.

No, because we're not going to design this.

I mean, you close the lot coverage, you're not getting too crazy on the lot coverage, but I just feel like— I just feel like it's too much.

And that's just gut right now.

And cutting down, getting waiving— we always say waivers.

I hate the fact that we say waivers here in Fall River.

They're variances.

Well, they're actually waivers in Fall River.

Waiver.

No jiu-jitsu.

You're not in Kansas anymore.

You know, so we're looking at, we're looking at a density variance, we're looking at setback variances, we're looking at, you know, modification of the proximity to lot line for parking spaces.

We're jamming the lot.

And anybody else can jump in at this point, because I'm not asking questions, because I don't think there's an answer that's going to make me like this.

I can't ask a question that's going to get me an answer that I'm going to like, looking at what I'm looking at.

You know, height, great, you can do a 5-story building.

That's cool.

That's easy.

Whoever thought that was going to be the easy part?

Yeah, zoning allows that.

Anybody else?

Either question or opinion at this point in time?

I think it's too much.

And since it's, you know, since it is predicated upon parking, I think you got to work backwards.

And I can't tell you how, and I can't tell you if that's going to make a financial decision possible, or whatever it comes down to to do it.

And I know that's what it always comes down to.

We're in a time of expensive construction materials, contracting, etc.

I get it.

So, we try to get the most out of everything.

But sometimes I just shake my head, and I'm shaking my head from this one.

Going to the general public.

Is there anyone here wishing to speak in favor of this petition in support?

Anybody wishing to speak in opposition?

Can I have a brief second to speak to the plan?

Yes.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, yes, the petitioner would like to make a motion to table this petition to the August meeting so that we can look at the design more carefully and be responsive to the board's questions and concerns.

Thank you.

Do we have a motion for table?

Motion to grant table.

Second.

On the motion to table, Eric?

Yes.

Ricky?

Yes.

Dan?

Yes.

Jim?

No.

And Chairman Prairie?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

See what you can do.

Can you fill this form out?

It was online.

I'm sure you can.

Just taking the stuff and going home.

All set.

Item number 6, applicant owner is Carlos Ifris Estrella and Carlos Aquino.

Care of Attorney Peter A. Salino, 0 Augusta Street, Map I-26, Lot 0018.

The applicant is seeking a variance to allow the following: 1, pursuant to 86 Attachment 1, Fall River Zoning Ordinance, to construct a 2-family dwelling on the subject property, waiving the requirements related to Lot A area and lot coverage.

The applicant is seeking a special permit to allow the following: 1, pursuant to Section 86-443 of the Fall River Zoning Ordinance, to waive parking aisle requirements.

Property is located in an A-2 apartment zoning district.

Good evening.

For the record, Peter Cellino on behalf of multiple Estrellas, the owners of the property at 0 Augustus.

The property is located off of Broadman Street.

It's a narrow lot.

It contains about 5,500 square feet of land.

The variance requests are 2, and then the special permit requests are 1.

So the variance request is that the parcel is in an A-2 district that requires 6,500 square feet in order to build a 2-family.

The proposal here is to build a 2-family.

As a result, we're short on the square footage for a 2-family in the A-2, so variance 1 is the overall square footage of the lot.

Variance 2 is the lot coverage.

You'll notice on the plan that the applicant has proposed 6 off-street parking spaces, which obviously exceeds the requirement by 2.

But as we just saw in the last petition, parking is at a premium in Fall River.

And so the engineer, I think, thoughtfully designed this petition to— or this plan to include extra spaces.

As a result of that, We have a lot coverage as proposed of 55.5.

So the lot coverage would require variance since the district requires 30%.

And then finally, the drive aisle as you drive into the property as contemplated and proposed from Augusta Street is 20.5 feet, and the travel aisle must be 22 feet.

And so as a result, there's a request there for special permit to relax as opposed to waive the parking requirement by a foot and a half.

So I've pled in my papers that the petition and the hardship associated with it is obviously the existing size of the lot.

I think it's a reasonable proposal for this neighborhood.

It's all multifamily use surrounding it.

The Estrellas are here as well as their engineer if anybody has any specific questions that require a technical answer.

Otherwise, I'm happy to review further or answer questions the board has.

Parking spaces 5 and 6, are those stacked?

They're— yes, I think you'd say that they're parallel spots, effectively.

Which is the only way you could get 20 feet for— right.

Yeah.

And attorneys, do we know how short are you with square footage?

The requirement in the district is 6,500.

And we're at 5,055, so just under 1,000.

I'll just start with that.

Within the last year, we modified the A-2 zoning district from 10,000 square feet and 2,000 square feet per additional unit down to 5,000 square feet for a single-family home.

And the frontage requirement from 100 to 50.

So all the efforts that this board took, the planning board and the city council, to allow construction on lots in this district that have 50 feet of frontage and 5,000 square feet would afford this landowner to build a single-family house in accordance with your new regulations that you created.

You are now being asked to go beyond that and allow a 2-family house to be constructed, and lot coverage waivers, and parking setback waivers.

So it's almost undoing the efforts of allowing people to construct on something.

If you remember, part of that discussion was we keep getting all these requests for variances in the A-2, and everybody agreed that the lot areas were excessive in A-2 of 10,000 square feet to start.

So you made that change.

That apparently isn't enough for some people, where 50 feet of frontage and 5,000 square feet, that allows you to build a single-family house with 2 off-street parking spaces and 25% lot coverage.

We all thought that would be enough for people.

But now we're going to start getting variance petitions to waive those more progressive requirements as well.

So I would just ask you to contemplate that.

Yeah, it's another shoehorn.

Other questions from the board?

Comments from the board at this point?

So just to be clear, Dan, if this were— if this proposal were one family, they would not be here.

They don't need to be here, right?

Okay, $5,050.

So it's $6,500 required for this.

And you're just shy of $1,000 off.

Yeah, I mean, I've got a— we've been here before.

And personally, I'm standing, I'm standing with the efforts that were made.

I'm standing with the efforts that were made.

Questions?

Comments?

I'm going to go to the general public.

Anybody here wishing to speak in support of this application?

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

Okay.

Was a single family contemplated?

If I could have a brief minute and speak to Mr. Ostrowa.

That's true too.

Is that correct?

What's that?

A single family with an ADU, am I right?

Correct.

Yeah.

But the second unit will be limited to 900 square feet.

Right.

Right.

Difference.

Right?

Yeah.

So they're not going to get a 3-bedroom, right?

6 bedrooms would be a 3-bedroom.

You don't design the things for that.

No, right.

Saying that's by a matter of right.

I just wanted to be clear what the matter of right was.

Yep.

I was just looking at your robot and blew up.

Probably could have done something.

My client's willing to let it go to vote, see what happens, and obviously then he could revert back to a single-family if he has to.

Okay, let me I mean, there's a clear way to get 2 units here.

I understand, okay.

Motion to deny.

Second.

Motion to deny, seconded.

On the motion, Jim?

Yes.

Dan?

Yes.

Ricky?

No.

Eric?

Yes.

Chairman Ferriero?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

4-1 goes down.

Okay.

Item number 7, applicant owner Seth D. Ellie and Lisa— is it Eli?

Okay.

I never saw Eli with an E on the end, but I apologize.

Care of attorney Peter A. Salino.

Subject property is 1214 14 Watkins Street, Map R-08, Lot 0021.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following: to construct an addition to an existing single-family dwelling with relief from Section 86, Attachment 1 of the Fall River Zoning Ordinance, specifically related to side yard setback requirements.

Property is located in an R-30 single-family zoning Good evening.

For the record, Peter Cellino on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Eli, who are over my shoulder to the left.

This proposal is to add an addition to their current single-family home at 1214 Watkins Street in Fall River.

Cutting to the chase of this petition, it all relates to the side setback, which is planned right.

You can see that the property line is not straight.

As a consequence, I've already argued that the shape of the property necessitates this waiver.

You can see that they can comply with all other setback requirements, but for that side yard setback on the proposed addition.

So to be clear, it's supposed to be 25 feet in the district.

The proposal is to build the addition such that it's 10.3 feet from that side property line.

So I think the hardship is the shape of the lot.

And the ELIs are here, to answer any questions to the extent that the board has any.

Okay.

Use of this is just additional living space?

Yes, my understanding.

Yeah.

You want to speak?

Yeah, for my mother.

Additional living space for my mother.

So essentially, as an ADU, it'll be a separate unit.

It's okay to say ADU.

Don't be afraid.

Basically just an extra bedroom.

It's not going to have a kitchen.

It's not going to have— no, that's not our plan.

So you could make a condition that no ADU, if you chose to, only because we haven't contemplated parking and anything else that comes along with ADU.

Right.

That's up to you.

Okay.

I don't think it was clear.

Proposed additional, proposed additional unit are 2 different things.

And I'll just add that I don't think that the intent was to create a separate unit.

My understanding is that Seth— but that doesn't mean somebody else won't.

No, I understand that.

I understand that.

But right now, the objective, bluntly here, is can they build the addition on the house and have mom come in?

And if they can't, they're going to sell the house.

That's where they're at.

I don't really have a problem with the 10.3.

How close is the— is there a neighbor?

What's the question?

Is there a neighbor?

Yeah, there is.

Yeah, and that's that single-family next door is probably about 30 feet, 30 or 40 feet off the lot one.

It's pretty big.

Yeah, I think the last month there was a petition to build a garage on one of these lots, but the shape of the lots at the end of Watkins is just— get a little crazy.

Yeah, very creative.

Creative.

That's a nice way to put it.

Wait a minute, do you have the— is there a dogleg to your lot that goes all the way over to 24th?

I did not design this.

And Seth is very happy he's paid taxes on that land.

Land for all these years.

He was expressing to me earlier that the house wouldn't be there if it wasn't.

So, wow.

He didn't reap the benefits from it, but somebody did.

That's true.

Wow, that's great.

We discovered one of these in my— the neighborhood I grew up in.

We realized that we owned a ridiculous piece of property that had been chopped off at some point.

It was the same type of situation.

Okay, questions from the board?

Anybody in the audience wishing to speak in favor?

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

Let's do it.

Tee up.

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

Second.

Motion and second.

Discussion on the motion?

Hearing none.

Eric?

Yes.

Ricky?

Yes.

Dan?

Yes.

James?

Yes.

And Chairman Perriero?

Yes.

Thank you.

See, you can win stuff.

And item number 8, applicant owner 2573 South Main Street, LLC.

2589 South Main Street, LLC, care of attorney Peter A. Salino.

Subject, properties of 2573 South Main Street, Map B-1, Lot 9, and 2598 South Main Street, Map B-01, Lot 10.

The applicant is requesting that the variance and special permit previously granted to— by the board on August 21st, 2025, be extended for a period of 6 months to allow additional time to appropriately exercise the relief granted.

Thank you.

For the record, Peter Salino on behalf of the 2 LLCs that own the property.

The board may remember this petition.

This is last August.

Substantial petition, requires a lot of work.

Mr. Martin is cognizant of the fact that he's not going to be able to get all that work done within the time allotted by the decision.

I know he's met several times with the planner relative to different strategies on how to attack this project.

And still, he met with Jeff Tallman yesterday.

So the request is simple, which is, can we please have more time to finish and/or exercise the relief granted under the variance, seeking 6 months?

Okay.

We can go directly to the board on that.

Mr. Chairman, I move that we grant the extension.

Second.

Motion and seconded.

No discussion on the motion.

Jim?

Yes.

Dan?

Yes.

Ricky?

Yes.

Eric?

Yes.

Chairman Pereira?

Yes.

Thank you.

See, isn't that a nice way to end the night?

Uh, citizens input.

Yes.

Yep.

Yeah, just ask one question in regard to— so citizen employees, you get— is you say you don't have to answer questions?

We make statements, we cannot answer questions.

I was just trying to find out if, uh, in terms of Holy Name Church, whether or not there was a date for the land court and whether or not that's— we would have no idea.

That's not our jurisdiction.

Yeah, call the law office and maybe they can answer you, but we don't know.

All right.

Okay.

I'm just wondering why, why you went into executive session.

That's why it's executive session, is because it's not a public hearing.

I'm allowed to know.

Okay.

Yep.

I just find what you guys do absolutely fascinating, the issues that you have to grapple with.

So do we.

And also dealing with public safety is amazing.

To watch you guys in action.

I'll take that as a compliment.

Sometimes it's, uh— we thank you for your patience and staying all this time.

But the law department might be able to provide more information.

Okay, so feel free to call.

Thank you for, uh— I'm sorry for interrupting.

It's quite all right, not a problem.

We don't expect everybody to understand the procedure.

We don't understand it ourselves.

All right, approval of minutes for the June 18th, 2026 Mr. Chairman, I move waiving of the reading of the minutes and approval of the same.

No, I think we should read it.

No.

Motion is seconded.

We have the right members here to do that?

Minutes?

I forgot who was here last month.

Raise your hand.

John was here.

Yeah, we don't need him.

I know.

You had a full board.

You were here.

Yeah, we're here.

We're good.

We're good.

On the motion, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

And motion for adjournment.

Motion to adjourn.

Somebody's just seconded it so we can just— nobody wants to second.

All in favor?

Aye.

There's no soccer on.

Thank you.