City of Fall River Meetings
Search and subscribe to city meeting topics that impact you
Newsletters
Subscribe
← Back to video
8.12.2026 Planning Board
−
Fit
+
IN
0:00
OUT
0:00
Length
0:00
▶ Play selection
Export clip
Keyboard:
I
set in,
O
set out,
←
/
→
nudge playhead 5s.
0:00
I'd like to welcome everybody to the Wednesday, August 12th, 2026 meeting of the Fall River Planning Board.
In
Out
0:07
Pursuant to the Open Meeting Law, any person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any media.
In
Out
0:16
Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made, whether perceived or unperceived, by those present and are deemed acknowledged and permissible.
In
Out
0:26
The city charter, Section 9-18, mandates that all municipal member bodies develop and adopt rules or policy for public comment.
In
Out
0:37
We have adopted such a policy, which in short provides for citizen input on planning board-specific matters at the end of the meeting.
In
Out
0:45
There's a sign-up sheet that's located in the back of the room.
In
Out
0:50
All right, we have Craig Salvador from Fall River TV in the back.
In
Out
0:54
Then I got a city engineer, Felicia Parker, the planning and record recording clerk.
In
Out
1:02
Roll call.
In
Out
1:03
Gloria Pacheco.
In
Out
1:04
Beth Andre.
In
Out
1:06
Mike Farias.
In
Out
1:07
Present.
In
Out
1:08
Orlando Rodriguez.
In
Out
1:09
Present.
In
Out
1:10
And I, John Ferreira, am present, I think.
In
Out
1:16
And old business number 1, roadway reconstruction, Spring Street.
In
Out
1:20
Section 66-185 City Ordinance considering the roadway reconstruction plan and profile of Spring Street.
In
Out
1:29
This petition was previously tabled at the April 13th, May 13th, June 10th, July 8th meetings at the request of the applicant.
In
Out
1:41
So we received an update today.
In
Out
1:43
If you remember, we were waiting for the design engineer to do some soil testing and some redesign for drainage.
In
Out
1:50
I do know the soil testing was completed approximately a week or two ago.
In
Out
1:54
I spoke with the consultant, Bill Smith, who was the engineer on this.
In
Out
1:59
He's working on preparing the revised plans, and I told him that we would need those at least a couple of weeks prior to the meeting.
In
Out
2:05
Today we did receive an email correspondence from him that he did not have a chance to finish those yet, but he anticipates having them in in time for our review before the September meeting.
In
Out
2:14
So with that, I would recommend that the matter be tabled at the applicant's request.
In
Out
2:19
All right.
In
Out
2:19
Do I have a motion to table?
In
Out
2:22
Motion to table.
In
Out
2:23
I'll move to table this.
In
Out
2:25
By Mike.
In
Out
2:25
Second?
In
Out
2:26
Second.
In
Out
2:27
By Orlando.
In
Out
2:30
All right.
In
Out
2:30
All in favor?
In
Out
2:31
Beth?
In
Out
2:32
Yes.
In
Out
2:32
Michael?
In
Out
2:33
Yes.
In
Out
2:34
Gloria?
In
Out
2:35
Yes.
In
Out
2:36
Orlando?
In
Out
2:36
Yes.
In
Out
2:37
And I, John Ferraro, vote yes as well to table.
In
Out
2:39
This request till next meeting.
In
Out
2:42
Under new business, number 1, roadway reconstruction, vacant wooden lots off Box Street, Norwood Street, and Monarch Street.
In
Out
2:51
Section 66-185 City Ordinance considering the roadway reconstruction application for vacant wooden lots off Box Street, Norwood Street, and Monarch Street.
In
Out
3:01
Mr. Aguirre, I would just let the applicant start with their presentation and then we going to where we're at.
In
Out
3:07
Please, uh, give us your name and address for the record, please.
In
Out
3:12
For the record, my name is Alex Karadeski.
In
Out
3:15
Uh, I am an engineer in the city of Fall River, 422 North Main Street.
In
Out
3:22
And, uh, Timothy DeSova, 1 Atlantic Boulevard, Fall River, owner of the property.
In
Out
3:29
And so for your consideration is a Park, Norwood, and Monarch Street extension and connection to the end-related work and connection to the existing roadways.
In
Out
3:44
So what you see here in a light bluish color are existing edge of pavement, and in a dark gray color is proposed roadway layout.
In
Out
3:58
Those are houses as they were approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
In
Out
4:03
Because this lot requires a variance, it was approved, so the ultimate result would be 7 lots.
In
Out
4:10
So in order for this, for the Form A plan to materialize, we have to provide frontage and access to the existing, to the proposed lots.
In
Out
4:20
Alex, did you say a variance was issued by the board?
In
Out
4:23
Yes, variance was issued.
In
Out
4:26
So as a result of the variance, we have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 lots.
In
Out
4:30
And this was a lot of record that can require the variance.
In
Out
4:34
So in order to serve these lots, that's what's proposed.
In
Out
4:38
I would like to note that this is a preliminary plan because as of this moment I have not received comments from the Department of Community Utilities.
In
Out
4:47
I don't know what's going to happen with water and sewer.
In
Out
4:50
I had a very productive discussion with the city engineer this morning.
In
Out
4:55
I received his comments.
In
Out
4:57
I know what needs to be done as far as he is concerned, but I just don't know.
In
Out
5:04
And that was filed about a month ago, I think, but I still don't have comments.
In
Out
5:09
So that might— I don't expect any changes, but it might.
In
Out
5:13
But it's still for the preliminary plan?
In
Out
5:15
It is.
In
Out
5:16
Conceptually, I don't think it will change much, but I just don't know.
In
Out
5:21
I can't say for sure until I have the their comments.
In
Out
5:25
And we'll try to set an ambush for Mr. Furland at his office and see what he has to say.
In
Out
5:35
Yeah, so conceptually, like Alex is stating, what you see on this, on this new preliminary plan that he has here, which I don't know if the neighbors saw this one, so I want to make sure they do get a chance to see this.
In
Out
5:45
So we're starting with, with the location where we have 2 streets that come off of Eastern Avenue, which are Bark and Monarch.
In
Out
5:53
That are 2 dead ends, no turnarounds, no connections.
In
Out
5:57
There is another dead-end street, Norwood Street, which comes off of County as you're heading towards Talbot.
In
Out
6:04
And then take a left onto Norwood, that brings you to another dead end.
In
Out
6:09
Directly east of the proposed gray roadway that you see here, that's the wooded parcel that's associated with Talbot middle school.
In
Out
6:16
So just for orientation purposes, that's where we are here.
In
Out
6:20
So we had met preliminarily, probably 2 months ago, throwing around different ideas of how to proceed.
In
Out
6:27
We have existing right-of-ways that are already established.
In
Out
6:30
That's why this is not a Form C subdivision.
In
Out
6:32
This is a roadway reconstruction.
In
Out
6:34
So the applicant has the legal ability to come to you and ask for permitting documents to construct the ways They would not be able to get building permits without the ways and utilities being installed.
In
Out
6:45
So, we're not creating right-of-ways, we're just creating the traveled ways that fall within them.
In
Out
6:51
And, that's what Section 66-185 allows us to do.
In
Out
6:55
We had discussions about trying to eliminate some dead ends.
In
Out
7:00
So, with the layout that you see before you, we'll only— The only dead ends that we will end up with is existing Marnoch, which comes off of Eastern Avenue, and then the new extension of Eastern.
In
Out
7:16
So right now, Bark is a dead end.
In
Out
7:19
That will now loop entirely around to Norwood.
In
Out
7:21
Norwood will never be a dead end again.
In
Out
7:23
That will loop all the way through back to either.
In
Out
7:26
And the little stub road that you see in Marnoch would provide frontage just for 3 lots itself.
In
Out
7:33
So, emergency access-wise, access to the property, this is the preferred layout from my office.
In
Out
7:40
And I thank the applicant and the engineer for considering it.
In
Out
7:44
So, where we're at now is the utility office, Department of Community Utilities, looks at it for installation of water mains, sewer mains, stormwater management, drainage.
In
Out
7:55
So, that's still in the review process, and we have not received comment yet from that office.
In
Out
8:02
There's not a lot to be done.
In
Out
8:04
This is a location that is primarily ledge.
In
Out
8:09
That's why this piece of land has sat here for a very long time.
In
Out
8:13
Mr. DaSilva, who owns the land, is actually a site contractor, and a very good one, actually building Northfield Point off of Duval Street now, which is where where the city pier is.
In
Out
8:26
Oh yeah, that's right.
In
Out
8:26
So, has the ability and the knowledge to be able to deal with this stone.
In
Out
8:30
So, up until that point, it was a very difficult project for any developer to take on.
In
Out
8:36
I know it's been around for a while.
In
Out
8:37
Yeah.
In
Out
8:38
This was denied a number of variances.
In
Out
8:40
Some people wanted to do duplexes, condominium developments.
In
Out
8:44
So again, we were thankful that Mr. DaSilva had a reasonable proposal, which, incorporated the construction of single-family homes.
In
Out
8:52
So where we're at in process now is comments from DCU, probably another consultation with Alex to get to final engineering design.
In
Out
9:01
But I had told Alex it would still be beneficial to come tonight, let the board see the initial presentation.
In
Out
9:07
This was advertised in the newspaper, abutter notifications were sent out, and if anyone in the audience has something to speak in favor in favor or opposed.
In
Out
9:18
We want to make sure that they are part of the process and that any concerns that they have are addressed to the best ability that we can.
In
Out
9:25
Are you folks here for this?
In
Out
9:26
Yes.
In
Out
9:27
Would you like to come down and look at the new rendition and just state your name and address for the record, please?
In
Out
9:32
My name is Jeremy Corriveau, resident at 146 Elizabeth Street.
In
Out
9:38
Could you point that out on the map, please?
In
Out
9:41
Our property is here.
In
Out
9:42
But we all— this is part of it as well.
In
Out
9:50
This way, if you have any questions, the engineer and the city engineer are both right beside.
In
Out
9:53
This isn't your only opportunity to look at this and to talk about it.
In
Out
9:56
So, but this is— we want that at least.
In
Out
9:59
I do have a statement.
In
Out
10:00
I don't know if you— yeah.
In
Out
10:15
Good evening.
In
Out
10:15
My name is Jeremy Corriveau, homeowner at 146 Elizabeth Street, which is only feet away from where one of the proposed rows and houses will be built.
In
Out
10:25
The development was shut down— the project was shut down in 2004, 2006, and 2021.
In
Out
10:32
Each time 50-plus residents signed a petition in opposition.
In
Out
10:37
The zoning committee approved this proposal in 2025 despite knowing that residents previously disapproved.
In
Out
10:46
This time, few nearby residents were even aware that the project was taking place.
In
Out
10:51
I strongly believe that the development of new roads right through an established neighborhood makes every resident an abutter.
In
Out
11:00
So here are my— I'm asking answers to the following questions.
In
Out
11:04
One, specifically, why are we only discussing the proposed new roads constructions now?
In
Out
11:12
2, why weren't all nearby residents included during the initial zoning process?
In
Out
11:18
3, why are all of the new roads necessary if the development centers primarily around the Bark Street area, why isn't a small access road from Bark Street being made?
In
Out
11:33
Why does another long street all the way to the distant Norwood Street need to be created?
In
Out
11:40
4, are parties involved that the Norwood Street area is already prone to traffic logjams as parents bring their children to and from Talbot School?
In
Out
11:51
5, what safety net exists for the fact that the entire proposed area is made of solid granite ledge?
In
Out
12:00
Many of the old homes in this area have fieldstone foundations that simply sit on the ledge, including my own.
In
Out
12:08
Specifically, what is the developer's plans for removing the ledge which directly connects to these foundations?
In
Out
12:15
6, if it is to be removed by a chemical process, might it affect the city's water supply?
In
Out
12:21
7, if it is hammered by big machinery, machinery, it could easily cause disruption and damage.
In
Out
12:29
As a side note, another developer tried this near my house 10 years ago.
In
Out
12:34
Our picture frames were shaking and falling off the walls due to the vibrations of hammering the ledge.
In
Out
12:40
The contractor ended up breaking his equipment and selling the land.
In
Out
12:46
8, if blasting the granite ledge is part of the developer's plans, what insurance do I have, along with the other residents, that blasting ledge will not affect our properties and lifelong investments?
In
Out
12:58
I believe that the City of Fall River, especially relevant boards, along with the developer, have a responsibility to answer the questions.
In
Out
13:06
Thank you.
In
Out
13:08
So I can answer a couple of the questions, not that it's my job to, But if we can get a copy of that, we can make sure that all of these items get addressed during this.
In
Out
13:17
We appreciate this process.
In
Out
13:19
Zoning Board of Appeals is governed by Chapter 40A, which requires abutter notifications to be sent out in accordance with the list provided by the assessor's office, which are direct abutters and abutters across the street.
In
Out
13:34
That's the limit of who gets notified for Zoning Board appeals petitions.
In
Out
13:39
Planning Board, very similar, actually even less.
In
Out
13:43
Every parcel, just about every parcel of land that fronts these roads where the development is to take place is either owned by Mr. DaSilva or owned by the City of Fall River.
In
Out
13:53
Correct.
In
Out
13:53
Those parties were notified.
In
Out
13:55
We, of course, we've gone beyond that and notified the additional abutters, and that's why you are here this evening as well, because you do front aren't on the street.
In
Out
14:03
That's not true.
In
Out
14:04
I was never notified.
In
Out
14:05
When?
In
Out
14:06
For this hearing or for the zoning board?
In
Out
14:07
For the zoning board.
In
Out
14:09
Oh, you're talking about this particular meeting?
In
Out
14:10
This is not the zoning board of appeals?
In
Out
14:11
Correct.
In
Out
14:12
This is the— so there was some sort— you did get a notification for this hearing?
In
Out
14:15
Okay.
In
Out
14:16
So if you did not get one for the zoning board of appeals, that would be something to take up with the assessor's office and the appeal period that went associated with that.
In
Out
14:23
But that's, that's a zoning thing.
In
Out
14:25
We're here strictly to talk about construction.
In
Out
14:27
So a number of your items do need to be addressed, and they can be addressed by the engineer as we go through this.
In
Out
14:33
But please note, you had just stated that your house is built on ledge.
In
Out
14:38
So at some point in time, someone constructed your house and had to remove ledge as well.
In
Out
14:44
So the same right— It was placed directly on the ledge, not removed.
In
Out
14:47
And so these— this property owner is afforded the same right to construct on their land as you were.
In
Out
14:54
And all of the abutters who are also built on ledge or near ledge.
In
Out
14:57
Correct.
In
Out
14:58
And the removal of such.
In
Out
14:59
And there are processes through the building department that oversee and govern the removal of ledge, either through mechanical means, which would be drilling, splitting, and removing, hammering, chemical, or there could be blasting.
In
Out
15:12
Diamond— we just built a high school, Diamond Regional Vocational Technical High School, that required an incredible amount of ledge removal.
In
Out
15:19
Removal and blasting.
In
Out
15:21
And there's a process that goes through all that, all video cameras of people's homes and basements so that they can record and document what's happening, because we want you to be protected during this construction process.
In
Out
15:34
That actual work for the construction of homes, that would be governed by the building department.
In
Out
15:38
Fire department oversees blasting.
In
Out
15:41
So there are different levels of permitting that get— that take place.
In
Out
15:45
That part of the permitting is not before this board at this time.
In
Out
15:48
But that does not mean that this board cannot make a condition of approval that they get handled in a certain manner.
In
Out
15:54
There are many other levels of permitting beyond this.
In
Out
15:56
OK. What this board looks at is to what level of roadway needs to be constructed, what waivers need to be granted from our rules and regulations, whether it's pavement width, curbing, sidewalks, drainage, all those types of things.
In
Out
16:12
Is what this board will take into account when they render their decision.
In
Out
16:17
We did have a discussion this morning where I've asked Mr. Gardeschi to put together a comprehensive list of waivers.
In
Out
16:23
As you know, when we deal with any of these, we have to look at what waivers are being requested, are they reasonable, and can you grant them or can you not?
In
Out
16:32
Or is full compliance with our subdivision rules and regulations required?
In
Out
16:37
Required for a project like this.
In
Out
16:39
We're not at that point yet.
In
Out
16:41
But, it is good to hear these concerns.
In
Out
16:43
It's good for them to hear these concerns.
In
Out
16:45
So, thank you for coming out.
In
Out
16:46
And, if you want to get a copy, or give a copy to them directly, or if you want to send it through my office, we can do that as well.
In
Out
16:52
And, I can get that in their hands.
In
Out
16:54
I'll just take one.
In
Out
16:55
Make sure the guys are prepared to answer some of these questions when they come in at the next meeting.
In
Out
17:01
Thank you.
In
Out
17:01
Now, Dan, you said this whole area was ledge.
In
Out
17:04
It's all rock.
In
Out
17:06
And that section in between Monarch and where they're not coming through rather than— because when you look at this, you would say, well, you know, maybe we just make a U.
In
Out
17:19
That section of Monarch would be the most difficult to construct.
In
Out
17:23
So it's up to the applicant to decide what's more reasonable and for you to decide in the long run, what's more beneficial to the city.
In
Out
17:33
It's really not for you to consider the amount of ledge that needs to be removed.
In
Out
17:38
The Zoning Board of Appeals took that into account when they granted the zoning relief.
In
Out
17:41
I was just considering the coverage of ledge, that's all.
In
Out
17:43
Yeah, and the— when we talk about that this was denied and this denied and our project stopped, projects were not stopped.
In
Out
17:51
Zoning relief was never granted.
In
Out
17:53
Project— no construction activity has has ever taken place out here.
In
Out
17:56
So projects were not stopped.
In
Out
17:58
They did not get through the Zoning Board of Appeals.
In
Out
18:00
And as I had said, those developments involved condominiumization, duplexes, larger multifamily buildings, and yes, all that relief was denied.
In
Out
18:11
The applicant came in with their attorney and with Mr. Gorodetsky with a single-family home proposal.
In
Out
18:19
And when you actually looked at what could be done here by right, with a combination of by-right lots and accessory dwelling units, that unit count was actually higher than what the Zoning Board of Appeals allowed to happen here.
In
Out
18:34
And in that approval is a deed restriction that there can be no ADUs out there.
In
Out
18:38
I was going to ask.
In
Out
18:39
So they are limited to the number of units shown.
In
Out
18:41
So there's always something that goes into the Zoning Board of Appeals process and mindset when granting relief, and they look at the grand scheme of things in the long run of what could happen out here.
In
Out
18:52
So the homeowners should have some level of comfort that we're not getting whatever it is, 6 new houses by variance and an ADU on each one, making 12.
In
Out
19:06
So that is deed restricted.
In
Out
19:08
And so that will not happen.
In
Out
19:10
That's good.
In
Out
19:11
But again, tonight, I want to make sure that everybody got the first glimpse of it.
In
Out
19:15
We'll take a look at it, look at aerial photos, listen to the concerns from some of the neighbors, and allow the applicant to continue on with, with the process of addressing the engineering concerns, utility concerns, before you're requested to act.
In
Out
19:29
Any other questions?
In
Out
19:30
That's it.
In
Out
19:31
Sir, are you here for this as well?
In
Out
19:33
Yes, I'm just observing.
In
Out
19:34
I have a lot of— on You can come take a look at it too.
In
Out
19:41
Come take a look at the plan.
In
Out
19:43
Only because this plan is different.
In
Out
19:45
There were 2 more dead ends, which upon my review said absolutely— you can take a picture of it if you'd like.
In
Out
19:50
Thank you.
In
Out
19:51
So nice to meet you.
In
Out
19:52
So I had asked that.
In
Out
19:54
Can I have your name and address, please?
In
Out
19:55
My name is Cesar, C-E-S-A-R, on 135 L Street.
In
Out
20:00
Could you point out on the map where your dwelling is?
In
Out
20:06
So you have the vacant lot.
In
Out
20:08
Well, the good news for you is your lot will most likely be developable after they build the road in front of your house.
In
Out
20:13
So you should be in favor of this project.
In
Out
20:18
Do you want to pay for some of the road?
In
Out
20:23
Just for your water and sewer line.
In
Out
20:27
Is that it, sir?
In
Out
20:29
Yes.
In
Out
20:29
Okay, nothing else.
In
Out
20:30
Any questions by the board?
In
Out
20:32
Emergency access vehicles now.
In
Out
20:35
Yeah.
In
Out
20:35
So, so part of this process is once we get to a design, like we have on some other things, we will send this to the fire department for comment.
In
Out
20:44
And that's why when we looked at— because the original design, that top road of Norwood would have had a gap, because that is a very difficult area to construct because it is a lower area.
In
Out
20:55
So I had advised Mr. Gardeschi that that would not fly, because we would then not be eliminating any dead ends, we're just making the existing dead ends longer.
In
Out
21:04
So, this preliminary sketch is what I had requested them to go into that direction.
In
Out
21:09
So, if they can get the engineering to work, we don't know the answer yet.
In
Out
21:12
Elevation-wise, drainage-wise, this is not an easy project.
In
Out
21:16
Especially with the ledge.
In
Out
21:18
Michael?
In
Out
21:20
I've got several questions.
In
Out
21:22
So, I understand the purpose of the loop component of this, not only for Norwell, but also for emergency access to it.
In
Out
21:31
The stem that goes from up to down, that dead end, I'm assuming that the fire department's going to have to look at that because that is a dead end at that point.
In
Out
21:40
So my question would be is, if they were to extend that further down, you're telling me the ledge is making it very difficult for that?
In
Out
21:47
So it's, it's a give and take.
In
Out
21:50
So it's either deal with that very difficult section of— that's Marnoch Street.
In
Out
21:55
So, however many linear feet, I don't know what that is, Alex.
In
Out
21:58
The difference is about, give or take, under 100 feet.
In
Out
22:03
So, if they did a connection there, they would not have to connect to Norwood Street.
In
Out
22:07
Sure.
In
Out
22:07
So, that's an option.
In
Out
22:09
And, when we get into the actual design, that may still be— that may end up being the preferred method.
In
Out
22:14
That's preferred.
In
Out
22:15
Well, and we'll And this is going to be reviewed by Paul for water loop, sewer, all of that type of scenario.
In
Out
22:23
So that's the reality of it.
In
Out
22:25
That might still be in play at the end of the day, especially with the ledge.
In
Out
22:29
Yeah, no, no, constructing this way because of the topography also requires some side slopes.
In
Out
22:36
So it may require retaining walls on site.
In
Out
22:40
It's— I looked at that.
In
Out
22:41
That's sure.
In
Out
22:42
That would be That will be probably easier, even though it's 100 feet longer, but construction part of it will be probably easier.
In
Out
22:50
Didn't we do a project over here a few years ago that had some sidewalks in the same portions of the ledge?
In
Out
22:57
Maybe it was one of the earlier— yeah, an earlier rendition of this.
In
Out
23:01
And that was a huge issue associated with it.
In
Out
23:04
So you're addressing it with the larger loop.
In
Out
23:07
And one thing to think about, The proposed roadway construction that you see now limits the proximity to existing homes in the area of Ledger Road.
In
Out
23:20
So the only— not everything, because we do have one or two, like the existing home at the end of Bark, for instance, this first house to the left.
In
Out
23:29
So beginning roadway construction there, picking up from Monarch, then we would not actually be constructing roadway in front of any home.
In
Out
23:38
If we did connect Monarch, we would then be in proximity of 1, 2, potentially 3 homes, removing ledge in front of those homes, a substantial amount of ledge.
In
Out
23:49
And more importantly, who is absorbing the cost for the construction of these roads?
In
Out
23:55
100% on the developer.
In
Out
23:57
I think that's just important to state.
In
Out
23:59
It is.
In
Out
23:59
And again, that's, that's the purpose of the zoning relief, because it is It is one grounds for granting of relief is a financial hardship that's specific to the real estate before the board.
In
Out
24:11
And this ledge and the cost associated with the removal of the ledge and the placement of utilities is clearly a hardship on this piece of land.
In
Out
24:19
And that's one of the reasons why the zoning board feels— now, it's not to the point where you can go put in 200 units of apartments.
In
Out
24:26
It has to be something reasonable.
In
Out
24:28
And that presentation seemed reasonable.
In
Out
24:29
To the board enough for them to grant the requested relief.
In
Out
24:33
And those are 7 single-family— single-family homes, deed restricted to not include ADUs.
In
Out
24:39
And then that is actually zoned for single-family?
In
Out
24:42
It is.
In
Out
24:43
Yep.
In
Out
24:43
Okay.
In
Out
24:44
Yeah, so it ended up being the lot sizes were diminished a little bit, not dramatically.
In
Out
24:51
Anybody else on the board?
In
Out
24:54
I mean, as far as I'm concerned, I mean, the stipulation that them 6 lots right there, 12-7 with that one, not being able to get the ADUs, that's huge because that would double, and they would have it by right, like any other property in the city.
In
Out
25:11
You could put an ADU in there, you don't have to go to zoning, you just get a building permit.
In
Out
25:14
As long as the building inspector approves it, it could be over, it could be in a garage, in a basement, in an attic.
In
Out
25:21
So, by not allowing ADUs, That's one good point, like I said, because it would have doubled the amount of families in there.
In
Out
25:28
The ledge is going to be tricky, and it's going to take some engineering.
In
Out
25:32
And also, Paul Furlong is going to dictate what he wants for sewage runoff, and so on.
In
Out
25:38
So, with the ledge in play, there's a long way to go yet on this.
In
Out
25:42
Mr. DeSilva knew ahead of time what he was getting himself into.
In
Out
25:44
All right.
In
Out
25:44
You good, Tim?
In
Out
25:45
Yeah, I'm good.
In
Out
25:46
I mean, and like they stated, going that other way is definitely going to bother the neighborhood way more than what this is.
In
Out
25:51
Like, once we're in there, I really— I mean, maybe one of them's kind of going to get the brunt of it, but this gentleman and the other, the other lady there in that front house— I mean, the ledge is like, what, 10-foot outcrop over there?
In
Out
26:04
It's high.
In
Out
26:04
So we're not going through that way.
In
Out
26:06
So if we did, it would be, you know— so you guys are getting a lot of, you know, a lot of privacy by us not going that way, in my opinion.
In
Out
26:15
You know, that's kind of what me and Alex That's one of the reasons why we didn't go there.
In
Out
26:20
Besides the topography, besides the ledges, just to minimize— I mean, connecting Norwood is just really to get rid of the dead ends.
In
Out
26:30
Because, I mean, we had a hammerhead originally on the end of BART.
In
Out
26:33
We had a hammerhead, you know, if we did it with hammerheads, but now you still got the dead ends.
In
Out
26:37
I mean, maybe the Norwood people would appreciate not having the traffic.
In
Out
26:40
Well, that one dead end might still need a hammerhead, no?
In
Out
26:43
Maybe, yeah.
In
Out
26:44
You know, that's fine.
In
Out
26:45
That's your fire department, right?
In
Out
26:47
The fire department will look at it and they will say we currently have 3 dead ends that have no hammerheads.
In
Out
26:53
This proposal, we end up with one.
In
Out
26:57
And depend on fire hydrant locations also.
In
Out
26:59
Yeah.
In
Out
26:59
Oh, yeah.
In
Out
27:00
But the hammerheads, a regional design has come out of the road.
In
Out
27:04
Yeah.
In
Out
27:05
It's painted like this so that the fire truck can go this way and back right up.
In
Out
27:09
Usually the end of a dead end of a certain length, you either have a cul-de-sac, which everybody's familiar with, or a T that allows fire apparatus to make a 3-point turn.
In
Out
27:18
But seeing that this is a complete loop anyway, I would say that that distance of the 3— and how long is that road right there where the dead end is, Alex?
In
Out
27:25
I think the lots are probably 100 feet of frontage.
In
Out
27:34
Need a bigger ruler, Alex.
In
Out
27:37
I know, but it needs bigger pockets to fill.
In
Out
27:40
It's about 100, 220 feet.
In
Out
27:42
Yeah, that's it.
In
Out
27:43
Give or take 250 feet.
In
Out
27:45
Yeah, that's actually would be considered part of a hammerhead.
In
Out
27:48
Correct.
In
Out
27:48
For the length of it.
In
Out
27:49
So you can drive a truck partially the way down and still feed.
In
Out
27:53
Yeah, the hammerhead for the fire apparatus with flares would require 45, 50, no, 40 foot for the truck.
In
Out
28:02
Yeah.
In
Out
28:02
Of less 25 or 30 feet, I'm going to require at least another inch.
In
Out
28:07
You can take that down.
In
Out
28:09
I was sorry.
In
Out
28:10
We're going to have to call 911.
In
Out
28:13
That's cheap, cheap drywall.
In
Out
28:15
They don't sell— some things never change with you, Alex.
In
Out
28:19
So many for the price, for $15.
In
Out
28:22
I used to pay $50.
In
Out
28:23
All right, but anyway, uh, anything else?
In
Out
28:26
Any other comments?
In
Out
28:26
We're looking to what table?
In
Out
28:27
This 2?
In
Out
28:29
Or do I have a motion to table this item until all the utilities, water, sewer, drainage, and everything else, fire department and such, which is going to take a while?
In
Out
28:43
I would motion to table this until final review through the utilities department, fire, police, whatever.
In
Out
28:52
We have, we have to have it as a time certain so that the abutters know what hearing that it's going to be on.
In
Out
28:57
So we have to keep it on a specific date.
In
Out
28:59
So it can't just be till they get it.
In
Out
29:02
Why don't— can we table it to the next meeting and just— yeah, we'll have to keep tabling it.
In
Out
29:06
To be consistent with what your review process is, is that enough time?
In
Out
29:12
Well, I know it's whether or not— whether or not we act on it, right, is something else.
In
Out
29:17
Okay.
In
Out
29:18
But we at least have to table it to a time certain, to a specific meeting.
In
Out
29:21
And if we don't get the information in time for review, then they'll be required to table it.
In
Out
29:26
So allow the time for review.
In
Out
29:27
I would put it to basically until our next meeting.
In
Out
29:31
Next week.
In
Out
29:31
Yeah, for now.
In
Out
29:32
And that's site plan approval and all the other departments go through their process.
In
Out
29:37
Most likely will happen by the next meeting.
In
Out
29:40
No, we know, we're just, but we're just putting a date on it.
In
Out
29:43
And we know you're really fast.
In
Out
29:44
What you can do is Call my office like two weeks before the meeting, and I'll let you know whether or not there's going to be something discussed here.
In
Out
29:53
Or if we have new plans, I can email them to you.
In
Out
29:55
You can come by and get them.
In
Out
29:56
I can go over them with you.
In
Out
29:58
We definitely want to want to address whatever concerns.
In
Out
30:02
Just Alex, don't bring that no more.
In
Out
30:04
Yeah, I'll bring it.
In
Out
30:05
I'll bring an easel.
In
Out
30:07
Oh, do I have a second?
In
Out
30:09
I'll second.
In
Out
30:10
My Beth.
In
Out
30:12
All in favor?
In
Out
30:12
Gloria?
In
Out
30:13
Yes.
In
Out
30:13
Michael?
In
Out
30:14
Yes.
In
Out
30:15
Beth?
In
Out
30:15
Yes.
In
Out
30:16
Orlando?
In
Out
30:16
Yes.
In
Out
30:17
And I, John, vote yes as well to table this to the next meeting.
In
Out
30:20
Thank you, folks.
In
Out
30:21
Appreciate it.
In
Out
30:22
We don't charge extra for the comedy.
In
Out
30:28
Yeah, yeah, let Timmy take that one.
In
Out
30:33
All right, number 2.
In
Out
30:37
We'll see you soon.
In
Out
30:38
2 under new business.
In
Out
30:39
King Philip Estate subdivision, Princeton Circle, requests to leave lots 1 through 14 in exchange— release lots 1 through 14 in exchange for a letter of credit from Bay Coast Bank.
In
Out
30:52
So this is the subdivision that was constructed off of Dwelly and Kilburn Street with the old King Philip.
In
Out
30:58
Okay, yeah, um, Bob Capore.
In
Out
31:00
Yep, so he had done all of the Form A lots along the street Yeah, subdivision roadway has been constructed.
In
Out
31:07
So he's at the point now where he needs occupancy permits for homes to be built in the subdivision.
In
Out
31:13
Maybe 2 weeks ago, he had asked to be placed on the agenda.
In
Out
31:15
And I said, well, we can put you on the agenda.
In
Out
31:17
But until we get the as-builts in, until I've reviewed them, the consultants reviewed them, and the Department of Community Utilities reviewed them, then I can't offer you a surety amount to post.
In
Out
31:27
He submitted a surety number.
In
Out
31:29
Which I don't agree with, but we need to come up with our own, and then we'll come up with a decision.
In
Out
31:33
We only received those as-bills today, at about 9 o'clock this morning, and he came in the office and I explained to him, we're going to have to put it off, we'll wait for comments to come in, but we'll keep it on the agenda, because he does have 1 or 2 sales that are pending, but the bank cannot sell it until these are released from the covenant.
In
Out
31:53
So, do we have a motion to table this one.
In
Out
31:55
Second by Beth, second by Orlando.
In
Out
32:01
All in favor?
In
Out
32:01
Michael?
In
Out
32:02
Yes.
In
Out
32:03
Beth?
In
Out
32:03
Yes.
In
Out
32:04
Gloria?
In
Out
32:04
Yes.
In
Out
32:05
Orlando?
In
Out
32:05
Yes.
In
Out
32:06
And I— yes, but I would vote yes as well.
In
Out
32:09
Number 3, Highland Woods subdivision, request a full release of post-saturity and therefore the return of the original letter of credit on file with the City of Fall River.
In
Out
32:21
So this is the older subdivision at the end of Courtney Street, not Highland— not Highland Farms.
In
Out
32:29
This is Highland Woods, which has been under construction for 15 years, probably, maybe longer than that.
In
Out
32:38
Back and forth, back and forth, pave the road, change this, do that.
In
Out
32:42
So they feel that they've addressed all of our initial comments.
In
Out
32:46
We have not, again, received— I sent out an email.
In
Out
32:50
I did not see a response back.
In
Out
32:51
Felicia, I think— did we get anything back?
In
Out
32:54
I don't know if they would have done a reply all anyway, but I didn't see an email with an answer to— in their review letters that they sent back where all comments were addressed, they reference a revised ASBIL plan, which we just don't have.
In
Out
33:07
So with that, I would recommend that the matter be tabled until we get the appropriate As-built plan and is reviewed by my office and Department of Community Utilities.
In
Out
33:16
All right, do I have a motion to table?
In
Out
33:18
I make a motion to table the Catherine Woods subdivision, item number 3 on the agenda.
In
Out
33:23
Gloria, second?
In
Out
33:25
I'll second.
In
Out
33:26
Beth?
In
Out
33:28
All in favor?
In
Out
33:28
Michael?
In
Out
33:29
Yes.
In
Out
33:29
Gloria?
In
Out
33:30
Yes.
In
Out
33:30
Beth?
In
Out
33:30
Yes.
In
Out
33:31
Orlando?
In
Out
33:31
Yes.
In
Out
33:32
And I, John Ferrero, vote yes as well.
In
Out
33:34
Number 4, Form A, application for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval, ANR plan of land, file number 25-1638.
In
Out
33:46
Owner applicant, Roger Gamache.
In
Out
33:48
Property location, 1300 Newhall Street, assessor's map D-10, lot 0015.
In
Out
33:58
So this is actually a revision to a previously endorsed ANR plan due to a request of the Massachusetts Land Court.
In
Out
34:07
As you see, the plan is incredibly involved with survey and engineering calculations, and that's, that's what dealing with Massachusetts Land Court requires.
In
Out
34:17
So we actually signed this identical plan about a year ago.
In
Out
34:22
When we sign a Land Court plan, it then gets sent to Land Court for their review and approval.
In
Out
34:28
These plans do not get recorded at the Registry of Land Court actually will redraw this plan, believe it or not, from scratch.
In
Out
34:35
But they take this information to do so.
In
Out
34:37
So all the notations that you see on this are related to survey.
In
Out
34:42
And the change that was requested is when you submit a plan to Land Court, they look at what level of survey did you do?
In
Out
34:49
How accurate is it?
In
Out
34:51
Is it reasonable?
In
Out
34:52
And they were shy of having one survey monument shown on the plan to meet their standard.
In
Out
34:59
So Mr. Gardeschi had to extend his survey out to a point to locate another survey monument and tie that into the entire plan.
In
Out
35:11
So we were done with it last time very simply.
In
Out
35:15
Land Court, not always so simple.
In
Out
35:18
That's why we see more people now deregistering pieces of land and and removing them from Land Court, because this is— so again, this is literally a year in the making.
In
Out
35:27
Like, oh, actually, you can see the dates.
In
Out
35:28
So it's August 4th, 2025.
In
Out
35:31
Yeah, so almost a year from the last time we saw this plan.
In
Out
35:35
So as far as the lot configurations, nothing has changed as far as what we look at.
In
Out
35:40
It's just everything needed to be changed, so they needed an updated endorsed plan to send to Land Court.
In
Out
35:46
That's all.
In
Out
35:49
All right, so what your recommendation on this one is?
In
Out
35:52
To endorse.
In
Out
35:53
To endorse.
In
Out
35:54
Do I have any comments by the board?
In
Out
35:57
No.
In
Out
35:58
No.
In
Out
36:00
Do I have a motion?
In
Out
36:03
Motion to endorse.
In
Out
36:05
Beth.
In
Out
36:07
Second?
In
Out
36:08
I second.
In
Out
36:09
All in favor?
In
Out
36:12
Beth?
In
Out
36:12
Yes.
In
Out
36:13
Gloria?
In
Out
36:14
Yes.
In
Out
36:14
Orlando?
In
Out
36:15
Yes.
In
Out
36:16
Mike?
In
Out
36:17
Yes.
In
Out
36:17
And I, John Ferraro, yes as well.
In
Out
36:25
All right, we're going item number 5, Form A application for endorsement plan, a plan believed not to require approval, and our plan of land, file number 26-1682.
In
Out
36:38
0.
In
Out
36:41
Owner applicant Victor Souza.
In
Out
36:43
Property location Jones Street, assessment map T-06, lot 0040 and 0076.
In
Out
36:53
So again, not all that dissimilar to the last one.
In
Out
36:57
About a year ago, we endorsed an ANR plan creating 2 50-foot-wide lots, which was what was required in G zoning district.
In
Out
37:05
The plan before you tonight is to put them back into one singular lot.
In
Out
37:10
I'm assuming the developer wants to build a multifamily structure on the property.
In
Out
37:14
Yeah, correct.
In
Out
37:15
We don't have that in front of us at this point, but that, that's my general understanding.
In
Out
37:20
So the plan before you is just removing the interior lot line that was created previously on subdivision plan that was recorded in Book 173 Page 74.
In
Out
37:32
That's all.
In
Out
37:32
No zoning relief required.
In
Out
37:35
Do I have a motion to accept the merger of the 2 lots?
In
Out
37:41
I motion to accept the merger of the 2 lots.
In
Out
37:43
Mike, second?
In
Out
37:44
I second.
In
Out
37:45
Orlando?
In
Out
37:47
All in favor?
In
Out
37:47
Gloria?
In
Out
37:48
Yes.
In
Out
37:49
Beth?
In
Out
37:49
Yes.
In
Out
37:49
Michael?
In
Out
37:50
Yes.
In
Out
37:50
Orlando?
In
Out
37:51
Yes.
In
Out
37:52
And I, John Farrell, vote yes as well.
In
Out
37:54
Number 6.
In
Out
37:57
Form A, application for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval, and, uh, plan of land, file number 26-1683.
In
Out
38:07
Owner applicant, Jason DuBois, Bay State Realty Investments.
In
Out
38:11
Property location, 99 Jones Street, assessment map T-06, lot 0038.
In
Out
38:19
So coincidentally The last A&R and this A&R was at one point the same owner.
In
Out
38:27
He sold one to Victor Souza, that's the one that we just dealt with.
In
Out
38:30
He sold this one to Jason DuBois.
In
Out
38:33
The lot that he had sold to Mr. DuBois contained an existing single-family home, a family single-family home.
In
Out
38:40
The proposal before you tonight is to subdivide that relatively large lot into 2 lots that exceed the zoning requirements for the district.
In
Out
38:48
This is a G district that requires 50 feet of frontage, 5,000 square feet for a single-family home.
In
Out
38:54
Again, my guess is that they— so they could have subdivided this into 3 single-family lots.
In
Out
38:59
I'm guessing that they're going to construct a multifamily on both of these as well.
In
Out
39:04
But both lots meet the zoning requirements, so is afforded endorsement.
In
Out
39:10
Good-sized lots.
In
Out
39:12
Yeah.
In
Out
39:14
Just because they have to deal with the hill.
In
Out
39:16
All right.
In
Out
39:17
I have a question.
In
Out
39:18
That existing single-family, that can be raised or that can stay?
In
Out
39:20
I have no idea.
In
Out
39:22
Most likely down the road, maybe added to.
In
Out
39:25
I, I don't know what the developers— because there's no setbacks, you know, side yards.
In
Out
39:30
There's no measurements there on the plan.
In
Out
39:32
Yeah, we're not dealing— that lot line's not changing.
In
Out
39:34
That they actually had got zoning relief for that lot line when the previous owner owned it.
In
Out
39:41
So the purpose of this plan— repeat that for me— is to subdivide the existing parcel into 2, leaving a single-family home on one lot and creating a second lot, both lots conforming to the zoning for the district, which is 50 feet of frontage and 5,000 square feet.
In
Out
40:05
I think we've talked about it before.
In
Out
40:06
I think Mike has brought it up, but we do like to see that delineated, you know, the porch from the Jones Street and the sidewalks.
In
Out
40:14
Just, just to notate, we'd like that on the plan.
In
Out
40:17
If you've mentioned that before.
In
Out
40:19
No, no, the setbacks.
In
Out
40:20
Yeah.
In
Out
40:21
We've talked about that before.
In
Out
40:25
All right, other than that, any other questions?
In
Out
40:29
Or do I have a motion to approve these— the subdivision?
In
Out
40:36
Motion to approve the subdivision.
In
Out
40:37
Orlando, second?
In
Out
40:39
I'll second.
In
Out
40:40
Beth.
In
Out
40:42
All in favor?
In
Out
40:43
Michael?
In
Out
40:44
Uh, yes.
In
Out
40:44
Gloria?
In
Out
40:46
Yes.
In
Out
40:46
Beth?
In
Out
40:46
Yes.
In
Out
40:47
And Orlando?
In
Out
40:48
Yes.
In
Out
40:49
And I, John Ferraro, yes as well.
In
Out
40:51
Number 7, Form A application for endorsement of plan relieved not to require approval.
In
Out
40:57
And our plan of land, file number 26-1684.
In
Out
41:02
Owner applicant, Eric DeMaranville Jr. Property location, 458 Buffington Street.
In
Out
41:10
Assessor's map 1-24, lot 0045.
In
Out
41:16
So this is a subdivision of an existing parcel of land.
In
Out
41:26
On Buffington Street that has an existing, existing single-family home on one lot on the parcel the way that it begins now.
In
Out
41:39
They went through the Zoning Board of Appeals process requesting a waiver of frontage for lot number 2, as you see on in the plan, so reduced frontage.
In
Out
41:49
Again, this is in an A-2 zoning district that required 50 feet of frontage and 5,000 square feet.
In
Out
41:56
So the relief that was allowed for this petition was the waiver of that frontage of one lot, where 50 would be required, that they granted 42.
In
Out
42:04
It does meet the area requirement.
In
Out
42:07
So the subdivision plan has been designed in accordance with the relief granted with such, is afforded endorsement.
In
Out
42:19
So they did give them relief on the 8 feet?
In
Out
42:22
Yeah, and one of the conditions of approval was that that center property line be staked with permanent monuments and that those monuments were shown on the subdivision plan.
In
Out
42:31
It initially did not come in with that survey done, so that's why this one was added last, because the actual survey work and the revised plan we only discussed today.
In
Out
42:39
I see how we adjusted the, the frontage so that at least one conforming instead of having 2 being 4 or 5 feet short.
In
Out
42:47
You're correct.
In
Out
42:49
Any questions by the board?
In
Out
42:51
No.
In
Out
42:52
You have a motion?
In
Out
42:59
Second?
In
Out
43:00
Second.
In
Out
43:02
All in favor?
In
Out
43:03
Beth?
In
Out
43:03
Yes.
In
Out
43:04
Orlando?
In
Out
43:05
Yes.
In
Out
43:05
Gloria?
In
Out
43:06
Yes.
In
Out
43:06
Mike?
In
Out
43:07
Yes.
In
Out
43:08
And I vote— John Ferraro votes yes as well.
In
Out
43:10
Last item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the meeting.
In
Out
43:14
We were all present.
In
Out
43:15
Do I have a motion to accept?
In
Out
43:18
Motion to accept.
In
Out
43:19
Motion by Beth.
In
Out
43:22
Second?
In
Out
43:24
I second.
In
Out
43:29
All in favor?
In
Out
43:30
Michael?
In
Out
43:31
I wasn't here.
In
Out
43:32
Yeah, you were.
In
Out
43:34
Oh, one minute.
In
Out
43:35
There was no absence.
In
Out
43:37
July 8th?
In
Out
43:42
Yes.
In
Out
43:43
You weren't here.
In
Out
43:45
We were all here.
In
Out
43:49
Listen, he just lost his gold star for perfect attendance.
In
Out
43:52
I know.
In
Out
43:53
Hey, we made up— we made up for made up for it with CPC.
In
Out
43:56
Yeah, there you go.
In
Out
43:57
Yeah, he was at a meeting.
In
Out
43:59
Just not— should we amend that?
In
Out
44:02
Yeah.
In
Out
44:02
Okay, so we'll get rid of Michael.
In
Out
44:04
So Beth, Gloria, um, so all in favor, Orlando?
In
Out
44:09
Yes.
In
Out
44:10
Beth?
In
Out
44:11
Yes.
In
Out
44:11
Gloria?
In
Out
44:12
Yes.
In
Out
44:12
And I, John, forever yes as well.
In
Out
44:14
Sorry about that, Mike.
In
Out
44:15
No citizens input.
In
Out
44:16
Do I have a motion to adjourn?
In
Out
44:19
Motion to adjourn.
In
Out
44:20
Motion Second.
In
Out
44:22
Second.
In
Out
44:23
Why, Mike?
In
Out
44:24
He wasn't here.
In
Out
44:25
Oh, all in favor?
In
Out
44:28
Gloria?
In
Out
44:29
Yes.
In
Out
44:30
Orlando?
In
Out
44:30
Yes.
In
Out
44:31
Beth?
In
Out
44:31
Yes.
In
Out
44:32
Michael?
In
Out
44:33
Yes.
In
Out
44:33
And I, John Ferrari, yes as well.
In
Out
44:35
Have a great night, everyone.
In
Out
44:37
Before, before you guys head out, I, I don't know how
In
Out