8.12.2026 Planning Board

I'd like to welcome everybody to the Wednesday, August 12th, 2026 meeting of the Fall River Planning Board.

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.

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.

The city charter, Section 9-18, mandates that all municipal member bodies develop and adopt rules or policy for public comment.

We have adopted such a policy, which in short provides for citizen input on planning board-specific matters at the end of the meeting.

There's a sign-up sheet that's located in the back of the room.

All right, we have Craig Salvador from Fall River TV in the back.

Then I got a city engineer, Felicia Parker, the planning and record recording clerk.

Roll call.

Gloria Pacheco.

Beth Andre.

Mike Farias.

Present.

Orlando Rodriguez.

Present.

And I, John Ferreira, am present, I think.

And old business number 1, roadway reconstruction, Spring Street.

Section 66-185 City Ordinance considering the roadway reconstruction plan and profile of Spring Street.

This petition was previously tabled at the April 13th, May 13th, June 10th, July 8th meetings at the request of the applicant.

So we received an update today.

If you remember, we were waiting for the design engineer to do some soil testing and some redesign for drainage.

I do know the soil testing was completed approximately a week or two ago.

I spoke with the consultant, Bill Smith, who was the engineer on this.

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.

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.

So with that, I would recommend that the matter be tabled at the applicant's request.

All right.

Do I have a motion to table?

Motion to table.

I'll move to table this.

By Mike.

Second?

Second.

By Orlando.

All right.

All in favor?

Beth?

Yes.

Michael?

Yes.

Gloria?

Yes.

Orlando?

Yes.

And I, John Ferraro, vote yes as well to table.

This request till next meeting.

Under new business, number 1, roadway reconstruction, vacant wooden lots off Box Street, Norwood Street, and Monarch Street.

Section 66-185 City Ordinance considering the roadway reconstruction application for vacant wooden lots off Box Street, Norwood Street, and Monarch Street.

Mr. Aguirre, I would just let the applicant start with their presentation and then we going to where we're at.

Please, uh, give us your name and address for the record, please.

For the record, my name is Alex Karadeski.

Uh, I am an engineer in the city of Fall River, 422 North Main Street.

And, uh, Timothy DeSova, 1 Atlantic Boulevard, Fall River, owner of the property.

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.

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.

Those are houses as they were approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Because this lot requires a variance, it was approved, so the ultimate result would be 7 lots.

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.

Alex, did you say a variance was issued by the board?

Yes, variance was issued.

So as a result of the variance, we have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 lots.

And this was a lot of record that can require the variance.

So in order to serve these lots, that's what's proposed.

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.

I don't know what's going to happen with water and sewer.

I had a very productive discussion with the city engineer this morning.

I received his comments.

I know what needs to be done as far as he is concerned, but I just don't know.

And that was filed about a month ago, I think, but I still don't have comments.

So that might— I don't expect any changes, but it might.

But it's still for the preliminary plan?

It is.

Conceptually, I don't think it will change much, but I just don't know.

I can't say for sure until I have the their comments.

And we'll try to set an ambush for Mr. Furland at his office and see what he has to say.

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.

So we're starting with, with the location where we have 2 streets that come off of Eastern Avenue, which are Bark and Monarch.

That are 2 dead ends, no turnarounds, no connections.

There is another dead-end street, Norwood Street, which comes off of County as you're heading towards Talbot.

And then take a left onto Norwood, that brings you to another dead end.

Directly east of the proposed gray roadway that you see here, that's the wooded parcel that's associated with Talbot middle school.

So just for orientation purposes, that's where we are here.

So we had met preliminarily, probably 2 months ago, throwing around different ideas of how to proceed.

We have existing right-of-ways that are already established.

That's why this is not a Form C subdivision.

This is a roadway reconstruction.

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.

So, we're not creating right-of-ways, we're just creating the traveled ways that fall within them.

And, that's what Section 66-185 allows us to do.

We had discussions about trying to eliminate some dead ends.

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.

So right now, Bark is a dead end.

That will now loop entirely around to Norwood.

Norwood will never be a dead end again.

That will loop all the way through back to either.

And the little stub road that you see in Marnoch would provide frontage just for 3 lots itself.

So, emergency access-wise, access to the property, this is the preferred layout from my office.

And I thank the applicant and the engineer for considering it.

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.

So, that's still in the review process, and we have not received comment yet from that office.

There's not a lot to be done.

This is a location that is primarily ledge.

That's why this piece of land has sat here for a very long time.

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.

Oh yeah, that's right.

So, has the ability and the knowledge to be able to deal with this stone.

So, up until that point, it was a very difficult project for any developer to take on.

I know it's been around for a while.

Yeah.

This was denied a number of variances.

Some people wanted to do duplexes, condominium developments.

So again, we were thankful that Mr. DaSilva had a reasonable proposal, which, incorporated the construction of single-family homes.

So where we're at in process now is comments from DCU, probably another consultation with Alex to get to final engineering design.

But I had told Alex it would still be beneficial to come tonight, let the board see the initial presentation.

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.

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.

Are you folks here for this?

Yes.

Would you like to come down and look at the new rendition and just state your name and address for the record, please?

My name is Jeremy Corriveau, resident at 146 Elizabeth Street.

Could you point that out on the map, please?

Our property is here.

But we all— this is part of it as well.

This way, if you have any questions, the engineer and the city engineer are both right beside.

This isn't your only opportunity to look at this and to talk about it.

So, but this is— we want that at least.

I do have a statement.

I don't know if you— yeah.

Good evening.

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.

The development was shut down— the project was shut down in 2004, 2006, and 2021.

Each time 50-plus residents signed a petition in opposition.

The zoning committee approved this proposal in 2025 despite knowing that residents previously disapproved.

This time, few nearby residents were even aware that the project was taking place.

I strongly believe that the development of new roads right through an established neighborhood makes every resident an abutter.

So here are my— I'm asking answers to the following questions.

One, specifically, why are we only discussing the proposed new roads constructions now?

2, why weren't all nearby residents included during the initial zoning process?

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?

Why does another long street all the way to the distant Norwood Street need to be created?

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?

5, what safety net exists for the fact that the entire proposed area is made of solid granite ledge?

Many of the old homes in this area have fieldstone foundations that simply sit on the ledge, including my own.

Specifically, what is the developer's plans for removing the ledge which directly connects to these foundations?

6, if it is to be removed by a chemical process, might it affect the city's water supply?

7, if it is hammered by big machinery, machinery, it could easily cause disruption and damage.

As a side note, another developer tried this near my house 10 years ago.

Our picture frames were shaking and falling off the walls due to the vibrations of hammering the ledge.

The contractor ended up breaking his equipment and selling the land.

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?

I believe that the City of Fall River, especially relevant boards, along with the developer, have a responsibility to answer the questions.

Thank you.

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.

We appreciate this process.

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.

That's the limit of who gets notified for Zoning Board appeals petitions.

Planning Board, very similar, actually even less.

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.

Correct.

Those parties were notified.

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.

That's not true.

I was never notified.

When?

For this hearing or for the zoning board?

For the zoning board.

Oh, you're talking about this particular meeting?

This is not the zoning board of appeals?

Correct.

This is the— so there was some sort— you did get a notification for this hearing?

Okay.

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.

But that's, that's a zoning thing.

We're here strictly to talk about construction.

So a number of your items do need to be addressed, and they can be addressed by the engineer as we go through this.

But please note, you had just stated that your house is built on ledge.

So at some point in time, someone constructed your house and had to remove ledge as well.

So the same right— It was placed directly on the ledge, not removed.

And so these— this property owner is afforded the same right to construct on their land as you were.

And all of the abutters who are also built on ledge or near ledge.

Correct.

And the removal of such.

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.

Diamond— we just built a high school, Diamond Regional Vocational Technical High School, that required an incredible amount of ledge removal.

Removal and blasting.

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.

That actual work for the construction of homes, that would be governed by the building department.

Fire department oversees blasting.

So there are different levels of permitting that get— that take place.

That part of the permitting is not before this board at this time.

But that does not mean that this board cannot make a condition of approval that they get handled in a certain manner.

There are many other levels of permitting beyond this.

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.

Is what this board will take into account when they render their decision.

We did have a discussion this morning where I've asked Mr. Gardeschi to put together a comprehensive list of waivers.

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?

Or is full compliance with our subdivision rules and regulations required?

Required for a project like this.

We're not at that point yet.

But, it is good to hear these concerns.

It's good for them to hear these concerns.

So, thank you for coming out.

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.

And, I can get that in their hands.

I'll just take one.

Make sure the guys are prepared to answer some of these questions when they come in at the next meeting.

Thank you.

Now, Dan, you said this whole area was ledge.

It's all rock.

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.

That section of Monarch would be the most difficult to construct.

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.

It's really not for you to consider the amount of ledge that needs to be removed.

The Zoning Board of Appeals took that into account when they granted the zoning relief.

I was just considering the coverage of ledge, that's all.

Yeah, and the— when we talk about that this was denied and this denied and our project stopped, projects were not stopped.

Zoning relief was never granted.

Project— no construction activity has has ever taken place out here.

So projects were not stopped.

They did not get through the Zoning Board of Appeals.

And as I had said, those developments involved condominiumization, duplexes, larger multifamily buildings, and yes, all that relief was denied.

The applicant came in with their attorney and with Mr. Gorodetsky with a single-family home proposal.

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.

And in that approval is a deed restriction that there can be no ADUs out there.

I was going to ask.

So they are limited to the number of units shown.

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.

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.

So that is deed restricted.

And so that will not happen.

That's good.

But again, tonight, I want to make sure that everybody got the first glimpse of it.

Any other questions?

That's it.

Sir, are you here for this as well?

Yes, I'm just observing.

I have a lot of— on You can come take a look at it too.

Come take a look at the plan.

Only because this plan is different.

There were 2 more dead ends, which upon my review said absolutely— you can take a picture of it if you'd like.

Thank you.

So nice to meet you.

So I had asked that.

Can I have your name and address, please?

My name is Cesar, C-E-S-A-R, on 135 L Street.

Could you point out on the map where your dwelling is?

So you have the vacant lot.

Well, the good news for you is your lot will most likely be developable after they build the road in front of your house.

So you should be in favor of this project.

Do you want to pay for some of the road?

Just for your water and sewer line.

Is that it, sir?

Yes.

Okay, nothing else.

Any questions by the board?

Emergency access vehicles now.

Yeah.

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.

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.

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.

So, this preliminary sketch is what I had requested them to go into that direction.

So, if they can get the engineering to work, we don't know the answer yet.

Elevation-wise, drainage-wise, this is not an easy project.

Especially with the ledge.

Michael?

I've got several questions.

So, I understand the purpose of the loop component of this, not only for Norwell, but also for emergency access to it.

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.

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?

So it's, it's a give and take.

So it's either deal with that very difficult section of— that's Marnoch Street.

So, however many linear feet, I don't know what that is, Alex.

The difference is about, give or take, under 100 feet.

So, if they did a connection there, they would not have to connect to Norwood Street.

Sure.

So, that's an option.

And, when we get into the actual design, that may still be— that may end up being the preferred method.

That's preferred.

Well, and we'll And this is going to be reviewed by Paul for water loop, sewer, all of that type of scenario.

So that's the reality of it.

That might still be in play at the end of the day, especially with the ledge.

Yeah, no, no, constructing this way because of the topography also requires some side slopes.

So it may require retaining walls on site.

It's— I looked at that.

That's sure.

That would be That will be probably easier, even though it's 100 feet longer, but construction part of it will be probably easier.

Didn't we do a project over here a few years ago that had some sidewalks in the same portions of the ledge?

Maybe it was one of the earlier— yeah, an earlier rendition of this.

And that was a huge issue associated with it.

So you're addressing it with the larger loop.

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.

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.

So beginning roadway construction there, picking up from Monarch, then we would not actually be constructing roadway in front of any home.

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.

And more importantly, who is absorbing the cost for the construction of these roads?

100% on the developer.

I think that's just important to state.

It is.

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.

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.

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.

It has to be something reasonable.

And that presentation seemed reasonable.

To the board enough for them to grant the requested relief.

And those are 7 single-family— single-family homes, deed restricted to not include ADUs.

And then that is actually zoned for single-family?

It is.

Yep.

Okay.

Yeah, so it ended up being the lot sizes were diminished a little bit, not dramatically.

Anybody else on the board?

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.

You could put an ADU in there, you don't have to go to zoning, you just get a building permit.

As long as the building inspector approves it, it could be over, it could be in a garage, in a basement, in an attic.

So, by not allowing ADUs, That's one good point, like I said, because it would have doubled the amount of families in there.

The ledge is going to be tricky, and it's going to take some engineering.

And also, Paul Furlong is going to dictate what he wants for sewage runoff, and so on.

So, with the ledge in play, there's a long way to go yet on this.

Mr. DeSilva knew ahead of time what he was getting himself into.

All right.

You good, Tim?

Yeah, I'm good.

I mean, and like they stated, going that other way is definitely going to bother the neighborhood way more than what this is.

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?

It's high.

So we're not going through that way.

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.

You know, that's kind of what me and Alex That's one of the reasons why we didn't go there.

Besides the topography, besides the ledges, just to minimize— I mean, connecting Norwood is just really to get rid of the dead ends.

Because, I mean, we had a hammerhead originally on the end of BART.

We had a hammerhead, you know, if we did it with hammerheads, but now you still got the dead ends.

I mean, maybe the Norwood people would appreciate not having the traffic.

Well, that one dead end might still need a hammerhead, no?

Maybe, yeah.

You know, that's fine.

That's your fire department, right?

The fire department will look at it and they will say we currently have 3 dead ends that have no hammerheads.

This proposal, we end up with one.

And depend on fire hydrant locations also.

Yeah.

Oh, yeah.

But the hammerheads, a regional design has come out of the road.

Yeah.

It's painted like this so that the fire truck can go this way and back right up.

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.

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?

I think the lots are probably 100 feet of frontage.

Need a bigger ruler, Alex.

I know, but it needs bigger pockets to fill.

It's about 100, 220 feet.

Yeah, that's it.

Give or take 250 feet.

Yeah, that's actually would be considered part of a hammerhead.

Correct.

For the length of it.

So you can drive a truck partially the way down and still feed.

Yeah, the hammerhead for the fire apparatus with flares would require 45, 50, no, 40 foot for the truck.

Yeah.

Of less 25 or 30 feet, I'm going to require at least another inch.

You can take that down.

I was sorry.

We're going to have to call 911.

That's cheap, cheap drywall.

They don't sell— some things never change with you, Alex.

So many for the price, for $15.

I used to pay $50.

All right, but anyway, uh, anything else?

Any other comments?

We're looking to what table?

This 2?

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?

I would motion to table this until final review through the utilities department, fire, police, whatever.

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.

So we have to keep it on a specific date.

So it can't just be till they get it.

Why don't— can we table it to the next meeting and just— yeah, we'll have to keep tabling it.

To be consistent with what your review process is, is that enough time?

Well, I know it's whether or not— whether or not we act on it, right, is something else.

Okay.

But we at least have to table it to a time certain, to a specific meeting.

And if we don't get the information in time for review, then they'll be required to table it.

So allow the time for review.

I would put it to basically until our next meeting.

Next week.

Yeah, for now.

And that's site plan approval and all the other departments go through their process.

Most likely will happen by the next meeting.

No, we know, we're just, but we're just putting a date on it.

And we know you're really fast.

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.

Or if we have new plans, I can email them to you.

You can come by and get them.

I can go over them with you.

We definitely want to want to address whatever concerns.

Just Alex, don't bring that no more.

Yeah, I'll bring it.

I'll bring an easel.

Oh, do I have a second?

I'll second.

My Beth.

All in favor?

Gloria?

Yes.

Michael?

Yes.

Beth?

Yes.

Orlando?

Yes.

And I, John, vote yes as well to table this to the next meeting.

Thank you, folks.

Appreciate it.

We don't charge extra for the comedy.

Yeah, yeah, let Timmy take that one.

All right, number 2.

We'll see you soon.

2 under new business.

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.

So this is the subdivision that was constructed off of Dwelly and Kilburn Street with the old King Philip.

Okay, yeah, um, Bob Capore.

Yep, so he had done all of the Form A lots along the street Yeah, subdivision roadway has been constructed.

So he's at the point now where he needs occupancy permits for homes to be built in the subdivision.

Maybe 2 weeks ago, he had asked to be placed on the agenda.

And I said, well, we can put you on the agenda.

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.

He submitted a surety number.

Which I don't agree with, but we need to come up with our own, and then we'll come up with a decision.

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.

So, do we have a motion to table this one.

Second by Beth, second by Orlando.

All in favor?

Michael?

Yes.

Beth?

Yes.

Gloria?

Yes.

Orlando?

Yes.

And I— yes, but I would vote yes as well.

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.

So this is the older subdivision at the end of Courtney Street, not Highland— not Highland Farms.

This is Highland Woods, which has been under construction for 15 years, probably, maybe longer than that.

Back and forth, back and forth, pave the road, change this, do that.

So they feel that they've addressed all of our initial comments.

We have not, again, received— I sent out an email.

I did not see a response back.

Felicia, I think— did we get anything back?

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.

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.

All right, do I have a motion to table?

I make a motion to table the Catherine Woods subdivision, item number 3 on the agenda.

Gloria, second?

I'll second.

Beth?

All in favor?

Michael?

Yes.

Gloria?

Yes.

Beth?

Yes.

Orlando?

Yes.

And I, John Ferrero, vote yes as well.

Number 4, Form A, application for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval, ANR plan of land, file number 25-1638.

Owner applicant, Roger Gamache.

Property location, 1300 Newhall Street, assessor's map D-10, lot 0015.

So this is actually a revision to a previously endorsed ANR plan due to a request of the Massachusetts Land Court.

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.

So we actually signed this identical plan about a year ago.

When we sign a Land Court plan, it then gets sent to Land Court for their review and approval.

These plans do not get recorded at the Registry of Land Court actually will redraw this plan, believe it or not, from scratch.

But they take this information to do so.

So all the notations that you see on this are related to survey.

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?

How accurate is it?

Is it reasonable?

And they were shy of having one survey monument shown on the plan to meet their standard.

So Mr. Gardeschi had to extend his survey out to a point to locate another survey monument and tie that into the entire plan.

So we were done with it last time very simply.

Land Court, not always so simple.

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.

Like, oh, actually, you can see the dates.

So it's August 4th, 2025.

Yeah, so almost a year from the last time we saw this plan.

So as far as the lot configurations, nothing has changed as far as what we look at.

It's just everything needed to be changed, so they needed an updated endorsed plan to send to Land Court.

That's all.

All right, so what your recommendation on this one is?

To endorse.

To endorse.

Do I have any comments by the board?

No.

No.

Do I have a motion?

Motion to endorse.

Beth.

Second?

I second.

All in favor?

Beth?

Yes.

Gloria?

Yes.

Orlando?

Yes.

Mike?

Yes.

And I, John Ferraro, yes as well.

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.

0.

Owner applicant Victor Souza.

Property location Jones Street, assessment map T-06, lot 0040 and 0076.

So again, not all that dissimilar to the last one.

About a year ago, we endorsed an ANR plan creating 2 50-foot-wide lots, which was what was required in G zoning district.

The plan before you tonight is to put them back into one singular lot.

I'm assuming the developer wants to build a multifamily structure on the property.

Yeah, correct.

We don't have that in front of us at this point, but that, that's my general understanding.

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.

That's all.

No zoning relief required.

Do I have a motion to accept the merger of the 2 lots?

I motion to accept the merger of the 2 lots.

Mike, second?

I second.

Orlando?

All in favor?

Gloria?

Yes.

Beth?

Yes.

Michael?

Yes.

Orlando?

Yes.

And I, John Farrell, vote yes as well.

Number 6.

Form A, application for endorsement of plan believed not to require approval, and, uh, plan of land, file number 26-1683.

Owner applicant, Jason DuBois, Bay State Realty Investments.

Property location, 99 Jones Street, assessment map T-06, lot 0038.

So coincidentally The last A&R and this A&R was at one point the same owner.

He sold one to Victor Souza, that's the one that we just dealt with.

He sold this one to Jason DuBois.

The lot that he had sold to Mr. DuBois contained an existing single-family home, a family single-family home.

The proposal before you tonight is to subdivide that relatively large lot into 2 lots that exceed the zoning requirements for the district.

This is a G district that requires 50 feet of frontage, 5,000 square feet for a single-family home.

Again, my guess is that they— so they could have subdivided this into 3 single-family lots.

I'm guessing that they're going to construct a multifamily on both of these as well.

But both lots meet the zoning requirements, so is afforded endorsement.

Good-sized lots.

Yeah.

Just because they have to deal with the hill.

All right.

I have a question.

That existing single-family, that can be raised or that can stay?

I have no idea.

Most likely down the road, maybe added to.

I, I don't know what the developers— because there's no setbacks, you know, side yards.

There's no measurements there on the plan.

Yeah, we're not dealing— that lot line's not changing.

That they actually had got zoning relief for that lot line when the previous owner owned it.

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.

I think we've talked about it before.

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.

Just, just to notate, we'd like that on the plan.

If you've mentioned that before.

No, no, the setbacks.

Yeah.

We've talked about that before.

All right, other than that, any other questions?

Or do I have a motion to approve these— the subdivision?

Motion to approve the subdivision.

Orlando, second?

I'll second.

Beth.

All in favor?

Michael?

Uh, yes.

Gloria?

Yes.

Beth?

Yes.

And Orlando?

Yes.

And I, John Ferraro, yes as well.

Number 7, Form A application for endorsement of plan relieved not to require approval.

And our plan of land, file number 26-1684.

Owner applicant, Eric DeMaranville Jr. Property location, 458 Buffington Street.

Assessor's map 1-24, lot 0045.

So this is a subdivision of an existing parcel of land.

On Buffington Street that has an existing, existing single-family home on one lot on the parcel the way that it begins now.

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.

Again, this is in an A-2 zoning district that required 50 feet of frontage and 5,000 square feet.

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.

It does meet the area requirement.

So the subdivision plan has been designed in accordance with the relief granted with such, is afforded endorsement.

So they did give them relief on the 8 feet?

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.

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.

I see how we adjusted the, the frontage so that at least one conforming instead of having 2 being 4 or 5 feet short.

You're correct.

Any questions by the board?

No.

You have a motion?

Second?

Second.

All in favor?

Beth?

Yes.

Orlando?

Yes.

Gloria?

Yes.

Mike?

Yes.

And I vote— John Ferraro votes yes as well.

Last item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the meeting.

We were all present.

Do I have a motion to accept?

Motion to accept.

Motion by Beth.

Second?

I second.

All in favor?

Michael?

I wasn't here.

Yeah, you were.

Oh, one minute.

There was no absence.

July 8th?

Yes.

You weren't here.

We were all here.

Listen, he just lost his gold star for perfect attendance.

I know.

Hey, we made up— we made up for made up for it with CPC.

Yeah, there you go.

Yeah, he was at a meeting.

Just not— should we amend that?

Yeah.

Okay, so we'll get rid of Michael.

So Beth, Gloria, um, so all in favor, Orlando?

Yes.

Beth?

Yes.

Gloria?

Yes.

And I, John, forever yes as well.

Sorry about that, Mike.

No citizens input.

Do I have a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

Motion Second.

Second.

Why, Mike?

He wasn't here.

Oh, all in favor?

Gloria?

Yes.

Orlando?

Yes.

Beth?

Yes.

Michael?

Yes.

And I, John Ferrari, yes as well.

Have a great night, everyone.

Before, before you guys head out, I, I don't know how