8.20.2026 Zoning Board of Appeals

Good evening.

I am Joseph Pereira, chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the City of Fall River.

It is 5:30 PM on Thursday, August 20th, 2026.

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

There seeing none, our recording secretary this evening is Ms. Courtney Pereira, sitting to my immediate right.

Present this evening are regular members Mr. John Frank, who's our vice chairman, James Calkins, our clerk, and Dan DePere, and Ricky Sahadi.

We also have with us this evening, seated to my far left, Mr. Daniel Aguiar, Director of Engineering and Planning.

Courtney, have all petitions to be considered been properly advertised and all interested parties notified in accordance with the rules and regulations of the ZBA and Mass General Law Chapter 40A as amended?

Yes.

In that case, I declare the August 20th, 2026 regularly scheduled meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Fall River open for such business as shall regularly come before it.

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

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

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

In the case of a variance, a credible practical difficulty should be identified, as defined in Mass General Law Chapter 40A, Please remember this applies to variances for use as well as so-called waivers for dimensional requirements.

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— dealing with the use of land as regulated in Chapter 86 of the ordinances of the City of Fall River.

We require that comments made in this hearing be limited to the scope and authority of the board.

Additional permits, licenses, reviews, and/or approvals may be required for the petition before us tonight.

The action taken by this 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 this evening because the building inspector has determined that your proposed action is contrary to the city 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 at the end of this meeting.

If anyone cares to avail themselves of that, there's a sign-up sheet on the table just outside.

The door.

With that, let us begin.

We start with old business.

Item number 01.

The applicant owner is Luis Gonzalez.

This is care of Jeffrey Tallman, Northeast Engineers and Consultants Incorporated.

Subject property is 333 Durfee Street, Map 011, Lot 0013.

The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following: 1, to convert an existing automobile repair facility into a 4-unit multifamily dwelling, thereby expanding the existing nonconformity— nonconforming 5-family dwelling on the property to a total of 9 dwelling units.

The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following: the expansion of an existing nonconforming structure, specifically raising the height of the existing automobile repair facility to accommodate the proposed residential units.

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

The property is located in a BN neighborhood shopping district.

This petition was tabled at our July 16, 2026 meeting at the request of the petitioner.

Jeffrey, good evening.

For the record, Jeff Palmer from Northeast Engineers and Consultants, here tonight on behalf of Louis Gonzalez, the petitioner on this application.

So at the last meeting, there was an issue— the board kind of took issue with the parking that we were proposing at that particular time.

Since we were taking the existing 5-family dwelling, adding 3 additional units in the garage area for a total of 8 units on the property, at that point we were just proposing 8 parking spots, one per unit.

We were asked to see if we could bump that up, get closer to what's required at the WTOD, which is the 1.5 spots per unit, even though this is not in the WTOD, but that was something that was mentioned.

So we went back to the drawing board to see what we could do to increase the parking, the number of parking spots that we could provide.

So what we came up with was rather than propose the converting the garage into a 3-residential unit building.

Since we would need the lower level to provide some additional parking to meet the— to expand the parking that we could provide, we are now proposing that to be a 4-unit residential dwelling to go along with the 5 that's on the property.

So what we're going to What we're proposing to do is to have the 4— do 4 parking spots inside the building at grade level utilizing the existing garage door opening that's already there, and then going upward using a second level and then adding actually a third level onto the building and doing 2 units per level going up for a total of 4 additional units on the property.

In addition to the 4 spaces that we can provide inside the garage, we're also proposing to install a new driveway on the south side of the property that would provide 2 additional parking spots as well.

The existing 5-family dwelling has 4 1-bedroom units and 1 3-bedroom unit.

So what we propose to do is to take that new driveway located on the south, let the 3-bedroom unit just use that driveway because it would be stacked parking, one behind the other.

So that would make sense.

Then we would take the 4 parking spots in the existing lot that are adjacent to that 5-family dwelling and dedicate one of those spots for each one of the units, the 1-bedroom units in the building.

Then, in the existing garage that would be converted to 4 residential units, we'd provide 1 parking spot per unit within that building.

And then, we're left with 4 kind of spillover parking spots on the north side of the property that would just be used first come, first serve.

So, what this does is it gets us up to a total of 14 spaces on the property for the 9 units.

Which is the— gets you to the 1.5 spots per unit that was suggested at the last meeting.

The other thing I'd like to note too is when this was first presented to the board at the— wasn't the last meeting, it was 2 meetings ago— I did not realize there was also a— there's a car sales license that's on this property in addition to the auto repair license.

I have included that.

I submitted a revised application That paperwork is in there.

So basically, the existing garage, in addition to being auto repair, is also auto sales.

So when you look at the overall parking demand that's currently on this property, with all the uses that exist presently, you would need 20 parking spots to satisfy the parking requirements of the ordinance.

And basically, there's 8 out there.

In those 20 spots, they don't even— that's not even factoring in the vehicle display that the license, the sales license, has the ability to display 12 vehicles on the property.

So that would bump that number really up to 32, which obviously there's no room to fit that.

So making this conversion from that auto repair, auto sales use of the existing garage into 4 residential apartments would certainly lessen the parking demand for the property, and I think it would be a benefit to the neighborhood.

So with that, I'd like to answer any questions that the board might have.

I'm going to bring up a picky question.

We got the check for the advertising fee tonight.

And I know people have been chasing to get that check in the door because traditionally— and it may sound picky— but we'd like to make sure the check's actually cleared before we sit down tonight.

So you can condition the approval if you decide to approve it based on the check clearing.

We think alike.

What's the total height of that building going to be now with the Post height's 44 feet.

Okay.

Which would be the max.

What does the district allow?

70?

Yeah.

No, 45.

45.

45 in this district.

That's across the street.

Got it.

Yeah.

Across the street, totally different story.

From the planning perspective?

Just call to attention, the existing building footprint is not changing.

They're just going straight up.

Yeah, it'll be basically a completely reconstructed building.

So no, I have no issue of it.

And as just stated, as this is, you know, we're eliminating an incredible non-conforming condition.

Yeah, for parking, or potential for parking.

So with that, I don't have any— anything in opposition or to be opposed to.

Yeah, I mean, you know, Jeff, I have to thank you because this is— and your client— this is a greatly improved plan from what we were looking at before.

Yeah, we were— the initial plan was to kind of work within the parameters of what we had for that building.

Yeah, but then, you know, with it makes sense to use the lower level for parking and then put the addition to go up.

You know, it's more work for him, but at the end of the day, he does get the additional unit.

But the parking is— it's a much better situation.

Well, and let's face it, Durfee Street, there's no parking.

Yeah, right.

So you're gonna have nothing but unhappy tenants, or no tenants, if they got no place to park.

I mean, it's It, it's to the protection of the city, certainly, but he's protecting his investment by saying we've got plenty of parking spaces.

Oh, questions from the board at this point?

It's a second look at this one, so no.

Turning to general public at this point, anybody here wishing to speak in support of this petition?

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to this petition?

I will add one other thing.

We'll talk about it later on this evening.

Originally presented in June, this was being looked at under entirely different circumstances, so the level of relief needed for a variance has diminished greatly, as you all know.

So keep that in mind as well.

Yeah, Jeffrey, you have the opportunity to, to state our first, uh, practical difficulty, unless you want to just yield that to Attorney Salino so he gets to— Yeah, I'll, I'll let Peter handle that.

Um, I'll stick to my initial hardship from the first meeting once they act on Not just the granting.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, they can't go back.

Sorry.

All right, no other questions or comments at this point?

It's up to us.

It's a new month.

What do we do?

Mr. Chairman, my brief little slide here was just stating that once the conversion to residential happens, the license for— license where the dealership should go away and auto repair and all that ceases to exist.

With that, I will make the motion to grant.

Second.

Okay, we have to do it differently on special permits now.

Well, you're gonna, you're gonna have 2 separate votes still, because we have relief specific to parking, right?

Which is, is it still aisle Jeff?

Why don't you explain to what, what type of actual relief we're here for?

We're here for the residential use in the neighborhood business district.

That's the, that's the variance.

Um, and are we actually utilizing any of the— yes, we still, we're still reducing parking because we're in compliance with the WTRD, but not with the BON.

So 2 separate votes, one for the variance for residential use, right, one for the special permit with a waiver.

So to the variance, on the variance, my motion will be allow.

Second.

Okay, motion and second.

Discussion on the motion?

Hearing none.

Ricky?

Yes.

Dan?

Yes.

Jim?

Yes.

John?

Yes.

Chairman Ferrari?

Yes to the special permit.

And on the special permit, twofold allowing— are there 2 special permits, or is it just— it's both are under one?

It's all— it's all under one.

It's all in one.

It's still by the conforming structure.

Raising the height, removing the existing auto repair garage, adding the additional residential units, and the relief to reduce the number of parking spaces.

That's my motion.

Okay, do you want a condition for the— it should be automatic, but we should mention in the condition for the resignation of the auto dealer's license.

Uh, yes, that's what I was just saying.

It's pretty much read into— it's read into one, and that's why I was just saying that you're right, removing the existing auto repair.

Okay.

And sales.

Okay, we got that.

It's a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Motion and second.

Discussion on the motion?

They're hearing no discussion.

John?

Yes.

Jim?

Yes.

Dan?

Yes.

Ricky?

Yes.

Jim Prairie?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number 02.

Applicant owner is, uh, Dylan Estate on the River LLC, care of attorney Peter A. Salino.

Subject property is 637 Durfee Street, map 011— uh, I'm sorry, 011, lot 0006.

The applicant is asking a variance to allow the following: one, pursuant to Section 86, Attachment 1 of the Fall River Zoning Ordinance, to demolish the existing structure and to construct a 5-story, 12-unit apartment building, waiving the 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 City of Fall River Zoning Ordinance, to modify the parking requirements as set forth in Section 86-441 through 86-444, including: A, reducing the required number of off-street parking spaces from 18 to 12; B, eliminating the requirement for 1 loading space; C, allowing parking within 10 feet of property line.

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

The petition was tabled at our July 16th, 2026 meeting at the request of the petitioner.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman.

Peter Salino, lawyer with addresses at 1 Father de Vallis Boulevard, Suite 311, Fall River, Massachusetts, for the owner applicant.

Uh, Mr. Tallman's the engineer on the project.

The board may remember that we were before you in July on this project.

We heard the concerns of the board, and we believe that we've now submitted a revised proposal that is responsive to those concerns.

I think the appropriate way to present this to you is to kind of compare and contrast.

So more specifically, last time we were here, we were seeking a 12-unit apartment building.

The proposal is now down to 8 units.

What that does for the proposal is it eliminates many of the waivers we were requesting at the July meeting.

More specifically, we no longer need a parking waiver because with 8 units at 1.5, we now comply with the parking requirement.

Next, last time we were seeking a lot coverage waiver.

We no longer need that with the reduction of the impervious area and the unit count before you.

Additionally, the size of the building last time necessitated a side yard setback waiver to the north which is no longer needed as a result of the building being shrunken.

So really now, as we sit here, the relief being requested are the front setback, the rear setback, the special— and those are by variance— and then the special permit for the waiver of the parking lot being within 10 feet of a property line and a waiver of a loading space.

And Iowith, sorry.

3 parking waivers.

Isleworth is the third.

So as Mr.

Chair just noted, we know that since the last time we sat at this table, we have new regulations which we now need to go by in presenting variance arguments.

So rather than the traditional argument relating to shape, hardship— hardship argument related to shape, topography, and soil condition, we now need to talk about practical difficulty.

And under that standard, which was adopted in Massachusetts on July 9th, The Board now needs to weigh the benefit to the applicant, the public interest in creating new housing, listen to arguments surrounding financial difficulty or financial interest in creating the project, and weigh that versus the detriments to the neighborhood.

So when I look at this new standard and I present this to you, I would submit to you that there is a financial element to all of these projects.

The Board knows that.

In order to make these new buildings work, you have to have a certain number of units.

So I think the financial argument is that 8 units is our bare minimum to make this project work.

Next, when we look at the public benefit and the impetus to create housing, this complies with that intent.

I submitted in the package some still photos of a rendering versus what's currently there.

Badly dilapidated structure is currently there, that structure sits on the south property line.

I think nicely, it's a dump is how I would describe it.

So to be able to build a new structure with the rendering before you definitely is in line with the legislative intent to create new units in the Commonwealth and in the city of Fall River.

So I think, I think we have been responsive to the board's requests and concerns.

I think that the new proposal is more in line with the expectations.

The owner or a member of the ownership group is here in the audience.

Obviously I'm here and Jeff's here, and we're happy to answer any questions that the board has.

And we hope that you find this to be responsive to the last meeting.

Okay, big difference, and we appreciate that effort.

Not that this exceeds height, but for comparison's sake, Jeff, do you know roughly the height of the building is there now if you go from the Durfee Street side, which is the highest side of the building?

Yeah, I would just be guessing.

I do not know the height of that.

You know, being on the hill too, it's kind of— right, well, from Durfee Street, from those 4 stories now, right, it's got to be to the peak where this is a flat building.

So it's got to be just shy of 40 feet, I would have to guess, the existing— yeah, I would say that's definitely in the ballpark.

Yeah, somewhere in there.

And the total proposed height of this building?

It would be a 5-story building.

Yeah, it would certainly meet the requirements of the W-2.

No, no, no, I mean, no higher than that.

I would imagine somewhere in the ballpark of 45.

Yeah, somewhere in there.

No more than 50.

No, no more than 50.

Stretch it to 50.

The The point is, and we had, you know, I've kicked this around 100 times, it's a greater mass, obviously, but it's not a whole heck of a lot taller.

Because, I've heard a lot of people grumbling about the height, the height, the height, the height.

It's probably going to be about 8 feet taller than what's there now, and not be a rat trap.

Correct.

I'm going to use that one, rat trap.

No, don't use that.

You can only use it with jiu-jitsu.

Okay.

Yeah, I don't have any additional questions at this point.

Members of the board, this one— listen, we're going to be dealing with this district a lot coming up.

So I just wondered, Jeff, did Did you say a change in the width of the parking spaces?

Just the aisle width for the section.

There's an 18-foot— We don't have that here as a— Yeah, hold on.

I'll show you.

It's on here.

Well, not on the written, is it?

Oh, the aisle width?

No, it just says— the description does not state Iowa.

It does say parking requirements set, and it says including, but that relief is not needed from 18 to 12 spaces, eliminating the requirement of a loading space that's listed.

But technically, I mean, there's an argument that this is one-way traffic and that only an 18-foot aisle would be required.

I mean, I don't see an issue with granting the special permit as a special permit for parking was requested.

Yeah, we can go by the plan rather than the written description.

Yeah, thank you.

Yeah, and we kept it at the 18.

We did make it one-way, so to make that easier, and we, we had to keep it at the 18.

Otherwise, we'd have to expand the building, you know, further to the west and create an additional separate building.

That was a good pickup.

He always picks that up, always.

Anyone else, questions?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to state that it almost looks like a different proposal from the last one, so I commend you for being sensitive to our concerns and you doing this.

I want, especially the audience, just to understand that the rendering that they saw, there's a floor missing.

So I don't want anybody to think, oh, it's only a 4-story building.

It's not.

This is just a graphical representation of what this type of building with parking underneath would look like.

So they are not bound by that plan.

That's just— we asked maybe about a week ago could go for something of a rendering to get an idea of what this— so that it would help you understand what does it look like with parking being on the first floor like that.

So we thank them for getting that to us.

So what it really comes down to is parking setback relief.

Even, even the setback relief to Durfee Street and Odd Street, the existing structure is closer to both of those property lines, so we're actually increasing the building setback to both with the streets.

So the only real building setback— they have asked for it, which we will abide by— is the 8-foot, whether you want to call it a rear yard or a side yard.

Mm-hmm.

And that's only for a portion of that property.

That's because of that jog on the property line.

So I would offer that a practical difficulty would be the 2-foot jog in the property line as well.

So, and the retaining wall, which is a straight line is on the 10-foot setback.

So it's— you may find after survey that, that there's more room, right?

No, this— we're pretty well locked in on that side.

On that side, okay.

It's the Durfee Street layout that's still a little bit of an issue, which we'll have to get resolved.

Yeah, yeah, we're prepared to deal with that.

Back.

Just a point of order.

4 separate motions required for this.

Let's see, we have— we have a variance with regards to building setback only.

Right?

Correct.

That's one.

Then we have— you can do all the special permits together.

They can be gathered.

And, and the special permits are aisle width, and loading space.

Am I correct?

Yes.

We're limited to those 3 of relief.

And setback.

The setback.

So setback is 10 feet.

Closer to 10 feet.

You can say a waiver of parking requirements in accordance with the approved plan, and that covers all of the specific items of parking if you choose to.

With a special permit.

Yes.

Let's turn to the general public.

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

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

We have one piece of correspondence in opposition, not from a property owner, from someone in an apartment, uh, in a building at 4801 North Main Street.

It's short.

I'm going to read it just because it's making me— I am just offering some comments on the article in the Herald News today about a developer who wants to construct a large apartment complex on Durfee Street at the corner of Odd Street, where currently a 3-decker building stands.

Pinch me.

That just can't be done.

Just to be near the train station, it won't work.

Having grown up in this area of the city, I have many doubts that they can safely squeeze such a large building into that confined lot space.

It does not make sense, and all the engineering in the world can't make it work.

It's a terrible idea, plus there is no room for all the parking, and my screen just lost the whole letter.

So a better idea is that the developer should locate the proposed apartment in another part of the North End where there is more land available, which we can't really discuss because that's not the piece of property that's in front of us.

This is signed by a Margaret Walsh at 4801 North Main Street, and that's part of the record.

Comments?

Just briefly in response, that's nowhere near this.

4801 is going to be almost in Freetown.

She's not in the butter.

Yeah, she's not in the butter.

Just— okay, so it's just a comment.

Noted.

Pinch me.

Anything else?

Nothing from the audience.

One letter of opposition and an approved plan.

I have my own queasiness about this lot, but this is much better.

And as my associate, Mr. Sahadi, said, it looks like a totally different proposal.

What do we want to do, kids?

I move the granting of the variance along allowing, and the only condition we needed was building setbacks.

Building setback.

Yep.

We have a motion on the variance.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Motion and second.

Discussion?

Hearing no discussion.

Ricky?

Yes.

Dan?

Yes.

Jim?

Yes.

John?

Yes.

Chairman Ferrari?

Yes.

And I move that we grant the special permit as presented on the plan covering the space— parking and space issues, which are specifically aisle width, setback to property line, and elimination of loading space.

Do we have a second on that?

Second.

Discussion on the motion?

Hearing none.

Ricky?

Yes.

Dan?

Yes.

Jim?

Yes.

John?

Yes.

Chairman Prairie?

Yes.

Thank you.

Congratulations.

On to new business.

Item number 1, Item number 1, the applicant owner is 46 Bay Street Holdings, LLC, care of attorney Peter A. Salino.

Subject property is 424 3rd Street, Map I-10, Lot 0049.

The applicant requests a variance to allow the following.

The applicant seeks a variance from the City of Fall River zoning ordinance waiving lot area, side yard setback, and rear yard setback.

The applicant proposed— the applicant proposed to subdivide the existing parcel, Lot 40, as shown on Assessor's Map I-10, into 3 lots, allowing each of the existing dwellings currently located on the property to be located in an individual lot.

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

Good evening.

For the record, Peter Salino, Father de Vallis Boulevard, Suite 311, Fall River, Massachusetts, on behalf of the applicant.

The proposal before you is to divide the existing lot into 3 lots as shown on the plan.

As we can see, the property sits at the corner of Morgan and 3rd.

It currently consists of 3 dwellings.

The dwellings each house 6 apartment units, so it's a total of 18 units currently.

The reason for this proposal is it's a bit of an unwieldy site to manage, again, 18 apartments.

And so now we're looking at this in the new standard and we're talking about practical difficulty and we can talk about financial hardship.

So in this instance, I think the practical difficulty of this site is for all intents and purposes it's a commercial enterprise.

It has to be sold as a whole block.

It's 18 units.

That requires commercial financing and it lends itself to effectively out-of-town landlords that want to buy a big complex and rent to people and derive rental income.

So the proposal before you would serve to create 3 lots.

It's also creating 4 off-street parking spaces.

So in terms of the different prongs that we now analyze under this new standard, I think certainly there's a benefit to the applicant or the ultimate owner of the property because they will be able to finance it not as a commercial entity.

Enterprise, but rather as a separate house lot which may be owner-occupied.

I think it's consistent with the public interest behind the law relative to the creation and maintenance of residential dwelling units.

It doesn't necessarily produce any housing, but it also doesn't have any detriment.

The board is, you know, going to weigh what's the detriment.

The number of units isn't changing.

That relief is not being asked for.

So for all intents and purposes, we're creating property lines.

And I'd submit to you that that's not a detriment to the neighborhood.

If anything, we're getting a little better by providing some off-street parking.

So we are— Jeff and I are here, obviously, on behalf of the owner.

The owner is also over my left shoulder if there are any specific questions for Mr. Carey.

Are the 4 lots that are being created— 2 are being allocated to 2 and 2 are being allocated 3.

Is that how that's gone?

Parking spots?

Yes, 2 on Lot 2, 2 on Lot 3, Mr. Frank.

Okay, in that existing asphalt area in the back of Lot 1, is that— that can't be parking because there's nowhere to get to it.

You can't get to it, correct?

It's either one or the other.

We either take the parking between, you know, on Lots 2 and 3, or you somehow utilize utilize the parking behind lot— on the back of Lot 1.

The issue with the parking on the back of Lot 1 is when you look at the parking standards in the city and size of parking spaces in Isleworth, it's just maneuvering back and forth, you know, trying to get in and out of there would be a problem.

And then you would still need to access the access through the driveway, so that would have to remain open between 2 and 3.

Whereas, if we just take that driveway between 2 and 3 and utilize the, you know, the potential 4 parking spots in there.

We probably end up with more off-street parking than what could be provided behind Lot 1.

And it's a better configuration.

You get rid of the logistical nightmare of driving through Lots 2 and 3, right?

Exactly.

Everything is to its own owner, to its own.

That's what I was trying to get to.

Yeah.

And it's a funny— it's a funny jog when you get to the house on Lot 1 anyway, so that wouldn't really be practical.

Stacking— stack parking is a nightmare, especially when you're in multifamilies like this, but you could factually do 6.

Correct.

You've got the— it would kind of block— you kind of need that— there's a little bit of an easement at the entrance there to get in and out.

Just for it to be able to go in steps.

Because if you were to park 2 cars in the front there, like if 2 cars just pulled in it, you wouldn't be able to get to the back.

So the idea being with this parking scenario, you know, with the 4 parking spots, yes, they would be stacked, 2 on each lot.

But obviously, they would have to be dedicated to an individual unit on each one.

How many parking spaces are there currently before this division?

Again, that's— I mean, are people currently driving through and going to that asphalt area?

Not really.

No, I didn't think so.

No, no, because you're kind of driving over a walkway to get back there anyway.

So it's— you might be able to get 3 cars back there.

But again, it wouldn't.

So in this space right now, there's, there's no parking currently.

Correct.

Okay.

So we're going from, we're going from 0 to 4.

Yes.

That would be— theoretically, somebody is going to park in that front area, but they'll have to figure it out.

Yeah.

Or at least one vehicle parked, you know.

Yeah.

We're not making matters worse.

No, and the lot lines are nice and clean.

Usually in scenarios like this, you're dealing with some weird lot lines and everything.

This is great.

Everybody has actually required frontage that they need.

And it appears as though all the utilities are already separated, that every house has its own water shutoff and gas shutoff.

So I'd imagine they would have sewer.

I haven't gotten that far yet.

But I believe that's all separated.

Nice job on the practical difficulties.

Setting the bar.

Any other questions at this point?

It's a fairly straightforward division.

It is.

And again, times before, so this would normally be 86-423B, right, with 3 existing multifamily dwellings in existence prior to 1954.

The problem being this lot itself and these 3 units on it was created by a variance.

So they're not— they're only afforded to continue using— you can't go backwards and utilize a special permit.

So the adjacent properties to this were all owned by one entity at one point in time.

At the time they separated those all, they left 3 buildings at— they could have at that time put these all on 3 separate lots.

They didn't.

They chose to leave 3 on, on one singular lot, thus the need for a variance.

And again, 2 months ago this variance would have been much more difficult to get.

So changing the standard from special permit, which is guaranteed by right, to the new standard of variance, the same conditions you normally would have applied to 86-423 with no ADUs, separation of utilities affidavit, affidavit recorded prior to endorsement of an ANR, which is how we've done it recently.

No fencing, whatever lot lines you want to do no fencing on, and staking your property corners is the standard.

But on the merits itself, you have no problem?

No, no, no, not adding any additional units.

Right.

Because theoretically, they, they could go in— what zoning district is this?

A-2.

A-2.

So they could theoretically go in and add an ADU right now if they wanted to and have an additional unit.

That.

We can preclude that from happening 3 more times.

Yep.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions before I go to the public?

Dan, anything?

Anybody here wishing to speak in favor of this petition?

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

Hearing none, it turns to the board.

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

Conditions?

Conditions, please.

No ADUs.

Separation between fencing, no fencing, stake law, standards.

Yeah.

If you don't mind, if I could interrupt, could you just do the no fencing between 2 and 3?

Because there is a potential to go a along Lot 1, and it wouldn't have any impact on— well, I would only say no fencing between 1 and 2 with a 4-foot setback.

Yeah, you've only got a 4-foot setback.

You're not going to put a fence between 2 and 3 because you've got parking there, so you can't.

So we're not going to put one there anyway.

If you wanted to put a fence in between the rear portion of 3 and Lot 1, how about we say no fencing wherever parking is being proposed, or within 5 feet of a structure or something like that.

Yeah, and that's, that's my problem with fencing there is it's only 5 feet off the structure on Lot 1.

Yeah.

So included in the motion would be no fencing between lots, between Lots 1 and 2, wherever the property line is less than 5 feet.

And between lots 2 and 3, through that common lot line where parking is allowed on either side of it, right?

And the last thing we need is a fence in between 2 9-foot spaces.

You're already going to be difficult to open a door at night, you got a fence to contend with.

So yeah, that Courtney.

Okay.

Second.

Motion and second.

On the motion, Ricky?

Yes.

Dan?

Yes.

Jim?

Yes.

John?

Yes.

Chairman Prairie?

Yes.

Thank you.

Moving on, applicant number 2.

Applicant owner is Double S Realty Trust, care of Attorney Peter A. Salino, subject property 550 Locust Street, Map M-28, Lot 0022.

The applicant seeking a variance to allow the following: 1, pursuant to Section 86, Attachment 1 of the Fall River Zoning Ordinance, to waive the minimum lot area requirements in order to convert the existing office building into a 4-unit residential apartment building.

The applicant seeks a special permit to allow the following: 1, pursuant to Section 86-445 of the Fall River Zoning Ordinance, to modify the requirement of Section 86-444A, subsection 1, that parking spaces be located on the same lot as the building or use they are intended to serve.

The property is located within an A-2 apartment zoning district.

Good evening, Peter Solino, lawyer with addresses at 1 Father DeValle Boulevard, Suite 311, Fall River, on behalf of the owner applicant, the Double S Realty Trust.

The proposal before you is to take the former professional office building located at the northwest corner of Locust and Grove and turn it into 4 residential apartment units.

The proposal is required to come before you as a variance because the district is an A-2 district.

Obviously, we know 5,000 feet for the first unit and 1,500 for each additional unit.

You can see that per the plan, there's only 5,137 square feet.

And as a result, we cannot convert this building to an apartment building by right.

So the variance request is simply because of the lot area and the fact that the number of units proposed is not supported by the lot's area.

The second waiver being requested is parking in the sense that the bylaw requires that the parking be on the same lot as the building, but because the building and the lot are intersected by Locust Street, the parking lot is across the street.

To be very clear, however, the required number of parking spaces is provided for by this proposal.

You can see that there's a garage under the building that consists of 2 parking spaces that meet city requirements.

And then the proposal includes 6 additional spaces across Locust Street on the south side of Locust Street for a total of 8, which becomes compliant.

So we're asking for a variance as it relates to the change of use.

And a special permit as it relates to the parking.

Again, and probably beating a dead horse at this point, but when we look at the practical difficulty standard here, I'll submit to you that again the legislative intent is to create housing.

This proposal does exactly that.

It creates housing in an A-2 district.

We're more or less surrounded in this neighborhood by multi-family uses, and it further provides parking to keep cars off the street.

So I'm happy to answer any questions, but I believe this is a pretty straightforward request and proposal.

So the parking area across the street, that's already parking, correct?

It is correct.

And that is owned by the same entity?

A different entity.

I'm sorry, this is Triple S?

Yes.

Okay, cute La Jolla stuff.

Yeah.

Is it going to be— how is that— is it going to be transferred to the same entity, or are you going to have some type of— what, what legal document is going to tie the property to the parking spaces across the street?

Uh, I'm happy to accept the condition of an easement being required.

It's no problem, and that's the intent.

And that would be the whole of that parking area, or just— it is not a space, about the northerly third of that.

Okay, how many spaces then in total?

Total now, the proposal is to allocate— you got 2 under the building?

Yes.

And 6 on Locust Street.

Okay, so it's compliant as to the number, it's just this nuance of fact that the lot is not on the same deed.

Understood.

We've asked other developers to do the same thing with far less clarity, so— No jiu-jitsu here, Mr. Chairman.

From the planning aspect?

No, I mean, we discussed this at length to minimize the relief that needed to be required.

Requested.

And again, I mean, where did we stop, maybe 5 months ago having this discussion?

Right around Christmas, probably.

And again, the relief would have been dramatically different under the old law.

Still has merit even just based upon that.

So I have no issue with it, but I would like to acknowledge the other attorney, Salino, who is here this evening.

And it's sad as Peter sits here and gives us a new address for his legal offices, it really is.

A lot of good work was done out of that office.

So I'd like to acknowledge Uncle John while he's here and thank him for all of his years of service.

And it'll be sad to see this building go.

I used to live on the corner, so just 2 buildings away, my first apartment.

So, and Mr. Tolman visited that house often.

Don't get teary-eyed on me, man.

I know, can't afford that.

Questions from the board on this one?

I just wanted to So we know, do you anticipate any problems at all securing the lease for those 6 parking units?

No, I'll offer that it's all controlled by my family.

So it'll be a condition of approval.

There will be no building permit issued until that condition has been satisfied.

Okay.

Any other questions from the board?

Anybody here wishing to speak in favor of this proposal?

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

That being the case, it's ours.

So we have— make a motion to grant the variance waiving minimum lot area and converting existing office building into a 4-unit residential.

Yep.

Second.

Motion and second.

Discussion on that?

Contingent upon the acquisition of the 6 units.

That'll be the special permit.

That'll be in a special permit because that deals with the parking on it.

Any other questions on it?

Discussion?

That being the case, on the motion, John?

Yes.

Jim?

Yes.

Ricky?

Yes.

Dan?

Yes.

Chair and Prairie?

Yes.

The special permit.

I'll make a motion to grant the special permit to waive the parking requirements.

The parking space to be located on the same lot of the building with intent of securing the necessary 6 spaces.

Doesn't have to even be on that lot, right?

They control that lot.

They control it as long as they have the adequate age spaces.

Let's not— looking for— amen.

Thank you.

But so as you're proposing it, you're not pointing it directly to that lot across the street.

I don't want to end up in another situation.

I don't want to put us in another situation.

The proposal is allowed across the street.

So then that's what the basis— very good— made.

That'll be my motion.

Okay.

Pertaining to the 6 spots across the street.

Yep.

Thank you.

Second.

Motion and second.

Discussion on the motion?

Hearing none.

Ricky?

Yes.

Dan?

Yes.

Jim?

Yes.

John?

Yes.

Chairman Prairie?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And best of luck.

Item number 3.

Applicant Timothy J. Mello.

Owner Catherine E. Ross— F. Ross, I'm sorry.

Uh, this is care of attorney Gregory Brilliant.

Subject property 302 Orchard Street, Map E-05, Lot 0050.

The applicant is requesting a variance.

Requesting a variance to allow the following: one, to divide the property into 2 lots, leaving an existing dwelling on one lot and constructing a new single-family dwelling on a second lot, waiving lot frontage, lot area, and lot coverage requirements.

Property is located in an R-8 single-family zoning district.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman.

For the record, Attorney Gregory Bryan on behalf of Mr. Mello, the applicant, who is now the owner of the property as well.

I appear before you tonight to request permission to subdivide this property into 2 lots, leaving the existing single-family at 302 Oswell Street on one lot and proposing to build a second single-family dwelling on lot 2, which will be fronting on Edna Street and also have an Edna Street address.

As shown on the plan, this lot is oversized as it currently exists in the R-8 district.

It's a unique lot because it fronts on 2 streets, both Oswell Street and Eppes Street, as I said.

And there's also some rock and ledge in the back here, which if we were going under the old standard of hardship, would be a hardship particular to the topography of the land.

However, we no longer do that.

And as Mr. Salinas, Attorney Salinas, has said numerous times thus far, that now the standard is practical difficulty.

That's the threshold.

And we have to look at the project in public housing production, whether it's in the best interest of the public and it produces housing, as well as the financial difficulties.

And you weigh that relative to the potential neighborhood impact.

I submit to the board today that the this particular project with the unique lot being on 2 separate streets with some land challenges creates a financial hardship— a financial difficulty, I should say.

And obviously it does not impact the public interest, and it does produce housing within the neighborhood.

As this board knows, we could— again, I don't know, it's not an argument, but there's an ADU that could be built there, but again, that would create even more of a problem relative to the topography of the land.

And we don't think this affects the neighborhood in any way, shape, or form.

The dwelling is 38 by— excuse me, I believe it's 37 by 42 dwelling contemplated there.

We meet all of the side yard setbacks, rear yard setbacks, and front yard setbacks for both particular units.

So we are only asking for frontage, lot area, and lot coverage.

Now, this is an R-8 zone, which requires 8,000 square feet.

We have a 6,300-square-foot lot and a 6,900-square-foot lot.

But if you take a very close look at the plan, especially the Oswell Street, 284 Oswell Street sits on 4,357 square feet.

322 Oswell Street sits on 4,382 square feet.

291 Oswell Street sits on 4,250 square feet.

301 Oswell Street, 4,250 square feet.

288 Oswell, 6,021 square feet.

And the vacant lot at E5-51, which directly abuts this property, is only 4,379 square feet.

So I submit to this board that the lot being contemplated both lots are consistent with all of the neighborhood.

So I don't think that— again, there would be very little negative impact on the neighborhood, which, which is part of the new threshold.

You have to weigh that.

So I don't think there would be anything there.

As you can further see, this particular lot abuts a playground.

It's a basketball court over there, and also across the street there is some.

And excuse me, until the rear of the lot is Maple Gardens.

So we don't believe that there's any issues whatsoever, again, on the impact in the neighborhood.

We further submit that the board— not this board, obviously— at some point in time in the past, there was already a variance, and I'll give a copy of it, on the property directly abutting this, which requested the the same type of relief way back when, when the hardship required— excuse me, when the variance required a hardship under the more stringent standards.

It is, um, 281 Edna Street and, excuse me, 288 Oswell Street.

That variance there, um, was granted, allowing the subdivision and the building of a second home, um, on the Edna Street side.

And in fact, at that point in time, the board— and I know you're not bound by this, Mr. Chairman, I just— for point of information, they created a lot that was only 5,000 square feet, I believe.

Excuse me, 6,021 in the second lot.

But that lot was smaller than what we're requesting here.

So again, we don't think that it's going to have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood.

It's going to be a 3-family home, and Mr. Miller has purchased this.

He didn't do this on spec.

He purchased And he's going to— it's potentially contemplated that it's going to be for his 2 stepchildren.

But he bought it, so one of them is going to get a house for sure, and one may not.

But that's what it's for.

I'm saying it like it is because I told him what happens.

He said, well, one's going to get a house and one may not.

That could be a difficulty.

I'm not sure.

So, but he already bought it.

It's already in his name.

Closing was 2 weeks ago.

So we believe that we've met the new standard practical difficulty threshold.

If you have any questions from the board, I'd be happy to answer them.

It's, it's 2 single families?

2 single families, yes.

And we would put a stipulation, no further ADUs, if they— if the board so desires.

I mean, it strikes me as Straightforward driving through.

It's consistent with the neighborhood.

I agree.

I'm still trying to get used to new terminology.

From a planning perspective, I have nothing— just the ADU concern would have been one.

But John pointed on that.

There's no parking relief requested.

No, meets all the building setbacks.

I have no issue.

Yep.

Slot area.

Anyone, questions?

Ricky, you got anything?

No.

Okay.

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

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

They're hearing none.

It's in our able hands.

Mr. Chairman, I would make a motion that the variance be granted as requested with With the stipulation of no ADUs.

Motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Good.

Motion and second.

Discussion on the motion?

Hearing none on the motion.

Ricky?

Yes.

Dan?

Yes.

Jim?

Yes.

John?

Yes.

Chairman Prairie?

Yes.

Thank you, members of the board.

Thank you.

Item number 4, applicant owner is Broken Glass LLC, care of attorney— I'm sorry, I almost demoted you— care of Jeffrey Tallman, Northeast Engineers and Consultants.

Subject property is 483 Bedford Street, Map N-01, Lot 0046.

The applicant is seeking a special permit to allow the following: 1, pursuant to Section 86-454 of the Fall River zoning ordinance to install a 38-foot by 76-foot electronic sign.

Inch.

Inch.

Yeah, I was going to say, blast the city.

No more billboards, right?

No more billboards.

Inch.

38-inch by 76-inch electronic sign.

And, and I will point out that Courtney pointed that out to me and I didn't mark it on here.

Electronic sign below the existing 54-inch by 76-inch Spindle City Auto Glass sign, located at the northwest corner of the property.

Property is located in MD medical zoning district, where our glass is always fixed.

For the record, Jeff Palmer from Northeast Engineers and Consultants here tonight on behalf of Broken Glass LLC.

Petitioner for this application.

As stated, the property is located at 483 Bedford Street, which is on the south side of Bedford Street, at the southeast corner of Bedford and 11th Street.

While Broken Glass LLC is the entity that owns the property, you probably know the property better as Spindle City Auto Glass.

That's the business that operates on this site.

Parcel is Lot 46, as shown on on Assessor's Map N-01.

And, as stated, it is in the medical MD zoning district.

It is a conforming lot, having around 8,167 square feet and 99 feet of frontage on Bedford and 82.5 feet of frontage on 11th.

Quite simply, the petitioner is requesting a special permit pursuant to Section 86-54 of the City of Florham zoning ordinance to allow the installation of the 38-inch by 76-inch electronic sign.

As you can see on the sign detail that's provided on the plan, this electronic sign will be located directly below the 54-inch by 76-inch spindle auto glass sign that's currently there.

The proposal is to attach it to the existing sign pole and have it face east towards oncoming traffic, with obviously Bedford Street being a one-way going from east to west.

So it would just be a one-way projected sign.

The sign would basically be the same as the sign that's located directly across the street at the VFW Hall at 486 Bedford Street.

I believe that's the exact same sign as what we're proposing here.

And it would also be similar to to the sign on the Portugalia property located directly to the east.

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

No, I have none.

Pretty straightforward for the business.

Questions?

No, I'll just point out, Jeff alluded to it a little bit, the real relief is just that electronic signs just aren't allowed in the medical district.

That's it.

Yeah, that's been shattered.

You look at the plan, across the street is not MD, correct?

Directly to the east of this.

Yep.

They just happen to fall in the wrong zoning district, but they're surrounded by the same signs.

So that's really the relief.

Nothing about size.

Everything else still is in accordance to the ordinance.

If you weren't in the medical district and you were in a BL or a commercial mill district, this sign would be allowed by right.

That's all.

But the only variance is just allowing— it's really a use variance in the district.

Still has to comply to all the rest of the ordinance.

That is all.

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

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

Hearing none, we know the routine.

Mr. Chairman, I move that we grant the special permit to erect the sign according to the dimensions submitted.

Second.

Motion and second.

Discussion on that motion?

Hearing none, on the John?

Yes.

Jim?

Yes.

Dan?

Yes.

Ricky?

Yes.

Chairman Perry?

Yes.

All right, item number 5.

Applicant owner is Laura— is it Isela Bernard Diaz, care of attorney Jeffrey Tallman, Northeast Engineers and Consultants.

Subject property Our favorite, 189 Durfee Street, Map N-10, Lot 0007.

The applicant is seeking a variance to allow the following: to convert the 2nd floor in an existing commercial building into 1 residential apartment unit.

The applicant is seeking a special permit to allow the following pursuant to 86-445 of the Fall River Zoning Ordinance, to waive the requirement of off-street parking.

The property is located in a BN neighborhood shopping and AOD arts overlay zoning district.

Thus continues my tour of Durfee Street tonight.

Yeah, that's what I mean.

Yeah, again, Jeff Tolman from Northeast Engineering here on behalf of Laura Diaz, the petitioner on this application.

As stated, the property is 189 which is on the east side of Durfee Street between Cherry Streets and Pine Street.

It's Lot 7 on Assisted Map N-10.

This site was the former site of JV's Flooring Center for many years.

It has since been sold and is now the home of a roofing company that operates out of here.

So this, again, as stated, property's in the neighborhood shopping district.

It's a nonconforming lot, having around 4,800 square feet with 47, just over 47 feet of frontage on Durfee Street.

Oddly enough, this property is also in the Arts Overlay District.

When you look at the zoning map, it's on an island.

It's the only lot on this block, but it is in the Arts Overlay District.

And as you can see on the plan, the existing structure, which has a footprint of just over 39 square feet takes up majority of the property, roughly about 82%.

There is about a 36-foot-long driveway that's located at the southwest corner of the property that provides access to the loading dock on the property.

The rear portion of the building does have a second level.

The gross floor area of this, the second level levels, approximately 1,700 square feet.

The existing business that currently utilizes the building has no need and does not use the second floor.

So the proposal would be to convert that second level into one single residential apartment unit.

In addition to that, you know, with the relief that's required for the use.

We are also requesting a special permit pursuant to Section 86-445 to eliminate the need for 2 off-street parking spots for that particular unit.

The proposed nonconforming residential use of the property would be in harmony with 3 of the 5 residential properties that directly abut this property.

In addition, there are multiple residential properties located on this block, which the entire block's located within the neighborhood shopping district.

And these— some of these properties do not have off-street parking.

So, you know, again, the property is in the Arts Overlay District.

One of the stated purposes is to increase housing opportunities downtown.

And in addition to the new standards that have been adopted in Massachusetts, this petition would promote housing in Fall River.

So therefore, I would submit to the board that converting this unutilized portion of the building into one residential apartment would not be detrimental to the neighborhood and would certainly not derogate from the intent and stated purpose of the zoning ordinance.

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

I have one practical question.

How do you access that second floor apartment?

You stole my thunder.

Yeah, um, that's, that's a good question.

That's a very good question.

Thank you.

Um, helicopter.

There is, um, I've been told there, there is an easement, although I haven't found the records of this.

There is an easement on this property that crosses over the, um, the church property going out to Main Street in the back.

Um, so, um, I have driven there, and, and actually there is access to the building from the rear, although that is private property.

Worst case scenario, I mean, it would have to be— the idea being this unit is proposed— Laura Diaz is actually the daughter of the owner of the roofing company.

The apartment would be for her, so it would be basically kept in the family.

So access could potentially be given through the existing business, although there would probably have to be some renovations that would need to get that done, a private entrance somehow to get in there.

I don't know.

I haven't really gotten that far with this.

But, there would, obviously, it would have to be, that would have to be figured out through the building permit application and site plan review, or anything else that's required.

They're going to need 2.

Yeah, you could, you could have to walk through the building.

One, you may have to walk on the roof of the front building and stairs coming down, but that's going to be a building code issue.

This is strictly for use of a residential unit.

And this building is not just abutting the church, it's touching the church.

It touches the church.

Yeah.

Connected to No, here's— well, here it's open.

No, no, no.

Here.

Yeah.

Yeah.

In here.

Right here.

They're right up against it.

Yeah.

But this section behind the church is not structured there.

So we'll let them figure that part out.

Yeah, let them go to church and go.

You're not giving them a variance for access?

No, no.

I mean, you know, but there's a practical Just a practical question.

Practicability difficulty about it.

Additional obstacles that would have to be overcome.

Jeff, how many bedrooms?

You know, I don't know what the bedroom count would be.

Again, it's around 1,700 square feet, would certainly have the potential for 3.

I don't know.

You know, just being the one unit, I don't know, it didn't— to try to cap it as the number of bedrooms, you know, if it makes the board more comfortable, you know, more than 3, no more than 3.

But again, it's the intent right now is for one person to utilize it.

So, but I don't, I don't want to speak for them.

So, so even what's comfortable with the 3, keep capping it at 3.

Even, yeah, I'd say no more than 3.

That's kind of where my head's at right now.

I mean, even that'd be kind of— well, it wouldn't be tight.

You do it quite nicely, except you don't, you don't have that.

You do have windows on that side, or you could.

And there's actually parking on Main Street.

Let's not discuss that.

Main Street isn't— that we've had about Main Street, it has rights to parking.

I didn't say that.

Maybe.

Well, there's the ability, there's potential to use the existing driveway at night for off-street parking as well.

Where does this church park?

That's a good question, right?

Yeah.

I've never been by there on a Sunday morning.

The church is basically the entire lot other than that north section.

Yeah.

I mean, one of my pieces of heartburn with just about everything we've done on Durfee Street is there's never any parking on Durfee Street.

Can't build on an easement, right?

Can't build on an easement, so we can't do like a stairway down the back into the easement.

If they get rights to it, Yeah, they would have to be— they're going to have to figure out their access.

That's just— there's no way around that.

But as you say, that's building code, right?

Yeah.

That's not— I mean, it's a question of the use right now.

And that's, that's key.

They're not going to— they're not going to move forward with anything until or unless they get the use approved.

You know, God bless them trying to figure out how to get in and out of the apartment.

But anything like that can be worked out.

Helipad licensing, drone lift.

I was on this second floor about 10 years ago.

It's a really cool space.

It's a really cool space.

I was up there about 10 years ago.

Yeah, I had somebody that was looking at buying the building, and we had gone up to look at the second floor, and it was, it was pretty interesting.

Thing.

You never know.

You don't know what you don't know.

All wide open, if I remember right.

There's not even a wall, right, in the second floor?

So would it be safe to say no ADUs?

Well, you can't have an ADU because there's no residential use in this zoning district.

So, but that— you're not giving them an ADU.

Right, so they, they would be residential to try to go to an ADU.

Yeah, so no, it has to be allowed by zoning in the resident— in the zoning district.

That's why they're here seeking relief, because residential use is not allowed in the neighborhood shopping district.

So that's the only thing that— and we haven't dealt with that a lot yet because most of our zoning districts allow multi-family dwellings.

Everything that we've had along Durfee Street is in this neighborhood shopping district where got all residential dwellings, but I don't know how they all got there.

At some point in time, they changed the zoning and took out residential use, period.

Yeah, my, my, my bugaboo is going to be the zero parking.

Any other questions from the board before I go to the public?

Anybody wishing to speak in favor?

Of the proposal.

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

Sir with the cap, just identify yourself and your address, please.

Milton Whitman.

I own property, reside on 40 Main Street.

Okay.

Been there for 40 years.

I— you expressed a lot of my concerns.

From the previous discussion, that rear apartment, the rear of that building, has always been accessed— it used to be 26 Main Street, was the address, location, and it was accessed from Main Street.

Parking on Main Street, as Mr. Aguiar knows, is pretty difficult, and waiving any, uh, occupancy requirements is really unacceptable.

When you're saying it was accessed from Main Street, do you know if that was over property that's currently owned by the church?

I don't know who owns that driveway in the back of that building.

I know when it was JB's car— when it was JB's They used to park their van there many times.

Yeah, they may have had an agreement with the other property owner.

But like I said, that address was always 26 Main Street.

Interesting.

As I said, parking on Main Street is very congested now.

And to waive any parking requirements is unacceptable.

Okay, is that it, Mr. Glickman?

I can't even talk.

Also, thank you, sir.

Uh, owner of the next property, Friday Green property, uh, on that property for about 5 years now, and, uh, In that small driveway that I feel like, you know, the easement, and I just actually had a view from there, like it's been trash and trash there since they bought the property and they're just not taking care of the property.

Now trying to build another additional unit in there, it just may be a nightmare.

What sort of parking space?

The driveway in the front on Durfee or the one in the back on Main?

That's not this.

Yeah, right.

So they don't even have— that's not even part of what we're talking about because it's not owned by the same property owner.

Church owns that.

I added to them because they have a lot of trash in their property, which has been a problem for my tenants.

They have a dog there right now, it's full of a lot of trash.

I mean, if city can be, you know, cordial to kind of take a look around because it's just been chaos.

I mean, have tenants calling me throughout the whole summer.

I'm deployed, and then they call me like, you know, is the dog smelling?

Is the dog shit?

You know, sorry for that, but anyway, it's the truth.

So it's been bad.

And that's in that little area behind the church that we're talking about?

Yes.

Really?

The person that owns the building now uses that space.

He has a dog.

Okay.

Usually the person that owns what building?

The church building?

The church?

Or the one that's up tonight?

The roofing company?

The roofing company.

So they're using that land, but we don't know if they have rights to it yet.

I believe they do.

I've been told they do.

I haven't— I don't have documentation that proves that.

JVs own the property.

Yeah, they used to utilize that.

So yeah, and they've been doing it.

It's been kind of bad for my tenants in there, and then they create a lot of problems.

There's no parking, which is an issue because maybe it's no parking.

I mean, nothing's going to make much of a difference.

We didn't have a lot of madness, and I even plowed the street, Mike, you know, because I have a plower.

I just came in trying to help.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, the idea is to make neighborhoods better, not worse.

Yeah, so, correct.

All right, I appreciate that.

Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition?

All right, um, it's back to us, guys.

Point of clarification, please.

So in page 3 of the application, it does state that they want to convert 189 Durfee Street into a 1-bedroom residential apartment.

Okay, so that answers our question.

Not— can't be a 3.

Okay, then if you want to move to condition it that way.

That apartment has always been on Main Street.

As you know, if you go into 189, there's a stairway way in the back of that building.

Right.

Yeah, that's the way I went.

Right.

Yeah, yeah.

Now, if for some reason they have access rights to Main Street, all the better for them, access to the building-wise.

But that's not being presented that they have that.

Okay, do we want to— do we want to find out if there is access or not?

Does it make a difference to you?

I think that— do you just want to not even consider that?

I mean, it would be— it would be a bonus if it turned out that they do have.

So here's, here's where I am with zero parking, which is what I have right now.

What, what's in front of us with zero parking?

There's no parking on A, there's never parking on Durfee.

If they can't work something out, if they don't have something, you know, that's, that's, that's, that's big.

Because they came to me many times before saying, even though my tent is not supposed to park here, they create a lot of nightmare.

They're going to call the cops, they're going to tow the cars and stuff like that.

So, so they're acting like they have the right to it?

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, part of what comes down to this, and, and my dealings, what my knowledge is of Main Street, um, it's a private way.

So traffic enforcement has no enforcement capability.

So people block Main Street, people— nobody should be parking in Main Street.

It's a way that provides access to those properties.

No one should be impeding anyone's rights to access.

And we've had these discussions, but it's a matter of enforcing that.

Right.

I spoke to traffic enforcement and they say, well, it's not right.

That's the street.

So that's, that's a problem.

Where do your tenants park, sir?

On Main Street.

Correct.

But they're not supposed to.

Yeah.

I would feel differently if If the owner of this subject building that we're talking about can prove to us that they have an easement or some other rights to that quote-unquote driveway area behind the building, or a parking— I mean, it could be a parking space.

Yeah, if they have rights to park a van there.

Yeah, yeah.

Do they have rights?

Or they're just parking there.

So we don't know that.

So they could just be saying, what are we going to end up with, you know, adverse possession because we've parked a van there for 1,000 years?

I don't want to get hung up on— it's not our purview right now.

The request is for zero parking, and according to the application, I'm going to go back and look at that right now, a one-bedroom apartment.

Mr. Chairman, I move that we postpone deliberation on this matter till our next meeting, pending determination of ownership or access rights to that, because I think that's a determining factor.

Jeffrey, can you get the information?

I certainly can.

In that time, I don't see on the application.

I'm looking too.

I just got there.

What page was it on, Dan?

Page 3 of the application where you said one— where you see one bag.

Oh, sorry, it's in the denial paperwork you supplied for to convert into a 1-bedroom.

So you can only request the release that's being denied.

So we're only dealing with 1-bedroom right now.

All right, so why don't we, um, at this point I suggest we table it, um, and then get some of the answers to this, to these questions, and then come back at a later date.

Okay, can you make yours a motion then?

I make it.

I will second Tim's motion.

Second.

Motion and second to table to next month's meeting.

Date of next month's is— what are we trying to figure out?

The next meeting date would be September 17th.

Thank you.

So postponement to the September 17th meeting.

Hopefully that will give you enough time, Jeff.

Yes.

Maybe— no, no, the meeting.

So it's time certain, 5:30, September 17th.

It would be the first agenda item.

It's the only table item we have.

Yeah, we only have 4 agenda items that night.

Okay, um, so it's guaranteed to be 5:30.

Are you guys— it's up to you.

Um, that was gonna be my suggestion.

Between now and then, maybe you can talk to the property owner about— certainly will— maybe making it look better and then coming back with some nice pictures.

Yeah, if they have access.

Yeah, I mean, legal access.

Jim, Would you, would you be amenable to amending the motion to waive the table fee?

Why?

We're asking for it to be tabled.

We're asking for it.

True.

Yeah.

Yeah, make a motion.

I mean, it's your motion.

But yeah, I accept the amendment to waive the fee.

Second.

All right, on the motion, Ricky?

Yes.

Dan?

Yes.

Jim?

Yes.

John?

Yes.

Chairman?

Yes.

Okay, thank you all for coming out, appreciate it.

And item number 6, tonight's hit parade, application Applicant owner is 577-609 Duval Street, LLC, care of attorney Gregory Brilliant.

Top and bottom of the order.

Subject properties are 535, 577, and 609 Duval Street, Map O-22, Lots 9, 10, 14, and Map O-23, Lot 5.

Applicant is requesting an extension to the expiration dates associated with the previously granted variance and special permit to maintain allowable time period pursuant under— provided under MGL CH 44A.

Good evening, Mr.

Chair, members of the board.

For the record, Attorney Gregory Breen on behalf of 577-609 Duval Street LLC.

As the board, I think, remembers back on October 16th, 2025.

You, um, granted my client relief for the large building over on Duval Street.

That was done again on 10/16/2026.

Due to the fact that they are having enormous difficulties with the MBTA, enormous difficulties getting this thing moving, they have not filed for site plan review yet because they don't have some issues with the MTA— MBTA resolved.

So I am exercising under Chapter 40A the request to have an extension.

And under the new legislation, the variance I'm requesting to be extended for 2 years.

I'm just going to the max.

That's the new law.

It used to be 1 year, now it's 2 years.

And relative to the special permit portion, even though it's good for 2 years, 40A does not have any language relative to the extent by which you can extend a special permit.

It's done solely by the discretion of the board, only by the municipality.

So what I'm, what I'm asking tonight is the 2 years on the variance would bring it to, um, 10/16/28.

I'm requesting that the board consider, um, extending the per— the special permit to the exact same date to make it all one date, make it clear that what they would have to have run for 10/16/2028, which is within your discretion.

We're very, very hopeful that this— we're not going to need these time frames.

That wouldn't be good because the property's already bought, purchased, and the carrying costs are continuing.

He had this— there was no P&S agreement subject to.

He had to buy it all, and he bought it all.

Um, so, uh, we respectfully request consideration in extending both the variance pursuant to Chapter 48 and the special permit in your discretion, both dates being 10/16/2028?

It is within our purview.

It is consistent with precedent.

I can only imagine what they're going through with the T. I've been involved a little bit working with, with the developer, the engineers.

They're basically just trying to figure out was how did they deal with that space between the stone wall and the building.

With what they initially had for conversations of how, if you remember, like the setback from the wall lower was less so that they could fill that gap.

And then once they get above that, then they were going to meet the actual building setback.

They're trying to figure out what do we do in this gap.

Between the building and the stone wall.

So, and they're not doing anything.

Hopefully they come to a resolution.

But hopefully, hopefully, hopefully the 2 years gives them enough time to figure it out.

Can we have a motion on this?

If we're amenable to it?

Questions on it at this point?

Nobody in the audience?

Did we go to the public?

Would the Invisible Man care to— no, cleared the house.

I move approval of the extension.

Second.

To the requested 10/16/2028 date.

We have a motion and a second.

On the motion, John?

Yes.

Jim?

Yes.

Dan?

Yes.

Ricky?

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Thank you.

Have a good night, everyone.

Before we discuss this for dinner, could we have just a 5-minute recess?

Of course.

Thanks.

5 minutes.

5 minutes.

Give me enough time to get down the hallway.

Item number 7, which is discussion of the Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A amendments.

So, I'll kick this off.

We're learning by jumping right into the fire, I guess, which is a good thing.

So, you learned a lot tonight by some of the presentations that were given.

They were fairly accurate, or at least to the best of what everybody can come up with.

Whenever you get something that's this drastically changed, that's never been challenged, questioned, or really defined, we're kind of not flying by the seat of our pants, but cautiously limping along, learning a little bit as we go.

So what I put together here was just— it's a little bit of a fact sheet of what is immediately in front of you for a number of things.

And you already saw how many of these are applicable to what happened even tonight, even to the extension.

So there are a number of things like that.

There are other things in zoning that have changed, like there's an anti-merger provision now where if lots were of a certain size at a certain time and met the zoning requirements at that time, they're grandfathered now forever.

So there's no more automatic merger because we changed zoning.

So if lots that were 50 feet of frontage and 5,000 square feet 30 years ago, and that's how they were created, we changed 10 years ago that they needed to have 8,000 square feet and 80 feet of frontage.

And they had 2 lots side by side that were 50 and 50 owned by the same person, they would have merged for zoning purposes automatically.

That has been negated.

So they will no longer merge.

My question is, if they have— have they merged or have they not?

Right.

Or is there some— because what happens is merger for zoning purposes doesn't remove a lot line.

There's still specific parcels referenced in the deed.

So they're always separate parcels until you file a plan with planning that removes the lot line.

So unless you've gone to that step to to remove that lot line, they're still 2 separate parcels.

So I think this would cover them.

So we're going to learn a little bit as specific items come along, how we need to address them.

So we'll learn a little bit better about that one.

But for tonight, you know, I wish I was able to argue for many years practical difficulty and not— No kidding.

Yeah, it is.

So different.

And anything you read, I mean, you can look up 1,000 AI iterations of how does this affect this, or how does this change this.

This is big.

This is big to the point where I've also offered to the planning board, I said I was going to speak to you guys tonight.

I said we're having a first conversation about it at the meeting.

I told them that I would speak to them about potentially, just so we can kill two birds with one stone and have a more meaningful conversation.

Maybe a joint meeting where I will invite them potentially to a meeting here, or if we schedule something specific on a different day.

They are public hearings if we're all going to meet together.

So, where once we learn a little bit more about it, that we can have a more substantive conversation about making sure that everybody understands how we're going to move forward.

But, for the short term, term, in a nutshell, the legislature is pushing housing even more so.

We thought ADUs was progressive.

This is incredibly high.

So we're going to learn as time goes on that hardship doesn't— We're ingrained with what, you know, the limitations of— one of the biggest things is, and this wasn't particular to Fall River because we've always granted use variances, there are, I don't know, maybe 70% of the communities in Massachusetts you can't even file for a use variance.

They're just not allowed.

They won't hear one.

It's just— that's gone.

Wow.

So now these effects on other communities is far more drastic.

You're going to see now most other communities will kind of do things the way that we were doing things, right?

So when we listened to a hardship, we took a lot of things into account.

We didn't necessarily hold the hard specific line of, is it shape, soil, topography?

We would take in some of, some of those other factors and make a determination, like detriment to a neighborhood, for the neighborhood good.

We would listen to neighbors, and a lot of neighbors came out in opposition, then we were guided by that.

And some— so I think we were probably following this probably more than ready than anybody.

But the ability to say no now, right, because we have said no, as progressive as we were trying to create housing, the ability to say no when we really want or need to say no, we may not have anymore.

So we're going to learn as we go on.

Someone's going to challenge this.

Someone's going to go to court over this.

And that's going to, you know, we're working off laws that have been in existence for 60 years.

Yeah, right.

Subdivision control law and zoning in the '50s.

So there are a lot of court cases that people can look and reference and understand.

This is starting from scratch on how these things are going to be reviewed and adopted.

I'm going to watch and listen.

Luckily now everybody's meetings are online.

I'm going to watch other communities that I know have been ridiculously difficult with granting zoning relief and see what's happening there and see who's saying what, how they're approaching it, and then I can advise you, you know, as we move forward.

But as of now, Dan, the bottom line is it's more difficulties than now.

100%.

And that's— and that was purposeful.

You read the intent of why these changes were made.

They're not shy about it.

It's to produce housing and to require— because again, we've created a lot of housing.

Yes.

Other communities have not.

So this is by no means directed to the city of Fall River.

This is directed to municipalities where they haven't done their fair share.

I was on a phone call, a Zoom call, with the Lieutenant Governor a couple of weeks ago, not related to the zoning change, but it did come up.

And when I was explaining to her what Fall River does zoning-wise, site plan review-wise, and how progressive we've been with development, she was surprised.

Now I know Fiola has told her those things, and then we've had those discussions.

And so she basically, the conversation was, yeah, the rest of the state is going to have to be more like Fall River.

We have created a lot of housing, to our credit, and in some cases to our detriment, because I think we have a lot of people who are feeling the strain of the additional housing.

We haven't even hit Route 79 yet.

Correct.

And You know, I can't say it's been too much.

I can't say it's not been enough.

It's a lot.

And I'm concerned that it is that high priority that we're stripping the ability of communities to determine our own future.

Oh, yeah, no, we're being dictated.

Of how things will happen here.

And I'll say it, knowing this is on the record, it's unacceptable, but unfortunately, it's what we got.

It's the law.

And the same way we've always said we administer what's in that book, right?

That book is governed by these laws that have just changed.

Not in this legislation, but coming soon, real soon, and it looks like it's going to happen, there will be no such thing as single-family zoning anymore.

You will be able to build a duplex everywhere if you choose to.

That's big.

Another one, by right.

So anywhere that, again, so like ADU, wherever a single-family is currently allowed by zoning, they are allowed to build a duplex.

Bulk setbacks, all that, that's still all applies, lot coverage, those types of things.

But there's a use part of it, 2-family automatically.

So ADUs weren't enough, so now they could be, if the piece of land is big enough, 2, 3 bedrooms.

You could have 2 3,000-square-foot single-family homes connected with a breezeway.

That's considered a duplex if you've got the room to do it.

And you're saying they could put an additional ADU on that, right?

Yes, that's correct.

Yeah, so it's It's coming.

So, but, you know, you buy into a single-family zoning district or into a subdivision, you know, and a bank grant gives you money on an appraisal based upon the neighborhood you moved into, the piece of land, the house you built.

Well, now all, all of that area has now changed because now everybody in that subdivision could now build a duplex or take— even just take the existing structure and just Not even expand it, just make it 2 families.

That changes a lot of things.

And so, I don't know, I mean, how does a bank look at that with what they allowed you to borrow based upon something concrete?

And now, by right, you know, so a lot of things are going to change.

Dan, one question I had on our procedure today is where we changed the qualification for special permits, do we change the need to have that bifurcated vote?

No, no, that— but we didn't do that.

Well, no, we— he had mentioned, so every— everything that we did tonight, it's, it's a singular motion but a bifurcation, and that's how all of our decisions will still get written that way.

They still have to say, we find that this is not substantially detrimental.

Now, No, that it is whatever, that there is a practical difficulty.

Yeah.

So what happens is now so many things that we used to try to deal with as special permits, it's just going to be easier just to deal with it as a variance now.

And then when you look at what— so not only the variance part of this has changed, the special permit part of it.

So whenever we deal with an existing nonconforming, whatever, is, and they want to extend that nonconformity, they most likely won't even need to be here anymore.

So, we're going to see a reduction in the amount of special permits.

And again, a lot of that special permit stuff is specific to our zoning ordinance.

So, we were allowing a lot of things to take place by special permit, where the rest of the world, it was a variance.

So now, again, the rest of the world is now having to be a little more relaxed in how they deal with that kind of stuff.

And really, anything having to deal with housing, very difficult to say no to.

Very difficult.

So, we're going to have— I've been suggesting for years that we get this Section 86 redrafted.

Thank God we didn't waste the money.

Because, now we're going to have to redraft it just to conform with the Commonwealth.

I agree.

But there are still things that, you know, parking.

I mean, all of these bulk requirement things are still required.

When they're talking about the next— this is actually a ballot question, so it's not before the legislature.

This is a ballot question.

50 feet of frontage, 5,000 square feet.

If you have water and sewer, buildable in any community.

Wow.

That's— I think it's question 5, question 6.

Read it.

That's what— that's that.

So here, we might not know all that much of a difference, but even if you take something that we had 12,000 square foot lots, like Highland Farms, for instance, 12,000 square foot lots, 100 feet of frontage, or whatever it is, you could now have built 3 times as many houses in that development if that's 5,000 square feet.

So, it's— the density is going to be insane.

Insane.

And, to me, it's an unfunded mandate, basically, because how do you now accommodate police, fire schools with that type of impact.

Like the communities that have wells and septic systems, that's what's giving them some level of protection.

But Dartmouth, for instance, there's a lot of areas that are sewered and water in Dartmouth.

Trust me, they're in a spiral about this.

Spiral.

So we'll see how it plays out.

But at any point, because you're going to learn every day, you can learn something new about this until we're all feeling generally comfortable.

I'm not comfortable with it.

And then it'll change again.

Well, again, I mean, how this stuff happens, and I don't want to say in the dead of night, but nobody really knew that this was happening.

So, I don't know what kind of attention it got through the process.

I wasn't aware of it, to be honest with you.

So, we learn as we go along.

Yeah, basically.

But, I have these— and, as I learn new things, I'll You know, I'll put out blasts, hey, I learned this today, I learned that today.

But in today's world, you can learn so much.

And in 2 days, you can learn all you need to know about this if you want to spend a couple of minutes looking at it.

But generally, I want to make sure that you at least knew the immediate impact and how we were going— even last month's decisions.

Yeah, this came into effect on July 19th.

I mean, sorry, yeah, July 9th.

We— our meeting was like a week or 2 after that.

No one published, hey, so these came out, what, I think it was a day before, because I think I mentioned it to you at the last meeting.

Like a day before, everybody knew about this, but it went back to being in effect on July 9th.

So when we wrote the decisions for the July meeting, there was no more hardship language.

Now it's practical difficulty language.

And that relief was granted due to— if relief was not granted, it would have created a practical difficulty, however we worded it.

But talk about changing up and having to deal with it immediately and without fully understanding what it is.

So I'm sure we're going to see a lot more appeals, and there will be a lot more appeals won by applicants.

The interesting appeals are going to be those that will come from communities.

And it's going to be the more affluent, less crowded communities that are going to step up.

Listen, I've done zoning in so many different communities in the Commonwealth that their heads are going to explode.

And I'm sure that your counterparts in some of these other communities and mayors and city managers and town managers are flipping out.

They are in some of these towns where they've kept a very strong control over growth.

Much stronger.

But that's why this is forced upon them now.

Yeah, I know.

So 40B wasn't enough, right?

Having to provide 10% affordable housing.

They just snubbed their nose at it and said, no, we're just not going to do it.

Right.

Then there was MBTA housing, multifamily dwelling stuff.

There's still communities that said no.

So, it's like, I don't want to say one paper cut at a time, but it's a lot.

And, it just looks like they're just going to keep coming until they get to the number.

But then, how do you stop?

You don't.

Once you've cracked the dam, it's done.

You can't go backwards.

You can't put brakes on, I don't think.

You can run out of land like we are.

Well, yeah, but— well, and this is— yeah, and effectively we've run out of land.

I mean, certainly for industrial development, we don't have any more.

So, there's an outcry for jobs, there's an outcry for new business, we don't have any place to put them.

And so as people are screaming because there's so much more housing coming into the city.

The fact is, that's all developers are coming to us with.

And now we have the Commonwealth saying more, more, more, more, more.

So, yeah, I will.

And again, yep, every time I look at it, I find something new.

And learn something new.

So it's on top of all that's happening down on the waterfront.

You're having a fun time now.

At least that— I mean, that's on my end.

That's other than just seeing all the rest of the construction project that's going on.

That'll be on hold, but that'll be awarded by the end of October.

I saw part of your discussion with the council.

Yeah.

And we don't know how much of that If they live to the letter of the law, we may never see anybody coming in.

We have minutes still?

We have public input.

Good.

Mr. Chairman, I move waiving of the reading of the minutes and approval of same.

Who was here?

Who can vote on those minutes?

Do you know?

John was not, so 4 of us count.

So on the motion, do we have a second?

First of all, second.

Second.

On the motion, wave a minute.

Raise— we didn't— Ricky?

Yes.

Dan?

Yes.

Jim?

Yes.

Tim?

Yes.

Move to adjourn.

Second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?