Board Demands 1916 Easement Review Before Granting Durfee Street Parking Relief
Board Pushes Back on Removing Off-Street Parking for Hanover Street Lot Division
Animal Rescue League Seeks Lot Division on Durfee Street
Animal Rescue League Requests Lot Split on Durfee Street
Zoning Board Tables Animal Rescue League Petition Over Parking Concerns
Special Permit Approved for 71-73 Dover Street Lot Division
The Fall River Zoning Board of Appeals met on September 17, 2026, to hear petitions involving residential conversions, lot divisions, and new multifamily construction. The board addressed one matter of old business and four new business items, with several petitions resulting in continuances to allow petitioners to provide clearer easement documentation and updated site plans depicting existing parking conditions. The board voted to table petitions for 189 Durfee Street (conversion of commercial space to residential with a parking waiver), 141-145 Hanover Street (lot division between two three-family dwellings), and 474 and 452 Durfee Street (division of land between the Animal Rescue League shelter and a two-family dwelling) to the October 15, 2026 meeting. A special permit for a lot division at 71-73 Dover Street under Section 86-423B was approved with standard conditions. The most extensively debated application was a special permit request by Rodman Street LLC to construct a six-story, 22-unit residential apartment building with under-building parking and a waiver of the loading zone requirement at 698 Rodman Street in a Commercial Mill District. Despite concerns from neighboring residents regarding building height, traffic, and loss of privacy, the board unanimously approved the special permit, noting that the proposal complied with all dimensional setbacks and height limits allowed by right in the zoning district.
AI-generated summary. May contain errors. Watch the video to verify.
City Officials
Public / Other
Good evening.
0:01I am Joseph Pereira, Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the City of Fall River.
0:06It is 5:30 PM on Thursday, September 17th, 2020— uh, 2026.
0:14Uh, we are meeting at One Government Center in the first floor hearing room.
0:18Pursuant to Mass General Law Chapter 30A, Section 20, Subsection F, uh, we 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.
0:34If 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.
0:46There's seen none.
0:48Our recording secretary this evening is Courtney Pereira, sitting to my immediate right.
0:54Present this evening are regular members John Frank, our vice chairman, James Calkins, our clerk, Dan DePere, and Ricky Sahadi.
1:02We also have with us alternate members Eric Kelly and Alexis Anselmo.
1:08Also present this evening is Daniel Aguiar, Director of Engineering and Planning, seated to my far left.
1:17Courtney, 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 is amended?
1:30Yes.
1:32In that case, I declare the September 17th, 2026 regularly scheduled meeting of the ZBA of the City of Fall River open for such business as shall regularly come before it.
1:43I remind all persons presenting before the board, including petitioners, abutters, anyone in favor or opposed to a petition, that your presentation should be limited to 3 minutes.
1:54The board's rules and regulations direct the board specifically to look for information that supports the petitioner's claim.
2:02As such, petitioners should identify and factually support the basis of their claim.
2:08In the case of credible— I'm sorry, credible practical difficulties, um, as determined— as defined in Mass General Law Chapter 40A, Reasonable cause must be presented.
2:25Please remember this applies to— let me skip that.
2:29I, I forgot to get rid of my variance section.
2:32It was my favorite section.
2:35I remind all present that the authority of the ZBA exists pursuant to Mass General Law Chapter 40A and is limited in scope dealing with the use of land as regulated by Chapter 86 of the Ordinances of the City of Fall River.
2:51We require that all comments made at this hearing be limited in scope to that of our authority.
2:57Additional permits, licenses, reviews, and/or approvals may be required for the matter in front of us tonight.
3:06The action taken by this board has a real and lasting effect upon 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.
3:20A copy of the ordinance is available in the city clerk's office or from the planning department.
3:26I remind everyone that the building inspector is the zoning enforcement authority, and you are here because the building inspector has determined that your proposed action is contrary to the city of Fall River's zoning ordinance.
3:39The city's charter section 9-18 mandates that all multi-member bodies develop and adopt rules or policies for public comment.
3:49We've adopted such a policy that provides for citizen input on zoning board-specific matters.
3:55A signup sheet is outside the doors on the table for anyone wishing to speak at the end of the meeting.
4:03I will note that items number 01 and 02 for executive session will not be happening this evening.
4:11Let me say nothing else.
4:14Our first matter is a matter of old business, item number 03.
4:19The applicant owner is Laura Diaz, care of Jeffrey Tallman, Northeast Engineering and Consultants.
4:28Subject property is 189 Durfee Street, Map N-3.
4:3210, Lot 0007.
4:35The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following: 1, to convert the 2nd floor of the existing commercial building into 1 residential apartment unit.
4:45The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following: 1, pursuant to Section 86-445 of the Fall River Zoning Ordinance, to waive the requirement of off-street parking.
4:57The property is located in a BN neighborhood shopping district and an AOC arts overlay zoning district.
5:07This application was previously tabled on August 20th, 2026, at our last regular meeting.
5:15Good evening.
5:15For the record, Jeff Tolman from Northeast Engineering and Consultants, here on behalf of Laura Diaz, the applicant or petitioner on this application.
5:25Since our last meeting, we did take— we did some research on the property and did discover that there is, in fact, a 10-foot easement located on the rear of the property at the northeast corner of the property, which does provide the applicant the access to get out to May Street.
5:49This is something that's been in use— well, the easement dates back to 1916, but this is something that's been in use for the occupant of the building dating, you know, prior to the acquisition of the building by the current— by the petitioner.
6:07You know, even before that, they did always use that as a parking spot in the back.
6:13So what this has brought to light is that there is the ability to provide one off-street parking space.
6:22But, and if you look at it, I mean, it's, it's almost 36 feet deep going all the way back to the, where the door is.
6:31So it potentially could provide enough space for 2 cars.
6:35But there is off-street parking that would be associated with the, the unit that we are proposing on the second floor.
6:44So that's all the new information from the last meeting.
6:48I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board might have.
6:52You're saying there's an easement?
6:54Is it a recorded— Yes.
6:56Okay.
6:57Do you have a copy of it?
6:59I do not with me.
7:00I could provide it.
7:03Yeah, I'd like that for the record, please.
7:05Sure.
7:09So now the entrance will be at the the rear of the building?
7:12Is that the intent?
7:14There's already a door on that corner, actually, with a mail slot to the left of it.
7:21That's something that they've, you know, been using for years on that building.
7:25Yeah.
7:25And that would be the primary entrance into the unit.
7:29The secondary means of egress to satisfy the building department would probably have to be internal in the building.
7:36But that would be something that they would have to you know, deal with the building department in order to figure that out, the emergency access to get out of it.
7:46I would imagine it would be through the— somehow through the building.
7:50It would have to be worked out that way, going out to Durfee Street.
7:55Because you, you've got no way to pop a fire escape on this thing.
7:59So the building's basically sideline to sideline, right?
8:02Occupies the whole lot, correct.
8:05Get another easement.
8:06No, I'm kidding.
8:07They may be able to get— because it's only the— it's only a second floor on the back half, right?
8:12Yeah, the— you can see where the dashed line is on the plan, the roof of the first, and then out to the front, and then another fire escape.
8:18But yeah, there's a potential of doing a fire escape over where the loading dock is, getting down that way onto Durfee Street.
8:23I mean, there, there are options, um, none of them which you know, would need zoning relief.
8:30But that would— obviously, they'd have to figure that out if this were to be approved by the board.
8:35Yeah, rather than go through the building.
8:37Listen, if there was a fire, the last thing I want to do is go through a dark warehouse someplace.
8:42So you'll figure that out.
8:45Not our purview.
8:47But as long as there's a reasonable way to do it.
8:55All right, I feel better about the easement.
8:58That was my, my biggest question.
9:00I mean, to me it looks like kind of a security nightmare, but that's up to a tenant now, isn't it?
9:09Anything from the planning aspect?
9:13Me too, me too.
9:18I didn't even know we had a revised plan, to be honest.
9:22When was this— when did this revised plan come in?
9:25Yesterday.
9:28I had thought that this was getting tabled again.
9:30This came in yesterday?
9:31Yesterday.
9:32I did email it to the board.
9:35Yeah, the— I apologize for the delay.
9:37Um, that's my fault not getting to this sooner.
9:42Um, the easement is referenced within the subject deed, and it dates back to all previous deeds going back probably the last 50 years or so.
9:54And I can certainly provide the board a copy of that.
10:00Questions from the board at this point?
10:08Anyone here wishing to speak in support of this petition?
10:14Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?
10:18Hearing none, comes back to the board.
10:20I'm sorry.
10:20Oh yes, sir.
10:21Yeah, no, I reside on Main Street and, uh, you know, the parking is very difficult there to begin with.
10:33The person that owns the building now has never used that driveway to park.
10:37It's full of junk.
10:40I even got pictures if you want to see the pictures of what it looks like.
10:45Well, now it might get— it's going to get cleaned up and people are going to use it.
10:51But I mean, people have been living there now and it's not cleaned up.
10:56Well, I mean, the building has been occupied, but it's my understanding that there is a dumpster on site and this is in the process of being cleaned up.
11:10Would parking be exclusive to the residential unit?
11:14Yes.
11:15Yeah, I mean, at this point, the residential unit would cut off any access from Main Street to the commercial unit on Durfee Street because it's only the second floor that has access off of Off of that door in the back, you can't go into the first floor?
11:32No, not like a two-way stairway upstairs.
11:38I'm asking if through the back, if there isn't— if you can get into the warehouse portion from the back door is the question.
11:46Well, I don't know what they've done in the building, but there was a stairway going down into the first floor.
11:52I, I know the front of the building.
11:54Yeah, the back of the building we're talking about?
11:56That door provides access to the, the unit on the second level on Main Street, which is going to be the residential unit only.
12:05There's no doorway straight through going in?
12:07No.
12:11And I did see the last time I was out there the trash situation that, that our neighbor is talking about.
12:19Where's that coming from?
12:20Is that from the business that's there now?
12:25Well, that's a good question.
12:27I'm not 100% sure.
12:30Okay.
12:31But when I— when you look at the easement, it's actually the, the way the easement's written up, it's the responsibility of the, the abutting lot that's granting the easement to maintain that.
12:45That The, the debris and stuff that's in there, I think it's probably 50/50.
12:50I mean, there's stuff that's piled up, it looks like that's been there for a long time, um, in the corner.
12:56So is this an easement from the church building?
12:59Yeah.
12:59Yes.
13:00We don't have the easement.
13:01We don't have it.
13:03It's, it's on record that the— it's on the deed of record, references a 10-foot-wide easement.
13:10It's Clear as day.
13:12I mean, I didn't think it was necessary.
13:14I think I thought revising the plan and indicating the location of it would be adequate.
13:19But well, certainly, especially where it's— provide that for the record.
13:23Yeah, I mean, expect nothing and come in overarmed.
13:29Yeah, this is why we put this on for this month to push it up.
13:34You know, I mean, I'm provisional of what?
13:42Providing a copy of the easement?
13:45An easement?
13:46Or what has to be in the easement?
13:48What is it, an access easement?
13:49Is it a parking easement?
13:50Yeah, it might only be for access, and the church can challenge the ability to park on it.
13:55We need to see the easement.
13:57There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
14:00I mean, you can, you can vote however you want, but I would not recommend voting on this without seeing the easement, the language in the easement, and what the exclusions may be for that easement.
14:11I agree.
14:12Because if it's for access only, then maybe you can't park, right?
14:15You can't park there.
14:16There's a question of that.
14:17And I'm concerned.
14:20Like I said, when I was by, which was before the last meeting, it was a holy mess back there.
14:25And the dog was back there.
14:28We like dogs.
14:29We like dogs.
14:30I love dogs.
14:32This one did not look like he wanted to be loved.
14:35Okay, everybody wants to learn.
14:41What's that?
14:43Can I just get your name and address for the record too, please?
14:48Milton Glickman, 40 Main Street.
14:51Okay, thank you.
14:53All that trash and The gentleman that owns the building now, I believe, brought up was the reason for all that trash.
15:01That owns the subject building or owns the church?
15:04No, the subject building, because there's a cap from a pickup truck that was his, you know, that's what his dog lived in.
15:17My concern, again, Mr. Chairman, is what the description and the exclusions in the easement are.
15:23I mean, there's a history of Main Street.
15:25There's a history of the church complaining, even, and the homeowners about parking on the street.
15:33I would think that if the church had the ability to park there, they would.
15:38They wouldn't be complaining that they can't.
15:40I'm guessing they can't park on their own land because it is an access easement, not I mean, the easement would have to say that it allows parking.
15:50And it may not, because as Jeffrey said, this thing dates back to 1916.
15:58Right.
15:59So, it may need to get buffed up.
16:01And there's an assertion by the neighbors that it's already occupied.
16:05So, is this after— an after-the-fact filing?
16:08Are we looking at something that's already happening, or?
16:11It's not occupied as a residence.
16:13No, no, no, not— yeah, depends if somebody can get in that back door.
16:22Um, and there is— I, I was out there the other day, there's no dog there presently.
16:26Okay, well, no, sir, the gentleman that's selling the property was living in the back then.
16:41Okay, I mean, I've got no proof of that, so I have to consider it hearsay at this point.
16:53You can tell we're in love with this one, Jeff.
16:54I can tell.
16:56So what we can do is, you know, request the table.
16:59I can get you a copy of the the verbiage of the easement.
17:07Um, I, I would strongly suggest that if it is— and it is probably just an access easement, it's probably super, super simple unless it was modified since 1916— but if it's not specific to parking back there and there's not an exclusivity, there's a bunch of junk back there.
17:25And I, I can't imagine that even if they're renting out the space that they're the junk's not going to continue wherever it's coming from.
17:33At least, at least to protect the owner of the building.
17:39If, if it is exclusive, which it probably isn't, probably a non-exclusive easement, the church probably has the, the right to, to use it as well.
17:48It's got to be clear that people— somebody can access and park in that area.
17:53I mean, theoretically, I mean, if you're allowed to park in there That's going to impede access to the church from, from the church.
18:04That easement is right against the back wall of that.
18:06It is.
18:07Yeah.
18:07So if someone's parking right against that wall, I don't know what's on that wall.
18:11There's a door.
18:11There's no doors.
18:13There's no door to the church.
18:14That was put on.
18:15There's like, what if you need to do work on it?
18:18And there's somebody parked in it?
18:20And they don't belong parked in it?
18:22Trust me, you don't know the calls we get about easements and rights of way and everything else about people being in it and parked.
18:29And this is, and this is why we're this picky, because that stuff ends up coming back.
18:34That section of the building in the back there that sticks out, it's like 11.5 feet off the back of the— it's only about 4 or 5 feet high.
18:43It's easily— and there's air conditioning units on top of it.
18:48It's certainly not the full height of the church building, so it's easily accessible from Main Street.
18:54It may be.
18:58These might have to get modified, Jeff.
19:00Sure.
19:00So it covers what it needs to do.
19:02I don't know the relationship between Ms. Dias and the church, if they can work this out, council to council.
19:15I was hoping to have an opinion from an attorney on that tonight.
19:19I did ask that the client provide that.
19:22I was not given that at this point, but it seems as though that seems to be something you'd be looking for, so.
19:31We are definitely looking, not just an attorney's opinion, but something that clearly states that the owner of the church is providing the— is providing that easement for access and parking.
19:46Well, that's on record.
19:47Okay, the right to pass and repass.
19:50I mean, that's already on— pass and repass doesn't give you the right to park.
19:54It's quirky.
19:56I've done this for the last 40 years.
20:02And then a timely filing for the office So we have it early enough.
20:06Yeah, please.
20:07I agree with that as well.
20:11Thank you.
20:13I'll accept a motion that for tabling as he's as he's filling out the form.
20:26Mr. Chairman, I move that we table the.
20:30Item until our next meeting in October.
20:38We have— give you enough time.
20:45That would be October 15th.
20:48It's early.
20:51All right, we have a motion and a second on the table.
20:55On the motion, John, Jim, Dan, Eric— I'm sorry, Ricky.
21:05Yes.
21:06And Chairman Prairie.
21:07Yes.
21:08I got everybody here.
21:08I don't know what to do.
21:12Thank you.
21:13Thank you.
21:16On to new business.
21:18Item number 1, the applicant owner is Paul— sorry, Paul's Mastered, LLC, here of attorney Mark L. Levin.
21:26Subject property is 141 and 145 Hanover Street, Map I-07, Lot 0054.
21:37The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following: 1, to divide the existing parcel into 2 separate lots, leaving one existing 3-family dwelling on one lot and Uh, on, on— I'm sorry, on each newly created lot pursuant to Section 86-423B of the Fall River Zoning Ordinance.
21:59The property is located in an A-2 apartment zoning district.
22:03Council.
22:04Mr. Chairman, members of the board, summer's almost here.
22:11Uh, I'm representing the petitioner tonight.
22:15It's a simple petition.
22:16It's based on the city statute to indicate that these buildings were built before 1950 and that each of them contains— each of the units— buildings contain 3 families.
22:30My client is requesting that a special permit be issued based on the Section 86-423 of the zoning bylaws to allow the lots to be on their own lots.
22:46This is a provision that's permitted.
22:49The parcels do have what they are creating for access easements to each one of them, so they can both use the entire area that's in front of— should I say the side of the building at 145 for access to each of the buildings.
23:06There's also a will be a fire escape easement for the rear building as it extends over onto the front building.
23:14Basically, they're changing no exterior of the building.
23:18It's not— no walls are being created, no fences are being put in there.
23:22They're basically asking to separate these so it permits more affordable housing, to finance them separately for owners that will own them separately.
23:34Thank you.
23:37I take it there's no parking currently, correct?
23:39There is no parking currently.
23:46We're 2.2 feet off the lot line on either side, right, at that odd little corner where the walkway is?
23:54Yeah, that's, that's where it is.
23:56That's the problem.
23:57It's Odd shape.
23:59They're pretty old buildings.
24:00So, and again, there'll be easements to allow access down there.
24:05So that's what they're planning to do is to allow access easement across the premises.
24:11Well, that's not what's shown on this plan.
24:14Well, they put fire escape easement, but it's for one lot.
24:20Well, but that's where it's gonna— they're going to allow both.
24:23It'll be both for passage and fire escape.
24:28Chairman, I would recommend that there be a minimum of a 4-foot access easement around each structure.
24:35That's been a standard minimum, 4 feet in that area.
24:38It's basically going to go to building corner to building corner.
24:42But that's fine.
24:43Each property owner should have the ability to access 4 feet around their building for the purposes of residing, staging, Right.
24:51So you have to have, in that case, I mean, the space isn't there.
24:54So you've got to have— around the building, you're correct.
24:58One party is going to have a 2-foot easement.
25:00The other party is going to have a 2-foot easement on each other's land to make sure that each party— it has to overlap.
25:06Yeah.
25:09Beyond that, standard conditions of separation of utilities, say, plan review for it, work to be done prior to the endorsement.
25:15Adjustment of the ANR, no additional ADUs, property corners, mark the corners, no fencing.
25:24You never know.
25:27Oh, you're right.
25:27You don't ever— you're right.
25:29You're right.
25:29I shouldn't say that.
25:32But yes.
25:32All right.
25:33I agree to any of those terms.
25:35Any of those terms.
25:4612-foot-wide strip.
25:52It does say asphalt parking.
25:53It's ghosted in on the top of parcel 1.
25:56I know that's what's currently there for the one for the property, but the problem is we're allowing access easement across.
26:04If you park here, it can prevent any type of emergency vehicles go to the back.
26:09So they weren't planning to do anything other than access.
26:12So if something had to be temporarily come in there, they could go to the house and get out.
26:17But they don't want to have any permanent parking so that if a fire truck has to get to there, they can't.
26:23Okay, but my question at the top of this was, is there any parking there currently?
26:28And the answer was no.
26:29I'm sorry, currently there is, but That's not the intent in the future.
26:35Now we got a problem.
26:37Now we're taking away parking, or you leave it.
26:42But my— the whole idea was that so they would not have interference with emergency vehicles from getting to the back property if a car was parked there.
26:53Right now it's currently used by the— right now if there's cars parked there, how does it Emergency vehicle.
26:59Right.
27:00The same owner right now.
27:01So that's how they're doing it.
27:03But somebody still has to move a vehicle if the house is on fire.
27:06Yeah.
27:06I mean, you've got 12 and 7, you got 19 feet in width from those steps forward.
27:1456 feet deep.
27:17Should be the ability to park at least 3 or 4 vehicles on that.
27:20Yeah, the picture I'm looking at, right, is the car Yeah, well, I would have no problem making it conditional to keep the existing parking.
27:31They got to be tandem, but— well, if we're going— if we're going to lose the parking, you lost me.
27:38Okay, well, I have no problem keeping what exists.
27:41It just— I know their idea was if they sell off the building separately, they'd want someone who may leave cars there that would prevent access.
27:53That was their only position.
27:56You can create— so you have access and utilities, which you can also— you can also show parking on parcel 1.
28:05For however many you can fit for parcel 1 and have them be 9 feet deep.
28:09Then you can also potentially have 1 or 2 spaces parked for Parcel 2, but you're going to need a 2-foot parking easement.
28:19There's different types of easements, right?
28:20So we have access and utility across the board, right?
28:23But there can be a specific easement just for parking for Parcel 2.
28:28You'll only need a 2-foot easement onto Parcel 1.
28:31So, yeah, easements on this one.
28:34Easements on this one are going to be cumbersome.
28:39Site plan is going to need those those too, right?
28:41Eventually, yeah.
28:41But I would— I think you would want to see them, but that's up to you.
28:49Considering this little rat's nest on the parking and considering the fact that we have to have the overlapping easements, Mark, would you be preparing those, or— that's what I would intend be doing, yes.
29:12It wasn't really eliminated.
29:14It was they were trying to prevent a problem.
29:16I understand.
29:17But, you know, again, we got another location where parking is always fun.
29:22Sure, I understand.
29:25In fact, it was pretty crowded the day I went through to take a look.
29:32I, I would like to see that parking back in, and, um, I know they probably don't want to go back to their engineer, but we will.
29:42They will, but we need to.
29:43That's fine.
29:44Can you prep up that, uh, this tangle of easements, please?
29:50Thank you.
29:55That being the case, I take a, uh, Well, let's, let's ask while we're here.
29:59Is there anyone here wishing to speak in support of this application?
30:04Anybody wishing to speak in opposition?
30:10Hearing none, can we have a motion?
30:13Thank you.
30:14Motion to table.
30:17And second on the motion, Ricky?
30:21Yes.
30:22Dan?
30:22Yes.
30:23Jim?
30:23Yes.
30:24John?
30:24Yes.
30:25And Sharon Currier?
30:28Yes.
30:29So we'll see you on 10:15.
30:3210:15.
30:33Okay, moving on with new business.
30:49Item number 2, the applicant owner is the Animal Rescue League of Fall River, care of attorney Mark Levin.
30:56Subject properties 474 and 452 Durfee Street.
31:02Durfee Street's just been like hitting it out of the park lately.
31:05It's the place to be.
31:07Map 014, lot 0040.
31:11The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following to divide the existing parcel into 2 separate lots, leaving a 2-family dwelling on one lot and a commercial building on the other lot, to waive the required front yard setback, which is an existing nonconformity, and to waive the required lot side yard setback for the 2-family dwelling pursuant to Section 86-35 of the Fall River Zoning Ordinance.
31:40The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following: a special permit pursuant to Section 86-445 of the Fall River Zoning Ordinance for onsite parking required under Section 86-441.
31:56The property is located in a WTOD, Waterfront Transit Oriented Development, zoning district.
32:03Council?
32:05Again, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Attorney Mark L. Levin, 138 Brock Street, Fall River, Massachusetts, representing the petitioner.
32:14The Animal Rescue League has owned this property for a long time.
32:18The property presently consists of 2 principal buildings, the animal shelter and a 2-family dwelling.
32:26The surrounding neighborhood includes apartments, condominiums, tenements, single-family residents, and commercial properties.
32:36What the Animal Rescue League desires is to separate the existing 2-family from its animal shelter.
32:44The proposal will not include any new construction, any enlargement, any relocation of the property, conversion or change of the use of the buildings.
32:55The existing 2-family will stay a 2-family and won't be expanded upon.
33:00The existing shelter will remain the animal shelter.
33:04We believe that the uses of the property will not be detrimental to the neighborhood because they will continue to be the same uses they are today.
33:13All we're asking for, they be separated.
33:17Different than the last one, I can't ask for a special permit because that section only applies to residential buildings.
33:25We have a quasi-commercial building in the animal shelter and a 2-family, so I can't ask for a special permit for that deduction.
33:37The WDOT does give a minimum dimensional requirement of 25 feet, and both lots obviously will have that.
33:45What we'll do, obviously, is put to what the zoning bylaws do require today, if there were new construction, that one principal building be on a lot, not more than one.
33:59So this will be separating it to create separate buildings, principal buildings, on its own lots.
34:06Practical difficulty— well, structures themselves cause a practical difficulty.
34:12I mean, the relation of the size of the property, and there was actually, as we've been out there, a great slope that comes from Durfee Street to the back toward Danford Street.
34:24The structures themselves cannot be changed.
34:27The only thing that could be done for either one to change this is to destroy one of the buildings, take it down, which really is not a financial position that the people would ever want, and it would cause— impose an unreasonable financial hardship if they had to not separate this.
34:48This prevents the financing of the property.
34:51They've had difficulty in the past when they've wanted mortgages because it's such a mixed use, and lenders then will look at this as solely commercial.
35:00This will provide some ample ability of affordable housing for someone, or at least other housing that the current statutes try to provide.
35:14They're not going to enlarge the footprint.
35:16They're not changing any lot coverage.
35:19And the parking conditions, what they are, as you see, the 2-family doesn't have any parking areas, and there's— and the animal shelter does not have available parking for customers other than what they bring their animals and have their emergency vehicles in the back.
35:37They don't have the sufficient number of parking spaces available.
35:43The property will stay that way.
35:47It's a preexisting use for a long time.
35:50The strict enforcement would prevent them to maintain 2 independent principal businesses because they're dissimilar in nature.
36:02The animal shelter really doesn't like being a landlord for residential property because it's not in their business.
36:09They take care of animals, bring them in as they may need them.
36:15The practical necessity is that they— there are 2 separate structures with 2 separate uses, and there's no way to do anything else.
36:23You can't find another way to solve this problem by separate them without a division of the property.
36:35There's no feasible method to do something different for this.
36:39We believe that the continual use of the building will be the same.
36:43You'll still have the 2 families, still have the animal shelter.
36:46There's not going to be any expansion for either of the 2 properties.
36:51They have already separated the Water and Sewer.
36:55I was informed in the spring.
36:58I was told they were putting in the bounds.
37:00Whether they've been completed, I don't know myself.
37:05They have actually provided another access easement around the building lot too, so that would have for emergency access and pedestrian use as may be necessary.
37:17They You're saying that easement's already been created?
37:21It will be created with the plan.
37:23Yeah, that's— we are showing it there that it's going to be created.
37:27The utilities have been put in that area of the easement so that water and sewer separate for each of the properties, but using that area alongside, uh, the— where the animal shelter is and Lot 2 where the 2-family is.
37:43So where the buildings are at their closest?
37:45Yes.
37:452 feet and 1 foot.
37:471 foot off of the multifamily, 2 feet off of animal shelter.
37:50That is correct.
37:52Where is the easement that gets you through that property line?
37:56It's— no, it's, it's right between the 2 properties.
38:00Right.
38:00But on this plan, it, it's that dotted— well, he puts the access utility for the benefit.
38:05It's this whole section that comes up to this.
38:08So he's got one easement labeled.
38:10Easement from Lot 2 to Lot 1.
38:13Yeah, that's the easement he's putting— Lot 1 is taking an easement over the multifamily.
38:18That's correct.
38:18The multifamily is getting nothing.
38:20Well, it owns that.
38:22No, no, it's getting nothing from Lot— there's no need.
38:25They don't— that's where the utilities are.
38:27The lot line is going to be 1 foot off of the back of that building.
38:29That's all there is?
38:31No, it's— there's 3 feet to the building.
38:33There's a foot to the property line and then 2 Well, 2 feet there, and I guess 1 foot.
38:41That's what he's done.
38:43So there at least can be an easement that's building to building.
38:46That's fine.
38:47That could be done.
38:51I have no problem with that.
38:52That's just stating to the benefit— initially gets submitted, we had asked that you show all existing parking.
39:00And we were told there is Yeah, he's saying that the existing parking in the back is really just to bring the animals in.
39:07We asked, we asked that all parking be shown, and I asked them and they said there is no parking.
39:14But there is parking.
39:15Well, they're saying it's really not parking, it's for the animals to be brought in.
39:19It's all they use it for.
39:20Look at the picture.
39:21I know, that's what they told me.
39:23There are striped parking spaces on the ground, right?
39:25And then there's also parking in between between the 2 buildings that is utilized?
39:31I asked them, they said none.
39:33Excuse me.
39:34You can ask again.
39:38Yeah, that's what they— you know, I had asked them if there were parking.
39:42They said there's no parking for addition— no parking for people other than bringing in the animals and taking care of that.
39:51What about employees?
39:53What are the striped parking spaces for?
39:55They never told me.
39:56I asked them that and they said there were none.
39:58I'm asking that.
39:59Yeah, I know.
40:00I don't know.
40:04Yeah, you know, I question it myself, and this is what they provided to me.
40:12Because I drove by there and I said, listen, what's back there?
40:15He says, well, that's where they bring the animals in.
40:18Now I feel public parking.
40:24I can tell them to show it.
40:26It's just, it's a question.
40:28That's a question I need an answer to.
40:29Where do the employees park?
40:31I'm looking at parking spaces.
40:35I went there myself and I said, what's this?
40:37So that's where they bring the animals in.
40:41But the in-between the buildings is what I'm concerned about those cars there now.
40:46Yeah, it's like on the last one, we have parking, we should be able to at least accommodate something out of that.
40:57I mean, we're really, you know, we've had— we haven't had a month go by for a while without something on Durfee Street, and parking has been an issue.
41:10And if they're using a parking space, if there's 2 parking spaces there, or however many parking spaces are in between those units, however many parking spaces are behind the, the Animal Rescue League building, I want to know, and I want to make sure that they're maintained.
41:27If we're going to lose parking spaces, or if we just happen, you know, the day the satellite was going over, somebody was moving out of the 2-family building and had a car there, they can't come back and say there's no parking spaces.
41:43Right.
41:43Because my eyes don't lie.
41:45Nope, this is what I asked.
41:48I asked them 3 times, where's the parking?
41:51I've been there.
41:52Well, they're going to lose another month.
41:54Okay.
41:55As far as what they want to do.
41:57Any other questions from the board?
42:01John, you thinking we do one instead of— we do one instead of putting everything on till next month?
42:08That's my good news is we only have 3 positions right now for next month.
42:12That's what I said when they said we only had 3.
42:14And that's until we have the meeting.
42:16Are you sure there was no zoning relief granted for this?
42:20No, they said the other piece was behind, but it didn't need it.
42:23It was like for the addition that's off on Oh, I didn't do a title, but they told me they didn't.
42:30They told you?
42:31They told me.
42:32I never did title exam.
42:34Counsel?
42:35Ah, well, you know, I assume they knew better.
42:38They've owned this since 1970, and I didn't see anything in— when I was looking from '70 on of any decisions.
42:47If there was something before that, I don't know.
42:50I only looked when they owned It depends when they put that on.
42:53It may have been prior to zoning.
42:55No, that building's not that old, especially the addition on Maple Street.
43:00That's true.
43:01That's true.
43:02Okay, look that up too.
43:03List of questions.
43:04But I didn't see anything from 1970 on it.
43:08Yeah, but Mark has to request the table.
43:11Yes.
43:12Yeah, before we go too far, or before we go further.
43:18Anybody in the audience wish to speak in favor of this petition?
43:24Anyone wish to speak in opposition?
43:29Okay, hearing none, motion to table.
43:34But I want to make sure that, Mark, you have clear understanding of what we need.
43:46Do you want the motion?
43:51Hmm.
43:51Yeah, I'll make a motion to table.
43:53We have a motion to table, seconded.
43:56On the motion, John?
43:58Yes.
43:59Jim?
44:00Should we put a date specific on that table?
44:04Well, it has to be, yes.
44:05So October 15th.
44:06That's fine.
44:10Second.
44:10Yes.
44:11Okay.
44:12Dan?
44:12Yes.
44:13Ricky?
44:13Yes.
44:14Chairman Prairie?
44:18Yes.
44:18Sorry to waste your time, but I asked 3 times where was the— I asked once.
44:23I asked 3 times and they said that's only for animals.
44:26They bring the animals in there.
44:28My, my animals don't drive, so, so they're considering they drop off their That's what they're considering it.
44:36But they do, they do play cards and smoke cigars though.
44:39So, all right, all right.
44:41Item number 3, when the summer ends.
44:42Now, as soon as the summer ends, take a deep breath back there, Jeff.
44:50Item number 3, applicant owner is Manuel F. Medeiros, uh, care of Jeffrey Tallman, Northeast Engineers consultants.
45:01Subject property, 7173 Dover Street, Map I-14, Lot 0017.
45:09The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following: to divide Lot 17, as shown on Fall River Assessor's Map I-14, into 2 separate lots, leaving the existing 3-family dwelling located at 71 Dover Street on one lot and the existing 3-family dwelling located at 73 Dover Street on a separate lot pursuant to Section 86-423B of the Fall River Zoning Ordinance.
45:41Property is located in an A-2 apartment zoning district.
45:45Good evening.
45:46For the record, Jeff Tolman from Northeast Engineers and Consultants here on behalf of Emmanuel Madaris, the petitioner for this application.
45:54This is a 423B where we have 2 existing structures, or dwellings I should say, that were built prior to zoning being enacted in the City of Fall River.
46:04They're both 3-family dwellings.
46:08As you can see on the plan, number 73 is located up at the— what would be the northeast corner of the property, and then number 71 is to the rear at the southwest corner of the property.
46:21The intent here is obviously to divide the property so that each dwelling would be on a separate lot.
46:28There would be an access easement that would be in place that would cover the existing walkway, which does provide access from the existing driveway located at the front of the property to the rear dwelling, which is number 71.
46:42The parking situation currently on this property is there is a small existing asphalt driveway on the northwest corner of the property.
46:56That driveway does provide parking for one spot.
47:04There's the potential for a second spot, but the issue with that spot is that, as you can see, there's an existing concrete staircase on the west side of number 73, which is only 14 feet off of that front property line.
47:18So to try to, you know, get a second car in there— can it be done?
47:25Yes.
47:26If this was a toy yard, yeah, you can jam a couple cars in there.
47:29But in terms of people getting in and out and using it and providing access, it doesn't make sense.
47:33So What we've done here is we're proposing to leave 14.66 feet of frontage for Lot 2, which would be the rear lot, number 71.
47:46That would give us enough width to provide separate utilities because the utilities do have to be separated on this one— separate dedicated sewer and water line to the rear dwelling.
47:59That is something that we're going to have to do.
48:01And it would also provide one parking spot for that rear dwelling as well, which is basically what they have out there now.
48:10So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board might have.
48:14So the single parking space is all that exists currently.
48:19So we can't get— we can't gain?
48:22No, not without modifications or anything.
48:24I mean, if you look at physically what's existing on the property now, it's one Oh, it's, and it's, and it's like 1,000 other lots we've looked at.
48:34It's kind of tangled.
48:35Somebody maximized these out long before zoning.
48:38So yes.
48:41All right.
48:43I don't think I have a question on this one.
48:46We've got 10 feet back here.
48:52I did drive by it, but I Didn't.
48:54I drove by it in a rainstorm.
48:57Brilliant on my part.
48:59On this one, at least if parking does become an issue, Lot 2 has the ability to increase their driveway if they need to.
49:08If parking is an issue, they could.
49:12Yeah, there is a retaining wall, everything else right at the end of it, but they could push that back and— correct.
49:18Yeah, just change the geometry.
49:22Yes.
49:23Okay, any other questions from the board?
49:26These 6423Bs used to be so easy.
49:32Anything else?
49:32Anybody?
49:39Anybody in the audience wishing to speak in favor of this petition?
49:46Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?
49:51Hearing none, it's on us.
49:54I would just recommend all the same standard conditions that would apply to all of these, except, I mean, the fencing is probably— that is suburban.
50:02You don't need the fencing.
50:03I think there's enough one, except for where the walkway— the one that's existing on the sideline.
50:10You couldn't Not with the access easement, the walkway, etc.
50:16So, Mr. Chairman, it's a bifurcated proposal.
50:20This is special permit.
50:22Yeah.
50:23Therefore, I would move number 1, that is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood.
50:28Number 2, that it be approved with the standard conditions.
50:34Second.
50:35Motion and second.
50:39Therefore, on the motion, John?
50:40Yes.
50:41Jim?
50:41Yes.
50:42Dan?
50:42Yes.
50:43Ricky?
50:43Yes.
50:44Chairman Freire?
50:44Yes.
50:47Thank you.
50:51I mean, we could table it if you really want to.
50:54Number 4, applicant owner Rodman Street LLC, care of attorney Peter Iacolino, subject for Property is 698 Rodman Street, Map I-21, Lot 0001.
51:08The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following: 1, pursuant to the Fall River Zoning Ordinances Attachment 2, Table of Uses, to construct a 6-story, 22-unit residential apartment building on the subject property; 2, requesting a waiver of the loading zone requirement pursuant to Section 86-441, Table of Parking and Loading Requirements of the Fall River Zoning Ordinance.
51:35The property is located in a CMD, Commercial Mill Zoning District.
51:40Good evening.
51:41Good evening.
51:42For the record, Peter Cellino on behalf of Rodman Street, LLC, the owner applicant.
51:47Office address, 1 Father de Vallis Boulevard, Suite 311, Fall River.
51:52The petition before you this evening seeks to build an apartment building in a CMD zoning district.
51:59The relief that we are seeking is, in my view, very limited.
52:03So to hammer home the point here, we're asking for 2 things and we're asking for them by special permit.
52:09The first thing is to be able to build residential units in a CMD.
52:13That requires a special permit per the table.
52:16And then the second thing is to waive the requirement for a loading space.
52:20Those are the only 2 things we're here for.
52:22So notwithstanding the proposed size of the building or the unit count, we're not asking for setback waivers.
52:27We're not asking for parking waivers.
52:29We're not asking for building height waivers.
52:32This petition is about use.
52:34And brief history on this site.
52:38So in 2009, there was a special permit— sorry, 2019, there was a special permit granted by the board to build 8 townhouse-style units.
52:46They went through the site plan review process.
52:47Process.
52:48They demolished the existing structure.
52:50And ultimately, it's turned out that they've been unable to build it or sell it.
52:54It's been practically impossible to finance or to find somebody that can buy it at the price that would make it worth it.
53:02And so as a result of that, they've gone back to the drawing board with a new concept.
53:06And so we sit here tonight asking the board for a special permit for these 22 units.
53:11In terms of usual questions and me anticipating The proposal is for 12 3-bedroom units, 10 2-bedroom units.
53:20Again, the height of the building complies.
53:22We're not asking for parking.
53:24And so when I argue the special permit to the board tonight, I think it's imperative that I argue what could be there by right.
53:31So when you look at the chart, what could be there by right are a myriad of commercial and industrial uses— manufacturing facilities, distribution centers, self-storage, storage.
53:43The bylaw talks about fabrication, truck terminals, data centers.
53:47And so I would argue to you that a residential use is in harmony with those around it because they're similarly structured in terms of residents and that they are not nearly as noxious or intense as what could be there by right, such as a trucking terminal.
54:04I think it's also important to point out, and the board may know but the single-family lots that surround the subject property were created pursuant to a variance in 2005.
54:13That's how those 5,000-square-foot lots exist.
54:16So I'd submit to you that the board previously found fit to change the use in that neighborhood to allow for the erection of those structures.
54:23Further down Lawrence Street, there's also a townhouse-style project that's being constructed now.
54:28So we believe this is an appropriate use for the property.
54:31I think in terms of things we ask for zoning-wise, we're asking for limited relief, and I think that the proposal is definitely not more detrimental than what can be there by right.
54:43Obviously, Jeff's here as the engineer on the project to answer any technical questions that you may have, but at this point, we're happy to field any questions the board may have of us.
54:54I don't have too many.
54:55I mean, when this came in, I took a hard look at it, and you're right, you meet the parking We don't have any dimensional relief that you're seeking.
55:08It meets the standards of the CMD, and that's pretty plain and simple.
55:17They couldn't sell the townhouses.
55:19I'm not sure they'll sell this, but maybe they can, and that's a business move on the owner's part, and It's a design that may or may not sell.
55:32From a planning aspect, anything, Daniel?
55:36Again, the relief is minimal.
55:38We've talked about this before when past relief has been granted in these industrial commercial mill districts.
55:45You're actually putting the onus on the commercially owned property owner because you've really limited really what they can do.
55:51Like, no one would come and buy this for a commercial use because of the surrounding use that's been allowed to happen by a variance.
55:57So the residential use is clearly understandable under the new provisions of zoning law.
56:05To deny a residential use is treading on really thin ice.
56:09Never mind, I mean, that's if it was a variance.
56:12This is not even a variance.
56:13The only questions that I would have is if we have the ability to slide the building 10 feet from Rodman Street and still hold a 10-foot line off of Lawrence to increase the setback distance to the single-family home that's built on Lawrence Street adjacent to it.
56:30I think you can just slide it and the parking generally stays exactly the way that it is.
56:35Other than that, you sure they've met every requirement.
56:38And the need for the, for the loading zone is get north normally gets triggered because of a potential commercial use at the property, which there is not a commercial use.
56:48So the need for that loading space is minimal or not needed at all.
56:53It just, just says it in the regulation because this is a commercially zoned district.
56:58Other than that, I have— okay, I have nothing else to add.
57:01They've provided dumpster space, all the parking spaces meet the minimum requirements, aisle widths, parking setbacks even, which we don't get to see very often.
57:10This literally comes down to just a special permit for multifamily use.
57:17In the current zoning district, a single-family house needs a variance still.
57:23So you can do multifamily by special permit.
57:26If they wanted to build single families here, they would have to come in and ask for a variance, a much higher hurdle for relief.
57:33Although under the new zoning law, not so high anymore, right?
57:37This is, again, this is a special permit.
57:39A lot lower wall to jump over.
57:41Dan, if the building were to, quote unquote, slide 10 feet closer to Rodman Street, you've really cut down on your lane for the parking.
57:51On which lane?
57:53The one across the front.
57:55Yeah, I think it's only 22 feet wide.
57:57If I could just speak to that.
57:58This is parking under the building.
57:59Building.
58:00Oh, the under— now it's going to be under.
58:01Yep.
58:02The front part instead of— and it'd be an at-grade lot.
58:05Yep.
58:06Adjacent to the single-family homeowner.
58:07Okay.
58:08I don't know if it can be done.
58:09It was just a thought that I had today.
58:12My response would— to that would be, um, if this were a perfectly rectangular lot, that wouldn't be an issue.
58:18The fact that we do have a 25-foot notch, yeah, um, on the north side lends itself to providing the, you know, the staircases, elevator shaft, mechanical room, sprinkler room that we need as part of the building without really impacting the overall layout of the parking as it's laid out on the site.
58:41If we were to shift this 2 feet, never mind 10, it would interfere with the way the parking is set up.
58:50And any little shift towards the south would, I would say, have drastic ramifications in terms of— why can't the parking on the north be the same 10 feet off of the property line that's allowed?
59:04Because then you would have to have a notch to go around that 25-foot area.
59:08When you come around, now you're notching everything.
59:12You know, you'd have to make a turn, you'd have to come up.
59:15You don't think you could relocate that dumpster pad and extend that aisle up closer and be 10 feet off of both northerly property lines?
59:21It would be troublesome.
59:23Still got to get a straight shot to back into that.
59:25Yeah, I mean, this, this, this is all the geometry of this layout works out perfect.
59:31And to be honest with you, if we were asking for setback relief, I would like take a hard look at it and stuff like that.
59:39But the fact that we're not asking for setback relief, I mean, this is something that is allowed in zone.
59:44It fits this site perfectly, this type of building design, the way we have it laid out.
59:50To try to modify it to gain— I don't even know what we could gain, to be honest with you.
59:56Like, if we gain, you know, potentially 30 feet further away from the residential use on Lawrence Street, right?
1:00:04But we're meeting the current setback.
1:00:05So, yep.
1:00:07But you're also asking for a special permit, not the do with anything with the setback, though.
1:00:11That's— it all gets factored in.
1:00:14If it was a 2-story building, then maybe the special permit wouldn't seem so intense.
1:00:17And I just think, like, the building makes more sense for me to be further away from Rodman Street, to be honest with you, as opposed to being right on Rodman Street.
1:00:28And it just— the way it's laid out on this particular plan kind of fits the site perfectly.
1:00:32And I would, you know, I'm not an architect, but I would hate to have to redesign this to kind of meet a setback that's not required, just for the sake of gaining a couple more feet of separation to an abutting property where we already meet the setback.
1:00:50So, you know, this is a 6-foot, 6-story total building, 5-foot, 5 stories of occupied one story of parking, right?
1:01:03Correct.
1:01:04Correct.
1:01:10Any other questions from the board?
1:01:11Mr. Chairman?
1:01:12Yes.
1:01:12I'd just like to say that listening to Attorney Salerno's presentation of what could be by right, where we'd have no recourse whatsoever, it seems that these residential units are far more preferable to what could be when we have no control control over what could be.
1:01:36Anyone else before I go to the floor?
1:01:38Is this building actually designed already?
1:01:40Do you have a plan?
1:01:43Not exactly.
1:01:45So you just have a civil plan, you don't have an architectural yet?
1:01:48I mean, you get a rough concept of what we'd be looking to do But no, it has not— an architect has not done drawings on it.
1:01:59So basically, much like with the townhouses, and it's not a criticism, you'd be selling a permit with the property.
1:02:06You'd be selling a permitted property.
1:02:08I can represent that my clients hope to build this.
1:02:11They're sitting right back there.
1:02:13That's the hope.
1:02:14They're city business owners and they want to build this project.
1:02:18So, okay.
1:02:22Going to general public, anybody here wishing to speak in favor of the project?
1:02:28Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?
1:02:30Sir, if you could just identify yourself with your address, please.
1:02:34Mr. Chairman, board members, for the record, my name is Francisco Riveros, and I am the owner and president of 16 Lawrence Street.
1:02:43The property immediately adjacent to this lot.
1:02:48And I'm here asking the board to deny the request for this application.
1:02:55My opposition is based on 3 critical points regarding our neighborhood's safety, infrastructure, and quality of life.
1:03:08Our entire block consists of single-family homes, and introducing a 6-story building into a neighborhood of single-family houses is a severe disruption to the area.
1:03:24As a direct resident at 16 Lawrence, this building will create a massive wall right next to my property, straining the away our privacy and blocking the natural sunlight from our home ambiance.
1:03:43Both Lawrence and Roman Streets already suffer from a very high volume of traffic, heavily impacted by the daily operation of the DCM.
1:03:54In fact, Lawrence Street is a critical access route whose constantly by emergency vehicles, including police and fire department trucks, to reach DCM for including fueling.
1:04:11Furthermore, this area is about to absorb substantial increase in vehicle volumes due to the nearby remodeling outlets currently under construction.
1:04:25On top of this future traffic flow, because surrounding streets lack sufficient parking, Lawrence and Rodman Streets are heavily used every single day as essential parking areas by residents from adjacent streets.
1:04:45Adding 22 residential units to a single block injects a dozens of additional vehicles into a corridor that is already saturated.
1:04:58The applicant is asking for a waiver to loading space requirements on streets like Lawrence and Brockman, which are already lined with parked cars and heavily used by police, fire, and municipal vehicles.
1:05:14Granting this waiver will force delivery trucks, moving vans, and service contractors to stop directly in the middle of the travel lane.
1:05:25This will block traffic, create danger hazards, and directly affect police and fire vehicles trying to pass through.
1:05:36This proposal is vastly oversized and inappropriate for this location.
1:05:43For these reasons, concerning traffic, parking, public safety, and the neighborhood preservation, I ask the board to vote against this location.
1:05:56Thank you.
1:05:56Thank you.
1:05:57You, you do understand that this entire neighborhood, or this section of the neighborhood from Lawrence over is in a commercial mill district, including your home.
1:06:14It sits in a commercial mill district.
1:06:16I was here when it was the meeting for the townhouses.
1:06:24So I understand.
1:06:26Okay.
1:06:26But I don't want— and I think it makes no sense to have a building in South Pittsboro my house with 6 stories, 1 on the bottom, 5 on the top, and this is not making sense.
1:06:40I, I, and, and I appreciate that, but again, I, and I, we've, we've made the comment, I, I have to admit they've designed something that meets all the dimensional setbacks, all the dimensional requirements of the CMD zone.
1:06:59The most— the fact most surprised to me is nobody from the DCM is here to defend themselves because that street, it's, it's a very— okay, DCM and traffic is not our purview.
1:07:17They provided all of their parking in this application.
1:07:22They provided all of their parking.
1:07:24Yes, and I realize— and you're talking about parking on either side of the street and heavily trafficked with trucks and etc.
1:07:31Find a street in Fall River that isn't that way.
1:07:34And I realize Rodman is a throughway, you know, so yes, there's a large amount of traffic on it, but this is not the type of project that would even require traffic study or would even have site plan asking for a traffic study.
1:07:54And what about my privacy?
1:07:56What can you tell about that?
1:08:06The fact that it's not within my purview, our purview, I— again, it makes it hard when you've got a single-family house or a group of single-family houses that are sitting in a commercial zone.
1:08:22Yes, but this board approved that houses on that— I understand.
1:08:28So if the board approved, I don't understand why now you keep trying— you are trying to change that.
1:08:38Because the zone wasn't changed.
1:08:40The zone is still the zone.
1:08:41The zone is still the zone.
1:08:42It's still commercial, commercial mill, has to meet the requirements of the commercial mill district.
1:08:47So the variance to create, which was what, 2005, the variance was given to create these single-family homes.
1:08:56The zoning was never changed.
1:09:01The glass warehouse was still there until 2019.
1:09:06So you were living in your house and there was this that dilapidated 3-story warehouse.
1:09:10Yes, exactly.
1:09:11And I need to call to the, to the, to the mayor because a lot of trash, a lot of rats, including— including— okay, but luckily that's gone.
1:09:20Mattresses was, was there, uh, and DCM did not— did nothing.
1:09:28Okay, DCM has no reason to be here to quote unquote defend themselves because this is specific to this lot.
1:09:35If there— if you have issues with DCM, you, you've got to take that up with— no, no, now I am, I am having— I'm going to have issues with my neighbor taking my privacy, and they are going to build how many feet from, from my house?
1:09:5110 feet.
1:09:52Yeah, however, 10 feet.
1:09:56No, but where you need to understand is that you bought a home in a zoning district that allows for this.
1:10:04We didn't make up these rules today.
1:10:06These rules were in place when you bought your house.
1:10:09Yeah.
1:10:10Did you not know about that building?
1:10:14They are going to have windows on the back to my house?
1:10:18Most likely.
1:10:19Most likely.
1:10:20Yes.
1:10:20Yes.
1:10:21But can you answer my question?
1:10:22Did you not know what, what, what could be built around you?
1:10:25When you decided to buy your house?
1:10:27No, that's why, that, that's why I was here and was approved that 8 houses, and I was in favor for that.
1:10:36Yeah, now at that kind of building, of course, does not make sense, but you understand the types of buildings that could be built there without coming here, everything.
1:10:47But can I make you ask you something?
1:10:49Sure.
1:10:50And Do you understand what that building is going to do to my house, to my privacy?
1:10:57I, I do.
1:10:58And but what happens is it's in accordance with the law, so they have the right to do it.
1:11:05If they choose to build an 80-foot warehouse, trucking center, self-storage facility, they don't even come here.
1:11:14They don't even come here.
1:11:15They just go get a building permit.
1:11:16Okay, so we're here only so that it's restricted for residential use, which some may say residential use is less impactful than the commercial uses, and some may say that residential use is more commercial use.
1:11:30I am going to have one in front of me, so a building with 5 stories— so it's okay.
1:11:39So no, but so it's the building height that you have issue with.
1:11:42Not in use.
1:11:43Yeah, exactly.
1:11:44Okay, that's fine.
1:11:45Exactly.
1:11:47But understand that we're only here— we're not here to talk about height.
1:11:51We can't— we can't control the height because the height is allowed by right up to 80 feet.
1:11:57That's allowed by right.
1:12:01And about the distance from my house, they've— they're meeting that requirement as well.
1:12:05I can show you in the zoning book the minimum requirement is 10-foot building setback, and the maximum height is 6 stories and 80 feet.
1:12:13You chose to buy a house in a district that allows that to go on next door.
1:12:21And the townhouses— the townhouses were a great design, but they couldn't build it.
1:12:27It didn't— it didn't— for whatever reasons, it couldn't be built.
1:12:31They couldn't sell it.
1:12:32Did not find a constructor for that.
1:12:36So if he did not find a constructor for the, for the townhouses, now we have a construction for 5 stories.
1:12:45I'm sure the construction was there.
1:12:46I'm sure, I'm sure it came down to a matter of funding, etc.
1:12:50Okay, actually, anyone else wishing to speak in opposition?
1:12:55Sir, I have several requests.
1:12:58My name is Louis My name is Mel.
1:12:59I live on the corner of Rodman and Brunel.
1:13:01Okay.
1:13:01577 Brunel.
1:13:068 years ago, I believe it was, the board gave variances to build those single-family homes there.
1:13:14And I believe including that piece of property where now they want to build a mill.
1:13:19Let's call it a mill.
1:13:216 floors.
1:13:22How many— where are the cars going to be?
1:13:24There's going to be at least 40 cars according to the number of apartments.
1:13:28Where are the 40 cars going to be?
1:13:30Underneath.
1:13:31There's, there's 44 parking places.
1:13:3244 parking places underneath?
1:13:34Yes.
1:13:34I want to see an architect design, not, not a sketch.
1:13:37Number one, they shouldn't even come here without, without an architect design.
1:13:41They're not required to come here with an architectural design.
1:13:44I want to see it.
1:13:45They have to build what they're showing on the plan, and it shows.
1:13:49So that's their footprint.
1:13:50Well, I don't believe that there's space for 40.
1:13:55And furthermore, 8 years ago, I believe when it was the variance given, it was for that piece of property as well.
1:14:01It's my understanding.
1:14:02Which— now voting for it, it's the second time you're voting the wrong way.
1:14:08Two wrongs never made one right, sir.
1:14:11And the traffic, it is an issue.
1:14:13I had to replace 100-foot aluminum fence 3 times in the last 5 years.
1:14:18Last Monday I counted over 100 automobiles, including trucks and police and fire, just from the city.
1:14:26Never mind the school bus across the street.
1:14:30Never mind the mill that's being built as we speak.
1:14:34The traffic— you said a while ago, find a street in Florida that's not like that.
1:14:38You can't find one.
1:14:41Plymouth Avenue and, um, Brayton Avenue, there is no other street with that kind of traffic.
1:14:48It's crazy, absolutely crazy.
1:14:51With bus stops there, it's amazing.
1:14:53So traffic is an issue, a big issue.
1:14:56And my belief is that this board, rightfully so, is here to protect the neighborhoods, not to be against the neighborhoods.
1:15:04And in part, yes, we are here to protect the neighborhoods.
1:15:07We're also here to interpret this zoning code.
1:15:11And I believe that piece of property was included on that variance.
1:15:14Included in which variance?
1:15:16That gave that— all that property the right to build one-family homes.
1:15:20And then there was a determination made immediately after that.
1:15:23I didn't see that, uh, Mr. Aguilar.
1:15:25Did you come to my office and ask for it?
1:15:26I will go to your office and ask for it.
1:15:28Okay, but did you?
1:15:29No.
1:15:29Okay, so it does exist?
1:15:30No, because I didn't know this was going on.
1:15:32Until now.
1:15:34I got this a week ago.
1:15:37A week ago is not a lot of time.
1:15:39So in any event, especially when the original variance plan covered all of this land from the original, only a certain number of the parcels were the 2005 homes.
1:15:49And they left the remaining commercial building on a number of the lots that they could have built single-family homes on.
1:15:56It was determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals, that they were not required to build all of the single-family homes that were shown on the original plan.
1:16:05They had the option to if they chose to.
1:16:07That's already all been determined.
1:16:09This is a separately— separate piece of land zoned in the commercial mill district.
1:16:14And it meets all requirements.
1:16:16It does, yeah.
1:16:17Except for the loading zone.
1:16:18Except for the loading zone.
1:16:19And that's a big issue.
1:16:20The loading zone is a big issue.
1:16:23Because the back up traffic.
1:16:28You know what loading zones are for?
1:16:31Yeah, I think so.
1:16:32And I'll be in your office tomorrow morning.
1:16:35It's for deliveries.
1:16:36I understand, but if they're there to deliver, where's the traffic going to go?
1:16:41What are they going to have delivered?
1:16:44It's not a business.
1:16:44As I explained before, that loading zones are for commercial uses.
1:16:48Yeah, so the fact that we don't have a loading zone, and a residential use is negligible, because residential properties don't normally have loading zones.
1:16:58That's all.
1:17:00But, you can come by tomorrow, and I can give you a copy.
1:17:02And, I'd like to see an architect design of the property, not a sketch.
1:17:05We're not required.
1:17:06We do not require.
1:17:08This board does not require, and cannot make somebody come in with an architectural drawing.
1:17:15What we're doing is we deal with the use of the land.
1:17:20So they come in with an engineer preparing a plan that says, here's what the layout of the property is, here's where our entrances are proposed, here's where our parking is proposed, here's where the footprint of the building is proposed.
1:17:35We do not— that's not within our purview.
1:17:38In fact, architectural doesn't hit in until the building department.
1:17:42What happens is this only gives them the right for residential use.
1:17:47That's the only thing that they're asking for.
1:17:48So, they will go to site plan review.
1:17:51Through site plan review, they have to show the ability that they can build what they've shown on this plan.
1:17:56If they can't, then they need to come back here or scrap the project.
1:18:01Then they go to the building department.
1:18:02If what they submit for a building permit doesn't meet what's shown on this plan, and they don't get a building permit.
1:18:08You're right, but unfortunately a lot of that goes on and never comes back in the city, and you know that as well as I do.
1:18:19So make a long story short, I'm definitely against— I know the whole neighborhood is against it.
1:18:24They're not here tonight except for that couple, but they are against it.
1:18:27Then they missed their opportunity to, to come and speak.
1:18:31And, and I, I will thank those that came to speak.
1:18:37And it's unfortunate that no one else— if, if, if indeed the neighborhood was, was that much against it, where are they?
1:18:45This is an opportunity.
1:18:46You took this.
1:18:49Those notices were mailed out August 27th.
1:18:53Well, I got it.
1:18:55I don't live there.
1:18:56I live further up.
1:18:58But when it was next to my house, I never got it.
1:19:01Okay, not even gonna go there.
1:19:03No, I don't want to go there either.
1:19:05Okay, thank you.
1:19:07Thank you.
1:19:08Anyone else speaking in opposition?
1:19:13We're back at the board.
1:19:14Mr. Chairman, may I just have a brief rebuttal on a couple points?
1:19:17Um, so what I hear as a lawyer is really no objection to the use as residential, which is exactly the relief we're asking for.
1:19:25I hear relief to invasion of privacy, but we're not asking you to waive any height requirements, so there's nothing you can do about that, nor is there anything you can do about the side setback.
1:19:33Uh, furthermore, the loading zone— I just want to hammer home that this is a residential building, and therefore we don't need that.
1:19:41So notwithstanding what sort of hearsay arguments can be thrown around about what the neighborhood thinks, again, the only relief is use that we're asking for.
1:19:49And I think we've submitted a diligent presentation relative to what could be done there by right and why what is proposed is less detrimental.
1:19:58And I'll rest on that.
1:19:59I appreciate that.
1:20:01I appreciate the work that went into this one.
1:20:04It's hard.
1:20:06It kind of makes me wish in 2005 somebody didn't decide to allow a bunch of single-family in a CMD zone.
1:20:15But I wasn't here.
1:20:20So any other questions, comments?
1:20:27Hearing none, it's time to do our thing.
1:20:35Mr. Chairman, I would make the motion that this is not more detrimental to the neighborhood and it be approved and requested waiving the loading zone.
1:20:48And to allow multifamily houses.
1:20:50And to allow multifamily houses.
1:20:51As presented.
1:20:53As presented in the proposal.
1:20:57Second.
1:20:57We have a second on the motion.
1:20:59Any discussion before we— nope.
1:21:06That being the case, Ricky Sahadi?
1:21:09Yes.
1:21:10Dan DePierre?
1:21:11Yes.
1:21:13Jim Calkins?
1:21:14Yes.
1:21:16John?
1:21:17Yes.
1:21:18Chairman Curry?
1:21:19Yes.
1:21:19Thank you.
1:21:20If I could, Attorney Salerno?
1:21:22Yes, sir.
1:21:23I would implore you and the applicant to consider sliding the building to address the concerns of the one abutter that we had here.
1:21:31Just to be a good neighbor.
1:21:32Okay, force you to do it.
1:21:33But if you have the ability before the building actually gets designed, and site plan review gets completed, discuss it with your client.
1:21:40I will appreciate it.
1:21:43Thank you.
1:21:46Thank you.
1:21:47Citizens input.
1:21:51Okay.
1:21:51Approval of minutes from the August 20th meeting.
1:21:59Mr. Chairman, I move waiving of the reading of the minutes and approval of the minutes.
1:22:06Second.
1:22:07Motion and second.
1:22:08On the motion, John Frank?
1:22:10Yes.
1:22:11Jim Calkins?
1:22:12Yes.
1:22:12Dan DePierre?
1:22:13Yes.
1:22:13Ricky Sahadee?
1:22:14Yes.
1:22:15Joe Perri?
1:22:15Yes.
1:22:17Motion for adjournment?
1:22:19So moved.
1:22:23What?
1:22:24I said so.
1:22:25So moved.
1:22:27Thank you.
1:22:28All in favor?
1:22:31Aye.