9.17.2026 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, September 17th, 2020— uh, 2026.

Uh, we are meeting at One Government Center in the first floor hearing room.

Pursuant 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.

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's seen none.

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

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

We also have with us alternate members Eric Kelly and Alexis Anselmo.

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

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 is amended?

Yes.

In 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.

I 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.

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

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

In 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.

Please remember this applies to— let me skip that.

I, I forgot to get rid of my variance section.

It was my favorite section.

I 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.

We require that all comments made at this hearing be limited in scope to that of our authority.

Additional permits, licenses, reviews, and/or approvals may be required for the matter in front of us tonight.

The 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.

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

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

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

We've adopted such a policy that provides for citizen input on zoning board-specific matters.

A signup sheet is outside the doors on the table for anyone wishing to speak at the end of the meeting.

I will note that items number 01 and 02 for executive session will not be happening this evening.

Let me say nothing else.

Our first matter is a matter of old business, item number 03.

The applicant owner is Laura Diaz, care of Jeffrey Tallman, Northeast Engineering and Consultants.

Subject property is 189 Durfee Street, Map N-3.

10, Lot 0007.

The 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.

The 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.

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

This application was previously tabled on August 20th, 2026, at our last regular meeting.

Good evening.

For the record, Jeff Tolman from Northeast Engineering and Consultants, here on behalf of Laura Diaz, the applicant or petitioner on this application.

Since 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.

This 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.

You know, even before that, they did always use that as a parking spot in the back.

So what this has brought to light is that there is the ability to provide one off-street parking space.

But, 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.

So it potentially could provide enough space for 2 cars.

But there is off-street parking that would be associated with the, the unit that we are proposing on the second floor.

So that's all the new information from the last meeting.

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

You're saying there's an easement?

Is it a recorded— Yes.

Okay.

Do you have a copy of it?

I do not with me.

I could provide it.

Yeah, I'd like that for the record, please.

Sure.

So now the entrance will be at the the rear of the building?

Is that the intent?

There's already a door on that corner, actually, with a mail slot to the left of it.

That's something that they've, you know, been using for years on that building.

Yeah.

And that would be the primary entrance into the unit.

The secondary means of egress to satisfy the building department would probably have to be internal in the building.

But 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.

I would imagine it would be through the— somehow through the building.

It would have to be worked out that way, going out to Durfee Street.

Because you, you've got no way to pop a fire escape on this thing.

So the building's basically sideline to sideline, right?

Occupies the whole lot, correct.

Get another easement.

No, I'm kidding.

They may be able to get— because it's only the— it's only a second floor on the back half, right?

Yeah, 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.

But yeah, there's a potential of doing a fire escape over where the loading dock is, getting down that way onto Durfee Street.

I mean, there, there are options, um, none of them which you know, would need zoning relief.

But that would— obviously, they'd have to figure that out if this were to be approved by the board.

Yeah, rather than go through the building.

Listen, if there was a fire, the last thing I want to do is go through a dark warehouse someplace.

So you'll figure that out.

Not our purview.

But as long as there's a reasonable way to do it.

All right, I feel better about the easement.

That was my, my biggest question.

I mean, to me it looks like kind of a security nightmare, but that's up to a tenant now, isn't it?

Anything from the planning aspect?

Me too, me too.

I didn't even know we had a revised plan, to be honest.

When was this— when did this revised plan come in?

Yesterday.

I had thought that this was getting tabled again.

This came in yesterday?

Yesterday.

I did email it to the board.

Yeah, the— I apologize for the delay.

Um, that's my fault not getting to this sooner.

Um, 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.

And I can certainly provide the board a copy of that.

Questions from the board at this point?

Anyone here wishing to speak in support of this petition?

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

Hearing none, comes back to the board.

I'm sorry.

Oh yes, sir.

Yeah, no, I reside on Main Street and, uh, you know, the parking is very difficult there to begin with.

The person that owns the building now has never used that driveway to park.

It's full of junk.

I even got pictures if you want to see the pictures of what it looks like.

Well, now it might get— it's going to get cleaned up and people are going to use it.

But I mean, people have been living there now and it's not cleaned up.

Well, 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.

Would parking be exclusive to the residential unit?

Yes.

Yeah, 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?

No, not like a two-way stairway upstairs.

I'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.

Well, I don't know what they've done in the building, but there was a stairway going down into the first floor.

I, I know the front of the building.

Yeah, the back of the building we're talking about?

That door provides access to the, the unit on the second level on Main Street, which is going to be the residential unit only.

There's no doorway straight through going in?

No.

And I did see the last time I was out there the trash situation that, that our neighbor is talking about.

Where's that coming from?

Is that from the business that's there now?

Well, that's a good question.

I'm not 100% sure.

Okay.

But 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.

That The, the debris and stuff that's in there, I think it's probably 50/50.

I mean, there's stuff that's piled up, it looks like that's been there for a long time, um, in the corner.

So is this an easement from the church building?

Yeah.

Yes.

We don't have the easement.

We don't have it.

It's, it's on record that the— it's on the deed of record, references a 10-foot-wide easement.

It's Clear as day.

I mean, I didn't think it was necessary.

I think I thought revising the plan and indicating the location of it would be adequate.

But well, certainly, especially where it's— provide that for the record.

Yeah, I mean, expect nothing and come in overarmed.

Yeah, this is why we put this on for this month to push it up.

You know, I mean, I'm provisional of what?

Providing a copy of the easement?

An easement?

Or what has to be in the easement?

What is it, an access easement?

Is it a parking easement?

Yeah, it might only be for access, and the church can challenge the ability to park on it.

We need to see the easement.

There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

I 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.

I agree.

Because if it's for access only, then maybe you can't park, right?

You can't park there.

There's a question of that.

And I'm concerned.

Like I said, when I was by, which was before the last meeting, it was a holy mess back there.

And the dog was back there.

We like dogs.

We like dogs.

I love dogs.

This one did not look like he wanted to be loved.

Okay, everybody wants to learn.

What's that?

Can I just get your name and address for the record too, please?

Milton Glickman, 40 Main Street.

Okay, thank you.

All that trash and The gentleman that owns the building now, I believe, brought up was the reason for all that trash.

That owns the subject building or owns the church?

No, the subject building, because there's a cap from a pickup truck that was his, you know, that's what his dog lived in.

My concern, again, Mr. Chairman, is what the description and the exclusions in the easement are.

I mean, there's a history of Main Street.

There's a history of the church complaining, even, and the homeowners about parking on the street.

I would think that if the church had the ability to park there, they would.

They wouldn't be complaining that they can't.

I'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.

And it may not, because as Jeffrey said, this thing dates back to 1916.

Right.

So, it may need to get buffed up.

And there's an assertion by the neighbors that it's already occupied.

So, is this after— an after-the-fact filing?

Are we looking at something that's already happening, or?

It's not occupied as a residence.

No, no, no, not— yeah, depends if somebody can get in that back door.

Um, and there is— I, I was out there the other day, there's no dog there presently.

Okay, well, no, sir, the gentleman that's selling the property was living in the back then.

Okay, I mean, I've got no proof of that, so I have to consider it hearsay at this point.

You can tell we're in love with this one, Jeff.

I can tell.

So what we can do is, you know, request the table.

I can get you a copy of the the verbiage of the easement.

Um, 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.

And 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.

At least, at least to protect the owner of the building.

If, 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.

It's got to be clear that people— somebody can access and park in that area.

I 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.

That easement is right against the back wall of that.

It is.

Yeah.

So if someone's parking right against that wall, I don't know what's on that wall.

There's a door.

There's no doors.

There's no door to the church.

That was put on.

There's like, what if you need to do work on it?

And there's somebody parked in it?

And they don't belong parked in it?

Trust 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.

And this is, and this is why we're this picky, because that stuff ends up coming back.

That 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.

It's easily— and there's air conditioning units on top of it.

It's certainly not the full height of the church building, so it's easily accessible from Main Street.

It may be.

These might have to get modified, Jeff.

Sure.

So it covers what it needs to do.

I don't know the relationship between Ms. Dias and the church, if they can work this out, council to council.

I was hoping to have an opinion from an attorney on that tonight.

I did ask that the client provide that.

I was not given that at this point, but it seems as though that seems to be something you'd be looking for, so.

We 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.

Well, that's on record.

Okay, the right to pass and repass.

I mean, that's already on— pass and repass doesn't give you the right to park.

It's quirky.

I've done this for the last 40 years.

And then a timely filing for the office So we have it early enough.

Yeah, please.

I agree with that as well.

Thank you.

I'll accept a motion that for tabling as he's as he's filling out the form.

Mr. Chairman, I move that we table the.

Item until our next meeting in October.

We have— give you enough time.

That would be October 15th.

It's early.

All right, we have a motion and a second on the table.

On the motion, John, Jim, Dan, Eric— I'm sorry, Ricky.

Yes.

And Chairman Prairie.

Yes.

I got everybody here.

I don't know what to do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

On to new business.

Item number 1, the applicant owner is Paul— sorry, Paul's Mastered, LLC, here of attorney Mark L. Levin.

Subject property is 141 and 145 Hanover Street, Map I-07, Lot 0054.

The 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.

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

Council.

Mr. Chairman, members of the board, summer's almost here.

Uh, I'm representing the petitioner tonight.

It's a simple petition.

It'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.

My 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.

This is a provision that's permitted.

The 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.

There's also a will be a fire escape easement for the rear building as it extends over onto the front building.

Basically, they're changing no exterior of the building.

It's not— no walls are being created, no fences are being put in there.

They're basically asking to separate these so it permits more affordable housing, to finance them separately for owners that will own them separately.

Thank you.

I take it there's no parking currently, correct?

There is no parking currently.

We're 2.2 feet off the lot line on either side, right, at that odd little corner where the walkway is?

Yeah, that's, that's where it is.

That's the problem.

It's Odd shape.

They're pretty old buildings.

So, and again, there'll be easements to allow access down there.

So that's what they're planning to do is to allow access easement across the premises.

Well, that's not what's shown on this plan.

Well, they put fire escape easement, but it's for one lot.

Well, but that's where it's gonna— they're going to allow both.

It'll be both for passage and fire escape.

Chairman, I would recommend that there be a minimum of a 4-foot access easement around each structure.

That's been a standard minimum, 4 feet in that area.

It's basically going to go to building corner to building corner.

Each property owner should have the ability to access 4 feet around their building for the purposes of residing, staging, Right.

So you have to have, in that case, I mean, the space isn't there.

So you've got to have— around the building, you're correct.

One party is going to have a 2-foot easement.

The 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.

Yeah.

Beyond that, standard conditions of separation of utilities, say, plan review for it, work to be done prior to the endorsement.

Adjustment of the ANR, no additional ADUs, property corners, mark the corners, no fencing.

You never know.

Oh, you're right.

You don't ever— you're right.

You're right.

I shouldn't say that.

But yes.

All right.

I agree to any of those terms.

Any of those terms.

12-foot-wide strip.

It does say asphalt parking.

It's ghosted in on the top of parcel 1.

I know that's what's currently there for the one for the property, but the problem is we're allowing access easement across.

If you park here, it can prevent any type of emergency vehicles go to the back.

So they weren't planning to do anything other than access.

So if something had to be temporarily come in there, they could go to the house and get out.

But they don't want to have any permanent parking so that if a fire truck has to get to there, they can't.

Okay, but my question at the top of this was, is there any parking there currently?

And the answer was no.

I'm sorry, currently there is, but That's not the intent in the future.

Now we got a problem.

Now we're taking away parking, or you leave it.

But 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.

Right now it's currently used by the— right now if there's cars parked there, how does it Emergency vehicle.

Right.

The same owner right now.

So that's how they're doing it.

But somebody still has to move a vehicle if the house is on fire.

Yeah.

I mean, you've got 12 and 7, you got 19 feet in width from those steps forward.

56 feet deep.

Should be the ability to park at least 3 or 4 vehicles on that.

Yeah, 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.

They got to be tandem, but— well, if we're going— if we're going to lose the parking, you lost me.

Okay, well, I have no problem keeping what exists.

It 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.

That was their only position.

You can create— so you have access and utilities, which you can also— you can also show parking on parcel 1.

For however many you can fit for parcel 1 and have them be 9 feet deep.

Then you can also potentially have 1 or 2 spaces parked for Parcel 2, but you're going to need a 2-foot parking easement.

There's different types of easements, right?

So we have access and utility across the board, right?

But there can be a specific easement just for parking for Parcel 2.

You'll only need a 2-foot easement onto Parcel 1.

So, yeah, easements on this one.

Easements on this one are going to be cumbersome.

Site plan is going to need those those too, right?

Eventually, yeah.

But I would— I think you would want to see them, but that's up to you.

Considering 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.

It wasn't really eliminated.

It was they were trying to prevent a problem.

I understand.

But, you know, again, we got another location where parking is always fun.

Sure, I understand.

In fact, it was pretty crowded the day I went through to take a look.

I, 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.

They will, but we need to.

That's fine.

Can you prep up that, uh, this tangle of easements, please?

Thank you.

That being the case, I take a, uh, Well, let's, let's ask while we're here.

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

Anybody wishing to speak in opposition?

Hearing none, can we have a motion?

Thank you.

Motion to table.

And second on the motion, Ricky?

Yes.

Dan?

Yes.

Jim?

Yes.

John?

Yes.

And Sharon Currier?

Yes.

So we'll see you on 10:15.

10:15.

Okay, moving on with new business.

Item number 2, the applicant owner is the Animal Rescue League of Fall River, care of attorney Mark Levin.

Subject properties 474 and 452 Durfee Street.

Durfee Street's just been like hitting it out of the park lately.

It's the place to be.

Map 014, lot 0040.

The 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.

The 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.

The property is located in a WTOD, Waterfront Transit Oriented Development, zoning district.

Council?

Again, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Attorney Mark L. Levin, 138 Brock Street, Fall River, Massachusetts, representing the petitioner.

The Animal Rescue League has owned this property for a long time.

The property presently consists of 2 principal buildings, the animal shelter and a 2-family dwelling.

The surrounding neighborhood includes apartments, condominiums, tenements, single-family residents, and commercial properties.

What the Animal Rescue League desires is to separate the existing 2-family from its animal shelter.

The proposal will not include any new construction, any enlargement, any relocation of the property, conversion or change of the use of the buildings.

The existing 2-family will stay a 2-family and won't be expanded upon.

The existing shelter will remain the animal shelter.

We 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.

All we're asking for, they be separated.

Different than the last one, I can't ask for a special permit because that section only applies to residential buildings.

We 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.

The WDOT does give a minimum dimensional requirement of 25 feet, and both lots obviously will have that.

What 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.

So this will be separating it to create separate buildings, principal buildings, on its own lots.

Practical difficulty— well, structures themselves cause a practical difficulty.

I 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.

The structures themselves cannot be changed.

The 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.

This prevents the financing of the property.

They'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.

This will provide some ample ability of affordable housing for someone, or at least other housing that the current statutes try to provide.

They're not going to enlarge the footprint.

They're not changing any lot coverage.

And 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.

They don't have the sufficient number of parking spaces available.

The property will stay that way.

It's a preexisting use for a long time.

The strict enforcement would prevent them to maintain 2 independent principal businesses because they're dissimilar in nature.

The animal shelter really doesn't like being a landlord for residential property because it's not in their business.

They take care of animals, bring them in as they may need them.

The practical necessity is that they— there are 2 separate structures with 2 separate uses, and there's no way to do anything else.

You can't find another way to solve this problem by separate them without a division of the property.

There's no feasible method to do something different for this.

We believe that the continual use of the building will be the same.

You'll still have the 2 families, still have the animal shelter.

There's not going to be any expansion for either of the 2 properties.

They have already separated the Water and Sewer.

I was informed in the spring.

I was told they were putting in the bounds.

Whether they've been completed, I don't know myself.

They 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.

They You're saying that easement's already been created?

It will be created with the plan.

Yeah, that's— we are showing it there that it's going to be created.

The 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.

So where the buildings are at their closest?

Yes.

2 feet and 1 foot.

1 foot off of the multifamily, 2 feet off of animal shelter.

That is correct.

Where is the easement that gets you through that property line?

It's— no, it's, it's right between the 2 properties.

Right.

But on this plan, it, it's that dotted— well, he puts the access utility for the benefit.

It's this whole section that comes up to this.

So he's got one easement labeled.

Easement from Lot 2 to Lot 1.

Yeah, that's the easement he's putting— Lot 1 is taking an easement over the multifamily.

That's correct.

The multifamily is getting nothing.

Well, it owns that.

No, no, it's getting nothing from Lot— there's no need.

They don't— that's where the utilities are.

The lot line is going to be 1 foot off of the back of that building.

That's all there is?

No, it's— there's 3 feet to the building.

There's a foot to the property line and then 2 Well, 2 feet there, and I guess 1 foot.

That's what he's done.

So there at least can be an easement that's building to building.

That's fine.

That could be done.

I have no problem with that.

That's just stating to the benefit— initially gets submitted, we had asked that you show all existing parking.

And we were told there is Yeah, he's saying that the existing parking in the back is really just to bring the animals in.

We asked, we asked that all parking be shown, and I asked them and they said there is no parking.

But there is parking.

Well, they're saying it's really not parking, it's for the animals to be brought in.

It's all they use it for.

Look at the picture.

I know, that's what they told me.

There are striped parking spaces on the ground, right?

And then there's also parking in between between the 2 buildings that is utilized?

I asked them, they said none.

Excuse me.

You can ask again.

Yeah, that's what they— you know, I had asked them if there were parking.

They said there's no parking for addition— no parking for people other than bringing in the animals and taking care of that.

What about employees?

What are the striped parking spaces for?

They never told me.

I asked them that and they said there were none.

I'm asking that.

Yeah, I know.

I don't know.

Yeah, you know, I question it myself, and this is what they provided to me.

Because I drove by there and I said, listen, what's back there?

He says, well, that's where they bring the animals in.

Now I feel public parking.

I can tell them to show it.

It's just, it's a question.

That's a question I need an answer to.

Where do the employees park?

I'm looking at parking spaces.

I went there myself and I said, what's this?

So that's where they bring the animals in.

But the in-between the buildings is what I'm concerned about those cars there now.

Yeah, it's like on the last one, we have parking, we should be able to at least accommodate something out of that.

I 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.

And 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.

If 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.

Right.

Because my eyes don't lie.

Nope, this is what I asked.

I asked them 3 times, where's the parking?

I've been there.

Well, they're going to lose another month.

Okay.

As far as what they want to do.

Any other questions from the board?

John, you thinking we do one instead of— we do one instead of putting everything on till next month?

That's my good news is we only have 3 positions right now for next month.

That's what I said when they said we only had 3.

And that's until we have the meeting.

Are you sure there was no zoning relief granted for this?

No, they said the other piece was behind, but it didn't need it.

It was like for the addition that's off on Oh, I didn't do a title, but they told me they didn't.

They told you?

They told me.

I never did title exam.

Counsel?

Ah, well, you know, I assume they knew better.

They've owned this since 1970, and I didn't see anything in— when I was looking from '70 on of any decisions.

If there was something before that, I don't know.

I only looked when they owned It depends when they put that on.

It may have been prior to zoning.

No, that building's not that old, especially the addition on Maple Street.

That's true.

That's true.

Okay, look that up too.

List of questions.

But I didn't see anything from 1970 on it.

Yeah, but Mark has to request the table.

Yes.

Yeah, before we go too far, or before we go further.

Anybody in the audience wish to speak in favor of this petition?

Anyone wish to speak in opposition?

Okay, hearing none, motion to table.

But I want to make sure that, Mark, you have clear understanding of what we need.

Do you want the motion?

Hmm.

Yeah, I'll make a motion to table.

We have a motion to table, seconded.

On the motion, John?

Yes.

Jim?

Should we put a date specific on that table?

Well, it has to be, yes.

So October 15th.

That's fine.

Second.

Yes.

Okay.

Dan?

Yes.

Ricky?

Yes.

Chairman Prairie?

Yes.

Sorry to waste your time, but I asked 3 times where was the— I asked once.

I asked 3 times and they said that's only for animals.

They bring the animals in there.

My, my animals don't drive, so, so they're considering they drop off their That's what they're considering it.

But they do, they do play cards and smoke cigars though.

So, all right, all right.

Item number 3, when the summer ends.

Now, as soon as the summer ends, take a deep breath back there, Jeff.

Item number 3, applicant owner is Manuel F. Medeiros, uh, care of Jeffrey Tallman, Northeast Engineers consultants.

Subject property, 7173 Dover Street, Map I-14, Lot 0017.

The 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.

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

Good evening.

For the record, Jeff Tolman from Northeast Engineers and Consultants here on behalf of Emmanuel Madaris, the petitioner for this application.

This 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.

They're both 3-family dwellings.

As 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.

The intent here is obviously to divide the property so that each dwelling would be on a separate lot.

There 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.

The parking situation currently on this property is there is a small existing asphalt driveway on the northwest corner of the property.

That driveway does provide parking for one spot.

There'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.

So to try to, you know, get a second car in there— can it be done?

Yes.

If this was a toy yard, yeah, you can jam a couple cars in there.

But in terms of people getting in and out and using it and providing access, it doesn't make sense.

So 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.

That 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.

That is something that we're going to have to do.

And it would also provide one parking spot for that rear dwelling as well, which is basically what they have out there now.

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

So the single parking space is all that exists currently.

So we can't get— we can't gain?

No, not without modifications or anything.

I 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.

It's kind of tangled.

Somebody maximized these out long before zoning.

So yes.

All right.

I don't think I have a question on this one.

We've got 10 feet back here.

I did drive by it, but I Didn't.

I drove by it in a rainstorm.

Brilliant on my part.

On this one, at least if parking does become an issue, Lot 2 has the ability to increase their driveway if they need to.

If parking is an issue, they could.

Yeah, there is a retaining wall, everything else right at the end of it, but they could push that back and— correct.

Yeah, just change the geometry.

Yes.

Okay, any other questions from the board?

These 6423Bs used to be so easy.

Anything else?

Anybody?

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

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

Hearing none, it's on us.

I 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.

You don't need the fencing.

I think there's enough one, except for where the walkway— the one that's existing on the sideline.

You couldn't Not with the access easement, the walkway, etc.

So, Mr. Chairman, it's a bifurcated proposal.

This is special permit.

Yeah.

Therefore, I would move number 1, that is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood.

Number 2, that it be approved with the standard conditions.

Second.

Motion and second.

Therefore, on the motion, John?

Yes.

Jim?

Yes.

Dan?

Yes.

Ricky?

Yes.

Chairman Freire?

Yes.

Thank you.

I mean, we could table it if you really want to.

Number 4, applicant owner Rodman Street LLC, care of attorney Peter Iacolino, subject for Property is 698 Rodman Street, Map I-21, Lot 0001.

The 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.

The property is located in a CMD, Commercial Mill Zoning District.

Good evening.

Good evening.

For the record, Peter Cellino on behalf of Rodman Street, LLC, the owner applicant.

Office address, 1 Father de Vallis Boulevard, Suite 311, Fall River.

The petition before you this evening seeks to build an apartment building in a CMD zoning district.

The relief that we are seeking is, in my view, very limited.

So to hammer home the point here, we're asking for 2 things and we're asking for them by special permit.

The first thing is to be able to build residential units in a CMD.

That requires a special permit per the table.

And then the second thing is to waive the requirement for a loading space.

Those are the only 2 things we're here for.

So notwithstanding the proposed size of the building or the unit count, we're not asking for setback waivers.

We're not asking for parking waivers.

We're not asking for building height waivers.

This petition is about use.

And brief history on this site.

So in 2009, there was a special permit— sorry, 2019, there was a special permit granted by the board to build 8 townhouse-style units.

They went through the site plan review process.

Process.

They demolished the existing structure.

And ultimately, it's turned out that they've been unable to build it or sell it.

It's been practically impossible to finance or to find somebody that can buy it at the price that would make it worth it.

And so as a result of that, they've gone back to the drawing board with a new concept.

And so we sit here tonight asking the board for a special permit for these 22 units.

In terms of usual questions and me anticipating The proposal is for 12 3-bedroom units, 10 2-bedroom units.

Again, the height of the building complies.

We're not asking for parking.

And 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.

So 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.

The bylaw talks about fabrication, truck terminals, data centers.

And 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.

I 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.

That's how those 5,000-square-foot lots exist.

So 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.

Further down Lawrence Street, there's also a townhouse-style project that's being constructed now.

So we believe this is an appropriate use for the property.

I 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.

Obviously, 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.

I don't have too many.

I 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.

It meets the standards of the CMD, and that's pretty plain and simple.

They couldn't sell the townhouses.

I'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.

From a planning aspect, anything, Daniel?

Again, the relief is minimal.

We've talked about this before when past relief has been granted in these industrial commercial mill districts.

You're actually putting the onus on the commercially owned property owner because you've really limited really what they can do.

Like, 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.

So the residential use is clearly understandable under the new provisions of zoning law.

To deny a residential use is treading on really thin ice.

Never mind, I mean, that's if it was a variance.

This is not even a variance.

The 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.

I think you can just slide it and the parking generally stays exactly the way that it is.

Other than that, you sure they've met every requirement.

And 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.

So the need for that loading space is minimal or not needed at all.

It just, just says it in the regulation because this is a commercially zoned district.

Other than that, I have— okay, I have nothing else to add.

They'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.

This literally comes down to just a special permit for multifamily use.

In the current zoning district, a single-family house needs a variance still.

So you can do multifamily by special permit.

If they wanted to build single families here, they would have to come in and ask for a variance, a much higher hurdle for relief.

Although under the new zoning law, not so high anymore, right?

This is, again, this is a special permit.

A lot lower wall to jump over.

Dan, 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.

On which lane?

The one across the front.

Yeah, I think it's only 22 feet wide.

If I could just speak to that.

This is parking under the building.

Building.

Oh, the under— now it's going to be under.

Yep.

The front part instead of— and it'd be an at-grade lot.

Yep.

Adjacent to the single-family homeowner.

Okay.

I don't know if it can be done.

It was just a thought that I had today.

My response would— to that would be, um, if this were a perfectly rectangular lot, that wouldn't be an issue.

The 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.

If we were to shift this 2 feet, never mind 10, it would interfere with the way the parking is set up.

And 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?

Because then you would have to have a notch to go around that 25-foot area.

When you come around, now you're notching everything.

You know, you'd have to make a turn, you'd have to come up.

You 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?

It would be troublesome.

Still got to get a straight shot to back into that.

Yeah, I mean, this, this, this is all the geometry of this layout works out perfect.

And 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.

But the fact that we're not asking for setback relief, I mean, this is something that is allowed in zone.

It fits this site perfectly, this type of building design, the way we have it laid out.

To try to modify it to gain— I don't even know what we could gain, to be honest with you.

Like, if we gain, you know, potentially 30 feet further away from the residential use on Lawrence Street, right?

But we're meeting the current setback.

So, yep.

But you're also asking for a special permit, not the do with anything with the setback, though.

That's— it all gets factored in.

If it was a 2-story building, then maybe the special permit wouldn't seem so intense.

And 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.

And it just— the way it's laid out on this particular plan kind of fits the site perfectly.

And 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.

So, you know, this is a 6-foot, 6-story total building, 5-foot, 5 stories of occupied one story of parking, right?

Correct.

Correct.

Any other questions from the board?

Mr. Chairman?

Yes.

I'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.

Anyone else before I go to the floor?

Is this building actually designed already?

Do you have a plan?

Not exactly.

So you just have a civil plan, you don't have an architectural yet?

I 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.

So basically, much like with the townhouses, and it's not a criticism, you'd be selling a permit with the property.

You'd be selling a permitted property.

I can represent that my clients hope to build this.

They're sitting right back there.

That's the hope.

They're city business owners and they want to build this project.

So, okay.

Going to general public, anybody here wishing to speak in favor of the project?

Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

Sir, if you could just identify yourself with your address, please.

Mr. Chairman, board members, for the record, my name is Francisco Riveros, and I am the owner and president of 16 Lawrence Street.

The property immediately adjacent to this lot.

And I'm here asking the board to deny the request for this application.

My opposition is based on 3 critical points regarding our neighborhood's safety, infrastructure, and quality of life.

Our 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.

As 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.

Both Lawrence and Roman Streets already suffer from a very high volume of traffic, heavily impacted by the daily operation of the DCM.

In 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.

Furthermore, this area is about to absorb substantial increase in vehicle volumes due to the nearby remodeling outlets currently under construction.

On 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.

Adding 22 residential units to a single block injects a dozens of additional vehicles into a corridor that is already saturated.

The 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.

Granting this waiver will force delivery trucks, moving vans, and service contractors to stop directly in the middle of the travel lane.

This will block traffic, create danger hazards, and directly affect police and fire vehicles trying to pass through.

This proposal is vastly oversized and inappropriate for this location.

For these reasons, concerning traffic, parking, public safety, and the neighborhood preservation, I ask the board to vote against this location.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You, 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.

It sits in a commercial mill district.

I was here when it was the meeting for the townhouses.

So I understand.

Okay.

But 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.

I, 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.

The 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.

They provided all of their parking in this application.

They provided all of their parking.

Yes, and I realize— and you're talking about parking on either side of the street and heavily trafficked with trucks and etc.

Find a street in Fall River that isn't that way.

And 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.

And what about my privacy?

What can you tell about that?

The 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.

Yes, but this board approved that houses on that— I understand.

So if the board approved, I don't understand why now you keep trying— you are trying to change that.

Because the zone wasn't changed.

The zone is still the zone.

The zone is still the zone.

It's still commercial, commercial mill, has to meet the requirements of the commercial mill district.

So the variance to create, which was what, 2005, the variance was given to create these single-family homes.

The zoning was never changed.

The glass warehouse was still there until 2019.

So you were living in your house and there was this that dilapidated 3-story warehouse.

Yes, exactly.

And 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.

Mattresses was, was there, uh, and DCM did not— did nothing.

Okay, DCM has no reason to be here to quote unquote defend themselves because this is specific to this lot.

If 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?

10 feet.

Yeah, however, 10 feet.

No, but where you need to understand is that you bought a home in a zoning district that allows for this.

We didn't make up these rules today.

These rules were in place when you bought your house.

Yeah.

Did you not know about that building?

They are going to have windows on the back to my house?

Most likely.

Most likely.

Yes.

Yes.

But can you answer my question?

Did you not know what, what, what could be built around you?

When you decided to buy your house?

No, that's why, that, that's why I was here and was approved that 8 houses, and I was in favor for that.

Yeah, 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.

But can I make you ask you something?

Sure.

And Do you understand what that building is going to do to my house, to my privacy?

I, I do.

And but what happens is it's in accordance with the law, so they have the right to do it.

If they choose to build an 80-foot warehouse, trucking center, self-storage facility, they don't even come here.

They don't even come here.

They just go get a building permit.

Okay, 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.

I am going to have one in front of me, so a building with 5 stories— so it's okay.

So no, but so it's the building height that you have issue with.

Not in use.

Yeah, exactly.

Okay, that's fine.

Exactly.

But understand that we're only here— we're not here to talk about height.

We can't— we can't control the height because the height is allowed by right up to 80 feet.

That's allowed by right.

And about the distance from my house, they've— they're meeting that requirement as well.

I 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.

You chose to buy a house in a district that allows that to go on next door.

And the townhouses— the townhouses were a great design, but they couldn't build it.

It didn't— it didn't— for whatever reasons, it couldn't be built.

They couldn't sell it.

Did not find a constructor for that.

So if he did not find a constructor for the, for the townhouses, now we have a construction for 5 stories.

I'm sure the construction was there.

I'm sure, I'm sure it came down to a matter of funding, etc.

Okay, actually, anyone else wishing to speak in opposition?

Sir, I have several requests.

My name is Louis My name is Mel.

I live on the corner of Rodman and Brunel.

Okay.

577 Brunel.

8 years ago, I believe it was, the board gave variances to build those single-family homes there.

And I believe including that piece of property where now they want to build a mill.

Let's call it a mill.

6 floors.

How many— where are the cars going to be?

There's going to be at least 40 cars according to the number of apartments.

Where are the 40 cars going to be?

Underneath.

There's, there's 44 parking places.

44 parking places underneath?

Yes.

I want to see an architect design, not, not a sketch.

Number one, they shouldn't even come here without, without an architect design.

They're not required to come here with an architectural design.

I want to see it.

They have to build what they're showing on the plan, and it shows.

So that's their footprint.

Well, I don't believe that there's space for 40.

And furthermore, 8 years ago, I believe when it was the variance given, it was for that piece of property as well.

It's my understanding.

Which— now voting for it, it's the second time you're voting the wrong way.

Two wrongs never made one right, sir.

And the traffic, it is an issue.

I had to replace 100-foot aluminum fence 3 times in the last 5 years.

Last Monday I counted over 100 automobiles, including trucks and police and fire, just from the city.

Never mind the school bus across the street.

Never mind the mill that's being built as we speak.

The traffic— you said a while ago, find a street in Florida that's not like that.

You can't find one.

Plymouth Avenue and, um, Brayton Avenue, there is no other street with that kind of traffic.

It's crazy, absolutely crazy.

With bus stops there, it's amazing.

So traffic is an issue, a big issue.

And my belief is that this board, rightfully so, is here to protect the neighborhoods, not to be against the neighborhoods.

And in part, yes, we are here to protect the neighborhoods.

We're also here to interpret this zoning code.

And I believe that piece of property was included on that variance.

Included in which variance?

That gave that— all that property the right to build one-family homes.

And then there was a determination made immediately after that.

I didn't see that, uh, Mr. Aguilar.

Did you come to my office and ask for it?

I will go to your office and ask for it.

Okay, but did you?

No.

Okay, so it does exist?

No, because I didn't know this was going on.

Until now.

I got this a week ago.

A week ago is not a lot of time.

So 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.

And they left the remaining commercial building on a number of the lots that they could have built single-family homes on.

It 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.

They had the option to if they chose to.

That's already all been determined.

This is a separately— separate piece of land zoned in the commercial mill district.

And it meets all requirements.

It does, yeah.

Except for the loading zone.

Except for the loading zone.

And that's a big issue.

The loading zone is a big issue.

Because the back up traffic.

You know what loading zones are for?

Yeah, I think so.

And I'll be in your office tomorrow morning.

It's for deliveries.

I understand, but if they're there to deliver, where's the traffic going to go?

What are they going to have delivered?

It's not a business.

As I explained before, that loading zones are for commercial uses.

Yeah, 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.

That's all.

But, you can come by tomorrow, and I can give you a copy.

And, I'd like to see an architect design of the property, not a sketch.

We're not required.

We do not require.

This board does not require, and cannot make somebody come in with an architectural drawing.

What we're doing is we deal with the use of the land.

So 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.

We do not— that's not within our purview.

In fact, architectural doesn't hit in until the building department.

What happens is this only gives them the right for residential use.

That's the only thing that they're asking for.

So, they will go to site plan review.

Through site plan review, they have to show the ability that they can build what they've shown on this plan.

If they can't, then they need to come back here or scrap the project.

Then they go to the building department.

If what they submit for a building permit doesn't meet what's shown on this plan, and they don't get a building permit.

You'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.

So make a long story short, I'm definitely against— I know the whole neighborhood is against it.

They're not here tonight except for that couple, but they are against it.

Then they missed their opportunity to, to come and speak.

And, and I, I will thank those that came to speak.

And it's unfortunate that no one else— if, if, if indeed the neighborhood was, was that much against it, where are they?

This is an opportunity.

You took this.

Those notices were mailed out August 27th.

Well, I got it.

I don't live there.

I live further up.

But when it was next to my house, I never got it.

Okay, not even gonna go there.

No, I don't want to go there either.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else speaking in opposition?

We're back at the board.

Mr. Chairman, may I just have a brief rebuttal on a couple points?

Um, 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.

I 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.

Uh, furthermore, the loading zone— I just want to hammer home that this is a residential building, and therefore we don't need that.

So 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.

And 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.

And I'll rest on that.

I appreciate that.

I appreciate the work that went into this one.

It's hard.

It kind of makes me wish in 2005 somebody didn't decide to allow a bunch of single-family in a CMD zone.

But I wasn't here.

So any other questions, comments?

Hearing none, it's time to do our thing.

Mr. 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.

And to allow multifamily houses.

And to allow multifamily houses.

As presented.

As presented in the proposal.

Second.

We have a second on the motion.

Any discussion before we— nope.

That being the case, Ricky Sahadi?

Yes.

Dan DePierre?

Yes.

Jim Calkins?

Yes.

John?

Yes.

Chairman Curry?

Yes.

Thank you.

If I could, Attorney Salerno?

Yes, sir.

I would implore you and the applicant to consider sliding the building to address the concerns of the one abutter that we had here.

Just to be a good neighbor.

Okay, force you to do it.

But if you have the ability before the building actually gets designed, and site plan review gets completed, discuss it with your client.

I will appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Citizens input.

Okay.

Approval of minutes from the August 20th meeting.

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

Second.

Motion and second.

On the motion, John Frank?

Yes.

Jim Calkins?

Yes.

Dan DePierre?

Yes.

Ricky Sahadee?

Yes.

Joe Perri?

Yes.

Motion for adjournment?

So moved.

What?

I said so.

So moved.

Thank you.

All in favor?

Aye.