1.15.2026 Zoning Board of Appeals

around for a while.

Good evening.

I am Joseph Pereira, chairman of the zoning board of appeals of the city of Fall River. It is 5:32 p.m. on Thursday, January 15, 2026. We are meeting at one government center in the first floor meeting room. Pursuant to Mass General Law, chapter 30A, section 20, subsection F. I hereby notify all persons in attendance that a video and audio recording of this meeting is being made by Fall River Government TV, Mr. Craig

Salvador operating. If anyone desires to make a video, audio, or combined uh recording of this meeting, uh please notify me uh so I may make a public announcement of your intent.

Our recording secretary this evening is uh Courtney Pereira sitting to my immediate right. Um, present this evening are regular members John Frank who is our vice chairman, James Caulkins, uh, our clerk, Dan Dep, Ricky Dadi. We also have uh, alternate member uh, Eric Kelly with us. Also present this evening. Seated to my far left is Mr. Daniel Agui, our director of engineering and planning.

And seated to my far uh right is our assistant city planner uh Mr. Chris Lec.

Courtney, have all petitions to be considered been properly uh advertised and all interested parties notified in accordance with the rules and regulations of the ZBA and Mass General Law Chapter 4A as amended?

Yes. I thereby declare the January 15, 2026 regularly scheduled meeting of the zoning board of appeals of the city of Fall River open for such business as shall regularly come before it. I remind all persons presenting before the board including petitioners of butters anyone in favor or opposed to a position position that your presentation or comments be limited to three minutes. The board's

rules and regulations direct the board to specifically look for information that supports the petitioner's claim. As such, the petitioner should clearly identify and factually support the basis for their claim. Uh, in the case of a variance, a credible hardship as defined by Mass General Law Chapter 48 must be presented.

I remind all present that the authority of the zoning board of appeals exist pursuant to mass general law chapter 48 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 the comments made of this hearing be limited in scope to our authority. Additional permits, licenses, reviews, and/or approvals may be required.

The action taken by this board has a real and lasting effect on the title to your real estate. As such, I urge all petitioners to seek confident legal counsel before your filing uh before filing your petition and after the decision of this board has been made. A copy of the ordinance is available at the city clerk's office uh 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 multiple member bodies develop and adopt rules or policies for co public comment. We have adopted such a policy for public comment on zoning board matters uh at the end of this

meeting. If anyone cares to speak on zoning board matters, there's a signup sheet outside the uh the door on the table.

And with that, we open up a new year.

We begin with uh old business item number 01. The applicant uh and owner is um Joyce uh Frisola and Lisa Worsley.

Uh this is KROV attorney Peter Aselino.

Subject property is 999 Langley Street, map R06, lot 181. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. one to build a 20x 30 uh foot twotory addition to the existing dwelling waving sideyard setbacks and lot coverage requirements. This item was tabled at the uh December uh 18th, 2025 uh board of appeals hearing.

Thank you. For the record, my name is Peter Selenino. I'm a lawyer. My office address is 550 Locust Street in Fall River. Uh Mr. Warsley's here. As you all remember, the petition before the board, uh, as Mr. Pereira just read, seeks to construct an addition on the east side of the property. Uh, at the conclusion of the last meeting, we moved to table this petition to be responsive to the

requests of the board relative to the side setback waiver requested on the east side of the property. We submitted revised plans which are on the screen currently. Uh the board may remember that at the last meeting that uh side setback on the easterly side was as little as 3.3. We had a discussion relative to the fact that the fire department likes to see at least five for fire apparatus. And we talked about

repositioning the addition to increase that setback. And as a result, I would submit to you that the plan before you is responsive to the concerns. now shows that five foot setback on the easterly side and the addition has been altered to uh accommodate that. So I think last time I sufficiently presented the arguments relative to uh hardship uh lot coverage and setback and we were just

really here to address the concern of that easterly setback.

Okay. Change the dimensions of the uh yes 18 by 34 as opposed to the original.

Which was what attorney divisional?

Uh it was 10 by 30 20 by 30.

20 by 30.

Yeah.

First of all, I I thank you for for taking that into consideration and and getting just over that that five foot.

Um, we're certainly sensitive to the fact you've got a lot of stuff going on on the other side of the property behind that fence. Um, but you live there, so no, we get it. Uh, any questions from the board at this point.

The the addition is not uh an ADU. It's just additional living space.

That is correct.

So, you're not going to rent that space out?

No. part of your house.

Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. No other questions from the board.

We we discussed this at length last month. Is there anyone uh here present who wishes to speak in support of this petition?

Is there anyone to speak in opposition?

They're hearing none. And I have no more questions. If the um board wishes to act on this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the uh variance as presented uh with the restriction of no additional ASUS on the property.

AD second motion and second. Is there any discussion on the motion? And this is to the um approved as as the amended plan.

Um if there are none on the motion, John Frank, yes.

Jim, yes.

Dan, yes.

Ricky, yes.

Chairman Prairie, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you much.

Thank you.

Second.

New business.

Item number one, the applicant owner is JB Whipple Residences LLC. Care of attorney Mark L1. Subject property is 227 and 233 Wibble Street, map G07, lot 34. The applicant has requested a special permit to allow the following.

One to divide the property into two lots, leaving a three family dwelling on each lot. Pursuant to section uh 86-423b zoning ordinances, the property is located within an A2 apartment zoning district. Council, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, for the record, my name is attorney Mark L1, law offices at 11138 Rock Street for Massachusetts. First off, I didn't see you in December, so I

hope everyone had a great holiday season and a fabulous new year. Uh my client is asking for the division uh based upon the fact that the stat the ordinance provides that we can divide property into separate devisable lots uh provided that the buildings were built before zoning which these were. Uh, I'm asking you to allow a finding that dividing the property into separate lots so that each

building on their own lot will not be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. And second, that it follows the ordinance that you have. Uh, just to add a little bit more, there are current parking spaces on the property and they are continue to be there. It will require an easement across the first house uh and the second house right between the two houses as they are now to get to the back. So, we will

create those easements once we have those on record. I understand the water lines are separate. We I have not had confirmation yet that the sewer lines are, but that'll be something that will be addressed uh based on the normal course of a special permit. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. So, the parking is down in the back.

That's correct.

And of each one of the houses.

Yeah. There's two spaces for each one and every everybody else is on the street.

Yeah.

But there's no change in number of apartments etc.

Um, obviously since they're going to have a pass through there, the owner will accept no interior fencing and you've got to verify and record the um separation of utilities.

That's correct.

Okay. Any other questions from the board? See, we're starting off with a 423b.

It's going to be one of those years.

Anything from the board? Anyone in the audience wish to speak in favor of this petition?

Anyone wish to speak in opposition?

Hearing none.

I'll make a motion to grant Mr. Chair.

The uh separation of utilities, separation utilities, military events.

This a special statement.

Yeah, we have to um I'll make my motion to be just combined of that. will be not more detrimental to the neighborhood.

Sounds good as well.

And you will record these passage easements.

Yes.

Once the plan gets through, the planning board will record that and I'll create the easements for that.

Yes.

But we said um permanent f um fencing permanent markers.

Yep.

Separation utilities.

Utilities.

Separation of church and state. The utilities require that does it.

All right, we have a second on that.

Second, Dan on the second.

Uh Ricky, yes.

Dan, yes.

Uh Jim, yes.

John, yes.

Jim Prairie, yes.

Thank you. So, this one starts of the year huh?

This one is the start, but because Chris said I couldn't file the two variances until next month. So, you'll have the variances next month.

Thank you, M.

Have a great night.

You, too.

Where am I? Item number two.

Uh, the applicant is Robert Pelleigrini, Esquire, owner is GZ Homes LLC. Subject properties 57-63 KFAC Street, map07 lot 63. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. wants to divide the property into two lots, leaving the existing two family dwelling on one lot and constructing a new single family lot on lot two waving lot size.

Property is located within a G general residence zoning district.

Good evening. My name is Robert Pelgrainy. I'm here on behalf of the owner GZ Homes LLC.

He uh is here as well if you have any questions for him. But this is a pretty straightforward project. It started out with us um trying to make the two family that's there, what's shown on lot one into a three family. And uh we were asked to see if we could do what what is proposed here for you tonight. As you can see, it's uh suggesting a single family on lot two. The reason we're

here, lot two conforms. Uh what happens is the lot one where the home is now becomes non-conforming because it's a two family. So we are here for a variance for that. Uh we show um adequate parking on the existing and the proposed lot as well. Um so the chairman asked specifically to address hardship. So I will do that. Um it's a the lot is an 11,000 square foot lot. It's an unusual

size in that it's um nearly twice the average lot size what's there currently.

I mean, what is in the neighborhood? Um, and, uh, the only possible way to deal with that is really to do what we're we're proposing or to do the three family there. Um and as well the the location of the existing house is such that um it would involve something that's less than ideal for the city as well if we were to make that a three family. I'll add that we did look real closely at the

neighborhood and um there's a lot of three families across the street.

There's a lot of single families on the same side of the street as you are all well aware. I will add that I um reached out to three of the counselors as well.

Didn't hear back from any of them. Um K Camara, Tith, and Hart.

Um really I just explained the same thing that I did to you that we were asked to come before you for a single family.

I guess I'll leave it at that. I have Todd McDonald who drafted these plans.

He can certainly answer any questions.

He's also been working with uh a few people at city hall on the plans as well. And if you have any questions for the owner, I've I've brought him as well.

So, the total frontage of the existing lot is the 113.99.

Is that correct? That's the total frontage of the two lots.

Correct. Total. Yeah. Between the two lot too.

I mean, it's not inconsistent. The the two lots you end up with are not inconsistent with some of the other lots in the neighborhood. I'll give it that.

But we are creating nonconformity.

Um, going to you Dan, any comment on this?

Well, you said that you were providing the parking that meets the zoning ordinance. What parking is there for lot one?

Okay. So, lot lot the existing lot lot does not have any parking. So, so you, so you not adding Well, he just said that we're not altering the parking for the existing building, but what we're doing is providing a a driveway for two spots for the new lot, for the new one, but nothing for lot one, taking away the land that you could provide parking for lot one by building

a new house. That it it was just contradictory to what what the attorney stated that parking was being provided for both. So, that's one.

Yeah. Can somebody pull up the application and see how that reads as well? The only relief being requested is the size of lot one.

Nothing for lot coverage.

Was lot coverage calculated for all imperous surfaces. Do you know it was lot one looks like the building concrete walkways sure looks like more than 22%.

Concrete walkways were included in the calcs.

Okay.

So, what what we were able to do with the proposed lot line through the center was pick a location that um made lot one and lot two uh meet all the lot coverage requirements and the set setbacks.

And you know you could build a three family and an ADU on this, correct?

Yes.

So, for a total of four units.

Yes.

Conforming.

So you have a perfectly conforming lot that allows for great a great increase in development, but you're seeking variance, right, to allow a substandard lot going from a standard a conforming lot, perfectly conforming that still allows for extra, but still asking for a variance and not providing any parking, which I do think needs relief. If you're creating a new law I think so, too. Yeah.

Then you need to provide parking for that unless you're requesting or had requested um a waiver of parking. curious uh what's now what now is proposed as lot two. Was there parking on that lot for the the other?

There was not.

Okay.

Didn't this come up um when you got the denial from um the building department and they said that because there's no parking on lot one. Now that's what we were under the impression that we would not need to request a variance for that because the existing site did not have off- streetet parking.

All right. So your your grandfathering goes away, right?

When you're creating a new completely understood. I I just wanted you to know that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And I drove by. I know you don't have any space to put parking on that on that property where the multif family is now.

I mean, it doesn't I can't see it. So, I don't know how you you bring it in the way the walkways are, etc.

I'm just afraid that what's going to happen is if this does get granted and you get the site plan review, yeah, you you may need to come back and get additional relief is what I'm guessing. Um, but that's beyond whether or not there's a hardship with this this piece of land that this relief should be granted.

I have nothing else, Mr. Chairman.

No, I appreciate that. And I do appreciate the input that, you know, basically by keeping it together, you had the potential for more units.

Yeah.

Yeah. Unless you're just planning to break it off, build the single family or not build a single family and sell it as a a permitted lot. That's up to you.

That has nothing to do with what we do here for a living.

Let me ask you this. Um, do you have any idea what the square footage is of the units in the two family?

Could one of them qualify as an ADU?

You think one of the units might be less than 900 ft?

I don't know. Currently, they do.

They're about 1300 feet each. Each each. Okay.

But the basement I don't think has the height.

Got it. Yep.

No, no, no. I'm just trying to think if now it's not called a two family. So now you only need 5,000 square feet if one of them is a qualifying ADU.

So do you know how many bedrooms in the existing?

Four.

Three.

There's three in each.

Three.

Okay. Which makes sense. 1200 square feet.

What's the um the the additional one going to be? Two or three?

I'm sorry.

Turn into a three family. So that's going to be three. Also, we're looking to do a single.

We we haven't we haven't prepared any architectural plans at the moment. We were just demonstrating compliance on the new lot. So, we don't have uh architectural design at the moment.

Right. And that's that that also is not our purview, but but we like to have an idea of the number of bedroom bedrooms that we're adding to a neighborhood. But you're you're locking yourselves in on a footprint.

Correct.

As shown here. So, oh well, they'll be bound by lot coverage.

Yeah.

Build it. It appears as though the proposed lot two would be completely conforming to the district.

The relief has to deal with lot one as long as they really for no parking coverage.

I still question the lot coverage, but um that's what it is. It is I think it's greater than 22 as well, but that's just eyeball at this point.

Let's check this.

Any other questions from the board?

Hold on. We got a 1251 footprint.

How's everyone else feeling about the parking on lot one since we're creating?

If you have a,51 square footprint on a 5678 square foot lot, that's 22% lot coverage. So, I don't see how walkways.

Any of the walkways could have been included. It it might not put you over 25, but what's shown here clearly doesn't include any other impervious surface. Um, and then also you've got to make sure on the proposed 26.5's coming in at 24.974 plus just sneaking in.

lot too close.

I come up with 26%, but the driveway could be shortened, but you you do need to provide two 9 by8 parking spaces. So, as long as you're 36 deep, which I think you're deeper than that on or close to it anyway.

Yeah. 40 43 to the edge edge of the street, right? But you got to park on the lot, so yeah, I figured it was about 50 looked about 50 ft deep, but that one will be close.

Any other questions from the board before I move it to the public?

John, you seeing anything that I'm not?

Let's go to the public. Just follow that.

Size hardship items.

Hardship's always a game in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Stuff that we if we were in the state of New York, we'd be we'd be saying no about 17 times a night. So, uh, turn it to the general public.

Anyone wishing to speak in support of this petition?

Anyone in opposition to the petition?

Okay, they're hearing none. It comes back to the Oh, I'm sorry. Hi.

Hi.

Just identify yourself. Name and address please.

Martha Oliver Coldback Street.

Okay.

Um, so I am just formally opposed this petition. Um I understand the variance in the lot and everything like that. Um parking and safety is a big issue. Uh Walnut Street to KFAC Street um is a very quick corner. Many people avoid the light at Robson and August. So also um there is very minimal parking because the driveways are a bit more narrow due to the historic neighborhood uh with old

road being in the background like our driveways would have to do one up to the other one to the other. The house on the side they do have that extra space.

However, um if they put uh the driveway there that'd be great for the people living there. However, that would take probably about four spots away. And on the other side of the street, there's already predetermined spots due to ADA accommodations for people who live in those homes. So, it there's almost accidents every hour right at that spot.

And it would be worrisome about um in the event of an emergency somebody cop anybody the possible delay in care due to just getting around that corner because of the parking is so heavy on the corner where warm up cuts into colds.

Is there parking on both sides of the street there?

There is. Yes.

Okay. So, I thought So, I'm I'm unclear of of why you would think putting in the driveway would take away four parking spaces on the street.

Uh, yeah, I don't know.

Probably true, depending on how it's laid out before. I mean, you do end up with a problem, but I think basically Kofax Kofax is a standard 40 Yeah, it's a 40 foot layout.

So, you should be able to back out of a driveway even if there are cars parked across the street.

Yeah. Um, so people, we already have to park on Locust Street. A lot of people who live on the street, I'm sorry. People on Locust already park on street because Locust is obviously heavy. Um, it's just the issue of just too many cars and it being an issue.

I respect that. Thank you.

Anyone else in opposition?

The only question I have be before we move to a U and I I can't project what the planning board's going to do. It's just the question of park and should we be waving should we be looking to Well, you can't wave it.

We can't wave it.

No.

Maybe um if you wouldn't mind me speaking up here out of place is uh could we just um work our way back here before we get through all the other hurdles to specifically request parking relief for the remaining lot one. Just a thought.

What other hurdles? Um I'm assuming that we're going to have some planning plan review.

Yeah.

And then um I'm sure there's going to be some quite a bit of lag time with plan creation and things like that. And you know I think based on what we've heard tonight, I think it would be um worthwhile for us to come back.

Yeah. I mean ZBA approval is not a prerequisite for site plan review. You can site plan review won't get completed without coming back to the zoning board of appeal. So you can go through that whole process through permitting.

Yeah.

And but it will sit until you come back and get the appropriate relief. So you could have now just spent a lot of money for no reason.

Yeah.

One option you have is to table this.

Okay.

And discuss whether or not you want to add some parking.

Okay.

Or ask for relief. So, now if you're going to add parking to lot one, then then you have to add lot coverage relief um or ask for a waiver of parking.

I can't say which the board would be more likely to to provide. Um impervious surface you can offset with with drainage and and things like that. Um you are afforded by ordinance a 16 ft opening.

You only need to comply with the ordinance for the required number of parking spaces. So on a two family that would be four spaces.

So that's something you can that's one option. Second option would be just ask the board to vote. The board can only vote on the the relief that's requested.

Correct. They can't make up something new today.

So is there a method of um amending the application? Obviously we can't do it tonight and there would be notice requirements but does the board allow the applicant to amend the application?

So yes, so you could request a table today.

Okay.

And get information in within tomorrow's Friday, right? Deadline was yesterday, but theoretically we could long as we get something in by Monday at the latest. Okay.

And we could readvertise, renotify.

Yeah.

And then you'd be able to get Craig back on. But to be honest with you, at the end of the day, I'm trying to think which filing fee would be greater. So the table it's a $350 fee and you've got a $500. Then you've got a legal ad to pay for like you just paid again now.

What's the the zoning application was already what five? So it's probably the same exact amount of money.

Yeah. So we need renotification of a letter because it's changed in general.

Y that's up to the money would be about the same right now. Whether you tabled or withdrew that's up to you. But we would need to know now the specific rules so that we can grant the specific relief.

Understood.

Or you still may want to contemplate, hey, we can build a three family and an ADU by right and go to a four unit building.

Yeah, that's we wanted to do what what the staff sort of wanted us to do, which is what was it?

Why we're here. Um we were sort of asked to propose.

Who asked you? uh somebody that you met with early on.

I it was our our surveyor came in and met and we were told that this was the preferred they the town preferred single a single family in this location rather than a three family is what we were talking about. I I I'm not sure at the moment that would only come from my office. So I don't know in the town would would give you that recommendation but okay again the board can only act with what's

before them. Yeah, I'm I'm a little bit confused with reaching out to three counselors and I don't I don't it just it's not how things happen here, but I don't think it is.

Okay. Um I I think what we should probably do is table this and we'll we'll try to uh revise the application.

I have one D.

You have one.

You can just fill out Mr. Chairman. I move that we accept the request and take notification to our February meeting.

Will February be um can you get it together for February or I want to hit the time clock on this thing?

Yes.

But we would need everything revised complete by Monday at the latest only because our legal requirement.

That's right. Monday's a holiday so let's say Tuesday.

Okay. Tuesday.

Okay. We have a motion on the tableing.

We have a second uh on the motion to table. John, yes.

Jim, yes.

Dan, yes.

Ricky, yes.

And chairman Prairie, yes.

And that'll be table to the February meeting.

Thank you everybody.

Thank you very much.

Continue with new business.

Moving to item number three. Applicant owner is Reposo Construction and Development LLC care of attorney Gregory Billy uh east side of Rich Street map P22 lot 98. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following to divide a uh buildable single family lot into two lots with lot area frontage and sideyard setback requirements. Property is located in the S single family zoning district. Council

for the record, attorney Gregory Brilliant U with the law office at 111 Oakrove Avenue for Massachusetts. I'm here tonight for the petition to propose a construction and development LLC and the request tonight is to subdivide the subject matter property of 16 thou excuse me 14,601 ft into two lots and building a single family home on each lot uh waving frontage area and um side setbacks. I I first of all want to you

know clarify that the side setbacks is only the setback side setbacks from the two lots being created. We are maintaining the side setbacks from all the budding properties which is 15 ft.

So the side setback specifically is the 7 ft in between the two newly created lots if granted. Um by way of of edification relative to this lot. This lot has been vacant. Um, from what I'm told, from 7 to 8 years, um, I believe the people passed away. I'm not exactly sure, but it has been vacant. It's not in good shape. The lot itself is not in good shape. Those are pictures. I'm

sorry. Again, they're black and white. I guess I got to fix that color copy. But that is the lot itself in question. It's uh, it's severe. It's got a lot of excess shrubbery. Um, overgrown shrubs and so forth and so on, especially around the perimeter. There's two other February 19th Sorry.

That's okay.

Sorry.

That's okay. There are there are two like sheds back there which are not in good condition and obviously those would be removed. Again, my client would like to divide the property into two lots and building two single family homes, both 28x 32, two level homes, two to three bedrooms, and they will provide off streetet parking for both uh buildings of two spaces. Um, in addition, they are

prepared tonight if the grant goes forward and the board seats fit to not only grant the off streetet parking, but also they they are aware of the the problems with all the shrubbery around the perimeter of the the property. They will they will again condition that upon greenery being put up around the property to make it look good, number one, and two, to prever uh preserve the privacy of their of the neighbors. Um,

with reference to the neighborhood, I took the liberty of going out old school, doortodoor myself to speak to the neighbors. I spoke to the the the three biggest properties that are director Butters, that is the Lundstroms, which I believe they're here tonight uh potentially with their attorney, so I'm not going to speak for what their position is. They didn't give me one. They were very polite and kind,

and I uh uh and I appreciate that. So, I'll let them speak for themselves. I spoke to the Dawson's which is Ed Dawson and I spoke to the Riley family irrevocable trust Gail Riley. They're located at 258 Iris Street and and 88 Guy Street. Um they are the biggest ones. One's uh 19,000t lot and 13,000t lot. Both of them both of them were adamantly in favor. Okay, for a couple

of reasons. Uh what they both gave me was they they would just love to have the lot cleaned up because they both say that there is excess shrubbery filling into their their house lot that they have had to pay for for the last six or seven years and they don't think it's fair but nobody is around to clean this lot up. So they both would absolutely like that all clean and be a condition

of it. The second point that they made and Mr. Dawson was adamant about this is he didn't want a ADU. He said that he would rather have two single well they both said this. They'd rather have two single family homes with obviously they would prefer owner occupied so that they could maintain two nicel looking homes.

They didn't want an ADU a small house or whatever built that would have any type of tenants. They were not in favor of that. In fact, Mr. Dawson told me he would come down to the city and object.

Obviously, he wouldn't be able to object because the ordinance is in place. I also like to add if you look at the plan as submitted besides the lunchroom. who are going to speak. Um, the Dawson House is 19,000 ft² and the Riley family irrevocable trust is 13,000 ft². Every other director butter has lots less than this in terms of square footage with houses on them. 225 Rich Street has 5,330

ft. 68 Guy Street 6,000 ft² 78 Guy Street 6,000 ft² and 226 High Street 6,000 ft². So the lots that we propose tonight u members of the board are actually larger than those lots. Um and that's all director buts and again you have the Riley family irrevocable trust in favor and the Dawson uh family in favor of this. Um so therefore it is in conformity with the neighborhood. Um just want to see

what else I have here.

I know okay I know that you have a letter in opposition. I just want to address that very briefly. It comes from Mrs. is the Melo. I did not I did not knock on that house because it's the property on the on like the whole street over. Uh it's it's it's across the street from Rich, but it's the whole street over. Here's her house, which fronts on Free Love Street. And here's

the backyard, which which actually is viewed from the vacant lot in question.

She says that she has a problem with they're going to take away on street parking. I'm not sure how that affects her, but irrespective of that, we are going to take care of uh not using any on street property. We're going to provide off streetet parking. She says it's a quiet neighborhood that people walk in. Again, I don't think there's anything about this petition that would take away from the the uh the

neighborhood any in any way whatsoever.

So, I I kind of dismiss, no disrespect to Mr. the moment, but I dismiss her contentions and thoughts that this proposed development would hinder um the neighborhood uh in any way, shape, or form relative to hardship. If any of the board members have been by the the the property slopes down somewhat from the house on the corner and and it would take some doing to make sure that would

be leveled off in order to build. So, I submit that the hardship is the topography and the land itself in addition to the current, you know, state of the land. The land is in it is in it is in bad condition in terms of cleanliness. It's bad. It's got some trees um that again Mr. Dawson would hope the trees would come down. I'm not sure may not be a tree lover, but he

asked about the trees coming down which I said obviously if the build goes um you know the trees would come down. Um it's obviously the proposed use is consistent with the S12 because it's a single family home that's proposed to be built. Again, I don't find this in any way detrimental to the neighborhood. In fact, other than the three properties that I that I pointed out, two of which are definitely in favor and the

lunchroom property, these two pieces of property that are being built are in excess of all the all the director buddies. So, I don't see that as as being a problem in meeting the statutory requirements for variance. Um, that being said, um, I can try to answer any questions that you may have and thank you for for knocking on doors.

Sometimes old school is the best way to go. Um, well, I tried. I know it's a nice neighborhood. I And I told the Lunchrooms that I, you know, So, did the owner developer give any thought to keeping a completely uh complying single family lot intact as a single family rather than creating two non-conforming lots out of a conforming lot?

Well, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I I think if he keeps it and and I I think the lunchrooms may have misinterpreted what I said. I think at that point in time, he would probably get build an ADU cuz he can do it by right and he'd much rather not do that because he doesn't think it's in conformity with with the with the um the surrounding neighborhood. At that point, I think he

probably would have to do it for financial purposes.

It's it's not it's not trust me, it's not his desire to do, and that's why we came this route. um he expended the funds to go this route. It's why I tried to speak to the neighbors and I know I just walked up and down the street and I apologize if if if I offended you by doing that. Um and I just tried to get the feedback from the neighbors as to

what they prefer in the neighborhood and I don't know what the Lstroom's position is going to be here tonight. I I assume probably wrongfully assume but in opposition but everybody else was in favor of going in this direction. So, okay. Any other questions from the board?

So, I'm just staying it's not even that was my only question. Was there a consideration to using a uh compliant single family lot for a single family even if it did involve an ADU? I guess cons some consideration was given, but this is Oh, it absolutely was, Mr. Per. it it was given because he came to me and and asked me, he didn't even come to me originally about the about the two house

lots. He came to me originally, asked me if I could help him with the ADU situation in the neighborhood. And I I actually told him I think he should strongly consider giving the neighborhood um to to maybe look at this proposal because I think it would be more conducive to to the neighborhood and it its current existence. Okay.

And I I think it would be and I said that to the lunchrooms and I said it to to the other neighbors.

Dan, I mean, Attorney Brilliant's not wrong with what's what would be allowed here.

Um, and again, we're struggling with this state law, which has basically allowed every single family anywhere that a single family home is allowed by zoning, it's now become a two family district. So, this could become by right a duplex. Um, it could be a larger home with a smaller ADU separate from the back. It could be above a garage. So, there's a many configurations of accessory dwelling units that this

applicant could do by in some cases quite invisible from the outside.

And we've had petitions where neighbors understood that and were in opposition of ADU.

And then we have some that were just just do what you can do by right. Um, so I think the board is in a difficult spot. Um, we're trying to do what's best for the neighborhood. Um, what what I I would ask regardless of again, however the lunchrooms want when when they speak. Um, I would think you would want to at least get something in writing from the two of Butters who apparently spoke in favor of

it if unless they are here tonight.

No, I don't believe they are. They told me they weren't coming. Then I just didn't have any or members of the board, I should say, through the chair. I didn't have anything with me to to write up a petition. I I could get it if if that's what the board desires before making any decision.

Well, it's just it it's difficult.

No, I agree. You're only taking my word.

I trust you. I know you do and I understand probably the board does too.

But I do understand that.

I do understand that.

We do consider we do consider the the thoughts, the opinions of the neighbors, but we got to consider the bylaw first.

Yeah.

No, I I and and that's that. So, you know, it's M Mr. If I can say one more thing in conjunction what Mr. Agar said and I I told this to the lunchrooms and I'll say it again obviously in public. The re the reason why I thought that this was the right way to go with it be quite frank with you and transparent is that I felt I went by the property. I they have a

swimming pool in their backyard which is totally visible to this lot. Totally.

Okay. Okay. So, if there's a house built there, yes, it is totally visible.

Mhm.

So, it was one of the one of the reasons I gave Mr. Reposa this recommendation is because I thought that it would be better off trying to control that privacy by if I came here tonight and said I will condition it upon the perimeter of this property, putting aphrodites, greenery in order to maintain their privacy because I'm not and it wasn't being said as a threat. I apologize if you thought it was because

it wasn't being done that way. If he goes the other route and he has an ADU, he doesn't have to do anything. He doesn't have to put up aphrodite. He doesn't have to put up anything to to to create that buffer zone. I just thought that this was a better overall project for the for the neighborhood as a whole.

And I really believe that. Now, I don't make the decision. You guys do. And I understand that, but I I want to be upfront because I did say that. Not you're you're confusing me with your logic that if you do two lots you can say hey I'll put up I'll put up a buffer I'll put up arborite etc. But if you just did what was there and I realize

you wouldn't even have to be in front of us if he was just going to build a single family home. Yeah I guess that means you know there wouldn't be any you know requirement. That's all I'm trying to say. Okay.

I'm not trying to confuse you. One one last thing and this this comes up with with ADUs.

um the requirement for two off street parking spaces goes away within ADU, right?

Um so there's that. So when we have concerns about parking on the street or not having appropriate parking depending upon your proximity to a bus station or um the rail at the most one space is required, sometimes none under the state law, but that that's a distancing thing.

So the the these are difficult. Um and they are and I don't want to hold up. I know they're difficult decisions, but once it gets in place, I I think homeowners now have to determine whether or not they're going to put a ADU. And I told them if you lose tonight, you're going put your ADU up and do what you need to do. At that point in time, it is what it is. But I

just again I try to sit down and try to do there might be some, you know, and and as as Mr. AIA has has related. There's a hundred different ways you can go at an ADU. You can put a little house in the back or you can, you know, somebody said something about a tent. I don't know what that was.

I do. I do.

Um, you know, it can be over garage. It can be an extension of the house. It can be a hundred different things as long as it doesn't exceed 900 square feet.

I know.

So, you know, I think there's some, but again, they have the right to do it.

All it does, the only thing they need to do unless they're going to infringe upon a setback is just go to the building department and should be should be I mean our past analysis has been um that by going the variance route with very strict restrictions on the size of the structure y no bigger structure than what's shown on this plan.

Right. if if the applicant if if the relief were not granted, they theoretically could build a house that's further back in the lot, creating less of a privacy issue. So, we we have the ability to condition this to protect the neighborhood, but we have to grant relief to do that.

Or we can just wash our hands and just say, "Let the guy go build whatever he wants where we haven't been able to address any of the concerns of neighbors."

Yeah. I mean, I'm looking at the, you know, the parking parking spaces up front just kind of smacks a townhouse, but this is me. I mean, and I don't even know what they're going to look at.

Let's let's go to the the general public. Is there anyone here wishing to speak uh in support of this petition?

Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Sir.

Hi, Thomas Lung 263.

I write this as a request to the board to uphold and enforce the dimensional requirements as written in the table of dimensional requirements for the property listed at ES Rich Street, map P22, lot 98. As noted, this property is located within an S single family zoning district. This designation requires a minimum lot size of 12,000 square ft, 100 square feet of footage, I'm sorry,

100 ft of footage with side and rear requirements. According to the assessor's record, this lot contains one 14,601 ft and has approximately 100 feet of furniture. Any division of this property would result in either or both lots failing to meet the minimum lot size in area in footage for any single family zone. Properties on Mitch Street are zoned in Est with the vast majority of lots exceeding 10,000 square ft.

Splitting this lot into 7,000 square foot lots and building two homes without proper frontage or buffering would considerably and detrimentally alter the character of this neighborhood.

Another concern is the high water table in this area. During the spring of 2020, we replaced the liner in our pool. The pool company worn this of the ground water in the area. When the pool techs were removing the old liner to install the new one did witness the water seep up from and that's what the company will form.

Significant drainage work has been completed in the city in that area around 2018 or 19 to alleviate some flooding problems. As the immediate abhill of the property, I'm concerned that any kind of shifts on the flow of water will impact my property. I oppose granting this variance due to the fact that the variance is being requested strictly for the financial gain of the applicant with no regard to the impact

of the existing community. I would fully support a neighbor building in addition to their own. This is nothing more than a company looking to maximize profit with a disregard of those that are left behind once the transactions are completed. In closing, referring to Mass General Law Chapter 4A section 10 bares.

This law was purchased on November 26, 2025. The zoning requirements were in place before the purchase and a petitioner should have been aware of these requirements. There have been no changes to the soil condition, the topography or the shape of the lot.

Enforcing the dimensional requirements as they are stated provides no hardship to the position of petitioner. This portion deny the request. I am asking this board to enforce posted dimensional zoning requirements as stated and to deny the request of proposal construction and development policy.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you very much.

Yes.

I'm attorney Shawn Bernard. I represent the Lstrom. He wants Mr. lunch wants to speak, but I I would just like to for the record say that with all due respect to attorney brilliant, I don't think that he can represent to the board what neighbors supposedly told him. We don't know what was said to them to or why they responded in the way they did. If they were in favor of it, they

had every right to be here and they could have submitted letters or whatever. I just don't think that that that can be taken into consideration.

somebody saying that somebody said that they were in, you know, I I agree with you that um I also feel like there's no proof of any real hardship. This is a single family law. It's zoned that way. They could build a single family home. Whether or not they're going to want to build an ADU at some point in the future at the same time is obviously fine. But the real issue is whether there's a hardship

and this lot does not meet that standard. Right? It's a 12 It's a 14,000 foot lot in in a 12,000 minimum zoning.

That's what it is. And the builder bought the lot next door with a house on it on November 26th of 25, renovated that. He bought one of the other lot uh houses. He bought this lot at the same time.

He knew what he was buying. He bought it for less than market value. Arguably, it was 150,000. It's a larger lot than most in the city. If you look at lots that have sold in the past year, 5,000 foot lots sell for 150,000. So, if he bought a 14,000t lot for 150,000 in a neighborhood that has many lots that are at least 10,000 or more square feet, he can certainly be profitable and build a

single family home that's in conformance with the current variant, current zoning laws, and would comply with the neighborhood. Um, so I I think that the real issue is that they don't meet the hardship requirement under the statute.

The other thing I'd like to say is like the cleanliness of the lot is not really a hardship, right? If somebody's going to buy a lot and it's got trees or debris on it, they're going to clean it to build the lot. They have to clear it.

I mean, that I think it's irrelevant.

Mr. If I may just say one thing, please.

If if if if the fact that I did and I know I only made a verbal representation of what the neighbor said. If if that is something that the board would want, I I could table and get those for you. I have no issues.

Well, I mean, you know, it's council here is is is correct. And I I kind of feel the same way.

I understand.

Get get some get them just sign this.

Say I agree. Have them sign a a copy of the plan and say I agree. Why don't you send them a letter that said I'd rather this than have an ADU show up if that's all.

No, no. And and I I totally agree and you know if if that the matter has to be if I have to request a table in arm to get that to to be you know better suited for the board, I will do so.

That's your determination.

You think that's going to make a difference? And in in the past when again the way that the board has looked at this in the past when the neighborhood is in favor and the neighborhood as a group does not want to see an ADU we have the ability to be flexible and to provide them levels of protection. Um this is a different circumstance where we do have one a butter who was just

opposed to it. And like I said previously, have at it. Go build what you can. Um and and and that's that's not a improper interpretation of the law. And I either understand, but but again, I would be more than willing to ask for a table in order to at least put my best foot forward on behalf of my client relative to Mr. Dawson and Miss Riley and get those for the next meeting.

And and that's that's your call. Then then based on that because I want to make sure it's done right and in fairness to the board that I request the amount to be tabled to February.

You understand there's a fee applicant understand is that $500 is that you Yeah, that's correct.

Does I'm sorry. Can I Sure.

Sure.

Does that notification from those above change the zoning?

No, but but it it may change their determination. Okay. or it may not.

But so that we have to afford that right hold on to the applicant if that's what they're requesting.

So and again I think we may have other people to speak as well but my name is James Donovan. I lived 68 Guy Street and uh I've lived there since 1991 and Mr.

the gentleman who passed away. I always believed that that lot wasn't buildable at all when somewhere along the line that was always his house and his property and now the house is separate and this lot is separate and that's this is the first I'm hearing of all this.

So, I agree that we should wait because I now that I see what they're trying to do cuz I haven't spoken to anybody. I did speak to I believe the owner of the property once just to get a determination of what he thought my house was worth. But this is all news to me and uh Okay.

I don't have an opinion until I this is the first I've heard. I'm not or he gives the Make sure you get Mr. Brilliance.

Yeah, cuz I have a letter about it being a buildable lot to show the gentleman. I can show them.

All right.

Thank you for that though. Like I said, my first somewhere that property was separated and I wish I had known when that was happening.

What what happens is that there is a lawn. Now you mean the house at 225 on the side of you that was in the common ownership.

That house was that the property behind that was their dog bed out there and they had a little greenhouse out there.

Sure.

And I mean the lot that those people maintained that property all along. and uh levex towing uh the they would come in and the grass is always cut and cleaned up. I mean it's somewhat overgrown, but there's going to be a huge change to that area which is taking those trees out of there.

So what most likely happened is the zoning enforcement officer who's the building inspector because this house fronts on two separate streets. There is a provision in the bylaw that if you have 50 ft of frontage on another street and you are common by your rear yard area and it's a different street that the lots don't merge if you have at least 5,000 square feet. So that may have been what happened here. I

don't know. This doesn't come before our office to determine have these lots merged or not. That would that would that would have been highly educated. This ADU thing is kind of the listen the ADU thing has been detrimental to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and I'm not afraid to say it. It's been thrown as a blanket across every community.

The new owner and he kept mentioning that. Well, I could do this, I could do that.

So can you.

Well, I I'm realizing that.

So, anybody can.

It's a beautiful neighborhood. I I think we should go slower rather than quickly here. I don't know.

All right. Be before we we act on that, is there anybody else that wishes to speak in opposition on this? We've had a request for uh tableabling to next month. Would you begin to make a a motion to come?

Okay.

So, to the board, can we have a motion to uh to extend? And if not, we have to act.

I'll make a motion to table.

Motion to table. Do we have a second?

Second.

On the motion to table, then John. Yes.

Uh Jim, yes.

Dan, yes.

Ricky, yes.

Chairman Furry. Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you all. Thank you for coming.

Will I receive another?

Will it be next month's meeting?

It's got to be It's coming no matter what.

What do you mean?

It's the This will come up in the next meeting.

Yes. At the next meeting, if for some reason he's not, you can ask to table it again. So, they don't have to grant to be table.

When is the next meeting?

Be the third Thursday of February.

February 19th.

February 19th. Same time, 5:30.

Appreciate it.

Thank you. Thank you much for coming out folks.

Thank you.

Number four.

Good.

Item number four, the applicant is Fall River Auto Repair LLC, owner Timothy L.

Here, trustee of the Driftwood Farms Trust. KR Jeffrey Tolman uh 30 Bod Street Map L09 lot 70 applicants requiring uh requesting a variance to allow the following one to allow the uh storing of towed vehicles first to section 86 uh attachment 2.1 before we start. Yeah. What's parking like on Kofax Street?

Um, it wasn't bad 20 years ago. Um, I'm sure it's got a much worse. Yeah.

No, I grew up in that house.

In that house? I thought I thought you were in Le.

No, Le pages. That's actually my wife's cousin, right? Well, I remember that's a two family deal and six degrees. No, it's okay. Property is located in an S single family zoning district and a General Residence Zoning District.

Okay. Good evening. For the record, Jeff Tolman from Northeast Engineers and Consultants here tonight on behalf of Florida Auto Repair LLC. Uh the petitioner for this variance application. Um property is 30 BA Street as you had mentioned. Uh Bot Street is a small dead end street on north side of Bedford in between Eastern Avenue and uh Seavoy Street. Uh this property is probably familiar to the board as we

were here back in November um to reestablish the automotive repair use of the property. um it had operated in that fashion for 45 to 50 years um until the um the previous owner's death um and so it hadn't been operated in that manner for period over two. So we came in uh by special permit and got that use reestablished. Um that use of the property as you can see from the plan

that we have before you um only requires the use of roughly half of the site. The site itself is just under an acre. It's 41,300 square feet. uh we're only with the auto repair facility uh they'd only be using the southern portion of that site. So they have this large vast area uh on the northern portion of the site that they would allow or or they would like to use uh to stow towed vehicles.

Um there is as you may be aware um I know this has come up on other petitions I've worked on in the past. There's no zone in the city that allows for the stowing of towed vehicles. So any um any area where you'd like to permit that would have to be done uh by variance. So that's why we're here tonight. Um I would also say that we had I had worked

on one around the corner from here on Oakrove Avenue at the um the gas station that's over there. I I don't believe that one's moving forward. Um not that as far as I know. I haven't received any calls. I've been told that that deal that the that petition I had with the owner of the property fell through. So that wouldn't be happening. So uh just the kind of not that it impacts this

what we're looking to do here but uh doesn't look like that one's moving forward in my opinion we gave the setback of parking spaces we gave a variance on setback of parking spaces.

Yeah, the gas station, the old gas station.

Yes, do I think it is? Um service station on on Avenue. Correct. Um to me personally, this site is much more suited for it's ready made.

Um there's a large uh you know pavement uh area pavement and gravel on the northern portion of the site. The petitioners um I explained to them that the concerns of the butters would be privacy and stuff like that. There is an existing wooden stockade fence which I believe is on the abuing property for the people on Seavoy Street. I'm not sure. Um but we they'd be willing to put

up a new fence whether it be in some type of private uh privacy fence. It could be vinyl or a wooden stockade fence, but it would be a solid 6ft fence going along along the western portion and northern portion of the site to block um this area uh from view of the abuing residential uses. So, with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that the board might have.

Have you been out there recently?

Yes.

Lot is full and and there was a ramp truck in there today dropping something off. So, I mean, just saying.

Yes.

Which listen that that use that activity is consistent with the use of the the property, right? which which we've allowed. Some of this parking there, this this land, it's not let's not call it a parking lot, but the the more northerly portions of this, from what I can see, are not even paved.

It's gravel.

It's just gravel.

So, we're we're delineating spaces on here. We're not really going to delineate those spaces.

No, they're just identifying areas where cars would be.

Just areas. Okay. Okay. Yeah, you're looking at just inside that gate, you're looking at some kind of organized parking spaces labeled as proposed customer parking and loading spaces, which right now that's just a that's where the ramp truck was when I when I came in today. on the southern portion of the site. Yeah.

They'd be putting up a fence to to close in the area where they're going to store the vehicles and separate it from the auto auto here.

So, it will either be a wire fence with slat privacy slats or a solid fence of some sort.

Well, that that one could be chain link because it's only they'd only their property. I'm talking about the the the fence along the abuing properties would be a solid whether it be stockade wooden stockade fence or vinyl.

Um and I'm amazed that the abiding property owners up above this didn't show up when we made this a garage again. So yeah, again I mean probably because this has been used in this manner for 45 50 years. Um I think one important thing is what hours of operation are you considering?

Um because if you're dropping cars off at 2 o'clock in the morning at some very good point, J. Because yes, the um are they picking up a towing contract?

8 a.m. 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. when we drop off.

Okay.

All right. So, are you picking up a contract to tow for the city or tow for the state or anything like that? Because they'll call you at 2 o'clock in the morning. Realize that.

I have a lot in Freetown as well and a lot in Westport as well.

All right. So you have another place so if you got if you got a wreck on 24 and you got to go pick up you can take it to an alternative lot if it's due 2 o'clock in the morning.

Correct. That has no neighbors hours of operation. So stated that yeah I think that was good catch.

Okay. Any uh questions from the board at this point?

Just one Mr. Chairman. Um if if in fact um the motion was made to approve the variance, could that be part of the variance hours of operation?

Absolutely.

Yes, absolutely.

Y and maybe a little bit more Yeah.

vegetated border or something to that extent.

Let's get any Okay. Anyone else from the board right now?

Going to the general public. Is there anyone here wishing to speak in favor of the petition?

Anyone uh wishing to speak in opposition?

See, that's a good thing.

Um all right, then back to the board.

Mr. Chairman, I would then make the motion that we approve the varian I have a couple of questions.

Oh, sorry. Sorry. Um you haven't requested any relief for for parking from the parking ordinance. What what is the setback from these parking spaces to the abuing property line?

10 ft minimum.

All right. That doesn't show that. Um I have a problem with parking towed and stowed vehicles on gravel surfaces that are leaking oil, gasoline, and the like. Um with no containment uh for spills. Um, I mean it's the the ordinance calls for specific types of screening percentages of landscaping for spaces for more than 25 parking spaces and no relief has been requested. So, well, would parking spaces be the same as

space? Of course. Yeah.

Well, parking a car there would be somebody coming and going. These cars aren't coming and going.

This is just stoning vehicles coming.

Not not on their own accord.

Um yeah.

I mean this is behind a row of single family homes.

Um I thought the board board was extremely lenient with the last relief that they granted. I think something can be done to enhance the screening for this site, not only for the stored vehicles, but also the regular parking lot as well. Um, but just ju just my opinion, but I would be I would be hesitant to to do anything without showing on a plan some substantial screening and understand that I mean I don't

understand what the hardship would be on this lot even. I mean you could build a single family home if you chose to on the remaining land that's not being utilized. Yeah, that's all I have.

Yeah, that's why I mentioned some type of screening uh requirement that are more than a stockade fence.

Yeah, I I think it's imperative does back up to the houses if it is granted.

Yeah. And and sorry Dan, the point Dan made about stowing vehicles on gravel, open dirt lock is a bit of an issue too, especially in this type.

Yeah, the stored area could be paved. I would imagine this would have to go through site plan review.

Would that trigger a relief?

Yeah. Then you get your lock is going to get creamed.

You know what the turnaround is on the vehicles?

Like they told anything to stay there or is it are they wrapped?

How long are the cards?

Somebody will pay and keep it there and for the most part shortterm.

Shortterm yes. Nothing's longterm that stays there.

Yeah. But this but the relief can't condition that.

Yeah.

Because this relief will transfer with this land if somebody else.

I was just curious if they were wrecked coming in like you said leaking.

That's why I asked about the towing contract etc. So yes, it can be wrecks coming in.

Correct.

Correct. Yes. But there is and it could be short term because it could end up just getting hauled out after the insurance companies come over the adjusters have come down and look at them etc.

Correct.

Or they can end up staying there forever because it's been some, you know, well after 7 days we normally send out the letter and after two letters we take ownership and if it's total we send it right off the scrap. So nothing really stays longterm.

Thank you.

I think, you know, in part of part of what uh member John Frank is talking about with screening, I I am I'm amazed we didn't have we didn't have anybody show up.

Maybe it's because it it was it was a Tony or auto repair facility for, you know, 45 years.

I'm just waiting for I'm just waiting to the point where the neighbors cry uncle.

So, I'm just trying to avoid it for you guys if we if we do some type of screening out there because then we're just going to have ticked off neighbors and and they won't have much to do except go to the building inspector.

Yeah, this is the whole issue with lighting. If you're gonna light a portion of this lot for security purposes and site plan's gonna have to deal with Well, no, that's really not. You're not proposing any lighting.

There's only one light on the building that's been there since Yeah, it's just the light on the building.

This this area is all going to be, you know, contained, all going to be fenced off.

I don't You're not saying that. I'm just saying I don't know that part of the plan. It's not on the Again, good question.

Do you want to come back and maybe propose what the screening would be? I mean, can there be a row of Cuz again, we I see where the fence is going.

Mhm.

You can't tell me they're not going to park a vehicle up to the fence. You just can't tell me that. There's no way. Um so maybe if the fences are brought in to the edge of the parking spaces and then maybe some greenery outside of the fence. Um I I know exactly what's going to happen here is that they're going to occupy every square foot of this stored vehicles. It's just going to happen.

It's the nature of the business and and without it being shown and on a plan, I think it's a little bit loose to there should be some limits of the storage. They don't have to be marked off as separate parking spaces, but there should be noted limits of the storage indicating the the setback and and how you're going to hold to that setback and however many cars they can get in

there. That's up to them. But it should be we can certainly move the fence in 10 ft to to ensure so that but it's not a negotiation. If you want to come up with something that you think's going to address the concerns then you can request a table and we can look at at another proposal.

Um but again that doesn't the board can the board can grant it and if for some reason the payment is parking on gravel services.

Okay. We'll um and to be aware if it's going on right now should be.

No it's not going as far as I know it's not going on right now.

No we've been doing we've been doing paint and cleaning up inside the building. There's a lot of old things that was left there. I did move everything out of my lot in Sanford because we're putting up new fencing around the entire property.

So the the all the vehicles that are in there right now, the two UV all trucks and etc, etc.

Well, most of the vehicles I own.

Those are yours, correct?

Okay. So those aren't towins. Those are Okay.

Because there was I was when I shot by today, there was a big yellow ramp truck.

I own that. Yes. with I think a black Chevy pickup truck on the back of it.

Yes.

Okay.

That's actually the owner of the property, Timothy River.

Oh, okay.

So, yes, that's going up to his body shop in Westport.

I'd like to see I I I I think the the feeling you should be getting from the board right now is that we'd like to see that delineation and really what the proposal is to to screen that and that's that's only going to benefit you down the road because somebody can't come in and say you got cars backed up against my property leaking stuff onto my property.

Yeah.

Yeah. We'll um additionally request that we table this until next month in order to address the concerns.

And and Jeff, just make sure that So right now you've got a fenced off area in B Street. Make sure that we're meeting the setback requirements to to the right of way for Yeah. That for storage, not access, but for storage.

Okay.

Which I think you generally have like you don't have space to show them. But if we want to fence where the storage limit is, make sure it's consistent all the way through. If you want to add an additional gate to allow it to get in or whatever but um yeah, there's a fence. There's an existing fence that goes through there.

Yeah.

You've also gate dead ahead as you drive down to the end of the street.

Mhm.

But is that their property? That's not part of it's not.

So where that gate is is is not Barrera's property.

Well, the Bold Street was considered private and unaccepted at one point.

Yeah.

Then both land owners opposite sides would have owned to the center line.

We're the same. They don't across the street anymore.

Yeah.

So each property owner has rights to the center line of the street. You shouldn't you can't impede the street or impede others rights to that particular.

So if you if you look at the lot layouts to the east and west of of the street, you drive straight down the street. Yep.

And there's a gate area there. that's right in the middle of the street blocking the street.

It's nei It's neither lot. It's neither property owner.

That means it's both property owners because it's blocking the street. So half of that belongs to this property and but that's it's still an unaccepted street. So that's the idea. Okay. Uh we have a request to the table.

Mr. Chairman, I move that we permit the petitioner to table the petition until our February meeting.

Do we have a second?

Second.

So you Dan?

Yes.

Thank you. Okay. On the motion then?

Ricky?

Yes.

Dan?

Yes.

Jim?

Yes.

John?

Yes.

Jim Furry? Yes. Thank you. Thank you.

Item number five.

Thank you guys.

Item number five, applicant owner take realy LLC or estate I'm sorry LLC care of attorney Peter Eelino 9294 Davis Street map M13 lot 07 applicant is re uh requesting a special permit to allow the following one to construct a second a second accessory dwelling unit ADU to relief from lot coverage requirements ments three to modify parking requirements person to section 86-445 properties located within an M

multifamily residential zone.

Good evening. For the record, my name is Peter Solino. I'm a lawyer. My address is 550 Locust Street here in Fall River.

I represent the applicant owner Tetral Real Estate LLC. The proposal before you this evening is to construct an additional ADU. So one being allowed by right an additional ADU uh by special permit. Additionally, we are seeking special permits because the proposed parking area is less than 10 ft from the sideline of the property and the travel aisles in the parking area are not 22 feet but rather 20 ft. So the entire

petition is being proposed by special permit. Um so again the additional so the building commissioner or building inspector has determined that one ADU is allowed by right and a second can be petitioned by special permit. In terms of arguments advanced in favor of why this would not be more detrimental than what is already there. I'd submit the following. Uh you notice that no parking relief is being sought with this

proposal. The applicant proposes to construct 12 total parking spaces on this site. So you have the existing five family, so two spaces per and then one space per ADU for a total of uh 12 spaces. And I obviously sit in this chair often and we often hear about parking and issues with parking in the city and lack of on street parking. And I'd submit to you that a proposal that brings all the parking necessary is

unique uh and advantageous to the neighborhood and the city and therefore I don't think this proposal would be more detrimental than what is already there. happy to answer any questions. Um Jeff's the engineer on this, but if there are any questions, he'll he's going he's going to check out Kfax Street to see how the traffic is over there. But here we have all the parking.

We don't have any traffic concerns.

So the the first ADU by the right, yes, is in this attachment. Is is that the It's effectively a duplex. Yeah, it's separate building. It looks like a duplex. One separate building, 1,800 square ft², two stories.

Yes.

900 per story. However, they cut it up for the for the 280 years.

The first one of these. I like it.

So, we end up with seven dwelling units on No. Yeah, it's a five there. So, seven dwelling units on this.

Kudos on the parking. What does this do to lock coverage on this?

It's requested relief as well pursuant to a special permit.

The uh calculation, if that's the question, is it's existing at 48%.

And it's going to 78%.

There is a um I drove by today. There is a parking area there. Uh would be to the north of the building, but it's not as deep as what's proposed, meaning as westerly.

It's well thought out.

It's well proposed.

But then again, we know the applicant there work.

Before the board acts, I just want to ask this question.

with this with with the sizing of the ADU, did you confirm with the building department how many square feet you can have for an ADU? Because I I know you're saying 4,300 square ft gross floor area for the five family.

Yeah, it doesn't look I don't think you take into account all five units and then take 50% of that or 900 square ft.

I think it's one unit, I think. So, I I just I don't want you to end up in a hole, but just understand that that may happen.

Okay.

I didn't confirm it. So, yeah. So, it's it's it's easy to say that, okay, I'm I'm 50% or 900 square ft of the primary dwelling unit, right?

Is it all five dwelling units or is only one of those considered a primary dwelling unit? I don't know the answer to that. So, I don't know the answer. So just we can roll the dice and see.

Is it worded within unit?

Well, that's I don't I I don't have it in front of me. So that that would be the only concern. Look at John shaking his head because John deals with it every day.

John John's been dealing with he's he's working in another planet.

Again, you're you're not you're not granting relief for the size of the ADUs. It's just that they're asking for an addition.

No, and I'm only asking just to make sure that we're not going beyond 900. If you bring up something, well, it can't go above 900 per unit.

That's a cap, but it's it's the smaller of the two.

Yeah, that's going to take a reading of the law then. So, we're not the zoning enforcement official.

I'm not, but when it comes to site plan review, that's going to be a question that we'll ask. So, we may not know for two months, but we'll see.

John, do you have any questions? You're fresh off of ADU world here. So I I I think they can have one by right.

They can and by special permit they can ask for an additional and here we are.

If you determine that it's not substantially more detrimental, right?

So it is not a variance. Just understand that.

Okay.

The only variances for the actually you have you have no variances.

No variances. All special permit. That's right.

Parking is special permit. Lock coverage because they're already exceeding lock coverage is just a special permit.

Good move, council. Anybody any questions? Come on. This is a fun one.

We're going to roll the dice on this one. I'll ask the question. Anybody here wishing to speak in favor of this petition? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition?

Mr. Chairman, I find that this is not uh substantially more or detrimental to the area and that uh that we grant the special permit.

Second subject to planning or that's automatic anyway.

Read a motion and second. Any discussion on the motion there? Hearing none, Ricky? Yes, Dan.

Yes, slow. Yes, Jim.

Yes, John.

No, I hate when I have to think about Chairman Fer is going to say no as well.

So, we have 32.

32.

Okay.

No. Yeah, it's going to be all right. Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number six, applicant is a construction and landscaping owner is the Carrerero irrevocable trust 2023 care of uh Joe Martins or Martins depending on which way we want to go.

272 Whipple Street is the subject property map G07 lot 17. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. To allow two off- streetet parking spaces in the front portion of the property properties within an A2 apartment zoning district. Good evening.

Uh Stee the board. Good evening. I'm here um on behalf of Jean Cerrero to request twocar parking garage on uh parking spots on the property.

Um the typical setup on that street is there are three or four uh dwellings that have the same setup. Um by doing the setup um the Carreros give the um the city an extra parking spot.

Do they? Because I mean taking a look at this there's there's how wide is this driveway going to be? 16 ft wide.

16 the driveway opening is only 16 ft.

Yeah.

And required parking space would be on the street would be 18 to 20. So this is literally a lot coverage relief. That's it.

Okay.

Um no it just you know thinking of the there's a parking space there now it goes away.

Correct.

And you create two plus one. Create two.

Not a plus two. It's a plus one.

Plus one. Correct.

Plus one at at incredible expense because this is all surrounded by retaining plus.

No, it is. But that's what the homeowner wants to do. We had this discussion.

Yeah.

And they wanted to do it so much that they that they followed through with with seeking relief.

Yeah. That's that that is not going to be cheap.

But again, it's it's two spaces now that they don't have to fight over that are available. So I I mean for the community yes it's a net one but for the property itself but it's a net one and it gives yeah two people live in a property I have is 600 ft away is it to relief from distance too from no for for only two spaces it's the only relief needed is for and they've asked

just for a blanket to allow what you see okay um which from what I can find is just lot coverage so what you would be granting is to allow two parking spaces in accordance with the plan submitted and then they become too many tires are only 16 ft wide there but that's that's their problem two small cars that setup is if you drive down that street it's it's typical of that street

but this one just has the the extra added feature of the retaining wall changing grade etc that's that's why I looked at on Google Maps and I want I got to go drive by this one.

Yeah.

And what?

Look, you can build anything.

Throw enough money at it. Yeah.

Any questions from the board? It's pretty straightforward.

No questions. Anybody here to speak in opposition? In favor?

Nobody left.

Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the petition as or the variance as requested.

A second motion and second. Any discussion on the variance? I think not. Ricky, yes.

Dan, yes.

Jim, yes.

John, yes.

Chairman Prairie, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

Item number seven, the election of office. Thank you.

Is it within um is it within um acceptable um protocol to do it all at once? Leave it as it is.

That's a motion.

Senator I would make that motion to leave it exactly as it is.

I'll second that.

You two raises.

Was that was that a motion?

Same slate. Is that what they say?

Yes.

Yes.

John's got that no look on his face.

We added we had a motion and a second.

There's a motion and a second.

Motion and a second on the motion then.

Ricky, yes.

Dan, yes.

Jim, yes.

John, yes.

Perr. Yes.

Excellent.

Citizen input. No. Approval of minutes from December 18th, 2025.

Mr. Chairman, I have no moveing of the reading of the minutes and approval as submitted. Motion second and second on the motion. All in favor?

I I Motion to adjurnn.

Motion to adjurnn has been made. Second.

I.

All in favor?

I.

70:05.

Huh?