Good evening. I'm Joseph Pereira, chairman of the zoning board of appeals for the city of Fall River. It is 5:30 on Thursday 16th Thursday, July 16th, 2026. We are meeting at One Government
Center in the first floor hearing room. Pursuant to Mass General Law, chapter 30A, section 20 subsection F. I hereby notify all persons in attendance that a video and audio recording of this meeting is being made by Fall River
Government TV, Mr. Craig Salvador. If anyone wishes 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. Our recording secretary this evening is
Courtney Pereira, sitting to my immediate right. Present this evening are uh regular members James Caulkins, our clerk, Dan Dupier, and Ricky Sahadi, as well as alternate member Eric Kelly.
Also present this evening is Mr. Daniel Agi, our director for of engineering and planning, who is seated to my far left. Have all um 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 4A as amended? >> Yes. >> I thereby declare the July 16th, 2026 regularly scheduled meeting of the zoning board of appeals of the city of
Fall River open for such business as shall regularly be coming for it. I remind all persons presenting before the board, including petitioners, abutters, anyone in favor or opposed to a petition, that your presentation be limited to three minutes.
The board's rules and regulations direct the board to specifically look for information that supports a petitioner's claim. As such, the petitioner should clearly identify and factually support the basis for their claim. In each uh in the case of a variance, a
credible hardship as defined by Mass General law chapter 4A must be presented. I remind all present that the authority of the ZBA exists pursuant to Mass General Law chapter 4A and is limited in scope with the use of land as
regulated in chapter 86 of the ordinances of the city of Fall River. We require that all comments made in the hearing be limited in scope of authority to to the scope of our authority. Additional permits, licenses, reviews,
and/or approvals may be required for any of these petitions. The action taken by the board has a real and lasting effect on the title to your real estate. As such, I urge all petitioners to seek competent legal counsel before filing
your petition and after the decision of the board has been made. A copy of the ordinance is available at the city clerk's office or from the planning department. I remind everyone that the building inspector is the zoning enforcement authority and you are here 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. Uh
we have adopted such a policy that provides for citizens input on zoning board specific matters uh on the agenda near the end of the meeting. A signup sheet for public comment is on the table outside the doors of the room. I thereby
declare the meeting open. Um, can I have a motion that we um that we delay the two items of old business and a motion, two separate motions, please, and a motion to uh move to
executive session. >> Mr. Chairman, I move that we uh delay or you know postpone the items 0102
and that we convene an executive uh session >> to the executive session. Roll call vote, please. Uh James Caulkins, >> yes. >> Dan Dupier, >> yes. >> Ricky Sahadi, >> yes. >> Eric Kelly, >> yes. >> And Chairman Pereira, yes.
All right. Uh, for those of you who are here, just be patient. We're going to leave the room uh, for a short period of time and go into executive session >> and return back to open session. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I move that we uh, return to regular session.
>> Open session. >> Open session. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> On the motion by roll call, Eric Kelly? >> Yes. >> Ricky Sahad? Yes. >> Dan Dupier? >> Yes. >> James Caulkins? Yes. And Jose Prairie? Yes.
Okay, back to old business. [clears throat] Item number 01. The applicant owner is >> Excuse me. Before you move on to old business, can I just ask one question on your previous business? >> On which previous business? >> Uh the the session that you just went in?
>> No, >> we can we cannot discuss >> at the end of the meeting. If you want to speak during public input, you can. >> You can give input, but it's not going to be a discussion. We cannot get into a discussion about it. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All righty. Thank you.
Item number 01, applicant owner is Lewis Gonzalez. This is uh care of Jeffrey Tolman, Northeast Engineers and Consultants, Inc. Subject property 333 Derpy Street, map 08, uh
I'm sorry, 01, lot 0013. The original uh the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. one to convert an existing automotive repair shop into three uh family dwelling um thereby expanding the existing
non-conforming five family dwelling to a total of eight dwelling units. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following one u relief to reduce the number of required parking spaces personal to section 86444 of the zoning ordinances. The property is
located in a BN neighborhood shopping zoning district. This was tabled from our June 16th or June 18th. Um >> June 18th >> meeting uh Mr. Tolman. >> Uh good evening. For the record, Jeff Tolman, Northeast Engineers and Consultants. Um I did submit a request
today y >> uh to have that tabled um until the August meeting uh because when we started looking at um making revisions to the plan to address the board's concerns um one of the one of the issues and items we looked at is is possibly
using the lower level of that building for parking which makes a ton of sense considering is it's an existing garage now which would in turn mean that we would have to go higher with the structure um which means we would have to ask for an expansion of a pre-existing non-comployment structure
which would uh require um additional uh well would require that the petition be read. So uh that's why I submitted the request today. Um so with that I you know hope the board see fit to uh grant continuation on that.
>> Okay. Before we act on that one question to the planning director. >> Would this require it will have to be readvertised? Yes. >> It does not have to be a new application. They don't have to withdraw and resubmit. >> No, it'll be we we will renotify. [clears throat]
>> Okay. >> And we will reverize. >> Okay. >> All right. That being the case, I'll accept a uh a motion on the um on the request. >> Mr. Chairman, I move that we grant the request to continue or to table the
hearing until our August meeting. Yes. Second. >> Okay. >> All right. Motion and second. On the motion, Eric? >> Yes. >> Ricky, >> yes. >> Dan, >> yes. >> Jim, >> yes. >> Jim Prairie, yes.
>> On to item number. >> What? I'm sorry. What is the date of that August meeting? >> 20th. >> 20th. August 20th. >> Okay. Item number 02, old business. Applicant uh owner is June Perry, care of Jeffrey
Tolman, Northeast Engineers and Consultants, Inc. Uh subject property is 311 Crescent Street, map uh T07, lot 0001. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. one to divide the property into two lots,
leaving the existing three family dwelling on lot one of conforming 11,700 ft lot with 116.45 45 ft of frontage on Crescent Street and creating a new 5,480
square ft non-conforming lot for a single family house with 50 ft of frontage on Valentine Street with relief from frontage use and area requirements. Prop is located in the BN neighborhood shopping zoning district. This was
tabled at our June meeting. Mr. Tolman, >> uh, good evening. for the record, Jeff Tolman, Northeast Engineers and Consultants. Uh so in this particular application, we were kind of asked to go back and take a look to see if we could uh because we were making the case that the uh the lot itself um being adjacent
to the G district and with a small portion at the rear being in the G district uh we were hoping to use these sight setbacks for G. Um during the cons uh the conversation it was brought up well to see if we could comply with all the requirements which included lot coverage within the G district because
uh there is no lot coverage requirement in the neighborhood shopping district. So uh we did take a look at that. We did change the configuration of the house. Um this configuration actually is probably uh very close to if this ultimately gets approved what will be built there if not exactly what will be
built. Um it would be a uh a onetoall garage. um same general footprint um only with the addition of the garage. The only issue a couple couple issues that we ran into when we looked at this the uh in terms of the lot coverage
required of meeting the 25% just because of the nature of the existing structures and the retaining wall on lot one there is kind of that pinch point um between like Valentine Street and where the house would be located um which causes this house to be
pushed back a little bit further. So therefore, the driveway is probably a little bit longer than what we would like. Um, so if we were to have to comply to the 25%, we certainly could. We could put a an asphalt driveway so for a certain portion until you get back close to the garage. And then what I'm
showing on this particular plan is a paver walkway that transitions into the remainder of the driveway that enters the the garage. Uh so with that type of configuration, we would be able to keep the lot coverage to where it needs to be um at the 25%.
Um so if need be, uh this is something that we could do. Um if the board sees fit and is willing to give us um I mean we didn't ask for only because it's not required in this particular zone. If we could bump that lock coverage up a little bit, we could continue the
asphalt all the way to the garage um and eliminate the need for having that PA uh driveway uh that small portion. Um I'm thinking if we're allowed to go up to somewhere around 28% in that range, that would cover that additional um area, but
if need be, if we have to meet the 25%, this plan does uh accomplish that. Uh the the other issue that was discussed at the previous meeting was the existing retaining wall, the stone retaining wall uh which were kind of holding uh the lot line adjacent to that. Uh we were asked
to take a look to see if we could move that line to the um to the bottom of the wall. Uh but as I started getting into that, what became apparent is the the retaining wall was constructed originally to level off the parking area
for 311 uh Crescent Street. Uh, so it's it's basically it cuts into the slope that comes down on Valentine Street and it and we do have these two wing walls um that do project down onto lot one. So if we were to actually move that lot
line to the bottom of that wall, that wall would then be in, you know, two different ownerships. >> Two different ownerships. >> Yeah. We would have the the owner on lot one would own the wing walls and then the owner [snorts] lot two would own the you know the primary section which to me
would just make issues a little complicated. Uh the walls there to service lot one. Um it's basically for the purpose of lot one. So the more I looked at it more it made sense to me to keep it on lot one and have it be their responsibility to maintain it. It is in
good shape. >> It's in very good shape. Um it was well constructed when it was built. I don't anticipate there being with the construction on lot two any any particular issues. I mean, we are proposing to eliminate the stairs uh
that do go up onto lot two and to close off that wall, that little opening that that's there to to go up those stairs, repurpose some of that stone for the wing walls on the stairs to to close that off and just call it a day and leave that wall on lot one. Um, again,
it made a ton of sense to me, but um, you know, that's your call. So, with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> I think that's sound reasoning. I appreciate the change, >> Mr. Chairman. >> Design. Yes, >> a question uh on the
suggestion of potentially changing the uh lot coverage and adding that it's not a listed variance. So, I can't >> Does it need to be? >> It doesn't have to be listed. No, what happened what Jeff was explaining is the underlying zoning district has no lot coverage issue. At the last meeting, we
asked him to try to conform to the adjacent G district, which would have a lot of coverage. So, relief is not required for law coverage. Either way, >> it's just whether or not you want to approve >> the relief to be a G and not be all of a
G, which I have no opposition to. questions from any other questions from the board. I think this was very sound. If there's no questions from the board, let me uh it's still wild that this is a BN district. I mean, it just cracks me up.
It's virtually entirely residential. >> That's all right. Um going to uh those in attendance tonight, is there anyone wishing to speak uh in support of this petition? Anyone
wishing to speak in opposition there hearing? None comes back to the board. >> Mr. Chairman, I would move that the variance be um granted as proposed. >> Second motion and second. I'm just trying to remember.
>> The only thing I would ask a little bit of clarification would be on the whole lot coverage issue if you don't mind a slight increase. So >> whatever you have shown on the plan is what what they'll approve. I don't have the plan in front of me. >> Okay. >> You show the increase? >> No. >> No. No. I was showing it complying. All
>> I'm Well, you don't have to comply, right? So, >> no, but I was asked if we could fully comply in to the G district including the lot coverage. >> So, it was a request. It wasn't a mandate. No. >> No. It was just to see if we could comply with everything. >> Could you do it? >> We and we can. And that's what I'm showing. And
>> but there's like a 10x10 section of that driveway. >> It's kind of crazy to to change materials at the last of it, >> right? Yeah. >> Uh you gave it your best shot. It's not practical. It could be done. >> Yeah. If we could slide the house forward and make it work, we would. Um but there are like, you know, setback
issues to >> sh you definitely you do have the pinch point because of the angle of the wall coming across that property and changing. >> So we can get it to say 28% as opposed to 25. Yeah. Um, >> but since the variance isn't required, I don't think that's going to is [laughter] that going to be an issue
when the when the plan hits um >> no >> Hway. >> No, he won't he won't even see it. >> All right. So, we do have a motion and a second. So, this would not be as drawn. So, the point is they gave it a shot.
What they could do to to comply to the uh lot coverage of the adjacent Gzone they could achieve. >> That's probably >> I would just include in your motion that the driveway shown can be entirely impervious. >> There you go.
>> As stated. Okay. >> Okay. You agree with that on the second, Eric? >> Yes. >> All right. Then on the motion, Eric? >> Yes. >> Ricky? >> Yes. Dan, >> yes. >> Jim, >> yes. >> Jim Fra, yes. >> Great one. Thank you.
>> To new business. >> Item number two of new business is uh applicant owner is Steven T. Gomes living trust, care of attorney Mark L1, subject property 7080 War Warbertton
Street. Um, map P 021, lot 0028. The applicant is seeking a special permit to allow the following. One, personal to 86-423B of the Fall River zoning ordinance to subdivide the property into two separate
lots, each containing one existing three uh three family dwelling. The property is located within an S single family zoning district. Council, >> Mr. Chairman, member of the board, you pronounce it the way I did the first time I heard it.
Attorney Mark L1, 138 Rock Street for Massachusetts. I'm here representing the petitioner of the Steven T. Gomes living trust. Um, I will be asking you tonight to do a two vote byation with a special
permit. One being the fact that uh I will pres profess that this is not more substantially detrimental to the neighborhood as it would be had it stayed on two buildings on one lot. The second to allow lease separation based
on the uh section 86-423b. The property itself contains two three family dwellings on the property. Uh there's good size lot for each size of the of the buildings. They both have frontage. The advantage to this is
bringing more affordability to a possible owners that you could have a residential owner own the three family be able to finance it than other people that be able do not afford to have two buildings and financing six families. Uh
the other advantage by subdividing it gives the city [clears throat] the tax basis that will be increased by separating them. So it's not just on one lot. It's more in conformity to the neighborhood that they that most of the lots have separate houses on them
itself. That's about it. Thank you. >> What what is the current parking situation and what's the parking situation going to end up on? I am told there's only parking on parcel 2 now and there hasn't been anything in the back >> cuz it's been one owner.
>> Mhm. >> They just share the front parking area. They haven't told me how they want to describe it. They they told me they were only going to do an easement for the uh utilities because they run through the lots even though they they're separate.
They run through the lots. But they haven't told me if they're going to accommodate any other parking for parcel one. Parcel two will have is existing parking >> and the only easement that there'll be the utility easement and then an access eccentric
only. >> Yeah, there's there's a uh a walkway right now and they want to allow the back house to still continue to use the same location. So, where is this parking currently? >> On possible, too, I'm told. >> It's just in the frontage.
>> Yeah. Okay. They draw it in unfortunately, but I was told that they just park. >> All right. Um, comment from uh planning. >> Um, I would recommend no additional ADUs. >> Absolutely. as we normally do,
separation of utilities affidavit filed and recorded. [snorts] And if you remember, as Paul Ferlin has requested, that that separation in the affidavit get recorded before the submission of an ANR so that it can be referenced as being complete on the ANR
plan. Um, site plan review for the separation of utilities itself. Uh, staking of lot corners for the new interior line. I don't think there's an issue with with fencing. They're far enough off of the buildings. Um, that
would be all that I would have questions from the board. Thank you, Dan. No questions to the general public. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this petition? Anyone wishing to oppose this petition?
You're hearing none, it comes to the board. And this would be a bifocated vote. >> We can take them both at once though. >> We can. Yes, absolutely. >> Uh so, Mr. Chairman, I would make a motion that uh number one, this proposal
is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. And number two, the special permit be granted with the provisions um uh no AD use. And um go ahead, Dan. What else? >> No. ADU separation of utilities
affidavit filed at the registry of deeds stating such to be recorded and referenced on the ANR plan. So, so the ANR plan cannot be submitted until the separation is done in the affidavit filed. Staking of lock corners with permanent monuments for the new line and
site plan review um to deal with the separation of utilities. >> And that's acceptable fencing. Yes, that is >> um the fencing is >> shouldn't be a problem with fencing if they wanted to do it. >> All right. So, that would be my motion then.
>> Okay, very good. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Motion and second discussion on the motion. >> They're hearing none on the motion. Jim, >> yes. >> Dan, >> yes. >> Ricky, >> yes. >> Eric, >> yes. >> Chairman Pere, yes. >> Thank you very much. >> Have a great dinner. >> Yes. Thank you. And have a great rest of
the summer. I won't be back in August. Don't threaten me. >> September. [laughter] >> See you. See you in September. >> Uh, let's see. Where are we? Item number three. Um, owner applicant is 422 Street
LLC. This is K of Jeffrey Tolman, Northeast Engineers and Consultants, Inc. Subject property 422 County Street, lot L6, I'm sorry, map LO6, lot 098. The applicant is seeking a special
permit to allow the following. Person went to section 86-445 of the of Fall River zoning ordinance to wave the uh requirement for one off- streetet parking space in connection with the proposed accessory dwelling
unit ADU. The petitioner proposes to convert a former storefront located at grade level on the subject property into an ADU. The subject property is located within a G general residence zoning district. Jeff.
>> Uh good evening. For the record, Jeff Bman from Northeast Engineers and Consultants here tonight on behalf of 422 county street LLC. Uh the petitioner uh this application. Uh so quite simply what we're looking to do is um and I do
have uh not sure if they included this package, but just so you can see um what's going on here. There is an existing an old storefront >> that does not look like it has been used to store it quite some times. Um but I
do um seem to remember there being something there. Do you want one >> uh when I was a kid? I don't know if it was a convenience store. >> Buzzy's barber shop. >> Yeah. >> Is that what Oh, it was Buzzy's. That's okay. I knew there was something there.
All right. So, um you have this old uh storefront associated with this building. Um, now this building um was part of a a subdivision um that was done in 2024. Um it was all I mean you look at the
shape of the lot. You had this particular dwelling you had 430 county street 438 and then 436. Um and they were all part of one big lot and they were all separated out at that time. uh when they did that p uh particular division of land um you can
see where the existing staircase is coming up to the concrete walkway on this property. Uh there's no vehicular access whatsoever to this property. Um, I mean, there would technically be room if you know on this property to get a a
parking spot in if need be, but uh just with the grades in the walkway and the stairs and everything, uh, we just don't have that ability with the way things are constructed now. Um, so the petitioners been, you know, since buying the property, they've been trying to figure out what what to do with this
area um, in the the lower left. Um, so then when the ADU regulations came into effect, um, they thought it might be a good use of it. Um, so what we're here tonight is is basically to, um, to ask
that the requirement that, um, you know, one clocking spot be required um, be waved in order to convert that the old barber shop into a uh, accessory dwelling unit. and and that would be a first because
every one of the ADUs that we've needed to approve, we've made sure they had the parking space. >> So, we do have an unusual piece of land here. I agree. Uh do I think a residential unit is probably a really good use for for buzzies?
[cough] I do. [clears throat] Um I just get um I get real queasy with precedent sometimes. What what says planning up on this? >> I mean, our our past practice has been when there's no parking on the lot even
existing. So, for the six family, currently, there is no parking, which would normally require 12 parking spaces. Uh, if there was some off streetet parking to even already be providing it for the six, then you could potentially contemplate it. But on on
petitions where there is absolutely zero off- streetet parking even to accommodate the current use, we have not waved the the need for the additional singular parking space. >> So now we would have seven units with zero parking. >> Zero parking >> technically needing
>> 13 parking spaces. Yeah. 13 because >> in in a pretty tight area and where this was I mean there's no hardship to this building where it sits and how it doesn't provide parking. It received a variance to sit on its own lot. So it it's created the fact that
this lot is this small around this building with no parking. Self-imposed. That's all. >> Questions from the board. Comments from the board. From an engineering perspective, is it possible to grade and remove those
stairs? >> It's expensive. That >> would be crazy expensive. >> I mean, it's retaining walls. I mean, other applicants have done it. >> Yeah, >> we actually we had just a potential solution. >> So, it is possible to provide one one space, but we're talking retaining
walls, grading. And um it it's it would be sub a substantial investment to provide one >> one parking space. >> One of my engineers once said you can build anything just might not like the price. >> So
>> questions. It would just seem to me Mr. Chairman that rather than leave a vacant parking decide it's a good use the neighborhood. >> Anyone else on the board? in the audience. Anyone wishing to speak
uh in favor of the petition? Anyone opposed to the petition? You're hearing none. It comes down to us. >> The only other thing I would like to add too, directly across the street, there is an accessicular access into Lafayette Park, which is gated off.
>> Mhm. But it does provide uh the the residents in the area do use it for parking and there's the ability to provide 10 >> um 10 parking spots in that area uh maximum um and there is parking in front of this particular building as well
which obviously is probably new residents and stuff like that. So >> how many of the buildings that were in the seven lot subdivision in ' 04 have off streetet park >> they all using Lafayette Park? >> No, there's a driveway. There's actually a driveway that goes up the middle
>> the middle one >> here. And there is parking that goes to the rear of uh lot 130. >> Um and I believe there's some parking in front >> of Oh I have two 130s. Uh but on 430, house number 430, I believe, has
parking in the back and 438 also has some parking. Um >> so they are not without parking, >> right? Just not the same property, right? Yeah, that's right. Okay,
hearing nothing from general public. No more questions. What is our What's our motion going to be? Again, Mr. Chairman, special premier bifurcated,
>> correct? >> Yeah. Yes. [clears throat] One thing I'll offer that Jeff didn't offer, although this has not been a commercial use that's been in existence probably for two years. There could be an argument made that the offset of the commercial
use space, although maybe a different time period may offset the fact that we are now adding a residential use. uh the numbers and you >> you may have wanted to maybe reactivate the commercial use but then even at that
point we're going to >> we still have the discussion at that point for um employees. >> So we'd still be looking at parking. >> Got it. I'll be quiet. But that is a very good point that >> given the commercial place
>> the nature of a barber shop people coming in and out. >> Yep. size of the place. You could easily be two chairs and >> more customers, two employees. >> Do you have any idea when the last time it was open? Has it been a while? I don't know. >> Um, it's been a while.
>> It's been a very long. >> Eric, you know where it is. >> I was a kid when I was about >> I've actually been there now. They say it was buzzies. I've been to Buzzies. >> So, um, >> so it would be bifocated. >> Yeah.
>> So, you can make it as one. So then I would uh propose uh that this is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and that appear approved as requested. >> Second >> motion and second on the motion then
Eric >> yes. >> Ricky, >> yes. >> Dan, >> yes. >> Jim, >> yes. >> You're going to get it anyway, but I'm voting no. So, thank you very much.
>> Okay. Thank you. Item number four, applicant is Dr. Stephanie, DNP LLC, DBA Biomed Spa. Sounds like something out of a movie. >> I love you.
>> Pardon? Come on up. Uh owner is um LOS Properties LLC. Subject property [clears throat] uh subject property is 400 Rhode Island Avenue, lot EO8, sorry again, map EO8, lot 0048. The applicant is requesting a
special permit to allow the following. One person went to section 86-422 of the fall of a zoning ordinance to allow tattoo services, specifically cosmetic tattooing and permanent makeup as an accessory use within an existing
medical spa. Two, uh, relief to reduce a number of required parking spaces went to section 86-444 of the zoning ordinance. The property is located in the BL local zoning business district. Please identify yourself. And
>> I'm Stephanie Dlo. >> Okay. >> So, I own a medical spa and we are requesting to be able to add micro blading services to our medical spa. It is technically regulated under
tattooing. However, from a business standpoint, it is a very different procedure from tattooing. It is um to make your eyebrows look better. Um
it's something that we do by appointment only and a private treatment room and it's not going to change how we operate our business as it stands today. And as far as parking, we are 400 Rhode
Island Avenue, but we are located within 390 Rhode Island Avenue, which is all owned by Lost Properties. And they have stated multiple times that no one tenant within the entire property has any
assigned parking spaces and they can all be used freely amongst everyone. and they have said that our clientele is allowed to use the entire parking lot. Um, and I think that's kind of the gist of it.
>> So, you're on your property is a separate lot. >> Yes. You have to go in >> within You have to go in through theirs >> through theirs to get to ours. It's technically a separate lot. Yeah. So were they to sell this off in the future
or were they to sell the back and not not sell this, there would have to be an easement to get to this because it'd be a separate owner. >> Correct. >> Okay. On the lot in question, how many parking spaces are there?
>> I don't know the number of parking spaces in total for the 390. >> Not for the 390. Just just talking about 400. >> 11. >> Okay. And what's your required parking? >> 20, I think. >> Oh, then I'll look back up.
>> It's at the top left corner. >> 24 >> based on the calculation that that Jeff provided, but that's based on four separate units, three employees per unit assumed, and
then one space per employee plus three per customer. Our computer's flipping out. Yeah. >> I don't know. >> We're doing it. One behind you is not. So I I don't think it's this cable.
>> Lighted billboard. What did I just say? >> All right. Um can you just Yes. Let's slide that up. So all these parking spaces that are shown around not over here but on 400. >> Yeah. They it it goes across and down.
>> Yeah. and it extends all the way to uh Rhode [clears throat] Island Avenue and then down to Tucker Street. >> So the only ones that you're considering as as yours on this property, let's make believe you're not like us that >> you know you you own the building ABC
whatever. >> You've got these these which you actually slop over the property line and that's it. Correct. >> Yeah. >> And even these are in question of the if the property is sold because it's it's right on the lot line.
So, it's kind of an oddball situation. Listen, this is typical of this type of plaza, etc. But usually it's all one ownership. Um, >> it still is one ownership >> just now, >> right? But it can be broken up. I mean,
you get situations with um, you know, larger plazas with a restaurant up front on a separate lot. Mhm. >> Um if you run out of parking for the restaurant, they're they're back in front of, you know, Walmart or whatever
whatever else is there. Um so I guess it's typical. The only the only risk to you is if the rest of it gets sold off and you're standing there with your your your your little building and they say we're going to redevelop everything on this side of Llo Street
into something else entirely and you end up with nothing. That's that's the risk to you. >> I understand. Otherwise, this is fairly typical >> and it's usually most of those places are one >> usually they're across these mitts that that provide everyone access. You can
get cut off >> on pet sites. >> You're not buying the property. Correct. [snorts] >> Me? >> Yeah. >> I wish they would let me. >> Well, no. I was going to advise that if if you contemplate buying it,
>> include some sort of >> include some type of an easement for the remain remaining property. Cuz how many employees do you have in there now? >> I have um four, but I also have a med spot in Rhode Island and we divvy our time
between the two. >> But you occupy the whole building right now. >> No, I have unit number two. >> So you're only unit number two. >> Yeah. >> So who's in the other units >> there? So unit three. Well, technically I also have unit number one, but it's
nothing. It's vacant right now. And unit three is is Leico's properties. They have their uh their plow person sleeps there during the winters. So this is a pretty unusual circumstance. Then we've got a tenant of
a portion of a building and we're trying to nail parking to their feet. It it's kind of an oddball situation. >> That's why I believe there was a request to wave parking as part of the application. No, it is now, right? It is to wave.
Yeah. >> So, >> yeah. >> So, really, I mean, the use is not the issue. It's right to wave parking. >> We don't I don't I don't think anybody's going to have a problem. It's consistent with what you're with with what you're doing, but it suddenly becomes tattoo. So, I I get it. You have to
>> employ as far as I know that would be associated with the additional work that they >> Is it going to change staffing? [clears throat] >> No. In fact, a microblading appointment's about three to four hours versus the alternative we have now. Brow waxing is 10 minutes. So, there'll be a
lot less in-n-out congestion, etc. >> I mean, let's just hope that LOS doesn't decide to put a restaurant in one of these units. >> Yeah. I I mean, >> I don't know. I I mean my gut right now I I don't have a problem with the wave just because of the situation
>> for for the use that's before you. I don't see an issue with the waiver of the parking. What potentially could happen here depending upon like I had actually thought that you were in all of the units. >> Yeah. >> And all of the parking was available to you. So even the like even the 11 spaces that you have
>> suppose he fills unit one, three, and four. >> Yeah. >> And and those whatever he puts in there requires 40 parking spaces. >> Yeah. That's >> well I have one and two and I I I asked them for three but no one because they haven't
>> but they they will not designate beyond that. That's kind of a courtesy to you as the owner of a business. >> Yeah. >> So you don't have to park, you know, three stores down or something like that. >> Okay. I I I think this is in in my
>> clear as mud. In my little brain, it's it's easy. But you're going to be so successful, you're going to pick up and move someplace else and buy a building >> and you won't have to worry about it, right? That's that's we're going to live the dream with you right now.
>> But we won't have to worry about the results. >> Get your eyebrows fixed. >> Your eyebrow about time fixed. [laughter] >> Fixed. >> Yeah. Fixed. >> H You're going to have to register him with the dog officer. It's
While we're here, [laughter] uh, anybody any other questions from the board? No. Anybody here in the audience wishing to speak in favor of this petition?
Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? None. I'm going to get you a free eyebrow job, Jeffrey, on this one. >> And a haircut. >> It's cruel. Anyway, then it's to us
>> bifrocate. >> So, we have we have we have the use situation >> and we have the parking both special pro. >> You can roll it all into one. Yes. >> Anybody? >> Mr. Chairman, with the use as proposed,
I find that it will not substantially be more detrimental to the area and that uh I move that we grant it uh >> the addition of use >> the the or waving of the parking. >> Okay. But we have the use as well.
>> Yeah. >> And and the use. Yes. >> Okay. Second >> motion and second discussion hearing. No discussion on the motion. Jim, >> yes. >> Dan, >> yes. >> Ricky, >> yes.
>> Eric, >> yes. >> Jim Crow, yes. Wish you the best of luck. Good luck. >> All right. Item number five, applicant owner is Dylan uh Dylan Estates on the River LLC. Care of
attorney Peter A. Celino. Subject property is 637 Dery Street, map 01, lot 0006. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow the following person to section 86 attachment one of the Fall River zoning
ordinance to demolish the existing structure. I construct a five-story 12 apartment uh 12 unit apartment building wavering requirements related to front yard setback, sideyard setback, rear yard setback, and lot coverage. The
applicant is seeking a special permit to allow the following. one person, which is section 86-445 of the Fall River zoning ordinance to modify the parking requirements as set forth in 86441 through 86444,
including A reducing the number of required park required off- streetet parking spaces from 18 to 12. B eliminating the requirements for one loading space. C allowing parking within 10 ft of the property line. And the
property is located in a WOD waterfront and transit oriented development and AOD Arts Olay Zoning District. >> Good evening. For the record, Peter Selenino on behalf of the owner applicant, Dylan Estates on the River LLC. Uh Dylan Estates on the River LLC
is owned by Manny Sarto. Mr. Sarto proposes to demolish the existing three family structure that currently hugs uh Odd Street. It's about 3 ft from the property line as per the [clears throat] plan and to erect the proposed structure uh with the intention of creating the 12
units that are in the legal ad. The units are contemplated to be onebedroom and I think that's important to the analysis of this petition. Uh the structure itself is intended to be five stories. The proposed u parking spaces as indicated in the petition and the
publication is 12. Uh so in terms of the waivers requested in the proposal, we have uh waiverss for the sideyard setback which again the existing structure which contemplated to be raised is only three feet from the property line. We're proposing to hold that that uh the WOD requires a 10-ft
setback and as a consequence there's a waiver requested there in the rear of the property which is actually the easterly side of the property. There's a sort of a unique twoft jog in the property line. uh and as a result that rear or easterly property line is not
straight. That requires a waiver as to the rear setback which is also supposed to be 10 ft in the WOD. Uh next as you come to the front of the property which would be the northwesterly corner. There's a significant inconsistency between the deeds to the property and
what's actually on the ground. Um Mr. Tolman has investigated it and we I can't find at the registry of deeds or he can't find here any kind of a taking, but you'll see a hash line that says parcel boundary by deeds. And so that
triangular piece of property appears to have been taken in sometime in the 50s, we think. Um and that creates the need for that front yard waiver because we can't comply with the 10 ft there. Um the lot coverage requirement in the district is 80%, the proposal is 82.
Obviously, we're trying to provide as much parking as possible and therefore slightly over that requirement. The district uh requires one and a half times uh parking spaces and we're at one, which again 12 one-bedroom units,
12 parking places. Additional waiverss in the parking realm and the special permit part of the petition relate to having parking within 10 feet of a property line and waving the need for a loading space. Um, in my petition, I have pled to you that the hardship has
to be the shape of this property. Um, the northwesterly corner that appears to have been taken but is not reflected in the deed. The jog on the easterly side, the retaining wall and slope all make this site pretty tough to design. Nevertheless, Mr. Smentoto is hopeful
that he can build a beautiful building there that's uh equipped with an elevator and all the modern amenities close to the train station. So, uh we're happy to answer any questions the board may have relative to the proposal. Uh Jeff is obviously here over my shoulder.
Uh he's the engineer on the project. Representatives of the owner are also here to answer any questions the board may have. I agree. It is tough to design for a 12unit building um with a ton of lot coverage. I'm I'm going to I'm going to
hold my questions right now and I'm going to turn to my board and I'm going to turn to my planning director as well. Um [snorts] W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W T is already a lessened parking
requirement. It's it's one point it's it's 1.5 as opposed to two >> and we're we're now trying to chip that down. I understand they're all onebedrooms but >> um >> so the creation of WD was based upon so
the housing density >> of number of units is 100% dictated by the amount of parking that you can provide. So there is no limit to how many units you can construct as long as you can comply with the off streetet parking requirement of
of 1.5 spaces per unit. Um and again building setbacks I mean this is a lot. I mean I don't I don't know what you could fit on there by right but let's just say if you had what are you showing 12 parking spaces? >> Yes
>> 12 parking spaces. So that allow would allow you eight units by right if my math is correct. >> Yes. >> Did anybody contemplate an 8-unit building and would you need setback relief and lot coverage relief and all of those things >> because there's clear there's clearly
use of the property that's that you can be in complian with WTO and develop the piece of land. This isn't a vacant piece of land that's got nothing on it. It's got an existing three three family dwelling on it. >> Yeah. The only thing I would say to the setback relief um given the in [snorts]
and then believe I've done many different parking layouts in this particular property um and 12 seems to be the max number you can get here in order to get those work and trying to position those spots so you're able to maneuver in and out of them. Um that's
what kind of dictates the need for the setback relief. Um because just to move that building in, >> but that's for a 12-unit building as the chairman stated, not >> well. If it was an 8-unit building, >> you may be able to have just a normal parking lot and to the to the side of
the building. >> No. Um no, it's you wouldn't be able to get the 12. I mean, we're basically utilizing the whole grade level to get the 12 spots >> with whatever scenario you want to draw off. >> You've got one we got one drive [snorts] aisle that has no parking off of it. So
that's that's not very efficient. >> Well, you have a drive drive by that has three parking spots. The other drive by aisle has nine. >> Correct. Which a normal parking lot you would have access one singular access point and parking off of each >> potentially coming in from odd street where you could get a longer driveway
and come off of each one of them. >> The grade going up odd street dictate. It's just a grade issue at that point. And then you we don't there's not sufficient width by the time you get you go north. There's not sufficient width to provide parking spots on both side of
both sides of uh one main aisle. And the access off of off of street, the topography, although not shown on this particular plan, topography going up odd street would create an issue uh because it does go up pretty substantially. Um, so then to have to make that turn onto
Odd Street, then drop back down into the site. Um, >> but like you said, that information's I mean there's there's a house built there running along Odd Street. So they could apparently build a house. I I'm not going to add anything else. >> No, cuz we're not going to design this.
>> I mean, you close the lot coverage. you're you're not you're get you're not getting too crazy on a lot coverage, but I just feel like I just feel like it's too much and and that's just gut right now and
cutting down getting waving. We always say waivers. I hate the fact that we say waiverss here in Fall River. They're variances. >> Well, they're actually waivers in Fall River. >> Waver. [laughter] No jiu-jitsu. I know
you're not in Kansas anymore. Um, you know, so we're we're we're looking at we're looking at a density variance. We're looking at setback variances. We're looking at, you know, modification of of the proximity to lot line for
parking spaces. We're jamming the lot. And anybody else can jump in at this point because I'm not asking questions because I don't think there's an answer that's going to make me like this. I I can't ask a question that's going to get me an answer that [laughter] I'm going
to like looking at what I'm looking at. You know, height, great. You can do a five fivetory building. That's That's cool. That's easy. >> Who thought Whoever thought that was going to be the easy part? >> Yeah. Well, the zoning allows that.
Um, anybody else either question or opinion at this point in time? I think it's too much. And since it's, you know, since it is predicated upon parking, I I I think you got to work backwards.
And I can't tell you how. And I can't tell you I can't tell you if that's going to make, you know, a financial decision possible or, you know, whatever whatever it comes down to to do it. And I know that's what it always comes down to. We're in a time of of expensive
construction, materials, contracting, etc. I get it. So, we try to get the most out of everything, but sometimes I just shake my head. And I'm shaking my head from this one. Going to the general public. Is there anyone here wishing to speak in favor of this
petition in support? Anybody wishing to speak in opposition? Quiet. >> That's good. >> Can I have a brief second to speak to the >> Thank you. >> [snorts] >> Is that window?
>> Jeez. >> Mr. Chairman, the petitioner would like to make a motion to table this petition to the August meeting so that we can look at the design more carefully and be responsive to the board's questions and concerns. >> Thank you. >> Do we have a motion for u table?
>> Motion to grid table. >> Second. on the motion to table. Eric, >> yes. >> Ricky, >> yes. >> Dan, >> yes. >> Jim, >> no. >> And Chairman Prairie, yes. >> Okay, thank you.
>> See what you can do. >> Can you fill this form up? >> It was online. I'm sure you can just taking the stuff and going home. All set. Item number six, applicant owner is Carlos Estrella and Kosino
Estrella. K of attorney is right. >> Yes. Attorney Peter Aselino 0 Augustus Street map I26 lot 0018. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow the following. One person to 86
attachment one fall river zoning ordinance to construct a two family dwelling on a on the subject property waving the requirements related to lot area and lot coverage. The applicant is seeking a special permit to allow the following one pursuant to section 86443
of the fall zoning ordinance to wave parking aisle requirements. Property is located in A2 apartment zoning district. >> Good evening. For the record, Peter Selino on behalf of uh multiple Estrellas uh the owners of the property at Zero Augustus. Uh the property is
located off of Rodman Street. It's a narrow lot. It contains about 5,500 square ft of land. The variance requests are two and then the special permit requests are one. So the variance request is that the parcels in an A2 district that requires um 6,500 square
ft in order to build the two family. The proposal here is to build a two family. Um as a result, we're short on the square footage for a two family and the A2. So variance one is the overall square footage of the lot. Uh variance two is the lot coverage. You'll notice
on the plan that the applicant has proposed six off- streetet parking spaces which obviously exceeds the requirement by two but as we just saw in the last petition parking is at a premium in Fall River and so the engineer I think thoughtfully designed this petition to or this plan to include
extra spaces. Um as a result of that we have a lot coverage as proposed of 55 and a half. So the lot coverage would require variance since the district requires 30%. And then finally, the drive aisle as you drive into the property as contemplated and proposed
from Augusta Street is 20.5 ft and the travel aisle must be 22 feet. And so as a result, there's a request there for special permit to relax as opposed to wave the uh parking requirement um by a foot and a half. So I've pled in my
papers that the petition uh and the hardship associated with it is obviously the existing size of the lot. Um, I think it's a reasonable proposal for this neighborhood. It's all multif family use surrounding it. Um, the Estrellas are here as well as their engineer if anybody has any specific
questions that require a technical answer. Otherwise, I'm happy to review further or answer any questions the board has. >> Parking spaces five and six, are those stacked? >> Uh, they're Yes, I think you'd say that they're parallel spots effectively.
which >> which is the only way you could get 20 ft for Right. Yeah. >> And attorneys do we know how short are you with square footage? >> Uh the requirement in the district is 6,500 and we're 5,55.
So just under a thousand. >> I'll just start with that. Within the last year, we modified the A2 zoning district from 10,000 square feet and 2,000 square feet per additional unit down to 5,000 square feet for a single family home and the frontage requirement
from 100 to 50. So all the efforts that this board took, the planning board and the city council to allow construction on lots in this district that have 50 ft of frontage and 5,000 square feet would afford this landowner to build a single
family house in accordance with your new regulations that you created. You're now being asked to go beyond that and allow a two family house to be constructed and lock coverage waivers and parking setback waivers. So it's almost undoing
the efforts of allowing people to construct on something. If you remember part of that discussion was we keep getting all these requests for variances in the A2 and everybody agreed that the lot areas were excessive in A2 of 10,000 ft to start. So you made that change.
That apparently isn't enough for some people where 50 feet of frontage and 5,000 square feet that allows you to build a single family house with two off- streetet parking spaces and 25% lot coverage. We all thought that would be enough for people, but now we're going to start
getting variance petitions to wave those more progressive requirements as well. So, I would just ask you to contemplate that. >> Yeah. It's another shoe horn. Other questions from the board? Comments from the board at this point? >> So, just to be clear, Dan, if if this
were if this proposal were one family, they would not be here. >> They don't need to be here, >> right? Okay. 5,50. Yeah. So, it's 6,500 required for this. You're just shy of a thousand off.
Yeah. I mean, I've got a We've been here before and personally, I'm I'm standing I'm standing with the efforts that were made. Um I'm standing with the efforts that were made. [snorts] Questions,
comments? I'm going to go to the general public. Anybody here wishing to speak in support of this application? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Okay. Was the single family
contemplated? >> If I could have a brief minute [snorts] and speak to Mr. Estro, too, right? Is that correct? >> Do a single family with an ADU by Right. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> But the second unit would be limited to 900 ft. >> Right. Right. >> Big difference. >> Right. >> Yeah. So, you're not going to get a three bedroom, >> right? >> Yes. Six bedrooms would be a three bedroom. >> You don't design the things for it. >> No.
>> Right. Right. saying that by a matter of [clears throat] >> I just wanted to be clear what the matter of right was Yeah. Christmas situation. Okay. >> All right. My client's willing to let it go to
vote, see what happens, and obviously then he could revert back to a single family if he has to. >> Okay. I mean, there's there's a clear way to get two units here. >> I understand. Okay. >> Motion to deny.
>> Second. >> Motion to deny. Seconded. on the motion. Jim, >> yes. >> Dan, >> yes. >> Ricky, >> no. >> Eric, >> yes. >> Chairman Prairie, yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> That 41. >> Hm. >> That 41. >> 41. 41 goes down. Okay. Item number seven, applicant owner Seth D. Ellie. Eli >> and Lisa. And is it Eli? Okay. I never
saw Eli with an E on the end, but I apologize. Care of attorney Peter Acelino. Subject property is 1214 Watkins Street, map R08, lot 0021. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. to construct an
addition to an existing single family dwelling with relief from section 86 attachment one of the Fall River zoning ordinance specifically related to sideyard setback requirements. Property is load located in an R30
single family zoning district. Good evening. For the record, Peter Selenino on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Eli uh who are over my shoulder to the left. This proposal is to add an addition to their current single family home at 1214 Watkins Street in Fall River. Um,
cutting to the chase of this [clears throat] petition, it all relates to the side setback, uh, which is plan right. You can see that the property line is not straight. As a consequence, I've argued that the shape of the property necessitates this waiver. You can see that they can comply with all
other setback requirements, but for that um, sideyard setback on the proposed addition. So to be clear, it's supposed to be 25 ft in the district. Um the proposal is to build the addition such that it's 10.3 ft from that um side property line.
>> So I think the hardship is the shape of the lot. Um and the Eli are here to answer any questions to the extent that the board has any. >> Okay. >> You said this is just additional living space.
>> Uh yes, my Yeah. you want to speak? >> Um, yeah, for my mother additional living space for my mother. >> So, essentially is an ADU. It'll be a separate unit. >> It's okay to say ADU. Don't be afraid.
>> Yeah. Yeah. It's basically just an extra bedroom. >> It's not going to have a kitchen. It's not going to have >> No, that's not our plan. So you could make a condition that no ADU >> chose to only because we haven't
contemplated parking and [snorts] anything else that comes along with ADU. So right that's up to you. >> Okay. >> I don't think it was clear proposed addition or proposed additional unit are two different things. So
>> it's weird. I I'll just add that I don't think that the intent was to create a separate unit. Uh my understanding is that Seth >> But that doesn't mean that somebody else won't. No, I understand that. I understand that. But right now, the objective bluntly here is can they build the addition on the house and have mom come in?
>> And if they can't, they're going to sell the house. That's where they're at. >> I don't really have a problem with the 10.3. Um, how close is the Is there a neighbor? >> What's [snorts] the question? >> Is there a neighbor?
>> Yeah, there is. There is. >> Yeah. And that's that single family next door is probably about 30 ft I'm 30 or 40t off the lot line. It's pretty big. >> Yeah. I think the last month there was a petition to build a garage on one of
these lots. But the shape of the lots at the end of Watkins is just >> get a little crazy. >> Yeah. Very creative. >> Creative. That's a nice way to put it. >> Wait. Do you have the is there a dog leg to your lot that goes all the way to Route 24? >> I did not design this.
>> And Seth Seth is very happy he's paid taxes on that land for all these years. He was expressing to me earlier that >> the house wouldn't be there if it wasn't. So, >> wow. >> He didn't reap the benefits from it, but somebody did. >> That's true. Wow.
That's great. We discovered one of these in my the neighborhood [snorts] I grew up in. we realized that we owned a ridiculous piece of property that had been chopped off at some point. It was the same type of situation. Um,
okay. Questions from the board? Anybody in the audience wishing to speak in favor? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Let's do it. Tea up. Uh, >> Mr. Chairman, I would make the motion
that the variance be granted as requested. [snorts] >> Second motion and second discussion on the motion there hearing none. >> Eric, >> yes. >> Ricky, >> yes. >> Dan, >> yes. >> James, >> yes.
>> And Chairman Prairie, yes. >> Thank you. >> See, you can win stuff. And item number eight, applicant owner 2573 South Main Street LLC and 2589 South Main Street LLC. Care of Attorney Peter
Aselino. Subject properties of 2573 South Main Street, map B1, lot 9 and 2598 South Main Street, map B01, lot 10. The applicant is requesting that the variance and special permit previously
granted to by the board on August 21st, 2025 be extended for a period of 6 months to allow additional time to appropriately ex uh exercise the relief granted. Thank you for the record. Petersino, on
behalf of the two LLC's that own the property, um the board may remember this petition. This is last August. Uh substantial petition, requires a lot of work. Mr. Martin is cognizant of the fact that he's not going to be able to get all that work done within the time allotted by the decision.
>> Uh I know he's met several times with the planner relative to different strategies on how to attack this project and still he met with Jeff Tolman yesterday. So the request is simple which is can we please have more time to finish uh andor exercise uh the relief
granted under the variance seeking six months. Okay. I think we can go directly to the board on that. >> Mr. Chairman, I move move that we grant the extension.
>> Second. >> Motion and seconded. No discussion on the motion. Jim, >> yes. >> Dan, >> yes. >> Ricky, >> yes. >> Eric, >> yes. >> Chairman Pere, yes. >> Thank you. >> See, isn't that a nice way to end the
night? I cannot Uh citizens input somebody. >> Yes. Y >> just ask one question in regard to Elliot. >> So citizen input is you get to see you don't have to answer questions. >> We make statements. We cannot answer
questions. >> I'm just trying to find out if uh in terms of holy name church whether or not there was a date for the land court or whether or not that's >> we would have no idea. >> That's not our jurisdiction. Call the law office and maybe they can answer it. We don't know. >> All right. >> Okay.
>> Okay. >> Those are wondering why why you went into executive session. >> That's why it's executive session is because it's not a public hearing. >> Not a lot to know. Okay. >> Yeah. >> I just find what you guys do absolutely fascinating the issues that you have to
grapple with. >> So we [laughter] also dealing with public safety. It's amazing to watch you guys in action. >> I'll take that as a compliment. Sometimes it's uh >> we we thank you for your patience and staying all this time, >> but the law department might be able to
provide more information. >> Okay. So, feel free to call. >> Thank you for uh I'm sorry for interrupting her. >> Quite all right. Not a problem. >> We don't expect everybody to understand the procedure. >> We don't have to stand ourselves. [laughter] >> All right. Approval of minutes for the June 18th, 2026 meeting.
>> Mr. Chairman, I move waving of the reading of the minutes and approval of the same. >> No, I think we should be No. motion in a second. >> We had the right members here to do that >> minutes. I don't >> I forgot who was here. Who was here last month? Raise your hand. >> Oh, you're right.
>> I think I was >> John was here. >> Yeah, we don't need them. >> I know. >> You had a full board. >> You were here. >> Yeah, we're here. We're good. >> We're good. >> We're good. >> Uh on the motion, all in favor? [snorts]
>> I opposed. >> And motion for adjournment. Motion to adjourn. >> Somebody's just second it so we can just [laughter] second. All >> in favor they want to hang around. >> Nobody wants to second. All in favor? >> I.
>> There's no soccer on. Thank you.