Good evening. I'm Joseph Pereira, chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the city of Fall River. It is 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 16th, 2026. We are meeting at 1 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.
If anyone desires to make a video, audio, or combined recording of this meeting, please notify me now and I will make a public announcement of your intent. Our recording secretary this evening is Courtney Pereira sitting to my immediate right.
Present this evening are regular members John Frank, who is our vice chairman, James Calkins, our clerk, Dan DePaepe, and Ricky DeSanti. Also with us are alternate members Alexis Ansalmo
and Eric Kelly. Also present this evening is Mr. Daniel Aguiar, director of engineering and planning, seated to my uh far left. Courtney, have all petitions to be considered been properly advertised and all interested parties notified in
accordance with the rules and regulations of the ZBA and Massachusetts General Law chapter 40A as amended? Yes. I declare the April 16th, 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, abutters, anyone in favor or opposed to a petition, that your presentation or comments be limited to 3 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 and factually support the basis for their claim.
In the case of variances, a credible hardship, as defined by uh Mass. General Law chapter 40A, must be presented. I remind all present that the authority of the ZBA exists pursuant to Massachusetts General Law chapter 40A
and is limited in scope where the use of land is regulated in chapter 86 of the ordinances of the city of Fall River. We require that comments made in the hearing be limited in scope uh to uh of our authority. Additional permits,
licenses, reviews, and or approvals may be required for any of the petitions before us this evening. The action taken by this board has a real and lasting effect on the title to your property. As such, I urge all petitioners to seek competent legal
counsel before filing your petition and after the decision of this board has been made. A copy of the ordinance is available in the city clerk's office or in the planning department. I remind everyone that the building inspector is a 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 zoning ordinance. The city's charter chapter 9-18 mandates that all multi-member bodies develop and adopt rules or policies for public
public comment. We have adopted such a rule and policy that provides for citizens input on zoning board specific matters at the end of the evening. A sign-up sheet is outside the door to the room. I call the meeting open. Our first order
of business is to move to executive session. This is uh specifically in discussion regarding the appeal of decision uh for Little Hands College, 551 Rock Street.
Let's uh go up to the fifth floor. You have to actually make a motion and then we'll Okay. All right, thank you. So moved. Motion to uh Motion to executive session. Yeah, very good. Do we have a second? Second the motion. Motion and
second, all in favor? Aye. >> Aye. Aye. Opposed? >> session when we're done. Can you give an estimate of the >> [clears throat] >> amount of time it's likely Yeah. Open session at 6:02 p.m. There was no old business. I'm going to
item number two of new business, which is the applicant Little Hands College Inc., owner Paula Jesus, care of Richard E. Burke Jr., Law Offices of Beauregard, Burke, and uh Franco.
Subject property is 551 Rock Street, map O2, lot six. The applicant is requesting an appeal on action of the zoning enforcement officer to one, the to agree the building commissioner's
decision for the February 10th, 2026 letter in regards to the special permit section 86-441 parking requirements. This property is located in an R4 two-family zoning
district. Before we begin presentation, I'd like to call upon um Attorney Matt Thomas. Good morning, Mr. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Um my sole purpose for speaking right now is just to let you know the standard of
review that you're going to be using. This is not a special permit or a variance. This is you sitting in an adjudicatory fashion reviewing whether or not the building inspector correctly applied the zoning laws of the city. So, it's a de novo review. It's almost
as if he didn't do anything. Okay? And so, that's what you're going to be looking at. The special permit means nothing here. Whether it was a a given or not, this is whether he did whether he applied the zoning ordinance correctly. I suspect Attorney Burke is going to suggest that he didn't. Um and
then after he does that, then I'll be back to just explain to you what happened from the city's point of view. But, that's what you're looking at here. Did he apply the zoning law correctly? Thank you. Very good. Thank you, counsel. Attorney Burke. Thank you. Uh good
evening, everyone. My name is Richard Burke. I'm with Beauregard, Burke, and Franco in New Bedford and I represent Little Hands College. With me tonight from uh Little Hands College is uh Early Serda, who's the director there. Um
this property was originally a church. It dates back to uh about 1900. Um the address is 551 Rock Street. Um in uh in 1996, this board granted a zoning variance for
the church building and uh it was allowed to become used as professional offices. Um it was, as I understand it, medical offices thereafter. The important thing is that this building, when it was a church and when when it was medical offices, it never
had any parking. Um if you're familiar with the building, it, you know, it looks like a church um and there's essentially yard on on either side. Um the there was a prior to my getting involved
uh back in uh 2025, some members of the board may recall that uh there was a request for a special permit to waive all parking at this building. Um and at that time the board uh denied that uh special permit request. Um I then got
involved at that point and my office filed an appeal of that denial of the special permit to the Land Court, which is pending right now. The argument that we're making tonight is that we don't need a special permit, that we believe that
um as a matter of right, um this child care facility should be allowed to open. There is a general law uh chapter 40A, section 3, uh it's sometimes referred to as the uh
Dover Act, um which uh provides that certain types of uses are exempt from zoning uh enforcement. Uh and uh one of them is a licensed child care facility and
that's part of the state's um policy of encouraging uh the development of child care facilities because they're needed. Um our argument is that, you know, we simply cannot provide parking, neither
could the church, neither could um neither could the medical offices. Um the child care facility, um in addition to what's there, they have to have playgrounds and they have to have separate playgrounds based on the age of the children. So, they there will be a
need for the what's essentially yard space now to be playgrounds on either side. Um also the building is subject, as I understand it, to the Historical Society. We haven't filed anything formal with them, but in discussions with them, they've said they don't it's a historic
building, they don't want to see any changes to the exterior. Also, we don't think that the licensing board for the state for child care would allow parking anyway because they don't we could maybe get one, maybe two spaces if we squeezed it in, but it would be up against the
playground and they they wouldn't allow it even if we could even if we could do it because it wouldn't be safe for the children. Um basically, uh as you might imagine, this child care facility um has limited daytime hours. They They
essentially open 7:00 to 9:00. That's when parents would drop off children. They essentially close between 2:30 and 5:00. The children are picked up. Um they have um so we we don't think that presents a conflict with parking on the
street. Uh we did look at the dimensions of the street. Um there's over 1,100 square feet of linear space on both sides of the street. Um I'm talking between on Rock Street between Prospect and Maple Streets. Um and when
I've been there to walk and see the property, there's never been any parking on that block. I We took some pictures. If I could, Mr. Chairman, just to show you go They go back from like June of 2025 to just this week. >> [clears throat]
>> And um yeah, I don't know if you want to see these. You can see, Mr. Chairman, if I could submit these that Yes. on the block and if you've been there during the daytime, I'm sure you would see the same thing. Just isn't isn't parking. The parking during the day would be for
staff. And um my client already operates in in the city of of Fall River. And um they're you know, they have a staff of nine right now. Of that staff of nine, five don't have cars. They get to their job
with, you know, public transportation or by riding with other people. So, based on our count of available on-street parking, we we count room for 62 on-street parking spaces. So, if we had a staff of even 19, we might be able to get it a
little smaller, but if we couldn't and it stayed at 19, you're probably talking about 10 staff or so based on our our current experience of staff that don't, you know, have a car to drive there. And then you have 62 available spaces.
The um in the same, you know, the drop-off, as I mentioned, of of of parents dropping their children off, picking them up. A lot of the the families have multiple children. So, there it's like, you know, one family might be dropping off two or three kids in a car. So, there there
really isn't a and it's very brief. It's a minute or two that they're there. Um the So, the basic legal issue is um we we clearly are an exempt use under the Dover Act. That means that you can't
require a special permit. It's a a use that should be allowed. There is a uh and I'm sure Attorney Thomas will tell you this this and uh some reasonable regulation that the city can give to these exempt uses.
But our argument, based on the cases that that I've read and as I understand them, is that if you regulate the business out of business, that is going too far. And if if you say, or if the building inspector, as he
has said, is that you don't have on-site parking, that's that doesn't comply with our parking regulations. You need so many spaces for each employee and that sort of thing. Well, we can't do it. And if we can't do it and you say we won't let you open, we won't give you an occupancy
permit, which is what we're asking for, then you are essentially regulating us out of business. We We simply can't open. Um and that, we believe, is not allowed by the law, by the Dover Amendment that I I referred to. We are
doing everything we can. As I said, we've looked at whether we can provide on-site parking where none is there now. We don't believe we can provide any. Um we've looked to see if there are other places in the neighborhood that we could even rent
uh off-site parking. So far, we haven't been able to come up with anyone that's willing to rent to us, but if we could, we would do that. We We simply are are at a loss. Um There's a question of signage, but I
think that may not be a major issue. Um I did also argue in the in the appeal that we filed. Um this this was argued before when you had the special permit. Um bylaw 86-443,
uh change in use, uh basically says that there can be a waiver of parking requirements if you have a a grandfathered use or a a use that predated the zoning bylaw. Well, this original church, as I said, that
goes back to 1900, certainly predates uh the zoning. Um as I mentioned, there was a zoning variance granted in uh 1996 um to allow our the building to be used for professional offices.
That was a change, but our argument, again, is that that isn't a change of use. It's a zoning variance. It's not the one bite at the apple to take a nonconforming use and turn it into something else. I mean, the idea of a nonconforming use like this church is
it's there. It doesn't have parking. What are you going to do with it? Um and the simple fact that the board voted to grant a variance to allow the building to be used for professional offices when it had no on-site parking
like it does now, to me my mean my argument would be that that's not reasonable to require then on-site parking for an exempt use, a child care facility, when you're not even going to require it for professional offices that
are probably going to require as much or more parking under the zoning bylaw. So, back in 1996, this board didn't think that was a problem for granting a variance. Um child care facilities are needed. They are protected by law. Um we
believe we can be a good neighbor. Um we believe [clears throat] there's plenty of on-street parking for the use that they would give and that it can coexist and legally has a right to coexist with the neighbors. Thank you. We'd be happy to answer any questions.
Any questions from the board at this point? The just curious on the your your your opinion regarding if there are any regulations that are enforced that actually make it impossible to to
operate. Is that coming out of case law? Well, yeah. >> It's not It's not coming out of the It's not coming out of the the chapter and and paragraph itself. It's the case law, right? It's It's the argument that a regulation isn't reasonable if it can't
be done. And in this case, it if if the regulation would, as applied, would make the use impossible to have, then, which is the case here, we just can't provide the on on off-site
on the parking, then if you require it and you say, "Tough luck," then you you don't have the child care facility. And since it's a protected use under the Dover Amendment, that type of regulation, we argue,
legally can't be applied. Thank you. Yeah, we we never go back and look at the tape. We We never argued that the use was a problem. We recognized the use. It was strictly a parking situation.
Um anyone else from the board questions? Now's the time. I just have a couple of questions for Attorney Burke. So, your presentation tonight, which the photos that you gave us, is that an argument that you don't need parking because there is adequate
available parking, which would have been handled under the old the request for special permit originally. So, so that information tonight means nothing. You're here You're here to argue the building enforcement official's decision and denial. So, whether there's parking available on
the street or not, the logistics of the use, how many employees, how many spaces, how many kids get dropped off, that's not up for discussion. And whether or not there's available parking to meet her needs. That argument was already given at the special permit. So,
the need for additional photographs is purposeful. for your argument, but not for what you're asking for tonight. Okay. So, if this was a daycare that was going to provide services for 200 children, needed 40 employees, at what end does the Dover
Amendment apply? Is there a limit? Well, I think that's where I would say that yes, the the the issue was somewhat similar with the special permit, but it's a reasonableness question. And so, when you talk about whether a regulation is
reasonable, the fact that there is available on-street parking, I think that's part of the equation of whether it's reasonable to say you can't open because you don't have any off-site parking. >> to vote on tonight. But I I I'm I'm
arguing >> one employee, that would be a different argument. And maybe it would be a different result at the request of the special permit. We couldn't even get nailed down during the original special permit how many employees we were dealing with. Well, well, base That's because what the state comes
in, they look at your square footage, and you don't know exactly until they do that, which is It's Well, they they don't do that until you have all approvals, you know, that's just the way it works. So, the maximum based on what we estimate the square footage is 19 based on the building
square footage. Um but, yeah, no, I I think it's a legal argument. There is a difference from the special permit. We can't provide the on-site parking, and to require it, we say is unreasonable, but I think it's relevant to look at, well, where would the people
park? If we had 400 employees, and there was only room on the street for 20 cars, I think a judge would say, "That's not reasonable." But, so I think it is relevant to say, well, what parking is available? And if there's plenty of on-site on-street parking
available, and you're still prohibiting the use because you say that you can't provide off-street parking, to me, that helps my argument that it's not reasonable to require it. >> but you're you're driving to the point where you can't provide off-street parking
by the intensity of the proposed use that you're saying is protected. Which it is protected. But, the fact you can't provide off-street parking is because you need additional playgrounds. You want to provide service to a certain number of children, and have a certain number of employees. Right.
>> That's just a That's just a business plan that doesn't fit to the Dover Amendment. So, again, if it was for five kids that needed two spaces and one playground, you could provide enough enough parking on-site. It's It's the No, we couldn't provide I don't think we No, no, you 100% could. Um
so, the fact that you're here seeking relief is because of the intensity of the Dover Amendment that just you can't apply Dover. Suppose you wanted to build a a 200-foot building. Well, it's a building which it's already there. >> Yeah. The the the building is already there.
>> you're saying that those bulk restrictions don't apply, period. So, theoretically, you could you could come in and build an 80-story building under the Dover Amendment. No, I I think you have to look at what's there, and it goes back to it being a 1900 church, you know, a pre-existing building. The building is there.
>> It's not the building, it's the use is exempt. Well, but but the use The use is dependent on the square footage of the building that's there. That's where you get the 19 employees from. I just in Mike, we're going to the merits of the case here. We're not We're
straying. No, I I want you to understand what you're voting on. Yeah. I I also want to >> Everything else is not in your purview tonight. I'm going to call on counsel in a second. I I asked specifically if you were basing this on case law or on the law itself. I find it hard to believe that the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts in its wisdom would deprive boards in 351 cities and towns the ability to enforce their own zoning bylaws and codes within limit. And a lot of what's happened with the Dover Amendment, and I'm very familiar with it, has been case
law, case law, case law, case law. I can rattle off a lot of them cuz we've all we've had to deal with them. I've had to deal with them in another place. And the that Dover Amendment has just changed from what the original intention was.
That's all. That's just a statement. And I'm turning it back over to Attorney Thomas. Yeah, unless there are any other questions that uh myself or Pearl could answer. >> [snorts] >> Do you want to sit down? I have I can stand up. No, no, I'm sorry. I can
We can move it back if you want. >> [clears throat] >> Uh good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Um again, my name is Matt Thomas. Um my office is at Four Park Place, New Bedford, Massachusetts, and I'm special counsel for the city. And I am actually representing the city
um and you all in the uh Land Court case. My purpose to be here tonight is really not to rehash too much. It's just to provide a little bit of clearer standard here. So, Attorney Burke mentioned that there was a variance granted once before on
the property. >> [snorts] >> Case law is that just because you get a variance once does not entitle you to a variance again. Since a variance is a pure derogation of zoning, you're allowing something that zoning does not allow. So, the only reason you would allow it in the first
place, when you grant the variance, is that the specifics of that particular case warrant it to be a pri- allowed. Those specifics have to be looked at every single time. And so, just because you get one of I get a variance does not
really entitle you to another variance. Attorney Burke mentioned um the Dover Amendment. And Mr. Chair, as you state, the Dover Amendment has been the subject of lots of discussion. But, the one thing about the Dover Amendment, which is Chapter 48, Section
3, is it speaks about a lot of different types of uses that are covered. And when they wrote it, each paragraph is not identical to the other paragraphs as to what is allowed and what is not allowed. So, I think it would be helpful if you look at the Dover Amendment, it's
actually paragraph three of Chapter 48, Section 3. It reads, "No zoning ordinance or bylaw in any city or town shall prohibit or require a special permit for the use of land or structures or the expansion of existing structures for the
primary, accessory, or incidental purpose of operating a child care facility." That's the first part of it. You all admit that. You all recognize that this is protected. It's because in the Commonwealth, we want child care facilities. Then, it continues in the second clause,
"Provided, however, that such land or structures may be subject to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures, in determining yard sizes, lot areas, setbacks, open space, parking,
and building coverage requirements. As used in this paragraph, the term child care facility shall mean a child care center or a school-age child care program as defined in Section 1A of Chapter 15D." So, to Attorney Burke's point,
if the regulation is unreasonable, and it renders it impossible to do, then there is an argument that that is not allowed here. But, what the case law talks about is if you required for every employee, you need six parking spaces,
that becomes kind of unrea- unreasonable. Here, your regulation is one employee, one parking space, which is a very reasonable requirement. Now, it's true that Attorney Burke Burke's client won't won't know how many employees they have until they do the
final >> [snorts] >> um approvals with the state. If they have younger children, they would need more employees because of the per capita requirements. If they have older uh clients coming in older children, they'd need less. But, clearly, the zoning ordin- zoning
amend- zoning uh general law, the Dover Amendment, allows you to regulate and require compliance with parking. With regard to the ordinance here in Fall River that was the subject of a lot of discussion,
and I did issue the opinion to uh the building inspector that he relied on in making his decision to deny the the certificate of occupancy. It says, this is 86-443, change of use. The change of use and use of an existing
structure built prior to the effective date of this chapter shall be permitted without meeting the required number of parking spaces, provided the building uh inspector makes the determination that the number of existing parking spaces, if any, is not being reduced, the use is
permitted as a pre-existing non-conforming use in the district, and additional parking cannot be provided in a reasonable manner. I interpreted this to to read the first change out. Okay? That's why it says, "the change in use." It does not say the
change in use and any subsequent change in use. It says, "the change in use." So, when it first came out of being the church, which had been built before zoning came in, that first bite the they had a bite at the apple, so to speak. That first exemption was allowed.
Any subsequent changes would have required variances, or they would have required special permits, or they would have required compliance. Okay? So, in my opinion, it's only that one use that comes out. And And any additional parking cannot be
provided in a reasonable manner. At the time this was this certificate of occupancy was applied for, there had been no effort to try to get parking from abutters, from neighbors, from other people. So, there was no way to know whether there had been a
reasonable effort taken to try to get additional parking. So, in light of all of that, and when you come back to Attorney Burke's arguments, he's correct. Dover protects the use. I would disagree with him that Dover exempts you from the parking
requirements. And that's really what we're looking at tonight is the parking requirements. There are other issues involved that I think are really minor issues. It's really the parking requirements. So, when Attorney Burke filed the appeal, he requested an appeal of a
decision by a building commissioner denying issuance of a certificate of occupancy authorizing the existing use of the building at 551 Rock Street as a child care facility. So, in making your decision tonight, you're going back to going back to my initial comments, you're going back to
look at did the building inspector apply the zoning ordinance correctly in making his decision to deny the certificate of occupancy. So, if you believe that he did, your vote your motion would be to uphold the
decision or affirm the decision of the building inspector in denying the certificate of occupancy and by denying it requiring the special permit. Or if you feel that he didn't apply it correctly,
your decision would be to reverse the decision of the building inspector denying the certificate of occupancy and requiring the special permit. And you would be basically sending it back to him to make a decision correctly. Those are your two choices. Okay.
Does anybody have any questions? Thank you. Well, I think that's clear. Should I go to the public as we typically do in these cases that this is different? I think the scope should be regarding the opinion, not whether there's parking available. >> Correct.
So, public input has is always important to this board, but we're talking about a very, very narrow band here. So, what we're talking about is the building inspector made a decision
not to issue a certificate of occupancy because there was no special permit issued for the parking for the site. If there is anybody who wishes to [snorts] speak in favor I don't even know how to
This would be this would be opinion. Do you Do you agree with the building inspector's decision? Do you not agree with the building inspector's decision? If there's anybody here from the board. Thank you. >> Can I Can I Can I just reverse that?
Sure. >> Since the appeal before you is to for you what you're looking at is to overturn his decision, so to speak. Mhm. Then anybody in favor would be speaking in favor of overturning the decision. Anybody against would be in favor of
affirming decision. It's kind of backwards the way it's playing out. So, if anybody wants to speak in favor of Attorney Burke's argument that Dover should exempt him out from all the parking, that's would be people speaking in favor. >> Fair enough. Thank you.
>> People speaking against would be that the use is allowed, but they still have to comply with parking. Okay? Thank you. So, is there anyone who wishes to make comment in favor of >> [snorts] >> the applicants
the applicants' assertions this evening? Is there anyone wishing to speak against the applicants' assertions this evening? Sir? I believe that's me. I'm a little confused going back and forth, but I'll let you know I'm driving the bus and I'm
confused, so it's I was uncertain if I could get here, so I did put some words on paper that should have been disseminated to the group. However, We do We do have that. >> Okay. All right, then thank you. Then I would just like to say But but
it It's really just It is a matter of the parking. I've read through the letter. I don't care how much they paid for the building, when they bought the building. Yes. This is Was the building inspector correct? Was the building inspector wrong? Your assertion is the building inspector was correct. Yes. Okay.
>> thank the board for the decisions earlier. And I think that any other decision is an infringement on my rights of the property and butter. So, thank you to the board for the previous decision and I support the building inspector's denial. Okay.
Thank you. And um we do have a letter from from this gentleman and his wife. That is us. Mhm? Yes. Yeah, Mr. William Brown. Your address is 527 Rock Street. So, he's in about a Mr. Chair, can we
receive it and place it on the file? Yes, we do have it. >> Yeah. Thank you. Can I have a motion to put this on file? Motion moved. Motion second. Ricky? Yes. Dan? Yes.
Jim? Yes. John? Yes. Myself, yes. Okay. So, this will I know you already have one, but have that on file. Anyone else wishing to make comment on this? Yes. Just registering my support of the building inspector's decision. Okay. And your name and address? >> Oh, I'm sorry. It's Erin Leary, 544 High
Street. >> sorry. >> That's okay. No, I live in Andover. Um I'd also say the property has about a three or four parking spaces worth of frontage. So, if we look to what's reasonable or what's a compromise at some point, they bought a property with three or four spaces of frontage, so maybe that's
the reasonable compromise. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? I'm sorry. Hi, I'm Connie Soule. I live at 577 Rock Street and I also want to support the building inspector's
decision against Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else? Sir? Yeah, I'm Jason Kennedy, 544 High Street, directly behind the property. Yes. I just want to support the building inspector's decision. That's Thank you, Jason.
Anyone else, folks? Any other discussion from the board at this point? Any other questions to either counsel at this point? No? Then I take it we would move to a motion. Um Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to
uphold the building official's determination. Second. We have a motion and a second to uphold the um building official's assessment of this and his decision. And that it was that it was applied correctly.
It was applied correctly. That should be the wording of the His his interpretation of the bylaw was applied correctly. Was applied correctly. Any other discussion on the motion? Then by roll call,
uh John? Yes. Jim? Yes. Dan? Yes. Ricky? Yes. And Chairman Prior, yes. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. Item number three, the applicant is Brian D Viera. Owner is
I'm going to mess this up. Demetrian Eric Demar Demarainville. Or is Demarainville? I'm thinking of the wrong one. Yeah. Eric Demarainville Jr., care of Attorney Gregory Gregory Brilliant. Subject property is 458
Buffington Street, map I24, lot 45. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. One, to divide the lot into two into two lots, waving frontage requirements for one of the newly
created lots. The subject property is located in an A2 apartment zoning district. Counsel? For the record, Attorney Gregory A. Brilliant for Mr. Viera for the law offices at 111 Oak Grove Avenue, Andover, Mass. I'm here today to ask for a subdivision on this
particular property, which is located at 458 Buffington Street. Um as the board is well aware, this is an A2 zoning district. Um and as they're also aware, that requires 5,000 Excuse me, 5,000 square feet of frontage. Mhm. >> for the
first lot and 1,500 for every um unit thereafter. Um again, Mr. Viera came to my office with this particular property because under this particular zoning zoning district, he could actually have a four-unit building plus a
ADU. Um cuz this is a 10,000 plus square foot lot, so he could he could by law and by the zoning variance be allowed to do that on this one lot, okay? Um in sitting with him and determining what was in the best interest of the neighborhood,
we both decided that trying to subdivide this property into two lots, leaving the existing single family on one lot and building another single family would be in the best interest of the district and most consistent with the district. Um because we'll meet all of the all of the side yards and rear yard requirements
and we would be asking for an 8-foot variance relative to the to the frontage, which has to be 50 feet and which now with the configuration that we have, the lot would be 42 feet and the other one would maintain the 50 feet. It's we think it's it's it's the least obtrusive and obviously
a better use for the neighborhood. The the hardship is obviously due to the shape and configuration of the lot and how the one property sits on on the the building and it works as a hardship to to the petitioner. It doesn't derogate from the intent purpose of the zoning bylaw cuz it's a
residential use. And again, we do believe that this is the best and highest use for the neighborhood all things being considered. Um with that, I will entertain any questions the board may have the board may have. So, the two proposed driveways are and I didn't get to drive by this and I
apologize, counsel. These Is there parking at all at this point? Um I don't believe there's an asphalt driveway there yet. I I is parking. Mr. Pereira, it is It was down in the far right corner is the existing asphalt
with with the new driveway. >> Oh, I see that. I I see that drawing in. Yeah. Yeah, I I I think but it that's going to be redone. That's why I'm saying that. It's going to be redone for that particular property as well as providing off-street parking for the newly created lot and dwelling. And being redone, I see that's
also going to be decreased in size to get it off the fence line. Is that correct? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. That's what That's really what I was trying to get to. So, I appreciate you noticing that, Mr. Pereira. All right. So, the the jog in the property line that's proposed as you get down to the street itself is to get the
one of them at least to be totally conforming. That'll be 50. Okay. We could have put it right down the middle, but we wanted at least make one totally conforming um for purposes of the board and give us um and give us 42 on the other.
And And there are there there there's quite a few multiple family buildings in this neighborhood. I grew up on Buffington Street up the top. So, and I know Mr. Mr. Aguiar, I grew up in this neighborhood, so to speak. So, um but we just thought this was better cuz on the immediate area was um single-family
homes. Okay. Questions >> And we will do anything that the board desires relative to conditions on ADUs. You know, I know that there's been some debate about what you want to do, but we will entertain if you so desire to put conditions. He's not looking to do any
of that. So, um and obviously condition of no further subdivisions, which there couldn't be, but whatever the board desires to put in. Yeah, I mean the separation of utilities and the recording of such certainly has to be done. We're not looking at any easement from one property to the other. >> No, none is required now. Um Mr. Tolman
hasn't indicated that the one will be required for any purposes whatsoever right now. All right. Anyone on the board questions on this one? Okay. Going to the uh going to the public, is there anyone here wishing to speak in support of this
item? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Uh Mr. Director, comments from uh planning? No, just the request being the waiver being requested is simply the the frontage from 52 to 42. Um but I will note that Attorney Brilliant
grew up on the Veteran's Memorial Drive in Buffington and >> [laughter] >> I'm not sure about that, but I'll take it. Are you saying it's better since he left? Is that what you're trying to tell me? That That might be what he he means. That's why he speaks better than us. >> [laughter]
>> I just heard you speak it there quite quite well. All right. Um then it's back to us? Mr. Chairman, I would make the motion that the variance be granted as requested. Second. Um
Any conditions? Do we want a condition for ADU? I want a condition of the ADUs. ADUs Yeah, no ADUs. Is that acceptable, Attorney Brilliant? >> It is. I've talked to my client. He doesn't intend on doing anything with that. >> No ADUs. All right.
Separation of utilities Right. recording thereof Um I don't think we have a situation here where we have to mandate no fence down the property line. Uh we should have bound markers, so This This has been surveyed, correct? Um It It don't need to be for the
subdivision anyway, so True. But But Mr. Tolman tells me yes. Okay. All right. That being the case, that's the motion. Do we have a second? I'm sorry. We have motion and second. On the motion, John? Yes. Jim? Yes. Dan? [clears throat] Yes. Ricky? Yes. Chairman Pereira, yes. Thank
you. Item number four Applicant owner Um This is the one >> Demetriades, is is that how you pronounce it? Yes. Got it. Uh Applicant owner is Alex Demetriades
Subject property is 550-552 Maple Street, map M25 lot 28. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following to divide the existing property into two lots the existing six-family dwelling at
550 Maple Street on lot one um the lot has 3,307 square feet with 50 feet of frontage and leaving 552 Maple Street a two-family dwelling on lot two the lot has uh 6,000 square feet
along with 35 feet of frontage. The lot will need a waiver of area, lot frontage, lot coverage, side yard setback and rear yard setback requirements. The property is located within an R4 two-family zoning district. Council. For
the record, Attorney Gregory Brilliant. I'm I'm on behalf of Mr. Demetriades. Um First of all, I do want to clear up one thing before we get started because the plan uh there was an oversight by Mr. Tolman based on an assessor's card which said two two-family style. The back
house to the right, 252, is a It's a single-family home. Okay, I want I don't want to make that clear. >> in your iPads, but just not in That's the new one, yeah. Yeah, yeah. I know Jeff um excuse me, Mr. Tolman revised that, but I want to make that clear so there's no I don't want anybody to think
anything was going on here because this all This all stems from this. Back in 1986, okay? Um a variance was granted by this board and I heard Mr. Thomas earlier saying it kind of doesn't mean anything now, but it was granted by this board to allow um
and I got a number of copies to allow the six-family to exist and to build a apartment above a garage in the back structure. That was done back in 1986 pursuant to the board. At that point in time, there was no conditions put in the variance
about no further subdivisions or anything happening with the property. At the time that variance was given to Mr. Demetriades Demetriades' grandmother and grandfather. They lived in the back house once it was done, okay? And they managed the the six-family.
Um and as I said, I just It's important to note that there was no there was no um condition property or subdivision, although that's within the purview of this board. In 1996, I appeared before the board and we drew a petition
to subdivide the property. At the time, his grandparents were um potentially looking to to sell the single-family house and give the other piece of property to Alex. Um I withdrew it because at that point in time they said, "No, we're going to stay here.
We're not going anywhere. We're going to maintain everything So, they had really had no need to try to subdivide the property. Okay? Now, fast forward to today. Mr. Demetriades' grandmother just died. Grandfather died quite some time ago. His grandmother
just died. Left him the property alone. He's got a brother. She left instructions to him and no disrespect to how this was all set up, thinking she she she could just give that back property to his brother.
Okay? And his brother actually now lives there. When the grandmother died, he moved in there. So, it's really That's where it all ends here. We're We're here today to request for permission. This is not a uh 423B situation because the the back
property doesn't predate zoning. Otherwise, everything else meets the same thing that if you we were asking you to do that tonight. He doesn't anticipate any change whatsoever in any building. He's not asking He's not asking to increase the the size of the buildings. He's not asking to do any of
those things. The buildings will stay as such 100%. He's merely asking for the lot line to be created and quite frankly, and I'll be I always try to be transparent to the board, it's solely so he can transfer the back house to his brother who lives
there now based on the fact that his grandmother now has died and he owns the property. I know in terms of uh of of hardship, I would submit that the hardship is based on the fact that the configuration of the property and the fact that there's a building back there. I know I'm probably going to get an equal argument back that
we created the hardship pursuant to the variance, but it is what it is. Um and and and we respectfully still submit that there's a hardship relative to the property. And again, I I just want to say we're asking nothing more than If this again was predated zoning, it'd be a 423B
uh we I wouldn't have these issues or he wouldn't have the same type of issues. It's solely for that. We will put any conditions necessary on this variance uh gentlemen. Any ladies and gentlemen, I apologize. relative to no further subdivisions, no ADUs. This is simply to
carry out the wishes of his grandmother and give his brother that back house. Nothing whatsoever structurally, nothing's going to change at all. Um it's not going to obviously derogate from the purpose of the zoning bylaw. It's not going to dero- derogate from the the excuse me, the neighborhood cuz
cuz we again submit and I have to stress, there's not a thing that's going to change. Not a thing. Not even the people living there. His brother's living there now, lived in Connecticut, has has relocated into Fall River to take care of his parents along with him. He is a business owner in Fall River. He
owns Highland Pizza, the Highland Luncheonette. He's a very good kid. I know I know that's not part of your deliberation. He's a really good kid. He's just having problems with his brother because he can't give it to him. I know there's there's probably a point of contention that could be
condominimized and and given to him in that fashion. I I guess from that standpoint it could be. This is much easier, cleaner, um and and it would I've actually >> [snorts] >> subdivided the property so he could have his own property with his own yard and
Alex will continue to maintain the six-family. So, um Alex is here. I'm here to answer any questions. Um and we'll be happy to take those. Let me ask about Excuse [clears throat] me, the driveway and easement.
Uh that back area for parking. Yep. >> Is that to be shared by both properties, by both houses? We we can we can condition It is now. It's basically to be very honest with you, Mr. Prior, it's used It's used by his brother right now. Okay. Predominantly and and the other parking is on the street. Correct. The
six-family is on the street. Okay. Yes. All right. It's just that and you specify that with the tenants in the six-family that always been They're not parking. >> Mr. Prior, always been. Like I said, this has been in Alex's family for uh 50 years. It's the same owners. It was
his grandmother. And his his grandmother's grandfather. Grandfather died, went to the grandmother. Grandma grandmother died. Alex has it. No, it it it hit me with the easement situation because it it it really chews
up that lot. There's not a whole lot of lot underneath that that lot one, the house. There's not a not much of anything around it as far as It could have more. It could have more parking to the right. Well, one of my Yeah, the question is there's no request for waiver of parking.
No. And we're looking at the six-family and it needs 12 spaces, so Okay. I'll I'll Well, I thought it was a provision of the the ordinance where we wouldn't have to increase any parking over what was existing
at the time. We're not adding any new units. >> But that that parking is not part of the parcel with the six-family. Yeah, you're not you're not asking for a waiver though of that parcel. Where is this Where is the access easement? I'm trying to figure out which line is On the left side of the the
six-family. The docking area. Yeah, but then that seems to wrap around the walkway. So, is the easement solely on lot one? So, right now lot one does not have the ability to park in those rear parking spaces, correct? That's correct. So, lot one, the six-family, will be left with zero parking spaces. Yeah,
zero now. Well, you just said that they park back there now. >> No, they do not park No, no. They don't. No, no. That that that back lot I said it was only for the It's only for the single-family. Parking is only for the single-family. >> there. No, no. Right now, on one piece of property with the six-family and the
single-family in the back. Can people [snorts] in that six-family Can they? >> there now? I I guess I guess Mr. Aguiar I don't know how logistically how it's being used. >> I know, but can they Yeah, I was just about to say to you if if you would say theoretically could they? I would say yes. That answer would have
to be yes. I mean, I it it doesn't cuz Alex's brother does it, so they know that it's the {quote} owner's property. But it's not going to be. Maybe moving forward, right? Either one of them itself. Could could could be so. Yes. No. Can they park in the open on the open area? I don't know. I don't
know if that was contemplated. I went out and look at it. I'm not an engineer. Can you send anything to me? I mean, it's 35 ft wide of open space. Yeah, there is the ability to add some parking on the east side of the six-family. But then you went up with the weird situation. Are you going to have another
easement because if you're going to put parking for the six-family on lot two? Yeah, that's what you're going to end up having. >> the the the driveway easement on lot one. It's like >> pick and choose who's using what spaces or change the lot line. Yeah. To make it work. At that point I would suggest we relocate the lot line
to hug the six-family on the west side and bring the lot line to the east and therefore the where the existing driveway is would then become part of the back lot. And provide the tenants with internal access. So, actually there'd be no easements necessary at that point. Okay. That might be a better
configuration to contemplate. And then you have parking for the front. Correct. To the right of the building. Still not going to meet the requirements. No, even with some newly added parking. Correct. I I want to emphasize, Mr. Frank and and through the chair, that
we're willing to to accommodate with the board's desires. I mean, this is just And again, I don't want to air someone's family issues and and it's not my place. But he But he But him and his brother are in a They're like not not even speaking anymore.
Because he feels as though this should have been done. It It It wasn't done and that's water under the bridge. We can't We can't resurrect resurrect history. It's an oddball situation. >> Right. We're not We're not like trying to get in the personal situation, but we're just You want to do what's best. I I get it. But the the end there was no
waiver of parking requested at all, so I know Jeff mentioned something about that not being necessary, but I I don't know. I'm I'm going to defer >> not technically reducing parking for the the six-family. Correct.
So, it's not that you're not changing it. No. Well, either way Whose name is the ownership being right now? Is it in your name right now? Yeah, it's in Alex's. It's entirely owned by us. Yeah. >> No, no. The will gave it all to him. Oh, okay. And And it's only by agreement.
And his grandmother told him give this house to your brother. But it's not in And it's not in the will. Okay. So, and and quite frankly I just want to make sure he didn't have any say in the No, no. Okay. Quite frankly, Mr. Calkins, he'd still be in
the same spot even if she said give the back house to to to his brother Savvas. Cuz because it's only one lot. He couldn't do it if he wanted to. I I don't know. This seems like it needs to be tabled just to look at the plan again maybe. You can
probably get five or six spaces on that to the right of the six-family pretty simple. I If it If it's a matter of I talked to my client. We have no problem tabling it and and and I can work with, you know, Mr. Aguiar to try to If that's what the board decides to
at least try to And then we do know it's still subject to a vote, but whatever we can do to accommodate the the the board, we we are more than willing to do. Well, I think we have, you know, as [clears throat] one single lot you you you've got the area to
accommodate parking. By chopping This is one of the things that concerned me about lot one being the six-family and it's it's a smaller piece of property. So, we can't even consider putting any parking on there. It'd be really great
if we could get some parking off the street. It'll help. I mean, it'll be an addition. I do agree, Mr. Chairman. We Again, I always try to be as transparent as I can. This is what's happening there now. And it has And that's what I'm trying to say that, Mr. Chairman. So, >> the situation. What I'm looking for is
something that is it becomes a win-win. Maybe a win-win-win. The city wins if we can get some cars off the street. You get settled up with your brother. Everything gets squared away. And and you know, grandma's not rolling in her grave because there's there's a problem. [laughter] I'm not being I'm
sorry. I'm not being disrespectful. I've lived these situations, so Yeah. The only thing I would say is the way we proposed this development was to divide it the way the property is being used now. But it does make sense to make some enhancements to the property.
And anything else from a planning standpoint you could add at this point? The only concern that I'll have when we look at it once we can get a revised plan, not in front of you, but we may need to re-advertise if if so if parking relief is going to be required. Just so that everybody's boxes checked,
so We'll have to do that. I think you'll have to have lot coverage at that point, too. I think you already have. Didn't you ask for lot coverage already? The number might be different, but the board's going to be here. But still not going to have two conforming lots. Whichever way we do it. You asked for lot coverage, but technically you just asked for
lot waiver of lot coverage, so we can deal with that. It's probably going to be re-advertised. Do you want to withdraw Oh, no. Can I table it? I make I Yeah, I will I will I will absolutely we will entertain a table of this petition, Mr.
Chairman, and uh work with planning to uh try to uh figure this out as you said, so it's a win-win-win. Mr. Chairman, I move to allow Yeah, I want to have the audience first. Is there any It's What? When it's being tabled.
Motion to table. All right. All right. We We should hear the withdraw the motion and then we re-issue it. There might not be anybody here that wants to speak. Yeah, I'm I'm interested. Anyone here wishing to speak in favor of this petition?
Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to this petition? There. We got that out of the way. Okay, Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the petitioner's request to table the petition till our next to the May meeting. Second.
Motion and second on the motion. Ricky? Dan? Yes. Jim? Yes. John? Yes. Me? Yes. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have to sign this and then bring the bring the fee by tomorrow. Okay. Hopefully with a revised plan. If Jeff wants to stay up late tonight. I do not. Thank you, everyone. Appreciate it, Mr. Chairman.
Dan? Yes. Have Dimitri and yourself sign. Uh Alex, sorry. Alex, yeah. I got another great name. Item number five, the applicant owner is David Nguyen
for D and D Southcoast Partners LLC. This is care of Jeffrey Tallman. Subject property is 846 Brayton Avenue, map F04, lot 20. The applicant is seeking a variance to
allow the following. One, to divide a conforming 26,900 square foot lot with 109 feet of frontage on Jefferson Street from the northwest corner of lot 20 as
shown on City of Fall River Assessor's Map F04. Two, to build an 11-unit townhouse-style condominium on the newly created lot, waving uh unit density requirements. The property is located in a BL local
business zoning district. Uh good evening. For the record, my name is Jeff Tallman from Northeast Engineers and Consultants. Here uh tonight on behalf of D and D Southcoast Partners, uh specifically David Nguyen, uh the principal manager of that LLC.
Um the site we have before you tonight is the site of the former Sam's Club located at 846 Brayton Avenue. As you had mentioned, this is lot 20 as shown on Assessor's Map F24. Uh the parcel itself is about 13.5 acres
in size. Um and it does have a a 3-acre building, uh which is the former Sam's Club located at the southeast uh corner of the property. Uh this property is one of three parcels in this area that are located in the local business zoning district. Uh the
other two are the uh 14.5 acre Walmart parcel located to the north. And there's also a 28 uh 28-acre parcel uh to the east that is owned by the uh city of Fall River uh that abuts the interchange for 195 and 24, which vast majority of that is
the Quequechan River. Um these three parcels that are located in that particular zone are surrounded by um it the entire three parcels are surrounded by the commercial mill district. Uh all the other properties around it with one exception, which is
the Cornell Farms property that is located to the south across Brayton Avenue, uh which is in a uh neighborhood uh business district. Uh so, as I mentioned, this is the former Sam's Club um wholesale uh club site.
Um Sam's Club, as you may know, closed its stores in February of 2016. Um afterwards, the property remained unused for the next 5 years um until it was purchased by the current owner, um David Nguyen, who's again the president of D and D Southcoast
Partnership. Um Prior to purchasing the property, David did appear uh before this board in October of 2020 in order to change the use of the property uh to manufacturing. Mhm. Uh David is the owner of US Bedding Inc.
Um and in 2020, he was doing his manufacturing uh down the street at 451 Quarry Street in an in old mill, uh which he had outgrown. Uh so, the board at that time did grant the variance uh to change the the use. Uh so, David subsequently moved his
manufacturing facility uh facility from Quarry Street to this location. Um as indicated within the zoning ordinance in section 86-441, manufacturing facilities uh have less much less uh of
a parking demand than a wholesale or retail facility. Uh so, when you drive by the site now, um what you'll you know, during business hours, what you'll notice is there's a a vast vacant uh or mostly vacant parking lot. Um even
when, you know, the uh US Bedding um is operational. Um furthermore, uh there there was a restriction put on this property at the time of purchase. Um it was purchased from the Walmart uh Corporation and the property is deed restricted as to uh the
type of businesses that are allowed to operate on it. Um Walmart did not want any competitors coming in and doing business on this. So, he's kind of even though this is in uh a zone that would allow that type of use, it is restricted
um as to what it can be used for. So, the proposal we have before you tonight is to divide um a 27,000 square foot lot off the northwest corner of this property. The lot will have 109 feet of frontage on Jefferson Street, um thus making it a
conforming lot in the local um business zoning district. The plan is to construct an 11-unit townhouse-style building on this newly created lot, waving the maximum number of units allowed in the local business district, which is three. Um
the issue we ran up against there and when I initially looked at this, we were going to divide this area into multiple lots if possible. Um and there is sufficient frontage on the overall piece with in addition to the 109 [clears throat] feet that we do have on Jefferson
Street, there's an additional 527 feet on Brayton Avenue. Uh so, this this lot that we're creating if the frontage and if the lot configuration were more suitable, um we could do these three lots um that would each be in excess of 8,000
square feet. And by right under the zoning ordinance, we could construct three-unit townhouses on each of those um and add potential ADU to each one um for a total of 12 possible units. Um but
so, you know, in theory, the existing lot uh in its current configuration has the frontage uh to Well, the existing overall lot, it has the frontage to create to be divided into six lots. Um
but because of the location of the frontage, pri- primarily location of the frontage being on Brayton Avenue, um which is closer in proximity to the existing building, doesn't make that ideal to um to cut lots out of that area. So, this particular area up at the northwest
corner um made the most sense. So, when you look at this, even though the the request before you is to wave the unit count that's allowed in the local business district, this is actually uh in theory more of a a lack of
frontage um type of uh project in that which is the reason we're here tonight. Um the other thing to note is that this newly created lot, if it were in the commercial commercial mill district, which is uh which it does abut directly to the
south, and um like I said, the majority of this parcel along the south and west portion abut the commercial mill district. If it had been in that district, this proposal could be done by right. Um the fact that we're not in that
is uh is why we're here tonight. Um so, I would argue that the proposed development that you see before you is in harmony with the neighborhood, um and it doesn't derogate from the intent of the ordinance. Um and I think what we are proposing is a reasonable density
given the size of the lot that we are creating that, you know, for these uh 11 townhouse units. Um the hardship that we're dealing with here, again, is the the irregular shape of the overall parcel and the uh location of this area that we're
dealing with in proximity um to the existing building. Uh it's pretty far away. Um given the manufacturing use of the building, there would never ever be a need to for parking um in this particular location. So, it's been, you know, sitting there vacant for
many years. And um I do believe this would be a good use of it. So, with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. So, and thank you. Um the hardship becomes an issue because you've you're creating this lot. And you're creating a lot that's going
to have what percentage of lot coverage between parking and building? Um well, it would have it's going to be a reduction in lot coverage in the area of the lot that we're creating. BL has no lot coverage requirement. And yeah, and so, Yeah. So,
the the hardship, even though we're creating this lot, the hardship is stems to the original lot in existence right now. The way it's configured with this little finger that sticks up at the northwest corner that when you look at the overall
um site plan, and I did submit like a site locus plan cuz this is a, you know, this is obviously a a close-up of the development, you can see that this is kind of like an odd little piece um that really has no use. It's been blocked off um
mostly um parking area on this site now has been blocked off, but this has been blocked off for many years and it's just been sitting there. Um so, when you look at, you know, recent developments that have happened, although they're in the commercial mill district, there was a recently, I think
it was an eight-unit uh condominium complex or apartment complex directly to the south of this that was um developed. Uh this would kind of be in harmony with that. And the units To give you an idea of what this would
look like, the units that we have on this particular plan um would be the same, if not very similar, to the uh the five-unit condominium complex on Spring Street that was constructed right behind the bus station. Mhm. Um which is a nice-looking building, nice facade. Um
[snorts] looks great when you drive by with all the units. [clears throat] And I think it would be an enhancement to the neighborhood. Um as you're driving into Walmart, it would, you know it certainly have some curb appeal. We'd be utilizing a lot of the infrastructure that's already in place.
Even though there is no lot coverage requirement, we would be adding green space to this property. There would be a reduction in in impervious material as part of this project. So, there's a lot of benefits to it. It it's the jump from three to 11 that that's just going through my mind.
John. Jeff, can you talk a little bit about um you're reducing parking for the bigger parcel. Which was required to have a lot more when it the use >> When it was wholesale retail. >> When it was wholesale retail. >> Yeah.
Do we need a waiver for that? I you know, I I didn't run the number on that, but I would I would have to say no. I it is I know there's a lot of parking there, but >> This step that's a huge Well, just looking at just looking at the numbers
of how the it's calculated for manufacturing as opposed to retail. I mean, there's no way that these spaces that we have here would ever be would bring that those parking spots down below the required level. And and certainly
you can [clears throat] condition any approval if you do decide to approve this project in such a manner that if if it does happen, you know, we can do a parking analysis and take a look at it, but I doubt it's even Well, to that, John. >> This doesn't affect You said there was a covenant or there was something that
affected It it was what the property can be used for. And it was mostly anything that could be competitive to Walmart, like [snorts] retail operations and different things that were restrictions that were put in place. This is still all subject to that agreement. You can't change that agreement. Right. That agreement's in
place. So, right >> them zoning permission, but it doesn't mean they're not going to assume Walmart. So, that's what I'm saying. So, the these are new Walmart customers that'll be going in here. So, I I don't see them having a problem. >> Well, they're going to be using their driveway, so. Dan, did you
Do you have the the prior relief we gave for the bedding company? Did we change the use from retail? >> Yes. Yeah, yeah, okay. So, that can change It doesn't mean that it couldn't go back as a matter of right to retail, but they would be limited.
They'd be limited on the parking, yeah. Comments, Dan? Zoning? I mean, I can clearly understand the argument for you for the unit count. That's not an issue. And I've actually contemplated trying to move with a zoning change to reduce the cap of three units in a BL. They just get similar to
the A2. We get you hit with BLs BLs and you know, just doesn't lend itself to three unit buildings. Right. Uh I just cautiously want to make sure that when we get the site plan review, so no waivers of parking have been requested. Including setbacks of property lines and
everything else. So, if we get the site plan review and it's determined that the setback for that parking lot to the side lot line, which is adjacent to the driveway, if there's relief needed, they may need to come back for that relief or shift the building down. You know, as long as they can
You're only All you're dealing here with is density, but how many units? That's the only relief being requested at that point, so. And and Dan, just for clarification, are we talking about just on the east side where the sidewalk is or are we talking about on the north side where that I was thinking the north side. North side, even though that's an
existing condition? I I don't see what is the existing condition. >> No, yeah, it's not clear on here, but that those spots other than maybe two >> Like I can see spaces on the southerly property line being shown. Yeah, that
they're So, this those where the 22 are, I think we're adding two to the west side, but the other 20 are existing parking spaces. Okay, it doesn't show that, so it just shows the >> it's It doesn't show up on here. So, if your site plan review, if you're not Yeah. If you're not getting closer to the if
those are spaces and you're not getting closer to that property line, Then we're good. Yeah. Well, so I'm concerned about the property line. Is the property line in this case that the dash line? Yes. >> Yeah, it doesn't go up to the sidewalk. Okay. So, we're
So, some of these parking spaces are right against that property line. We don't have a setback. Which is the existing condition. >> Yeah, is that if it's not parking space now, it may need relief to be that close. >> Okay. It's just not showing here or asphalt, so you can't even contemplate
it today, but we can deal with it during site plan review. We'll figure out how to Yeah, I I 100% sure that's an existing condition that we have right there. All right, so we got 22 parking spaces. Obviously, these are going to be two bedroom townhouses most likely.
Um I want to say they're three. No, three bedroom. Three bedroom. >> Yeah. The three bedroom. I mean, one one option actually would be to just move the spaces to the new concrete side. Walk and use the drive aisle to the outside. It's It's just the wording in the regulation of
parking space setback. Drive aisles don't necessarily deal with it. I think we'll be able to work with it. Yeah, I think we I mean, if we had to tighten it up, we do have some room. Yeah, you got the And what you know, in front of the building and the we do have an aisle with a 24 where it only really needs to be 22.
Cuz technically, that building doesn't need to be 21 ft off the south property line, either. Yeah, at least it's it's giving something. Right. No, the patios don't count. Are you going to Are you contemplating green space then past the patios? Correct. Okay.
Yeah, and you can see [snorts] like that Well, yeah, you can't see this the parking along the south property line where it extends basically there's a couple of light poles along that property line. It extends all the way down. It does get hidden under the shading for the uh the new parking area, but
um I know for I mean, I used I used those parking spots on the north side. Okay. I have nothing then. Yeah, I mean, any question I have is is not even zoning based. It's just
marketing based. And that's not not purview. Any questions anyone else? Going through the assembled masses, anyone here wishing to speak in uh in favor of this? I I stopped you intentionally halfway I identify myself
with the Rockland County Industrial Development Agency. I think Mr. Tolman did a good job in identifying some of the challenges with this parcel. My office individually coordinated the purchase of the property
for US Bedding from Walmart utilizing the former Sam's Club property for now as manufacturing purposes. If you look at this property as Mr. Tolman said, it's pretty much on an island of itself. It's bordered by Jefferson Street and
then you have an you have an access way through the property, so it's separated from the primary US Bedding facility itself. So, the additional need for parking for US Bedding is going to be slim to none as it moves forward. We've been trying to
market this property on behalf of the owner for quite some time, but as Mr. Tolman has indicated, the the restrictions prevent any competitive use to Walmart. So, you have a piece of property here that virtually has no use.
It's not necessary for the operation of US Bedding >> [clears throat] >> and it's abutting a residential neighborhood. And we all know we all know that we're in need of additional housing and especially housing throughout the south end. There's been a lot of development of housing throughout the north end and I think the south end
housing is now starting to become a little bit more fashionable, a little bit more marketable. And I think this is a good use for the property itself. And most importantly, from my perspective, any proceeds generated from the redevelopment of this property are going to go back into US Bedding for the
purchase of more equipment and other things to help facilitate the manufacturing process that's currently underway there. So, it's a win-win from at least my viewpoint in terms of utilizing an underutilized piece of property, you know,
introducing a use that's compatible to abutting uses and also generating proceeds that can go back into a manufacturing businesses and a manufacturing business that can use it for equipment purchases and and also resulting in additional employment
opportunities. So, I hope that the board sees fit to pass this tonight. I think it's a nice project and I think like I said, it's a good project for our community. Okay. Thank you. Ken, thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to speak in favor?
Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Hearing none, yes. Last shot board for questions. I do have a copy of the uh previous zoning decision. I just found it in my file. You can see it before you. They changed the use And quite honestly, the
the deed restriction enforced by imposed by Walmart actually leans towards a a hardship for the property owner. There's only so many things you can do with that. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion >> Yes. to approve all of the
variances as requested. So Motion and second then discussion on the motion. Hearing none, Ricky. >> Yes. Dan. >> Yes. >> Jim. Yes. John. Yes. Chairman Priore, yes. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Item number six. Applicant owner is Victor Viera and Melissa Viera. Care of attorney Peter A. Salino. 81 Joseph Drive is the subject property map U21 lot 60. The applicant is requesting
variance to allow the following to construct a 20 by 44 ft attached garage to the existing home waving front and side yard setback requirements. Property is located in R30
family of single family zoning district. Good evening. For the record, my name is Peter Salino. I represent the homeowners applicants. Uh immediately to my left is Melissa Viera. Her husband Victor is in the green shirt in the audience. They own the property located at 81 Joseph Drive. The proposal before you
tonight is to erect an addition onto the existing single family structure. The dimensions of that existing the dimensions of that structure are 20 by 44 um as shown on the plan. And the request before you in terms of the proposal are
front yard setback waiver and a side yard setback waiver. Uh I've submitted in my filing that I believe that the hardship is the shape of the lot together with the existing structure. This is pled as a variance and the location that they're choosing to build the property build a garage is most near
to Miss Viera's mother and father. So they are the direct abutter plan right. So that was the chosen spot and I'd also submit for the record that there's no intended commercial use at all. Mr. Viera has advised me that he has
cars and tools that he's looking to store in the garage. Um I know it's been a long night already, so I think we can be probably that brief for this petition. We're happy to answer any questions the board has. >> [clears throat and cough] >> I'm not seeing too [snorts] much to question on this.
You are so it's you're not looking for any type of commercial on it. You're not looking to >> No. store a plumbing truck here and pipes and be dragging it out at 6:00 in the morning when you're going to job sites. Uh
We got 5 and 1/2 ft of setback on that side lot line. That is correct, Mr. Pereira. And I'll speak Mr. Brilliant likes to say he's candid and speaks freely. So I drew my client's attention to the Langley Street petition and the board's desire to have a 5-ft
setback at least for fire purposes. So that's how that setback got to be that. Okay. That's cool. I'm easy. Questions? And that's 20 20 ft is the width of that driveway that's there now? About
>> Yes. I'm going to guess. Yeah. Is that a um single story? Single story. Yes. Okay. Any other questions from the board? Going to the audience, anyone wishing to speak in
support? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Okay, good neighbors. I'll make a motion to grant. Second. Motion and second. Nice and quick. Ricky? Yes. Dan? Yes.
Jim? Yes. John? Yes. Chairman Pereira, yes. Thank you. Thank you. All right, that's it. Thank you. All right. Number seven, applicant owner is Hm? Don't get giddy. Item number seven, applicant owner is A. Smith LLC
care of attorney Peter A. Salino. Subject property 1012 Bedford Street, map L21 lot 57. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following to sell alcohol from the existing convenience store and gas station for
off-premises consumption as opposed to hanging around the convenience store and drinking. Uh property is located >> [clears throat] >> Excuse me, in a BM neighborhood shopping zoning district. Good evening. For the record, my name is Peter Salino. I'm a lawyer at 550 Locust Street in Fall River. I represent the owner applicant
A. Smith LLC, which is controlled and held by the Patel family who are all here. Um the genesis of this petition is that the Patels have a purchase and sale agreement to buy a beer and wine license from a store on Pleasant Street. When I went to apply for the transfer of that
beer and wine license to this location, Carrie sent me to the building department to ask if the use was permitted. And Mr. Hathaway gave a letter that the use of off-premises consumption was not permitted at this location. So that's how we got here. So this is
incident to a business transaction. And for everybody's edification, this is the service station right next to Columbus Park on Bedford Street. So the ask here is that the table of uses doesn't allow specifically the sale of off-premise
alcohol and that is why we're here. So it's strictly for use. The building is there. The building is not changing. The gas station remains. It's a Mo a Mobil brand gas station. Very familiar with it. You said that transferring a license from the Pleasant Street Pleasant Street
is getting closed. Uh so there's a minimart called Mo's Variety on Pleasant Street. Has a beer and wine license. They have a purchase and sale agreement to buy that license. Got you. Okay. To transfer it to this location. And then that's when Carrie sent me to Glenn. And Right. So Pleasant Street is open?
No. That that store is going to continue to operate as a convenience store but not as a beer and wine. So it is not a net gain beer and wine license. >> That's correct. Right. >> [cough] [clears throat] >> I really don't have any question. I suppose the only question anybody could
have is it's adjacent to a park. But it's only a problem if you sell to somebody under the age of 21. Um I have no questions on this. Anybody on the board? Anybody here wishing to speak in favor
of the petition? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? They're hearing none, it comes to the board. Mr. Chairman, I move the granting of the variance as requested. I'll second. That being the case on the petition, John? Yes.
Jim? Yes. Dan? Yes. Ricky? Yes. And myself, yes. Thank you. Those were two fast ones. Without judging without judging too Nobody's allowed >> Item Now he speaks freely. Yeah, now he
speaks freely. Well, Greg sat in the press Item number eight, applicant is Jason M. Duarte. Um owners Gonzales Real Estate Investments LLC care of attorney Peter A. Salino.
Subject property is 835 North Main Street. Lot O10. I'm sorry, map O10 lot 14. The applicant is requesting the variance to allow the following. One, to construct an eight-unit apartment building in the BL district.
Two, to waive setback requirements from 10 ft to 5 ft. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following. Two, to waive parking requirements of section 86-441 from the required 16 parking spaces.
Property is located in a BL local business zoning district. Good evening. For the record, Peter Salino on behalf of the applicant Jason Duarte, who is with me. Should also be noted for the record that the owner Louis Gonzales is in the back row over my right shoulder. So this petition before you pursuant to
a purchase and sale agreement, Jason purchasing from Lou. Everyone would remember this building as the Del's Lemonade on North Main Street, which has been vacant for many years. Um while we're speaking freely, I think I sat in front of this board many years ago with Mr. Gonzales to you know, bring
forward a petition on this specific property. The petition before you tonight is to convert the existing structure into eight two-bedroom units. This what's interesting to me about this site is the zoning line goes right through the middle of North Main Street. And so WTOD is on the other side of
North Main Street. It's not our side of North Main Street. So as a result, as we just heard in the last petition, in the local business district you can only have three units. So first and foremost, we need a variance for the number of units. Uh second, seeking a variance for the
side yard to go down to 5 ft. And third, a special permit in order to go one-to-one parking as opposed to the required two spaces. It's submitted that the hardship has to be the shape of this lot is clearly irregular as well as the position of the existing
structure which already hugs the lot line. Um so we've had in addition to our submission of the site plan, the floor plans were submitted. They're all contemplated to be two-bedroom units. I think the board has a copy of that on their iPad. And we're happy to answer
any questions relative to design construction that the board [clears throat] may have. So these will be apartments, not not condominimized. Correct. The intention is apartments. Yes. >> [snorts] >> Okay. Three-story building. Got you.
So you're you're providing eight parking places. Yeah. Eight space parking. It didn't say that in your application. I just noticed it on the plan. It just says waiver of parking. 16. So there's going to be eight spots. There'll be space for 10, I believe.
Plus a couple loading spots. I just want to see North Main Street any further encumbered with parking. It's bad enough running up up and down North North Main now. Um I think that's my biggest problem is the parking on this one. Second. Dan, from a planning standpoint, could
you weigh in on this, please? What are the implications? Let's Let's compare it to the last BO that we dealt with where we had a land area that you could provide an argument that the density would be allowed on that many square feet. How many How big is this piece of land? 9,000 9,000 square feet. So, so by
right, you can have a three-family, right? Right. Um Do you need 8,000 square feet? Right. The other one didn't need any parking waivers, didn't need any building setback waivers. Yeah, this is a lot. And I understand you're saying that it's
that it's a hardship, but but there is no hardship if if you comply with the ordinance. You can build a three-family here and provide six off-street parking spaces. Hello. Yeah. And the shape is almost square. It is It is a lot. It is a lot.
But it it's a You know, it it each one of these is apples to oranges, right? You know, we we had just had 11 units with 22 parking spaces as Mr. Argiros was saying. In in odd location, but what else are
you going to do with it? You got a six-family next door to you. I'm not sure which >> I guess my intention was law when I was looking at this originally is, you know, we're over in the waterfront district right across the street from it. I seen a lot of the other buildings approved
with um with one parking spot. Um I can fit the 10 parking spots, which would be 1.25 parking spots per unit. Yeah, but that 1.25 is only applied to buildings with greater than 50 units. >> Right. So, right now, the ordinance requires
that you provide 16 spaces. Yep. And you're you're providing eight. Yeah. I guess the other what thing was because of the distance from the train station is what I was looking at. Our zoning Our zoning ordinance has contemplated the location of the train station, and that's why the WTOD was
extended to where it was. It specifically did not go on the opposite side further up North Main Street because of the existing character of that neighborhood and the topography and everything else that you find through that and the different types of uses that are on that side of um
North Main Street. So, you are in a local business district. You need to comply with local business district requirements. The fact that you're across the street from a WTOD means really means nothing. But I don't know.
What I was thinking is like that. Any other questions on this? I guess that's what we're going Well, we don't need lot coverage, do we? The BO doesn't have it. Pardon? [clears throat] So, we don't need lot coverage, do we? Right. >> require it. Right. Cuz it's within the zone. It's just heavy, that's all.
It's heavy. My client's indicating to me that he'd be willing to relook at this if we could ask the board to table the matter and see if we can reduce the number of units. >> to wait and see what the audience has to say first. >> Yeah, let's let's see what your neighbors are saying if anybody's here.
Uh let let's do that first, okay? Is there anybody wishing to speak in favor of this? Anybody wishing to speak in opposition? Any Mr. Chairman, I move that we honor with the petitioner's request to table this till our next meeting. Or to the
date So, If if it's going on it's going on the next meeting, we need the plan before the What is the deadline? Uh 40 days for the April 30th. April 30th. Otherwise, it'll have to
Yep. Go to June. You got Northeast on this. I got to let him know to find the date. He's going to write it out now. The next meeting is on May 21st. Okay. Do you want to meet that, or do you want to go beyond that? Is Jeff here? Is Jeff Of course Jeff's gone. Um yes,
we'll we'll keep that date. Tell Jeff he's got it. Tell Jeff the board voted to have him complete these plans on time. That's the jujitsu. Yeah. It's outside our purview, but it's Jeff. Right. >> [clears throat] >> All right, we have a motion on the on
the table. Second. Second. Dan, thank you. On that then, uh Ricky. Yes. Dan. >> Yes. Jim. Yes. John. Yes. Chairman Prue, yes. >> Thank you. Okay, thank you. Good item number nine, applicant is uh the Auto Genie LLC, owner um
Joelle and Joseph LLC. Care of attorney Peter A. Seleno, subject property 235 John Street, map I-15, lot 22. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. One, to operate / expand an automotive repair and auto
body repair on the premises uh on the pre-existing non-conforming commercial property. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the following. One, to reduce the number of customer parking spaces required from three spaces to two spaces.
Two, to reduce the required parking space with for proposed customer parking from 9 ft to uh 8.5 ft. The property is located within an A2 apartment zoning district. Good evening. For the record, Peter Seleno on behalf of the owner
applicant. With me is uh Mr. El Zebak and Mr. El Zebak. Uh the site is Vic's Car Wash. So, we've probably all been to Vic's Car Wash. The structure that we're referring to actually faces Fifth Street. So, when you're driving into the car wash, it's the building sort of on your right. Uh the proposal is to turn
that into an auto repair auto body facility. Because it's A2 zoning, this would be an expansion of the existing non-conforming use in the A2 district. Uh additionally, the relief sought is the reduction in customer parking places from three to two, and
then the width um Mr. Tallman, when he measures out, he can't get the spots to be 9 by 18. So, we're proposing 8 and 1/2 by 18. Uh in terms of the variance component, I think the hardship of the existing structures and their location on the site along with the site circulation relative to the car wash.
>> Mhm. Um and I think this is a great use for the city and a city business that's looking to expand um to the extent it's relevant to the petitioner or the curiosities of the board. Uh in addition, the El Zebaks own the lot across John Street as well, which can be
used for storage if there's any concern about overflow. Cool. So, it's it's an existing building uh that's being converted. It's not no new construction, no >> No new construction is proposed. It's just Okay. No. What's it being used at all for What do you have storage in there? Yeah, just
storage at the moment. Currently, it's just storage. What was that originally? Wasn't it It was a police substation. It was a lab of glass before that. It was It was a glass repair facility. Nice building. It's a good old building. Yeah, currently we actually have a mural being painted on the entire building as
well to make it look a little bit better. Okay. Questions, guys? None? No overnight parking or No, any overnight parking is done in the the the the larger parking lot. Oh.
Across Across Across John Street. Okay. Well, or on the site, that's in accordance with the original approvals for this for the for the stowing of towed vehicles. Yeah, the towed vehicles are actually at Zero John Street. Yeah. Yep. Jeff actually did a very good job of delineating each space with each
specific use, each specific license. Not easy to get it out of stuff like that. It was late at night. He was feeling kind of in a mood. Did he write it out? You should be You should be honored, really. No jujitsu or anything. Um Okay.
Anybody wishing to speak in favor? Anyone wishing to speak against? Vic's dad wants to speak in favor. All right, John. Mr. Chairman, I move we grant approval of the variance. I heard that. Second the motion, I think. Motion and
second. Give John the second on this one. All right, John. So, this is two different votes, right? Yes, the variance and the special permit. Yep. Yeah, it's it's on the variance. Mr. Chairman, I move that it's not more substantially detrimental and that we grant the special permit as
requested. You want to do the special permit first? But you already made a motion on the variance. I thought we voted. We didn't vote. So, we have a motion on the variance. Uh that was seconded. Was that you, John? Uh no, I had just changed it to >> Okay, that's fine.
>> [snorts] >> Um then on the variance, John. Yes. Jim. Yes. Dan. Yes. Ricky. Yes. Me, yes. Okay. Now go. >> Can I now I move that we grant the special permit finding that it is not substantially
more detrimental. Second. Okay, motion and second. On the motion, John. Yes. Jim. Yes. Dan. Yes. Ricky. Yes. Me, yes. Best of luck with it. Thank you. Thank you all so much. for being here. Have a good night. Have a good night,
Peter. And we we hit number 10. We got signs coming out with the overhead views. Item number 10, the applicant owner Charlton Mill Lofts LLC, care of attorney Peter A. Sileno. Subject
property is at 309 House Street and east side of Otis Street. Map B20 lot one in map B21 lot 32. The applicant is requesting a special permit to allow
the following. One, to raise, which is not r a i s e, to raise two structures on the property, convert the existing mill building into 174 apartment units and construct a 68-unit apartment building on the
property, waiving uh use, number of units, as well as the parking and loading requirements of section 86-441 and 86-444 as to the proximity to property lines.
The property is located in a CMD commercial mill zoning district. Good evening, Peter Sileno, on behalf of the applicant. Uh with me is Tim Cusson, Farley Engineering and well, Tim's gentleman here. Uh so, the proposal before you is 109 House Street. Uh this
matter has sort of been before you previously to the east. So, we came in previously relative to a multi-unit development to the east, which is currently under construction. What's before you right now relates to the existing mill building as well as a building that's proposed to be erected.
The proposal includes the following, which was modified and then this is the board's packet from what was just read on the agenda. So, the proposal is to convert the existing mill into 147 total units. 55 of which are studios, 74 of which are one bedrooms, and 18 of which are two
bedrooms. To construct a new building containing 68 units, 52 one bed, eight two bed, eight three bed. So, the total proposed number of units is 215. The uh parking allotment is 269 spaces,
which calcs out to 1.25. 187 being with the existing structure and 82 proposed for the new structure. This is contemplated to be market rate housing development. Um and the uh I don't think there's an intention to condo it. The intention is to rent it as
apartments. >> Yeah, these are rentals, yeah. Um it's a really unique and neat project because it takes the existing structure and a new structure. It's got solar components. It's got community space and then different amenities along the pond. Um it's all being proposed uh by special permit
um as far as use and the various waivers that you laid out in the actual application. Of course, we have the architectural renderings here. We've submitted floor plans. Um so, we're happy to answer any questions the board may have about the proposal and uh really excited about the project. Okay.
First of all, thank you for reducing the numbers cuz I was very concerned about the parking ratio for this thing. So, I appreciate that. I'm sure the whole board does. Um Wow. >> [clears throat] >> I been looking at this for a while. I
know you like the looks of the original or the current Oh, I I love the property as it stands. I can't believe we'd we'd change that. >> [laughter] >> Don't get nervous, Peter. You're turning red over there. >> [laughter]
>> Uh Dan talked to me from from planning. So, I mean, we've worked on a year? At least. >> At least a year. Yeah, at least a year. With different concepts and so I'm I'm [snorts] I'm so glad that it finally came before us. Hopefully, it actually gets built. We keep trying to move forward with some of these mill projects, but a lot of them we just
can't get people off the dime. Everybody's been super successful with the ones that they have done. Um I know Mr. Cusson's reputation and his and his track record and it's it's very impressive with regards to developments. So, they do have the ability to do this. Really, the only thing that it comes
down to is the parking requirement >> [snorts] >> um and what they what we've been able to discuss and and get them to is what would be required in the WTOD. So, most zoning districts didn't contemplate buildings of this many units. So, in the
WTOD, the underlying zoning, if we get to a building that exceeds 50 units in uh density, the parking ratio is 1.25 spaces per unit. That number even gets reduced even greater if there's like a
commercial component into it. So, we're not getting into that part of it, but we wanted to at least make sure I wanted to make sure that a reasonable petition came before you that at least met that number. Which that number was derived from market analysis, unit size,
um types of tenants that that are in these buildings. We found that all of the mills that have been developed with this parking density have been able to provide enough parking. Um so, not a concern. Well, the trick here is,
you know, as we developed a lot of downtown, there were alternative places to park. Right. And there really >> [snorts] >> there's no alternatives here. No, no, no, and I'm getting to that. And that's the difference of of this site compared to some of the existing commercial buildings that we've dealt with even in the vicinity of this building. So, I'm
thankful that the applicant understood that and reduced the total number of units um to meet that requirement. So, I'm I'm in full support of it. Very well done, very well thought out. There's been a lot of red pen on this thing over the time, right, Peter? That's all right. It has. That's what makes a good project. It's good. But, we
appreciate the work. I mean, the the renderings look great. I'm sure that I this is just such a such a boom for this this piece of property, in my opinion. I'm one guy. Um questions from the board? Mr. Chairman, I would just echo that. I
commend you on this on this proposal. Something very well needed in the city. Thank you. That's a I mean, it's a great spot that's that's It's actually a beautiful location and beautiful building and you know, we we put a lot into the building so far into the thought of, you know, on-site recreation for the tenants
inside and outside the building. Uh we've started the cleanup process on the building. Actually, it's pretty much almost done. Um So, we're eager to get going and our plan is to jump right into construction as soon as possible um and move the project forward. Do you have a timeline, estimated timeline? Depending on final
permitting and and everything, we'd like to be our phase two would be the ground-up building um and the windows at the same time uh for the main mill building from a marketing kind of point of view. Um and we'd like to do that later this year if possible if we can get there. Yeah, I
I love saving these I love saving these mill buildings and the character of them is is just so much worthwhile. >> are working with the National Park Service to It's Fall River. Yeah. And they say Fall River. When you drive by, it's it's, you know, these Fall River granite buildings, etc. We have our part one approval through
the National Park Service and we're working on our part two already. Um and they they gave us feedback. We made a lot of changes based on what they wanted on the new construction of the building. Um and they actually gave us some great compliments. They really love what we're doing with the building and the project. So, we're we're excited
about it. Okay. And again, we're getting looking at the very I mean, what >> [snorts] >> that's not a lot of relief, right? We're only just acquiring part of it. Right. Understand that meeting >> [clears throat] >> the parking need just for the sake of meeting parking need means no tennis courts, no pickleball courts, no
community buildings. So, there's room to do it, but the land is being utilized for overall better planned purposes for the development. So, it it was it was a it was a balancing act, but And and I think in the long run, somebody's going to be happy knowing happier knowing that they they're going
to get home and have a place to park instead of fighting for that last spot. So, place to park, go for a swim, play game of pickleball, and you know, enjoy. Give them something else to do inside. You got a big enough building, right? We do. We have two media rooms. We're going to put We're going to have golfing
simulators. Um we have a pool area, pool table area in there and a recreation area also. Cool. Very good. Any other questions? Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this petition?
Thank you. Ken Fiola, uh executive vice president of Bristol County EDC. I think a lot of the information here has already been discussed. Um a couple of additional points here, I think. One, you know, I don't think it was mentioned. I stepped out for a minute, but maybe it had. You know, the the primary mill building
had a pretty significant environmental issue and the remediation that's been taking place there. Without such remediation, the property the building could not be reutilized. So, there's a lot of money that's already going into that to make it utilizable
for residential purposes. Um that's money that people don't necessarily see, but without without that investment, the mill building could never be repurposed. Secondly, I think it it also unlocks one of our greatest assets in being Cook Pond, right? Nobody's ever really took advantage of
Cook Pond for you know, because it's already been always been sort of precluded from public use because of other mill building uses, right? And now now you have greater accessibility there. Uh thirdly, it's in the south end of the city, which I'm very happy about because a lot of
developments taking place along the waterfront. I think spreading the development out throughout the city makes a lot of sense. It's also, you know, what we're finding in the south end of this these types of units and this type of development is very, you know, interesting to those
people on Aquidneck Island because it's such a small commute and there's not a lot of buildable space on Aquidneck Island, whether you're looking at points with the Middletown or Newport. So, you're seeing a lot of people moving in from Rhode Island into Massachusetts specifically for residential purposes. And once they're here, now they they're
starting to look at, you know, the all other parts of the city and frequenting other establishments and everything else. So, I think, you know, the rendering speaks for itself. You know, the I don't want to say what the financial investment is here, but it's it's multi-million dollars. This is not a
cheap project. So, this is not something that's, you know, that's not going to be, you know, done first class. It's a very >> Yeah, we spent $3 million on the project so far today, and we estimate it'll be a $65 million project. >> I don't want to say it. So, like so, you got $65 million of a further investment coming to the city. I
think I think, you know what? That needs to be known, and and thank you for saying it because you know, there's there's there's odd perception in this city sometimes that you know, it's they're just slapping, you know, wallboard up and blah blah.
It it's it's huge. And you And you're taking an underutilized piece of property that's sitting dormant and it's now being repurposed, and it's a good thing. Anyway, thank you. I hope that the board votes favorably. The board votes favorably. Anyone else wishing to speak in favor?
Anybody in opposition? This is the biggest project we've had with nobody in here jumping up and down about it. I'm I'm very I'm glad I'm I'm very happy to see that. It's a It's a technically be what? It's like it's the third mill complex that will have access to Coggan Boulevard. We got King Philip here.
Yeah. Yeah. The Bourne Mill is in Bourne Mill is in Tiverton, but yeah. Yep. Yeah. And the other And the other And the other residential component, yeah. Very nice. And the And the just to note, the the the res single-family residents also will have access to the amenities of of the complex also.
Mr. Chairman, I move to approve over the variance request. >> All special. All special permit special permit not more than substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. I'll second. Very good.
Discussion of the motion? Hearing none, Ricky? Yes. Dan? Yes. Jim? Yes. John? Yes. And Chairman Barrows, yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you so much for putting so much into this. Appreciated. Thank you.
Citizen input? No. Uh approval of minutes from the March 19th, 2026 meeting? Mr. Chairman, I move to dispense with the reading of the minutes and approval of same. Very good. And second it. All in favor? Aye.
Um Nothing else. Motion for Motion for adjournment. Second. All in favor? Aye. Guys, girls, thank you.