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, May 21st, 2026. We are meeting at one government center in the first floor hearing room.
Pursuant to Mass General Law Chapter 30A section 20 subsection F. I hereby notify all persons in attendance that a video and audio recording of this meeting is being made by Fall River Government TV, Mr. Craig Salvador.
If anyone 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 James Caulkins, our clerk, Dan Dupier, and Ricky Sahadi as well as alternate member Alexis Alsamo. Also present this evening sitting to my far left is Daniel Aguiar, director of
engineering and planning. Courtney, have all petitions to be considered been properly advertised and all interested parties notified in accordance with the rules and regulations of the ZBA and Mass General Law Chapter 40 as amended? >> Yes.
>> I thereby declare the May 21st, 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 uh before the
board including petitioners of butters anyone in favor or opposed to the petition that your presentation and comments be limited to three minutes. The board's rules and regulations direct the board to specifically look for information that supports the
petitioner's claim. As such, the petitioner should identify and factually support the basis for their claim. In the case of a variance, a credible hardship as defined in Mass General Law Chapter 4A must be presented. I remind
all president present that the authority of the ZBA exist pursuant to Mass General Law chapter 4A and is limited in scope dealing with the use of land as regulated by chapter 86 of the
ordinances of the city of Fall River. We excuse me we require that comments made in this hearing be limited to the scope and authority of this board. Additional permits, licenses, reviews, and/or approvals may be required for any
petition that is heard tonight. The action taken by this board has a real and lasting effect on the title to your real estate. As such, I urge all petitioners to seek competent legal counsel before filing your petition and
after the decision of the board has been made. A copy of the ordinance is available at the city clerk's office or from the planning department. I remind everyone that the building inspector is the zoning enforcement authority and you are here because the building inspector
has determined that your proposed action is contrary to the city of Fall River zoning ordinance. The city's charter section 9-18 mandates that all multi-member bodies develop and adopt rules or policies for
public comment. We have adopted such a policy that provides for citizens input on zoning board specific matters. There is a signup sheet on the table just outside the uh the door to this room. Let's get into it.
Under old business, item number 01, the applicant owner is uh Alex Demetri Demetrialis. Yeah. >> Care of attorney Gregory Brilliant. 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, leaving the existing six family dwelling at 550
Maple Street on lot one and leaving the existing single family dwelling at 552 Maple Street on lot two, waving frontage, area setback, lot coverage, and parking requirements. The property is located within an R4 two
family zoning district. This petition was previously tabled at the April 16th uh 2026 ZBA meeting at the request of the petitioner council. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, attorney Gregory Bernes at 111 Oakrove Avenue,
Far Massachusetts. I think the board remembers my presentation from last month. Um and if they want me to rehash that, I will. Um, but I think the substance of of why we tabled it was the board had some concerns relative to parking um, in this particular area. And although there isn't a parking issue on
the property, my client went back uh, and with Mr. Tomman uh, reconfigured the the property lines and so forth and so on in order to provide parking for both units as shown on the plan. Now, the six family has parking for six units and the
single family house now has parking for three units. Um, we've taken all of those cars off the lot and we think that we have at least based on the comments made at the last meeting alleviated the problems. Um, all potential problems
within the neighborhood. Um, again, if you want me to rehash the the substance of my my uh petition from last month, I will, but I think it's pretty straightforward what I had stated other than the fact that this the building on lot 2 was built after I believe what is it 1954. Mr. I got the the
>> correct >> that's why it's a variance. >> That's why it's a variance and not a special pro u to the Getty case. So if there are any questions I am here as well as Mr. Demitri. >> So the five parking sp and thank you for
this. The five parking spaces that are now shown uh let's say next to the uh to the six family. >> Yes. >> Those are actually on lot two. Correct. >> I don't believe so. >> No. Okay. All right. There's a new lot.
>> There's a new lot line that's going to that's going to have, I believe, six spaces for a six family unit. And the back has three spaces, which will go now with lot two entering by that 10-ft strip to the um to the left of lot one. >> So, that 10-ft strip will no longer be
an easement. It is actually now a part of lot two >> under the new new configuration. >> Under the new configuration. Okay. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. So then we have So lot two has 10 ft of furnage. >> Correct. Okay. >> We we felt as though it was cleaner and
um would suffice allowing Mr. Deitriotis to uh suffice the intent of his grandmother in order to get that back house to his brother. >> Okay. Yeah. And and when we walked out, I I I was driving home last month going if they've got to have cross easements between these two lots for parking. It
may not be a problem for you for you guys, but it's going to be a problem for somebody in the future if you ever sell one of these one of these houses. So, that cross easement thing. >> This this is cleaner. >> The only easements that'll be left now um there is a utility easement. Um
you'll actually see these over on the right hand side of the plant. There is a utility easement for the water, sewer, and gas that serve the back building. Those utilities are already in. So the utilities are separated. So they will have a utility easement.
>> And then also on the 10-ft strip, there is also a maintenance easement that is provided to lot one because there is only a 1 foot building setback to that property line. >> Right. >> But they will have the additional um easement to uh to do work house if need
be. >> Thank you, Mr. Thank you. >> Is your brother okay with this? >> Is he he's good? He's good with it. Yep. Not that not that we're a family counseling center here. I just don't want I I just don't want everybody to go
home and and there there still be an issue. Question from the board. >> Just a comment on Mr. Chief. Um I'd like to commend you, Attorney Bill, for working with the board for revising this. Um >> as far as I'm as far as I'm concerned, you've addressed the concerns we have.
So I'm totally supportive of this proposal. >> Thank you. Sorry. I thank the board for always being very uh kind to to allow this to happen. >> Any other questions or comments? Is there anyone here this evening wishing
to speak in support of this petition? Anyone to speak in opposition? They're hearing none. I bring it to the board. Mr. Chairman, I move that we grant the variance as requested with the
stipulation of no additional units or subdivisions. >> Second. >> I'm just trying to I'm just looking at this wondering how we further subdivide this light. >> You never know. >> You never know.
>> We have a motion and a second discussion on the motion there. Hearing none. Alexis, >> yes. >> Ricky, >> yes. >> Dan, >> yes. Jim. >> Yes. >> Chairman Furry. Yes. Thank you so much for your work on this. >> Thank you. >> Also under old business item number 02,
the applicant James M. Dwart, owner um Gonzalez Real Estate Investments LLC care of attorney Peter E. Selenino. Subject property is 835 North Main Street, map 010, lot 14. The applicant is requesting a
variance to allow the following. Um, one to construct an 8-unit apartment building uh in a BL district. Two, to wave setback requirements from 10 ft to 5t. Uh, the applica uh the applicant is requesting a special permit to allow the
following to wave parking requirements uh of section 86-441 from the required 16 parking spaces. Property is located within a BL local business zoning district. Petition was previously tabled at the April 16th,
2026 zoning board hearing at the request of the petitioner. Council, >> good evening. For the record, Peter Felino on behalf of the applicant, Jason Dart. With me is Mr. Dart. Uh, as a recap to the meeting in April, we had presented at that time an 8-unit
building seeking waiverss of parking requirements side setback. We heard the concerns of the board and also um tried to be responsive to those concerns and therefore the new plan that has been submitted. First and foremost reduces the unit count to six from eight. You
can see from the plan that the proposal is two bedrooms per and to construct four parking spaces underneath the building which would make the number of spaces compliant meaning there are 12 spaces now on site as shown on the plan. And the waivers sought at this point
would be the number of units in the district because three are allowed and we're seeking six. There's a waiver sought for the size of the parking spaces under the building. Jeff has them labeled on the plan as 8 12 by 17
compact spaces for uh that label is plan uh left and low there. And then the other waiver sought is a parking space 10 ft from a property line. So I would submit to you that this proposal should be responsive to the board's uh
questions and requests. Um again less density tried to be mindful of the parking uh questions and requirements and now we do comply as it relates to the number of spaces. Bravo. Good work.
Good work. >> Thank you. >> Um yeah, I have no questions. the um from planning aspect. Do you have anything? >> Nope. Just just be aware that you will require two separate votes. One, the
variance for unit count >> and then two, everything parking wise can be handled by a special >> by a special permit. >> Questions from members? Ricky, did you have a chance to look at the new plan? >> Yes. And um again, as I indicated with
the first plane, I want to thank you for working with the board for um addressing our concerns and um as far as I'm concerned, I have no questions whatsoever and I'm totally supportive. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> What are you running for? No.
>> The city limits. >> All right. Is there anyone here wishing to speak in um support of the petition? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition there? Hearing none, I turn to the
board. This is um a variance and special permit. >> So we take the variance first. >> Variance first. >> So I'll make the motion that we approve the variance as requested. >> Second >> motion and second discussion on the motion here. Hearing none. Jim, >> yes. >> Dan,
>> yes. >> Ricky, >> yes. >> Alexis, >> yes. >> Jeremy Prairie, yes. Then on the special permits, >> so because the special permit bifocated >> bifocated. Yep. >> So I would make a motion that this is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood and that it be approved
as requested. >> Second. >> Motion and second. What >> I would just like where it doesn't put a specific number there that it just says relief from the required. I think we should put >> Well, it's in accordance with the plan.
>> Yeah. But it doesn't say that. Well, no, because that's how this is how it was originally advertised when they were asking for a reduction in spaces. So, there is no more reduction in spaces. It's just they have 12 spaces. >> Yeah. But I just think we should say that that there be a minimum
>> a minimum of 12. >> No problem. The applicant's fine with that and accepts that as a condition. >> You okay with the wording then? >> Okay. Very good. >> On the motion, Jim? >> Yes. >> Dan, >> yes. >> Ricky, >> yes. >> Alexis, >> yes. Chairman Prairie. Yes.
>> Thank you. Congratulations. Good luck. >> Thank you. >> On to new business. >> Item number one, applicant owner. Um, sorry. George and Natalie Monero. Uh, care of attorney Gregory Brilliant.
Subject property 581 Pleasant Street. Map K03, lot 00003. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following. to permit the stowing of towed vehicles in compliance, I'm sorry, in conjunction with the
existing automotive repair uh use on the property waving applicable parking requirements under section 86-441 and 86-445 of the zoning ordinance related to
vehicle storage. The property is located within a CMD commercial mill zoning district. >> Good evening once again, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, for the record of Attorney Gregory Brilliant on behalf of George and Natalie Morr. Um, I'm here before you tonight uh representing the Morras who own and operate Georgia's
Auto Tech LLC at 581 Pleasant Street. They have they have owned and operated this as a family-owned business for since 2013 for the last 13 years. Um, the Mr. Morera currently does tow vehicles for the purpose of his own automobile repair shop. He towes
vehicles in in order to repair. he does not he does not do so in terms of being able to do be on the the list to bring people to bring toes in and so forth and so on. So, um we're here tonight to be able to ask permission to tow and stow vehicles at this site. As you can see
from the plan, there's a segregated area already for uh 20 vehicles to the right. It's all fenced in. It's already there. Okay. He's also provided for customer uh parking and um and employee parking also on site. three spaces for one, two
spaces for the other. So he I believe he meets the ordinance as it that it's as it applies to um customer parking and excuse me employee parking. The hot chip to the property is just that the property itself. It's a it's an auto tech shop. It's all it can be used for.
Um this is just going to be an ancillary business to that particular use. The proposal will not deriggate in any way, shape, or form from the from the neighborhood because it's all commercial all the way around. And in fact, he owns the property directly next door, him and his wife. Um, and so if there was any
runoff of any kind relative to Pocking, he could accommodate it there. That used to be a um a hair salon, but it's a it's a unit with a storefront in the beginning. So, he has more than enough spots. Um, and quite frankly, when you look at this, nothing's going to change. Nothing at all. He's just going to be
able to if he goes and towes something from the for the police department or or or or a business, he now has a place to store it. But nothing nothing visually, nothing's going to be constructed. Everything that's there is there. It's already fenced in. There's already adequate space. So, that being said, if
there's any questions, Mr. Morr is here who's operates. He's there every day. Um, very hard worker um to answer any questions that the board may have. >> Love small business. >> There's there's storage there now, isn't there? Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. Yes. Yes.
>> It's anticipated this be shortterm storage or >> um well if >> could be longer. >> It could be longer depending on if you know if he towes something for the police department and somebody doesn't pick it up I assume. But he's well verssed in that area. He knows it all already. Anyhow he's uh he's been in
this business for quite some time. He called me because he remembered me when I was young. So that's got to be a long time. >> That's a good >> What were you driving then? >> Younger. Younger. Younger. >> Younger. Yeah. The tan, you look younger. Just >> I don't know.
>> Uh, from a planning standpoint, anything, Dan? >> I have nothing. I mean, this is it right in the middle of across the street from uh from Taco, >> right, >> next door to Sherwin Williams Commercial Mill behind it, the Merchants Mill. I I see no reason why uh there's no construction activity to
>> to go on. Nothing's changing other than the use. And I believe it'll be self-regulating to some degree, right? Because you still need some of that space for your have fixed. So, no, I have no issue. >> Yeah. And you you have to leave you have
to leave that that alleyway in between anyway just to be able to move cars around. So, it's not like you're going to >> start stacking them on top of each other. >> Any other questions from the board, comments? Silence. That being the case, I would
turn to those present. Is anyone here to speak in support of this petition? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? They're hearing none. It's up to the board.
>> Mr. Chairman, I move that the variance be approved as requested. >> Second. Motion and second discussion on the motion there hearing none. Alexis, >> yes. >> Ricky, >> yes. >> Dan, >> yes. >> Jim,
>> yes. >> Chairman Fra, yes. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Have a good >> luck. Item number two, applicant owner, uh, Michael J. Dalt, Kristen M. Dissult, care of attorney, Peter Ray Celino.
Subject property is 96 Conquered Street uh map K21 lot 13. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the following to construct an attached garage addition to the existing single family dwelling waving sideyard setback
requirements of section 86 attachment one of the zoning ordinance. The property is located within an S single family zoning and G general residence zoning district council. >> Good evening. For the record, Peter Celino on behalf of the owner applicant.
Immediately to my left is Kristen Dussult. Her husband is in the back row over my right shoulder. The story behind this petition is that my clients live right near Tabet Middle School. >> Mhm. >> Currently, they park vehicles on the street. Their vehicles have been hit and broken into many times. So they started
to think about constructing a garage in order to get the vehicles off the street. And so you can see the property is somewhat unique in the sense that sort of the bottom two bottom third if you will maybe a little less than that is in the Gz zoning district and the rest of it is in the single family
zoning district. So when you look at the more plentiful district which is the single family district the bulk of the properties in that district and the sole waiver here being sought is the plan left sideline. So, in a single family district, uh the left side of the garage
there needs a 20 foot setback and as proposed, it's 10.9. I've argued in my petition that the hardship is the existing structure and its location on the lot. There's only so many places you can build the uh garage. And as shown on the plan, there's a couple of things to be raised or removed to keep it
compliant from a lot coverage perspective. So, the plan was intended to be thoughtful and minimize the relief requested. Again, all that's being requested is a side step back waiver to the left of the proposed garage. >> Okay. 25 by 32 attached.
>> Yes. >> Single story. >> Is it single story? >> Yes. >> I don't have any questions on this. I commend you for removing some of the paved areas and eliminating a uh
a coverage issue. >> Well advised by council. >> Yes. >> Planning? >> No. Just that the board should understand this garage could be constructed as a detached structure and
only be four feet from the sideline, >> right? >> Because there's actually room to meet the six in between the garage and and the proposed structure. So that would only bring the the garage same size six feet closer to the the neighboring a butter at 84 concrete.
>> Um so I think they've done a good job um >> minimizing the amount of relief while getting some vehicles off the street. >> I agree. >> Okay. Any other questions from the board? Comments from the board? Pretty straightforward.
Anyone here wishing to speak in support of the petition? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the petition? They're hearing none. So this is a variance and it is strictly
for the sideline setback uh 10 foot n inches as opposed to 20 feet. Uh as pointed out by planning director if they detached the garage it could be 4t off the property line. So
>> Mr. Chairman, >> not a big ask. >> I move granting of the uh variance. Second >> motion and second questions on that having no discussion. Jim, >> yes.
>> Dan, >> yes. >> Ricky, >> yes. >> Alexis, >> yes. >> Chairman Ferrari, yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Where am I? Item number three. Applicant owner, Precise Packaging,
Inc. Trustees of precise packaging realy trust care of attorney Peter Aselino subject property 1120-1140 airport road map Z03 lot 27 the applicant is requesting a
variance to allow the following one to divide the property into two lots leaving the existing 15,000 square ft industrial building on lot one waving sideyard setback rear and uh rear yard setback back and lot coverage requirements
and leaving an existing 47,200 square ft industrial building on lot 2 waving sideyard setback requirements property is located within um an IP industrial park zoning district. >> Excuse me.
>> Thank you for the record. Peter Selenino on behalf of the owner applicant. As Mr. Chairman read, this petition seeks to divide the existing commercial property into two lots. There are currently two buildings on one lot. So, the proposal is to create lot one and lot two as shown on the plan. In terms of the
relief, I'll go lot by lot. So, lot one, uh, we're seeking a sideyard setback waiver. Uh, it should be 40 ft in the industrial zoning district as shown on the plan, it's 27. The rear yard setback should be 40. Uh, we're showing 38. And then the lot coverage should be 70% and
it's at 72 as it relates to lot one. And then as it relates to lot two, the relief sought is the um sideyard setback on the existing structure to the new property line which again uh in the district should be 40 and the plan is
measured at 26 uh8. So therefore there are effectively four waivers being sought in the petition uh to divide the property. Parking is not an issue. Parking is provided for and we think we can handle access via the easement uh as shown on the plan. And the genesis of
this one, in case you're wondering, is um really salailability or rentability. Uh my client used to run his business here and uh no longer does. He has these two buildings and he's having trouble getting a company or company to either rent or buy both. And so that's the
genesis of the petition. >> Okay, fair enough. Creative on the parking with these. I think that makes very good sense. Uh does planning agree with my statement that this >> Yeah. The only thing I would be concerned about and I think you kind of
have to look at this like in 86423B where we've got substantial easements for the the benefit of each. So there should be no fencing. There should be separate utilities um property corners should be marked
permanently. Other than that I don't see anything that could create a problem down the road. The utilities may be separate already. I don't know. They do show a 25 foot u utility easement along the top property line. I don't know if that's where the water and sewer currently is or if
that's where it's planned to be. It wasn't provided. So, >> do you know if that's >> I do not. And unfortunately, I'll offer for the record that Mr. Armstrong intended to be here and he broke his right ankle yesterday. He cannot drive and he is being operated on at St. An's
tomorrow morning first thing. So, I'll I'll apologize for his lack of absence because he'd know the answer to that question. >> We want to be able to give him some good news. So, >> yeah, we can certainly accept that as a condition. Uh, you know, should the board see fit to grant the request.
>> Okay. Questions from the board? I will say at the for the salailability of two existing industrial buildings in a city where we've run out of space for new industrial buildings. Um I I
consider this a plus. Is there anyone here wishing to speak in support of the petition? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Uh there hearing none. I would then turn to the board.
Mr. Chairman, I move approval of the variance. Um subject to proper uh marking of the division lane. No, no fencing between the two properties. uh separate utilities
>> affidavit recorded prior. >> Yes. >> Yeah. With the affidavit recorded prior to any >> second >> motion made and seconded discussion on the motion
there hearing none. Alexis >> yes. >> Ricky >> yes. >> Dan >> yes. Jim, >> yes. >> And Jim Pur, yes. Thank you. Was this is this still in land court? >> Yeah, >> the property is land court. Yes.
>> They're going to try and take it out or >> I'm going to Yeah, that's going to be my advice. And now it's actually much faster. >> Well, yeah. >> You don't have to set show a hardship to withdraw. >> Good. >> They passed that in February. So, we'll see. Did they make you sign anything
so that like the property owner is taking on any responsibility that whatever whatever purpose it went into land court oh >> initially no >> it's just a petition yeah >> should be something right that cuz who knows why it was brought to land court to start with right
>> is that null that >> fair question but no it's not in the applicant package >> got it cool let us move on then to item Number four, applicant is Matthew Pinacho.
Owner uh DP Masher and Sons LLC care of attorney Peter Aselino. Subject property 105 Weaver Street, map T3, lot 16. The applicant is requesting the variance to allow the following. to
convert the existing warehouse into an automotive repair auto body facility and to allow the stowing of towed vehicles on the property seeking relief from the use um restrictions set forth in section 86 attachment two of the Fall River
zoning ordinance. The property is located within a WOD waterfront and transit oriented development zoning district. >> Thank you. For the record, Peter Selenino. In this petition, I represent Matt Pinacho. Matt is immediately to my
left. Matt is um involved with and an owner operator of Mike's auto body on Bay Street and All Day, All Night Towing. So, uh Matt has a purchase and sale agreement to acquire this property that is subject to zoning relief if we could receive it. Um in terms of the
current use of the property, so the current use of the property, DP Moer, is Bristol Plymouth Moving. There's a big metal warehouse on the property and the site is almost entirely impervious. Now, um so ultimately the plan or the
proposal here is to do auto body repair, um automotive repair and to tow. So Matt's uh company has contracts with the Fall River Police Department to tow and the Massachusetts State Police. And so hence the name all day, all night
towing. So when we get down to the discussion of ours, I can go into that more deeply, but in terms of an overview of the proposal, it's to operate out of this, uh, premises, uh, it would be approximately seven employees, mechanics, andor drivers. Um, you have
two trucks that would be operating out of here. Tow >> I have five. >> Five trucks. Okay. Five tow trucks. Um, and obviously the proximity of this site to Route 24 is much more favorable than being down next to CUS. Um, in terms of the zoning, the property current operate
currently operates as a non-conforming use. When you look at the table of uses, warehousing is not allowed in the WTO. Um, and there's no specific uh category for moving companies. So, as a result, I think one of the important parts of this petition is that although it is not
allowed by right, the only thing we're here to talk about is use everything else. We can uh provide the necessary parking. the building is as it sits and therefore there is no setback waiverss requested. So then when I look at the neighborhood as a whole, which I think is important to the merit of the
petition, uh across the street at 100 Weaver, you have the Trust Company. >> They build trusses, they have loading docks, they have big trucks, 53 ft trucks going in and out of there to get on to 24. To your left, you have Atco Plumbing and Heating commercial uh and
mechanical contractor. They have storage. And to the south, it didn't quite make it on the plan, but you have Pyvis Garage, which also towes on Crescent Street and um um does auto body repair. So, I bring all this up because I know we're going to have some opposition tonight. I can submit to the
board that I've been in contact with the opposing attorney who's going to speak shortly. We've tried to allay the concerns of the Abutter People Incorporated. I think we've been fair in that regard. Um and I'm happy to answer those points, you know, when we get there. But in terms of uh office hours
of operation, uh the suggested hours for the office would be uh Monday through Friday 7:30 to 5:30 and then on Saturday 7:30 to 12:30. Obviously, as I have indicated in my presentation, if they receive a call
that there's a car accident on 24 and the Mass State Police are calling him, then Matt has to go get uh go get the vehicle and bring it back to the yard. So all the drivers take the trucks home at night. So the drivers of the tow trucks, you know, Matt lives in Somerset, he'd have the truck at his
house, he'd respond to the call and bring it back to this facility. Um, so I I'm trying to be careful to say the office hours would be what I presented, but if if he has to pick up a vehicle, it would be at whatever time the call comes in. >> Okay. Fenced and locked, correct?
>> Yes. So the lot is entirely fenced in. Um and he's certainly willing to submit to a condition that any kind of stowed vehicles would not be viewable from the abuing property. Um that's something that we've been discussing with the neighbor. Um he would need probably some
sort of a temporary license or easement to go on the neighbor's property to do that to install the fencing andor screening, but that is certainly an acceptable condition that he's more than willing to do. >> Okay. And that would be a mutually agreeable fencing screening arrangement without it >> becoming we are.
>> Yes. without it being outrageous or egregious to your client. Okay. I don't have any questions. Uh I think it's a good use for the site, but we'll be sensitive to any neighbors that
wish to speak about it from a planning aspect. Um, looking at it, the only thing that I would I would request or at least ask the board to consider would be so they they show the limit of the storage spaces at the 10-ft setback. I would
request that the the pavement be cut back to 10 and the fencing be installed along the edge of the pavement and then that perimeter 9 to 10 ft be be landscaped with some type of screen hedge arborites something. So fence and
screening >> wrapping around the 10 ft of the rear storage area. So like let's say from the building back >> is a fence with two trees. >> Okay. >> So just just a 10 foot landscape strip with fencing around the outside of the uh
>> storage area which is in the back of the building. >> Other than that I don't think it would have >> a detrimental impact as far as time of use. Um, I don't think people incorporated have a a use for their
building overnight or during hours outside of normal business. So, I don't see a they're my main concern with just making sure that they've got proper screening uh not only for for visual but some sound barrier and
aesthetics. >> Good. And if I could add or supplement those comments, um that has been part of the discussion this week. Uh certainly Matt's agreeable and amendable to any conditions to dampen noise, uh smells,
andor lighting. >> So I think some of that gets into site plan review and it's not the purview of this board and all those kind of things, but that's all been discussed and he's more than willing to accommodate any uh those requests. Um, I also should point out in terms of operating near a school,
um, if everybody knows where his shop is now, CUS is right there. So, he's, uh, operated near a school that has a much higher population in terms of student count, uh, many of whom who walk. So, I I think we can be a harmonious use with
People, Inc. Um, but again, uh, certainly Mr. McVeyy's got a job to do and he's got to say what he's got to say for his client. >> Okay. Any other questions or comments from the board, please? >> So, this um the facility at CU near Cuss will be closed.
>> Uh no, they have uh the towing would all be here. >> An auto body would be here, but you have other things going on. >> Yeah. Yeah. Just basically the business is just expanding. The property we're at now can't handle the volume of customers that we have. >> And then basically we tell people it's
two three months before we can touch your vehicles. You just don't have the room. So just kind of losing a bunch of revenue. So we kind of need to expand into another location. >> So it's in addition to >> Yes. >> Anyone else? Anyone here wishing to speak in support
of the petition? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Just identify yourself. Please >> speak here. >> Yes. >> Attorney Mike McVey from Mark and Walsh.
uh 50 Homer's Warf Bedford. I'm here on behalf of people incorporated. I think I'm joined hopefully by two representatives, Peter Daly and Britney Cly. Um here to strongly oppose this change of
use and not to make clear it's against the applicant. And I'll talk about that in a moment. If you don't mind, whoever can scroll down just a tick to show our property on the site map. So, as you most of you probably know, People Incorporated is a is a does tremendous
work uh in southeastern Massachusetts for disabled folks and and and children among other things. Um what's labeled as 145 Weaver Street, I think it's called a charitable office is in in reality is a brand new opened last year uh early
education center that serves 214 215 children from the age of four weeks old until preschool age. Um, and that is a result of 10 years of de development, permitting, and construction, and
fundraising, upwards of $14 million. Um, the concern here are three items: noise, odor, I'd call it health and safety. You've got this. This doesn't operate
like a typical school. It's open year round. And it has children like I not noted as young as four weeks old. The I this site was chosen specifically because of uh open access to outdoor time. Uh children here are encouraged to
play in the two playgrounds. Windows are open all the time. And I imagine I wasn't part of the development team, but part of the calculus was the existing um allowed uses at the WTO, which this applicant is trying to poke a
hole in. So, we talk about noise, 24-hour uh toe and stow and automotive um repair and, you know, operation could have a serious impact on the ability of the kids to have up to two naps a day.
the smell, the odor. I know there's been discussion. We, you know, they can take steps to mitigate it. That's a serious concern for open windows. They're only a few feet away. And you got to understand, our property basically hugs this this this site. I by my
calculation, it's about 450t of um shared boundary, right? So, we can talk about screening and we can talk about different mitigating factors. The kids are going to be right on the other side of that, right? So, I understand that he's going to have contracts with state police, so cars are going to be
towed in. And my understanding is that this is public facing, meaning DUI um you know, folks that are just out on bail have the opportunity to have a legal right to show up and get some of their personal property. So, that speaks
to the health and safety issue. Whereas this, you know, this was again chosen specifically for its its location, open air, and sort of being out of the way of of items like this. And here we're trying to introduce possible, you know,
irritable folks here and there into a situation where there's only one way in and one way out out of that um out of the driveway that's not that's shown on the plan. Now, what we've talked about change of use variance. So I understand, you know, this applicant has a high level of
credibility by Mr. Celino. That's fantastic. But we understand and the board I know I think understands by granting a use variance, you're handcuffing um People's Incorporated to what could be an automotive dealership, you know,
the same use but under different ownership levels years in the future. So if the applicant in a year decides he wants to sell or move to Florida or whatever and sells it to a person of a little lesser caliber, people incorporated all handcuffed to that or and then maybe that person, you know,
isn't up to the same standards that this applicant has and so they they're hit with enforcement. They go out of business and then a new company comes in of even lesser caliber. people incorporated with their brand new uh early education center are handcuffed now forever because as we know a use or
any kind of variance runs with the land. So, we talk about an applicant who runs a great business right now near a school. That's fantastic and I believe that. But what happens if he's no longer the owner and we got to look out, I think, for people incorporated who are
doing tremendous work with with with the most vulnerable of kids. And it's my understanding that these kids are provided or the families of these kids are provided no cost, lowcost um daycare services. Um, and these are
for the working families of Fall River. I I don't know a more uh a population that's more critical than that. And then I would just end with this lastly, this this property is under an existing variance. I don't know if that's reflected in the application, but and I
brought copies for the entire board, but back in 1989, this property when it was under two ownerships ago had a variance applied for to use um at the time office use in an industrial zone. and the board not as a condition but as a finding. The
ZBA at the time found that this was uh not a good this site did not meet uh industrial uses. So I think that that should be brought to the board's attention. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. Thank you. >> May I respond, Mr. Chairman? >> Please.
>> Thank you. uh relative to um noise. Um all of the auto body repair obviously happens inside. Any kind of repair is all going to be encapsulated relative to um
bad people that get out on bail coming to the property. So what I explained to Mr. McVey in an email was that uh when we were talking about hours of operation, if Matt responds to a tow on route 24 and the person gets locked up,
let's say for OUI, and then they have medication in the car and he gets a call from grandma that my medication is in that car, he has to let them in to the vehicle. So, there is a potential that people come back from the courthouse or otherwise to the vehicle. But that was
intended to be illustrative that that's a possible outcome. And then relative to fumes and noxious odors, um, when you build a school next to a dispensary, there are certain odors that occur a couple blocks down. And I'd submit to
you that People Inc. did build their school and spend their money knowing where they were building and what they were building near. And so I don't believe that the operation that my client's proposing is going to harm children. and it's going to be enclosed and it's going to be governed by various
other bodies of the city of Fall River. So with that, I'll yield and uh happy to accept any questions from the board. >> Has there been discussion at this point with um
with People Inc. or with attorney McVey that if this is allowed, what type of buffer would be placed here? Um, yeah. So, I received a series of conditions from Mr. McVey tendered on behalf of this client and we answered them. Uh, well, we had a telephone call and then
we answered them point for point. And so, in terms of the things discussed in those emails, yes, certainly we said that we would agree to a mutually agreeable buffer. we would agree to put signage uh provided it didn't require relief of the board because I didn't ask for it but signage to indicate to uh
patrons of the auto body facility that the driveway of People Inc. was here and if you're a customer of Matt's you know it's the next driveway. Um we talked about making sure our lighting was not going to be intrusive on the school building or or the children. We talked
about encapsulating um we talked about uh what's the name of that bay where the car gets >> contamination bay. contamination bay. So, there's this thing called a contamination bay. If a car gets hit and it's leaking and it comes in on a truck, it goes inside into a so-called contamination bay. Um, again, that was
brought up relative to mitigating the impact on the abuter. So, I can say assuredly, Mr. Pereira, being in front of this board every month that this case um there's been a lot of outreach before the meeting. this this opposition has not sprung on me and we
try to negotiate in good faith uh inclusive of inviting the folks from People Inc. to Bay Street to see what kind of an operation he runs and as a lawyer I certainly understand Mike's argument that um you know if he sells the property that this runs with the land but um obviously I have a client
who's a second generation city business owner wants to stay in the city and I think this is an appropriate use for the property where it's located. >> Okay. No comment or or um word from the folks at uh at Border Mills Apartments?
>> No. And I can also offer ATCO is my client. So I talked to the gentleman at Ako and they didn't have a you know opposition to the project. >> Okay. Ask me if there's anything. >> Yeah, please go ahead. >> Any other opposition wish to be heard?
Sir. Shall I stand here or approach? >> Uh, you can approach, please. >> Okay. >> Just name and address, please. Or >> Peter Dailyaly. >> My address is 422 Rochester Street in Fall River. It's my residential address.
I'm an employee of People Incorporated. I'm just here to speak in opposition on behalf of People Incorporated. I'll be very brief um because I think attorney McVey expressed it very well and I'll just underline everything that he stated. Um I just want to express that
People Incorporated has worked very hard to make uh a building and a facility and grounds in a neighborhood that is now experiencing kind of a a new dawn of uh revitalization.
And we're proud of the building that we built there. not only the structure but also the grounds and we want to make sure that we are part of a neighborhood that's going to continue that aesthetic. Um, we want to support obviously the
children and the faculty and the staff who work hard day in day out throughout the year as Attorney McY stated um in an unobstructed atmosphere and we want to support clean air, clean
grounds, less noise and a more harmonious atmosphere for the kids and staff. Okay, >> I yield with that. >> Great. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yes,
>> my name is Britney Cavly. Um, my address residential is 284 Chestnut Street in Secon, Massachusetts. I am a teacher and a parent at People Incorporated. Um, and with this being a brand new building, I understand that you're saying the smell
from the dispensary is already a scent that we deal with. That is a block away. This is two parking lots that literally touch. Um, we go for walks with these children numerous times a day and their strollers around the parking lot. So
having the building across the street which the is the apartment then we have the the other I'm not exactly sure what it is all the the company across the street and then having this it's just another concern
to add that with all the traffic that's going to be going down this street um we are allowed to take the kids out further than the parking lot which that would bring a big concern to me with more traveling and more traffic coming down
this road. Um, and as a parent, just the smell of my infant and toddlers. Like I said, the dispensary is a block. It's around the block. We don't we don't have an issue with that at all. But with this just being connected right to where we
are, the site that these children will see with cars that were in accidents will bring up questioning and the traffic that comes. And if people come into our lot, um that's just another concern because you don't know what
their what their purpose is, why their car was towed. and we just as a parent and teacher it's just a major concern for me and I know we have spoken about it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. um
to attorney McVey the and I I the the drive the existing driveway that's coming into the property is that is that people inc's driveway >> correct >> okay and that that is the section that's
directly abuing the subject property here this evening the playground or play area you were talking about is that in that area adjacent to that driveway? >> Yeah, my my understanding is it's it's not on this it's not located on this map. If you could keep continue to
scroll, it would be it would be roughly where >> it's off the plan. It's behind the building. >> That's what I thought. >> So, further south. So, I know there is no playground along that driveway. >> Okay. That was just for clarification. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition
>> uh to plant the back back row? >> Oh, yes, please. Um, not very much to say. I'm uh >> name just need your name. >> Mark Norman of uh 698 Port of Avenue, Britney Cavaloy's husband and uh
my three-year-old son, my one year and a half uh year old daughter both go to this daycare People Incorporated. Um, I was just made aware of this uh about a few weeks ago and as soon as I heard it,
I immediately was concerned. Um, I think we can all agree that there's, you know, fumes, there's noise um, that can kind of pollute the air. And I understand it, unless I'm confused, was another another auto body
shop by cuss loter population. We're talking about fouryear-old no four four week old babies that are going to be exposed to to fumes and um I work for the Marian Police Department. I know the kind of
incidents that require um duty hooks and some of the people that may be coming to, you know, pick up the vehicles afterwards and not always a desired um crowd to be around uh you know, young children. Um, so just as just as a
parent, I am opposed. Just wanted to make my voice known. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could, I just want to read you a section in zoning in in the use table, just so that everybody's aware. In the waterfront and transit oriented development district,
industrial uses in existence prior to September 6, 2011 may continue and mill buildings in existence prior to September 6, 2011 may be altered and launched or continue to be used for industrial purposes provided they meet the requirements of the commercial mill
district. So, may or may not have some play in this, >> but a question I would I would like to ask the attorney McVey and and even the gentleman that just spoke, >> does People Ak prohibit caretakers that are either on probation
or anything of the like from picking up their children if they are in the daycare there? So, let's say I was out on probation and my child went to People Inc. and I wanted to go pick up my child. Am I prohibited from picking up my child or can anybody go pick up their child? >> I'm sorry. If you're out on if you're
out on probation, are you prohibited to pick up your child? I mean, not unless you have some kind of protection order against your children, >> right? Well, m M attorney McVey made the statement that people out on probation could be going there to pick up their car next door. And my question is that same person, if his child was at People,
Inc., could he go pick it up? Like do we do we monitor what what what history people have when they drop their children off or pick their children up from people inc. It's the only problem I have with the comments that that anybody's made. >> It seems a bit derogatory. >> I didn't if I said that I didn't mean
to. I didn't mean >> I think that's what I I think that's what your exact words were, but we could listen to it. >> No, if I did, I retract them. But what I was I guess trying struggling to say what he said much better is it's not the most desired crowd you'd want around children. But how do you don't know what crowd this this would be. Have you ever
had your car towed? >> Yes. >> Are you okay to go pick it up? Should I should I be comfortable with you going going to pick up a car next door to my own house where my own children sleep? Should I be concerned about that? >> You shouldn't be concerned about me, but I think it attracts it could attract
>> I I Okay, >> that's all I have an issue with. I I know where the planning director is going and you you you definitely caught my ear with with that statement and I know that listen I've heard people speak in opposition to
convents and it's always it's always the extreme. I I understand the base concerns without having to cast dispersions.
That's all. That's all. Okay. Um, anyone else from the board at this point before I say >> Jody Sand, do you think you can come to a common ground or know? You want the board just to act? >> Uh, I would like the board to act. I do think that we can come to a common
ground. Um, like I said, I've represented a wide array of clients and Matt has been very reasonable in terms of what he's willing to agree to. So, um, >> and you still have site plan review if if you pass here. >> That's a key point to me that a lot of
the concerns can be governed by that committee. >> Yeah, because a lot of the concerns do not fall to our purview. >> I mean, I understand everyone's arguments in the room, but we're really talking about use. That's what we're talking about.
>> Any other questions or comments from this body? Satan, >> Mr. Chairman, excuse me. As Attorney Celo stated, um we're very sensitive to uh to comments that were made here and we don't rush
them aside. However, uh many of those comments that were made this evening are not within the purview of this board. Uh the only thing the board can be concerned with is use. So whether we approve or disapprove, uh it would be solely on use and not on traffic or
fumes or anything of the sort. That's not within our purview. Uh that being said, um I would make a motion that we approve the variance. >> Second >> with with any with the condition >> with the conditions that um that were stated by attorney Selenino, >> the landscape buffer.
>> Yes. Uh also subject to site plan review. This still as a matter of use we can we can address the buffer as had been recommended >> um that's part of the motion >> by the by the planning director
>> which you're comfortable with. >> Yes, we accept those conditions. >> Okay. Motion and second discussion on this motion >> hearing none. James >> yes. Dan, >> no. >> Ricky,
>> yes. >> Alex, Alexis, >> yes. >> Chairman Perry, yes. >> Thank you. >> On the new business, item number five is receipt of correspondence. We have had a large number of items hit our
desk. Uh first item a um was the uh notification and information regarding an appeal of our decision for 747 Madison Street, which goes back to our
March 19th meeting. Item B was notice of appeal regarding uh 709 Handover Street um from our March March 19th meeting. >> And Mr. Mr. Chairman, we also received one in the mail today for Rock Street. >> Yeah. >> For the three of them.
>> Yeah. >> The second. Yeah, that one we didn't receive a time to put it on the agenda, so we didn't want to mention that. We'll we'll bring that one up and Okay. >> We we we have to put this on the agenda that we received. So, >> all right. >> Uh item C next month. >> The Environmental Construction
Management Services, Inc. >> What is this? >> So, anytime we get correspondence in >> Yep. >> it has to be presented to you to just Yep. to take it in and place on file. So something like that that's actually like a
>> a 21E environmental assessment. They send it to every board and agency in in the city sometimes. >> So that's related 21. Okay. >> We need to accept it and place on file. >> Well, Mr. Chairman, on items A and B, I move for acceptance and place on file
and referral to uh legal department. >> Perfect. Second. >> Okay. on that motion to redirect items A and B to legal. >> Um, on that, James, >> yes.
>> Dan, >> yes. >> Ricky, >> yes. >> Alexis, >> yes. >> Chairman Prairie, yes. Um, the Instar, I take it that's just another >> same thing. >> Same thing. So, >> get placed on file. >> That's just placed on file. It will be
if it comes in as correspondence, it has to be placed in a file. So, citizens input, >> sir. >> Yes. My name is Elliot Donovan. I own the property at 237 Madison Street. And I just want to ask
what you have just accepted that correspondence in regard to Holy Name Church. I want to find out what what the next step is like. What does this mean in terms of you accepting >> nothing here? There's nothing here. >> So there's nothing. >> So the applicant has just like you would
have had the if we had granted the relief, you would have had the ability to appeal and that goes through a process. Okay. >> Works the same way. They were denied. They appealed with with court. They send us notice of that appeal. That's all they're saying is that we've received. >> Okay. So what is the next step?
>> It's a land court process and the court will decide >> whether or not should have been granted. >> Okay. Great. >> Mr. Chairman, if I'm not mistaken, um, in in these these petitions, these appeals, if the land court were to
overturn our decision to deny, in that case, we have to call a special meeting to to grant the permit. Is that what happens? >> It depends. It depends whether they render a judgment or send it back for reconsideration or there's a few different options. >> But if a judgment is rendered,
>> if a judgment is rendered, then we are we have no say. >> We have no say. Correct. It doesn't even come back in front of us. Okay. Yeah, if it's remanded back to us, then >> we'll go to the process again. Readvertise, renotify. If if for some reason the judge that that
could be part of the judgment that it comes back for a certain reason. You never know. It could be >> they find a deficiency and some could it could be a crazy number of things. But >> may I ask an additional question? >> Sure. >> Of course. >> Um the land court is a land court in Boston. >> Yes. Okay.
>> So, the um the city's attorneys represent this board because it's actually this board not getting sued, but judge me was bring the case is being brought against this board for rendering an improper decision. The city's attorneys will defend that. Okay.
>> The church's attorneys will present that case. >> So, do I understand correctly that um if this were to be challenged legally, it has to be done within 20 days of this notice? >> Of this notice? No. They so we received this within the appeal period time period
>> they have to act. So the only action that could be taken since they were denied since the dascese was denied correct they have the right to appeal >> right >> if they had been approved then as an abuter you would have the
right to appeal our our approval. >> Okay. that initial filing with the court, >> right, >> has to be done within the 20 days, >> right? Okay. >> Then all the follow-up stuff with serving the board members, serving, you know, all of that gets done following,
but there are time frames with all of it 100%. >> Is it possible to find out when that appeal will take place with the land? >> Could be two years from now. >> It takes that long. Sometimes it does. Wow. But but if you want, you know, you can email me and I can put you in touch
with the attorney who's handling it >> and they could probably provide some information about where it's at, things like that. >> And I guess my point Dan was just a point of clarification again. If a judgment is rendered against us, >> Yep. >> we have no choice. It's the permit the
is granted, right? >> But we don't have to grant it. The court would grant it. Correct. Is that correct? >> Totally be out of our hands. judge. >> Oh, no. It is out. It is out of your hands. There's no doubt. It's out of my hands right now. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> So, you can you can get Mr. Az uh emailed from the website. Yep. >> And get something to him and uh that way there's a communication or way to keep you posted. Um, I will tell you that uh
Pamela Liberty had reached out to me. >> She's also my next next door neighbor. >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And you know, we we actually spoke on the phone yesterday. She's like, "What are you guys going to do with this?" And it's like nothing. We just It's just It's within the department now.
>> But she was she was trying to cover the neighborhood's back. So, and you know when you guys showed up tonight and that's that's that's good because sometimes these things just tumble down and and no one you know knows what hap what's going
to happen. So, we'll see where it goes. But these things do take a long time, >> a ridiculously long time >> and not in land court because it's a judicial system that is completely overburdened >> because you can file in multiple. This one was filed in land court or superior
court. This one was land court as well cuz you you can file in different courts. >> Um >> but is it also my understanding that uh uh in order to have say during that that court session uh we would have to hire
an attorney >> to speak on our behalf in order >> you could potentially you could potentially contact the city's attorney and offer an opinion, >> right? um because you had your time to speak at that meeting. >> We can also hire an additional attorney.
>> I guess you could and potentially file another suit, >> right? >> Um but you may want to wait for the resolution. I I I don't know what your >> you can ask attorney what your appellent rights would be. >> Okay. >> After that decision's been made. I don't
know the I've never seen that. So >> it's not a three-party situation. Yeah. >> So right now it's it's between the city of Fall River >> and the dascese. >> So you couldn't become active. My understanding >> that's correct
>> is that you could not become active in that action. >> So we were talking about forming a neighborhood association and that association would act in terms of hiring an attorney. >> But to do what? >> To do >> to have say in >> You have no say in this right now. >> No.
>> No. you you you had your say, >> right? >> This board rendered a decision on you in your favor, >> right? >> Now we're taking the brunt of it. >> Okay, >> that has to play out. >> So, the more stringent this board becomes, >> you see we get more appeals. >> Dan, just one more thing while while
these people are here. Um, as I understood that we denied the request, but um as the request was presented, Yep. >> Uh, didn't we say that by right they could do up to 35 spaces? Was that right? Well, they they could build the whole thing if they use porous asphalt.
>> Right. So, in other words, if you see construction going on, I mean, that's out of our hands also. >> Well, no, they they have not they have not finished. >> They haven't their site plan review was done to the point where they had two options. Either show it all as porous asphalt and go get the zoning relief. I
had expected >> that they would have been coming in the next day with the revised plan, right, >> calling out porous asphalt. >> So, as of as of right now, they cannot do that. They cannot build anything. >> Can't build anything. Okay. >> If they if they resubmit with that simple change, >> right, >> they'll get the permit the following
day. >> And in that case, um, we again would have no say. We have no the neighbors >> entirely different. They would only at that point could appeal the building permit, >> right? >> But that's that's outside. >> There's no building. There's no Well,
there is the garage that they're building. >> The garage for the park. >> Yeah. The parking lot wouldn't have a building permit at all. So probably I mean my guess is that they're going to wait till the land court enters a decision. >> I guess >> I would think that's >> maybe the parking lot wasn't that important, >> right? >> We'll see. >> We'll see.
>> Well, it is very important to the neighbors in the neighborhood, but I want to thank all of you for your time and your input. >> Thank you for making enough. And I'm sitting here and I'm like, this guy looks awfully familiar. But >> well, I'm one of the top managers for
the city, a local SRTA. >> Oh, okay. Okay. So, I I handle >> Have you found a new piece of land yet? >> We're still working on it. >> Oh my goodness. >> Yes, we're still working on it. >> They were talking about something potentially indopus that uh combine both New Mexico with ballroom.
>> All right. I want to thank all of you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much for coming out. >> All right. Citizens input. That was refreshing. >> Chairman, I move >> approval of minutes. >> Waving the reading and approval of the minutes. Second. Thank you.
>> All in favor? >> I >> opposed. Good. Then >> I will accept a motion to adjourn. All in favor? I I