Dana all the way here.

Are we looking almost?

Okay.

We're live.

It is 7.01 PM on March 10th in the year of 2026.

Note this meeting is being live streamed and recorded.

City Council and Committee meetings can be viewed on the City of New Bedford's homepage under quick links, then meetings.

I am joined in the chamber tonight by my colleagues in government, Ward 2, Councillor Scott Pepperton, Ward 1, Councillor Leo Choquett, Ward 5, Councillor Joseph Lopes, Councillor at Large, James Roy, Councillor at Large and Second Vice President Naomi Carney, and I am your chairman, Shane A.

Burgo.

I'll ask the clerk if there's anything to be read into the record.

Mr.

Chair, we do have one communication from Councillor Abreu writing to inform you that he is unable to attend tonight's committee meeting due to a prior commitment.

Motion received and place unfile made by Councillor Lopes, seconded by Councillor Pemberton.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

All right.

Uh item I'll ask the clerk to read item one, one A and one B.

Into the record.

Oh, actually, that is a lie.

I'm going to ask.

Sorry.

Um due to the length of these presentations for items one and two, without objection, I would ask to take item three out of order.

Seeing no objections, I'll ask the clerk to read item three.

Thank you for that.

Sorry.

Mr.

Chair, item three is a communication.

Mayor Mitchell to City Council submitting an ordinance amending Chapter 2, Article Six, Section 2-105 of the City of New Beford's Code of Ordinances to conform with Chapter 140 of the Acts of 2024, signed into law by Governor Healy regarding payment agreements for delinquent taxes referred to committee on June twelfth of twenty twenty-five.

Anyone on the question?

Any opposed the ayes have it.

Treasurer Taxiarcos.

Thank you, Chairman Burgo and uh honorable counselors.

I am submitting for your approval an amendment to the ordinance chapter two, Article Six, Section 2-105 of the City and Bedford Code of Ordinances.

And essentially what this is is when someone goes into tax title uh and they're delinquent on their taxes, this gives them the ability to enter into a payment agreement to pay those delinquent taxes.

Um before or the current ordinance requires them to put twenty-five percent down as a as a down payment towards that payment agreement, and the maximum term is only five years with the new law that was passed and the amendment of this ordinance it would allow us to take ten percent down and the uh extend the term to ten years.

So that's what this is for.

Any questions from the body?

Will there be any interest on that account?

Um there is extended out ten years.

We can there is interest, but we can waive that interest um up to uh the fifty percent that we have now uh in order to if what if they pay on the agreement um according to the schedule uh with no other default then then we can waive that interest at the end.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Chair recognizes Councillor Lopes on his first.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

So John, I am looking for more how many people right now would this benefit?

Do you have that number in your like in your office?

How many people are currently I believe we have uh possibly sixty or so that are on a on a payment agreement?

I really think we would have more but because of the constraint of the 25 percent down, it's it's blocking or preventing them from doing it.

Now, does this have to be owner occupied or can it be an investment property as well?

Uh it it does apply to commercial as well, I believe.

Okay.

Thank you for the additional information, John.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Chair recognizes Councillor Carney on her first.

Yes, thank you.

Hi, John, how are you tonight?

Um this this will ultimately avoid going into tax title for a lot of the properties, so it gives them a longer period of time to pay those taxes back.

Right.

So um with the 10 percent, is that great?

What is kind of the amount of the 10 percent that you see like overall with what we have got outstanding?

Well, maybe the highest one.

That's difficult.

I mean it could be, you know, 10,000 to 50,000 or more.

Uh some people have owed 100,000 before.

Um so this gives them an opportunity to really put something down where they wouldn't be able to otherwise.

So, like on a $10,000 delinquency, and you you know, if you can put $2,500, put $1,000 down instead of $2,500, that really helps them out.

Okay.

So that would that so that would bring us closer to not taking people's properties and send a tax title in?

Yeah.

And then and again, this is for the delinquent portion of taxes.

They do need to stay current.

Okay.

So they have to stay, they have to pay their current taxes plus the past due amount that you make a scheduled payment plan for.

Right.

And the payment plan, who decides on their payment plan, is it a certain amount that they have to come up with?

Or can you say, okay, um you put gave me a 10 percent down?

Um we're giving you X amount of time, and who decides their their portion?

Is that the same?

We kind of work with the taxpayer on that.

So it's on an amortization schedule.

It really depends on what they can afford as well.

We don't want to get into uh a payment agreement that they aren't going to be able to do.

Right.

So you're gonna just so you will decide the payment plan with the the the individual to make sure that it is not strapping them, they would be able to stay in the house and it needs to be affordable, yeah.

Affordable.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I want to acknowledge that Councillor at Large Brian Gomes has joined us as well.

Any other questions from the body for Treasurer Taxi Archives?

Chair recognizes Councillor Gomez.

Uh, excuse me, Councillor Roy on its first.

Uh you mentioned that interest can be waived at the end of this new 10-year period.

How does one go about doing that?

And and and when wouldn't it be waived?

Uh at the end of the agreement.

Okay.

So if they have paid on time, they haven't defaulted, they have stayed current on their current taxes as well, um, and then finish the payment agreement, then we would waive the taxes.

If they missed a payment over the 10 years, would the interest uh be waived?

If they missed a payment, then we would have to talk to them about where they are in that situation.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anyone else on there first?

Chair recognize Councillor Carney on our second.

Yeah, I just want to follow up on my good counselor to the left.

On that interest, is the interest on the payments that they are paying monthly or whatever the case may be.

Is that incorporated in their payment?

They would be paying on that too, but I believe it is principal first.

So it would be principal and there would be an interest payment on the monthly payment that you will be asking them.

So the interest will be in there.

Of what was incurred, yeah.

Right.

And so at the end, that interest that they paid would be given back to them in a check.

How does that work when you pay the if they they are on time for the 10 years?

Um, I believe what we do is we forgive the interest as we are uh creating the payment agreement, and then if they default the interest goes back on.

Okay.

So when you are paying your payments, when you come up with a payment plan with the individual, that interest is automatically not on there?

Yeah, but I believe we forgive that the interest up to a percentage on that payment agreement.

We calculate the payments that they need to make, and then if they default, it would it would go back on.

Okay.

So so I am just getting confused.

So they are not paying a monthly interest charge when they're doing it, unless they default in that 10 years, then the interest would go back on.

I believe that's right, but uh let me get back to you on that.

Yeah, could you yeah, because I mean uh it's I'm just wondering if you're adding the interest on there and they're paying a portion, a small portion of interest, whether it's $25, $50 or $100 on their payment, and that's part of the interest at the end of the 10 years.

I'm just curious how that comes back or how you work on that interest.

So if you get back to us, get to board and give it to the the chairman, that would be great.

I will do that.

Thank you, counselor.

President Vice President Chairman.

Anyone else on there first?

Calce Virgo.

Anyone on their second?

Seeing none.

Motion to refer out to the full city council for approval would be appropriate.

Go move.

Second.

Made by Councilor Lopes, seconded by Councillor Carney.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Thank you, Treasurer Taxi Arcos.

Thank you.

I'll ask the clerk to read item one, one A, and one B.

Mr.

Chair Item 1 is public hearing continued on a communication.

Mayor Mitchell to City Council submitting an ordinance, amending Chapter 9, comprehensive zoning relative to dimensional requirements, appendix B, table of dimensional regulations, residential infill development, and multiple buildings per lot, referred to committee on October 9th, 2025.

Duly advertised in the Standard Times on November 6th and 13th of 2025.

November 20th and December 15th of 2025, the public hearing was continued.

On January 26th of 2026, the public hearing was canceled due to a snowstorm.

It was duly readvertised in the Standard Times on February 24th and March 3rd, 2026.

1A is the ordinance, and one B is a communication from Anne Lauro, Acting Director of the Planning Department to Council Ryan J.

Pereira, Chairman of the Committee on Ordinances, advising that the planning board held a public hearing on Wednesday, November 12th, 2025 to discuss a request made by the City Council for the Planning Board to review and make a recommendation relative to amending Chapter 9, comprehensive zoning relative to dimensional requirements, appendix B, table of dimensional regulations, residential infill development, and multiple buildings per lot.

The planning board voted to send a favorable recommendation for the ordinance amendment.

It was received by the committee on November 14th of 2025.

This is a continued public hearing.

And with that, I'll ask Mr.

McCarthy and Ms.

Laurel.

Take it from there.

Good evening, everyone.

Oh, actually, um this presentation that they're presenting to us, we have never had the opportunity to receive and place it on file.

Oh.

Motion received a place on file of this presentation that we're about to see made by Councillor Loops.

Seconded by Councillor Roy.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Okay.

We'll get rolling.

Um so this is our sort of our final um zoning update on the traditional zoning in New Bedford that we've been working on uh for the past year and a half, two years.

Um this is updating our dimensional requirements and adding an infill development requirement.

Um a lot of the work that came out of our comprehensive plan process uh fed into this, and it was also um a known item that we had been working on for a few years prior to that.

Um go to the next slide.

So really uh we'll start here.

Why are we changing the dimensional requirement?

Um I think if you look at our dimensional table, it has a lot more in common with what um a suburban development uh dimensional table would have.

Uh in a modern urban develop um dimensional table.

Those standards are uh much more conducive to what you see in the built environment in New Bedford.

Um smaller lot sizes, smaller frontage requirements, um, not uh giant front yards in the denser residential districts.

Um we're trying to encourage sensitive development, um supporting small infill to fill um gaps in that existing urban that existing urban pattern.

Um I think we're all familiar with that missing teeth effect um on a cushioned avenue, county street, those big corridors where a building burned down many years ago, no one rebuilt it, and now the lot has fallen out of uh its non-conforming status, and to do development on it, you'd really be stuck with a like a matchbook size uh area.

And we want to make sure that we have a dimensional requirements that drive reinvestment and renewal in our neighborhoods, and again, that's getting at those those blighted uh vacant lots that just become weed-filled and and eye sores.

So in this update, what are we proposing?

We're looking at our dimensional regulations.

Um we're gonna reduce, we're proposing to reduce our minimum lot sizes for our multifamily zoning districts.

That's RB, RC, and MUP to match basically the existing pattern in the neighborhood of the built um environment.

We're looking to reset our front setbacks right now in our mixed-use business district, our densest district.

Um the front yard setback for that is about 20 feet, so you're you're really thinking about like if you we're gonna build something on a cushioned avenue on a vacant lot.

Um everyone else is has a zero front setback, they're right up against the sidewalk, and then without coming to the zoning board for a variance, you've got to already start 20 feet back from the from the property line.

So we want to make it so there's that continuity along our our commercial corridors.

And we want to clarify um our residential density.

Uh, there's some incongruity between what's in the table and what uh we see in the built environment, and even within the districts, there's some things like um the minimum lot size you would need just keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger as you add more units at a scale that seems uh out of proportion.

Uh we want to activate residential infill development.

So the dimensional regulations we'll see uh as we go through the presentation.

They bring a lot of lots into conformity.

Um they will reduce the need for variances on a lot of development, but we recognize that there's really no way to get it at a hundred percent without completely eliminating dimensional requirements, which we don't do not want to do.

But in special circumstances, we're proposing um an infill development section to the ordinance where the planning board would be a special permit granting authority that would review these on a case-by-case basis to allow for an exception as long as there is not um anything that's more dense than the abutting properties.

So I'll get into that as we go into the presentation a little bit more.

And we currently have a prohibition on uh multiple buildings per lot.

In talking with the uh building and zoning commissioner, there doesn't seem to be any building code specific reason here.

Um there are instances where the building code would cover these sort of uh multiple buildings per lot, but there is no particular reason why this prohibition exists.

And in talking with our zoning consultant, um the trend in a lot of uh gateway cities is to eliminate this provision, so we're proposing to do that here.

So, one informed the new dimensional standards.

We did an analysis of our districts, and as you can see from the table here, um, in a particularly in our multifamily districts, lot size is a huge problem.

Um we they we have about 87 to 94 percent of our multifamily lots are below the lot size minimum for what's built on for what is built on the lot or what could be built on the lot.

Um these non-compliant lots um you can see in an MUB, you you have built lots that don't meet the front setback at almost 80%.

In order to do this kind of construction, you need multiple variances, multiple special permits, and we're talking about building a simple uh triple decker in most cases.

Wouldn't would not be allowed today without going to the zoning board and the planning board.

Um, and that's a major investment for a small developer in New Bedford.

So I'll just uh I think it's really helpful to have some case study examples.

Um I know I talked a lot about a cushioned avenue.

We're gonna look at uh 1283, 1289 of Cushion Avenue.

I think everyone's familiar with this lot, it uh was lost to a fire over five years ago.

It's no longer eligible for the uh disaster rebuild.

There's a one-year limit on that.

It's a 5,195 square foot lot.

So it meets the standard currently only for um, it doesn't even meet the standard for single family, I'm sorry.

But the buildable area of the lot, if to meet all the setbacks is about 17,000 square feet, and it's also below the frontage requirement um for a multi-unit in MUB, you would need 150 feet of frontage on the street.

Um typically in our lots in the MUB district, they're between 50 and 80 squy uh feet of frontage.

And this is an example of what zoning compliant development looks like.

Uh, you can see on the top there, that's from the old um fire maps from 1911.

Um you can there's that continuity along a cushioned avenue along Sawyer Street and along Ashley Boulevard.

And when we got new development on those sites, um the two pharmacies that are there met the zoning requirements, they met the setback requirements, and when you come down those streets, all of a sudden there's this break in the commercial corridor right around late on the um the sidewalk, and it's set back from with with a parking lot.

Everything complies, but you get this um complete different development pattern um on these in-filled developments.

And uh we hear a lot uh in the news um and in planning circles about the need to uh allow for this missing middle housing.

We call it missing because modern um zoning has pretty much made it illegal to do this.

This is the traditional type of housing you see around New Bedford.

It's um three families, up to eight families, everything bel above a single family home and below a giant apartment building.

Um this is New Bedford's housing stock, and you cannot build it today.

Um this is uh an example that uh cruise development was approved for a few years ago for this vacant lot on Jenny Street, um, right near the uh plumbing supply building that's over there.

This required multiple variances, uh special permit from the planning board.

We're proposing some changes to the dimensional table that would eliminate the need for those variances, eliminate the need for those special permits, but at this scale, you're still going to undergo site plan review from the planning board, so it would st you'd still retain that public input process for this type of development.

So I think in the past, when we worked through this uh here with you all, uh I've we've gone through the changes slide by slide and we've taken questions if that's acceptable to the chair.

Uh we can do that here.

Everyone?

Okay.

So these are our minimum lot size changes.

You can see there's no change to our single family or RA district.

We're keeping that at 8,000 square foot minimum.

Um and then we're dropping down our the this sort of tiered lot size that we had on all the multifamily districts.

All the uses now, all the residential uses are lumped into the same categories.

Uh in R B, we're which is our two to three family district essentially, uh, that'll be four thousand um four thousand four thousand five hundred square feet.

Um RC, which is our densest uh residential only district, will go down to three thousand square feet for a lot size minimum.

Um that same number will carry over for our mixed use business district as long as you're doing um residential only development, and then we'll we're putting it at 4,000 for uh mixed use um under the assumption that you'd probably need to provide some sort of parking when you're doing a mixed use development, and we want to make sure there's room on site for that.

Uh any questions on this slide from you all?

Mine memory.

Oh do you want to do you want to read out?

All right.

I'm ready whenever you're ready, so it's that's fine.

Do you want to?

Chair Weckets Council Lopes.

Sure.

Oh, okay.

All right.

Yeah, we'll go through the whole thing.

Fine.

Our uh our dwelling units per lot.

Um so this is the only change that we're making to our uh residence A, our single family district.

Uh currently the minimum lot size for residence A is 8,000 square feet, but you're only allowed to build on a lot in residence A if you have one dwelling unit per 10 to per 10,000 square feet.

So that sort of artificially inflates that minimum lot size without actually changing it.

So what we're proposing is just to bring that down into alignment with what the minimum lot size is.

And then across the board, you can see that it kind of steps up based on the number of units um and the minimum lot size.

And in MUB, where we really have a lot of those smaller lots, where we're thinking there's going to be a lot more vertical um development.

We're keeping we're not imposing a dwelling unit per lot area minimum there.

Minimum lot frontage, no change for RA, keeping that at 75 um feet for the minimum frontage.

And I will say uh we do have an RAA district, which is some of the subdivisions in the in the far north end are in this district.

Um that's completely untouched.

Um, those are our largest uh um dimensional requirements.

Uh RB is going from uh RBRC and MUB are all being compressed to 45 feet for all allowed uses.

This is pretty much the lowest uh frontage we saw for a lot that would be considered buildable in most circumstances.

Um our maximum height.

Um you can see from the table there was a lot of tiering here, a lot of exceptions for religious educational institutional.

Um we're again retaining those for RA, but then in our other districts, we're eliminating um those separate distinctions and just capping the height um for all uses across the board.

It's 60 for RB, 60 for RC, and 75 for M U B.

So that would um definitely allow for that traditional um commercial corridor you see on County Street, a cushioned Avenue where it's uh business on the first floor and usually up to four stories built above that.

Uh maximum building height and stories.

Um again, we're we're keeping that the same for the residential uses in RAM and we are going to three stories um for RB, four stories for RC, which is the same, and five stories for MUB.

Um there had been a seven-story allowed use there, but um we find it unusual that somebody would come for that, and in those cases we would uh likely see a variance for other for other dimensional requirements no matter what.

Our minimum front yard setback, it's 20 across the board and all the districts.

We're keeping it 20 in RA.

You get that lawn in front of your house on your single family home.

RB and RC, a five foot front back uh setback, and then an MUB, there's a minimum of zero, and you can't go further back than 20.

We're setting a maximum on that where not existed before.

Our side yard setbacks, traditionally 10 and 12 on either side, keeping that for our single family district and going to eight feet on both sides for all our multifamily districts.

And uh maximum lot coverage, and this recognizes um sort of that need for green space.

We we want to increase it to allow a little bit more buildable area, but we don't want people to be without a backyard in even in the multifamily districts.

So they've all ticked up a little bit, but uh not anything where you would not get a uh a considerable amount of green space.

So we'll switch over to talking about the infill development, and less it makes sense for you all to pause here and focus on the dimensional changes.

Yeah, okay.

Pause here because I know Councillor Lopes has questions.

Yeah, I don't want to.

So uh Mike, thank you.

So how many properties do you think we'll be able to bring back online by doing this?

It's very difficult to sort of get at that number based on the data we have.

I mean, we're relying on sort of a GIS analysis of the uh what's available in the assessors data.

Um figuring out whether something has enough frontage and and all of the variables that go into that are there isn't really a uh a a clear cut way to do it.

I mean you can look at the the the numbers, but then our consultant, the modeling that they use doesn't know if it even has frontage on a street.

You know, there's there's sort of all this fine you'd have to go through and clean a lot of it.

Um but I would say it's probably more than 500 lots.

Um I generously it would probably be more than a thousand, but I can't say off the top of my head I'd just be making up a number.

Uh listen, I appreciate the honesty.

I figured it'd be a couple hundred.

When you said a thousand, I was honestly surprised, you know, that it could be that high.

So this helps alleviate that jack-o' lantern that we've talked about for years, especially in in across neighborhoods.

And then second, when you were talking about the multiple buildings per lot.

Now I might be I'm confusing it with Fall River, which allows two, three families on the same plot and lot.

Yeah.

Would this allow similar construction?

Yes, Fall River has eliminated that aspect of their zoning ordinance where you could do um, you know, sort of like clustered residential development is what I'm thinking.

Like um we got a courtyard, uh like a garden complex sort of uh development.

Okay.

So right now, if you wanted to do that, you'd have to go in and subdivide the lot, which is another permitting hurdle for for a developer to go through.

We've seen a few people come forward um with proposals like that, and honestly, the comp the complexity of doing that without proposing a formal subdivision has sort of turned them away from the process.

And actually, one person told me that he had done it before in Fall River and he was confused as to why it wasn't allowed in New Bedford.

And I had to point him towards this section of the ordinance.

So I know it's been allowed in Four River for as long as I can.

Yeah, and in talk talking with the zoning commissioner, uh zoning and building commissioner Danny, I mean, it he didn't have a a memory of why that was on the books, and it it predated him and from talking with our zoning consultant.

It seems to be at around the same time a lot of cities in uh Massachusetts adopted that provision, um, possibly for fire prevention prevention before the building code caught up to it, but I think we've come a long way with the building code since then.

Well, that got me to my next question.

Yeah.

Is the fire department okay with with that piece of the language, or you potentially have two, three families on you know the same plot and lot?

I have not discussed it specifically with the fire department.

But they'd be a reviewer on the building permit and they'd be consulted uh during site plan review like they always are.

That's a building code.

Yeah, you have to have five walls and certainty of separation.

So that would just fall through the administrative review system internally from all the time.

Okay.

Thank you both.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you.

I want to acknowledge that uh Ward 3 Council Sean Oliver has joined us as well.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Any other questions for this portion of uh the presentation?

Okay.

Chair can it's counselor Royan is first.

You mentioned earlier on that this ordinance would be.

Yeah, I got it.

Thanks.

Uh Chair.

Uh you mentioned earlier that um this ordinance would give the planning board special permit authority.

How is this changing what currently exists?

Uh so that that actually was what we were going to get into next.

In the infill development uh ordinance we're proposing.

Um so that'll cover lots that still, even if we adopted all these dimensional changes, would still be missing a few things.

But you could imagine uh I have an example in here of a lot on either side, the lots are the same size as this vacant lot.

They both have buildings on them.

You could build the building that's on either side of that lot on that lot, but it doesn't meet the minimum lot size that we're proposing, and in those cases, that's why we're saying the you could go to the planning board for a special permit to build even lower on the minimum lot size, as long as you can demonstrate that you're gonna do something that doesn't um outscale your neighbor.

Thanks.

Anyone else?

All right.

All right, and here's the example I was referencing.

Uh this is uh Westside County Street, um like a couple blocks up from uh Lin uh Linden Square.

Um this is a building that was demolished sometime around the 1970s.

It's um under 3,000 square feet for the lot, so it would be under our the new minimum lot size we're proposing for um the MUB district and the abutting uh lot is a multifamily, it's a um similar size lot with 40 feet of frontage just like this one.

Um you could in theory build the same building on that lot.

Um and we're saying that under the uh if you want to go to the next slide, Dan.

Thank you.

Um this is the criteria for infill development um on parcels under 3,000 square feet, prohibited in RA, you're not allowed to to go below that.

But in RB, RC and M U B, you apply to it for a special permit for the planning board.

Um if you have a parcel that's over that, um in RA, it's a special permit from the planning board.

In R B, M U C and MUB, it's an administrative site plan review that's done by staff.

Um and then there's a maximum on on the in our multifamily districts, you can only build a triple deck, uh three family or a traditional triple decker.

In RA, you can only build a single um family there, and you cannot exceed the density of your densest of butter.

So if you're next if you have a multifamily lot that's next to uh duplex and a single family, you can only build a single family.

You can't build a do I you you can only build a duplex, you can't build a single family, and you can't go to a to a three unit.

Um your frontage must be enough to allow for off-street parking, so you have to provide a driveway.

Um the height is capped at 45 feet, um, which would allow for um a traditional um three family, um, two and a half stories in RA, and then the setbacks, um you have the front setback that's in the dimensional table, um, or you can match the average of your abutting properties.

So if everyone else has a zero and they're right up against their property line, you can do that as well.

Um and then your parking must follow the standard uh off-street parking requirements uh that exist.

And that is the end of the presentation, and I'm happy to take more questions from you all.

And uh Chair Recognize Councillor Choquette on his first.

Hey, sir.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh piggybacking on uh Council Roy's question.

Um is this removing power from the zoning board and give granting this to the planning board to grant special permits?

And if so, is the zoning board then able to appeal that and and overturn it after the fact?

Like what why are we condensing the power of the zoning board and transferring it to the planning board?

Uh this is a just a scheme that we've seen um based on our the feedback we had from our zoning consultant uh work well in other communities that have adopted an infill ordinance.

Um it sort of almost works as a mini site plan review for these properties, um, but lumping those in with the site plan review ordinance uh would have created sort of an administrative complication.

So rather than go to the zoning board for multiple variances and then probably also go to the planning board for relief, we're saying that all relief is handled in a special permit from the planning board, which is deniable.

We wanted to make sure that that was that was key for those really small lots.

Deniable by the planning board or deniable by the zoning board after the fact.

A special permit is deniable by the planning board.

If someone wanted to appeal, they would appeal to the zoning board on that on an approval from the planning board.

Okay, so you're not removing the zoning board as the final arbiter.

Nope, nope, they would still be the final arbiter.

They would be who uh someone would appeal to if they uh if they felt that they were an aggrieved party for that uh for an approval from the planning board.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Welcome.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Anyone else?

Chair Guinness, Council.

I just have one last question.

This isn't for new development.

What if somebody's got a single family house and they want to put an addition on?

Where would we where would that work within the confines of these two proposed proposals?

Sure.

So I think a lot of people who have single family homes, I think probably most of the people in this room, um, your home does not is an existing nonconforming house.

You have either a minimum lot size problem, you have a front back a front setback problem, you have a side setback problem.

If you wanted to make a change to your home in a way that encroached on your already existing nonconformity, so if you didn't meet your rear setback and you wanted to build a rear addition on your house, you'd have to go to the zoning board for a variance.

Because in those cases, um it's their determination on whether your increasing of your nonconformity is more or less detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood.

And we felt that's that's like the basis of the zoning board to hear those types of cases.

We didn't want to go so so far as to remove that power from them.

I was making that assumption, but I didn't want to assume.

So I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Any other questions?

All right.

Seeing none, this is a public hearing.

Anyone here wish to speak in favor?

All right.

Um I know he's not here, but I do have to put this disclaimer.

I just want anybody to be aware of that uh I am not related to council president Ryan Pereira.

We're just lucky to have the same last name, right?

So I just needed to get that cleared up.

I'm gonna give you a couple of definitions that are part of our our codes and whatnot.

Um I'm all in favor of everything that's going on here.

I just want to clear up a couple of things uh of my opinion on the multi uh uh use um business.

So a story is that portion of a building that includes the upper surface of the area that you're standing on until the upper surface of the level up above.

Um a basement obviously is a story that's below grade.

Then we also have stories above grade.

And the story above grade is basically a space that is classified that's more than six feet out of the ground.

So as we're trying to increase this as we need for the residential in the in the city, um one of the things that I caution people is that we have to look at what was defined here, and I'm okay with this.

But there's only one thing that I think that needs to be really changed, and that is when we define story, it's gonna be defined as habitable story.

And the example that I have, and I have a project right now, that we go down two feet and we are hitting ledge.

It gets very expensive to hit to to get rid of ledge, but we can use it as a portion of our foundation by attaching to it, and it gives us a real good base.

So if I'm going down two feet and I'm putting in a ten foot high garage, or a nine-foot-high garage, I'm above six to six feet.

So therefore, we're already going to be hindered by one fact, and that is that that's going to be classified as a story.

Um when you look at the interpretation of section 1009.2.1 of the building code, which is elevators, it basically talks about four or more stories above or below the level of exit discharge.

That is an exit discharge is your horizontal plane that you are leaving.

I happen to be part of uh Samboa's Southeastern Building Officials Organization, and I was at one of their meetings and it was brought up, and uh I needed to get a clarification of how that level, the levels are being determined, and it is basically based on the European method.

So Europe, ground zero is zero.

Your first floor starts above.

So if we look at it and we have five habitable stories above a parking garage, we're gonna be required an elevator.

It's just a given.

Um the other thing too is that it's gonna allow us in this area, and I've got a f quite a few buildings that I'm designing where we're restricted to the lot size, but we have to comply with the parking.

So therefore we've got to use the lower level or ground or go subterrain to provide the parking.

So I I'm looking at it and I caution that just that little word, I think it's going to make a big difference when it goes to in front of the building commissioner to help clarify and simplify approvals.

So that again it goes back to the same thing.

So we're not going in front of all these boards because of all these uh uh requests.

Um the other thing that's not being discussed, I haven't heard discussed anywhere here is we're going through all these changes, which is great.

But I think when we look at multi-use business, if we are going to be going and putting parking underneath the building, I think one of the things that we also should take into consideration is probably the rear yards should probably be considered to be reduced as well.

I'm thinking maybe a 50% of the 30 feet that's required right now.

Um this is very important because of one thing.

When we discuss the need for residential, and pretty much all the people that I'm working on, it's all there's no money coming in from the state, and you're gonna see a lot of developers that come in.

So when you start looking at that, these developers are going to be charging market rate.

So right now I got maybe about a hundred apartments that I'm working on in the city.

They'll be new in the next couple of months.

If you put a hundred apartments out there that are marker rate, you've got people that are residing in multifamilies that can afford that and probably want to get away from that type of neighborhood, the multifamily neighborhood, and they'd rather live in a bigger building that they could actually be part of a community, because that's what you're doing.

You're creating a microcommunity, a micro city inside of that.

And when we look at that, you're gonna open up those hundred apartments of these people that are going in there.

You're opening up a hundred apartments in these multi-families.

So what's going to happen is people are going to be fighting for people to be in their apartments because they need to keep them rented.

I got lucky.

I invested when the market was really, really low 25 years ago.

So I don't have this huge mortgage.

I can afford to have one or two apartments that are empty for a year if I need to.

But you got people that have these homes that have to have them rented.

And again, supply and demand.

Well, if there's a lot of supply and there's a demand to rent them, people are gonna have to fight for those people, and they're gonna adjust their rates.

So I think it's a good thing.

Um again, I go back to um just that little word, habitable story.

I think that's a key um thing that we gotta take into consideration, and if we define it that way, I think it's gonna help out.

I can design a six-story building and be under seventy-five feet.

It's it's just a given.

So the 75 feet doesn't bother me.

Again, I'm just looking at let's get habitable story instead of just a regular story.

I think it would help out everybody and every developer that's coming into the city.

And uh we're looking to keep plugging away and providing these buildings, but again, it goes back to what was brought up to also prevent and try to expedite our permitting, prevent hurdles.

And God knows, I think there's only one counselor in here that's heard me complain about some of the hurdles.

I'm not gonna bring it up to them.

But anyways, um good evening and thank you for letting me speak.

Thank you, Mr.

Perra.

Anyone else wish to speak in favor?

Be recorded in favor.

Speak in favor, recorded in favor.

Anyone wish to speak in opposition, speak in opposition, be recorded in opposition, be recorded in opposition.

All right.

Seeing none.

Um el body.

Any other questions?

Any other changes?

Suggestions?

No.

Okay, so I guess at this point we would close the public hearing.

Motion made by Councillor Carney, seconded by Council Councillor Pemberton.

Anyone on the question of closing the public hearing?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, the ayes have it.

All right.

What is your the will of the body for this item?

Make a motion of make a motion that we refer one, one A, one B, two, and two A to the full city council with a positive recommendation.

Oh, we're just on one A and one B right now.

Oh okay, I thought we didn't fill the same.

Oh, did we do two or just one A one B.

One one, one A and one B that we refer to the full city council with a positive recommendation.

Motion made by Councillor Lopes.

Second by uh Councillor Pemberton.

Anyone on the question?

Chair recognizes Councillor Trickett on the question.

Yes, thank you, uh Mr.

Chair.

Again, maybe it's because I served on the zoning board for several years before I became a city councilor, but I was curious.

I mean, can we get more information on this consultant report that Mr.

McCarthy had spoke of?

How would we do that?

Is there any way?

Because I'd like to see what the you know the rationale was behind doing that.

There is my understanding there is no report.

I don't know if the uh assistant director McCarthy wants to speak to that.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

So we we worked with um our our land use consultant in Inez uh land strategies group who has worked on um this whole zoning package.

Their role was really um doing um some research on what other cities have um for their standards, comparing them to ours, um, and then making or the ordinance language recommendations and doing that um that sort of GIS analysis, which is essentially that table and a f a few other smaller tables that we bounce back and forth with them to reach the numbers that we're at here.

There's no like uh I don't have like a a like a desktop published report for this.

It's more of a collection of memos um between between us and them.

Okay.

Um I mean my my recommendation would be this is just mine.

I'd like to table this until we can see some of that information.

Again, I'm not saying I'm necessarily against this, but I you know, before we vote for anything that you know removes even some power from the zoning board of appeals and gives it to the planning board, I I mean I I would definitely want to be able to say that I at least saw the justification and the data behind that.

So, Council President, if you'd allow me to respond to that.

So we're gonna be going through the table of uses because there are coming up next, because you would ask for some changes.

And when we went through the table of uses, we changed a lot of the special permit authority in that update from the zoning board to the planning board.

And I do want to um enforce that in this particular case for the um dimensional, the reason that me I understand your and recognize your concern that this was this, you know, when it comes to dimensional regulations, it was usually um in the past reviewed by the zoning board.

But one of the things that we've been doing through the zoning reform is to facilitate permitting and take away some of the barriers of permitting.

So if we were didn't change it to the special permit going to the planning board, we'd be back to where we are now, where development has to go to the zoning board for a variance and then to the planning board for a site plan review.

So consolidating it under the planning board, which is a special permitting authority under 40A, just as the city council is and the zoning board, it just facilitates development and takes away a step in a cost and a timeline for potential development.

Um I would do an analogy that we're gonna be talking about in the next few minutes that you've requested taking things from the zoning board and bringing it to the city council as the special permit authority.

So we're doing it here, but we're doing it for the reason to expedite permitting.

Under one authority, and so somebody doesn't have to go to two boards.

And it's really simple.

We're talking setbacks.

So really that's that was really the thought process between behind that.

But I do recognize your pointing that out and recognizing the change.

Yeah, I just, you know, before I put my stamp on something personally, you know, I I always want to make sure I have the data and I've read everything.

And as you noted if there is an appeal at the planning board, it does be appealed to the zoning board.

To the zone board.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

All right.

So I have allowed some leeway there obviously since um the the motion at hand is on referral out of uh committee with a favorable recommendation.

Anyone on the question of that motion seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

We'll call that well you can but you usually do it beforehand.

Sorry.

But since everyone's learning today we will do a roll call.

No I'll ask the clerk to call the roll on the motion referral to the full city council for a favorable uh recommendation.

Okay.

Council Virgo yes yes Council Carney?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Shoket Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Yes.

Counselor Oliver.

I'm sorry, Counselor Lopes.

I'm still hearing yes.

Yes.

Now Councillor Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Uh Councillor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes and Councilor Roy.

Yes.

Yes.

Passes 8 to 0.

8 passes 8 to 0.

I'll ask the clerk to read item two and 2A into the record.

Mr.

Chair, num item number two is a public hearing continued on an ordinance amending chapter 9 appendix A, Table of Principal Use Regulations referred to committee on October 9th of 2025.

It was duly advertised in the Standard Times.

On November 6th and 13th of 2025 on November 20th and December 15th of 2025 the public hearing was continued.

On January 26th of 2026 the public hearing was canceled due to a snowstorm and it was duly readvertised in the Standard Times on February 24th and March 3rd of 2026 to A as a communication and Laura Acting Director of the Planning Department to Council Ryan J.

Pereira, Chairman of the Committee on Ordinances, advising that the Planning Board held a public hearing on Wednesday November 12th, 2025 to discuss a request made by the City Council for the Planning Board to review and make a recommendation relative to amending Chapter 9 Appendix A, Table of Principal Use Regulations, Sections 4800, 4900, and 4300 regarding the special permit granting authority for specific uses.

The planning board voted to send a favorable recommendation for the ordinary amendment ordinance amendment with the exception of the changes proposed to batch asphalt and concrete plants and contractors yards based on the comments received during their public hearing that communication was received by the committee on November 14th of 2025.

So this is a continued public hearing again assistant directors McCarthy and Laura are here to present.

Hello again.

I don't have a presentation on this it was a pretty simple referral from you all to the planning board.

I can summarize the the memo that we provided I think it said it in the in there summarized recommendation.

They heard from um a few people at the uh at the the meeting that uh the outright prohibition of a contractor's yard um would be would create complications for people trying to uh run that type of business out of the city um so that's the genesis for that recommendation I think generally uh what the board thought and what we thought afterwards was this is a um a good use of the special permit system for a contractor's yard um preferably in an industrially zoned district um I think a lot of the examples where we've seen this be a complication are um I note these in the uh the staff report to the planning board which came with our uh with our referring letter um in 2021 um the there was a motion um from the council for a rezoning request um on Southside Howard Street which is uh on the corner of Howard and Belleville Avenue um to rezone that to allow for a contractor's yard the planning board sent an unfavorable recommendation and I believe this body um denied the rezoning request um on on the grounds that it directly abuts um residential uses and then in 2024 uh we saw a zoning board case um the zoning and building commissioner denied someone's application to use a residence B zoned uh lot for a contractor's yard they made an appeal to the zoning board on that denial um and the zoning board denied that again um and recently the planning board approved uh contractor storage spaces at the old sunbeam factory but put some pretty heavy that's an industrially zoned uh property um and they put some heavy some pretty heavy restrictions on the time uh of business usage at of that property so we've seen um uh in the intervening months I've done a little bit of research on what uh performance criteria would be for a special permit I think generally it's um making I I would say we need to propose a a specific ordinance change for that but it's would be allowing for some kind of you know hazardous material control make sure there's not big piles of gravel and mulch hanging around make sure even if it is industrially zoned like Sunbeam like a lot of our places in the in the near north end

So we've seen um uh in the intervening months I've done a little bit of research on what uh performance criteria would be for a special permit.

I think generally it's um making I I would say we need to propose a specific ordinance change for that, but it's would be allowing for some kind of you know hazardous material control, make sure there's not big piles of gravel and mulch hanging around, make sure even if it is industrially zoned, like Sunbeam, like a lot of our places in the in the near north end, industrial lots abut uh residential lots, making sure there isn't an additional buffer requirement there so that these uh contractor's yards where we I recognize people have to get up early and get started and get on a job site.

We want to make sure that kind of activity isn't interfering with the uh the residential abutters.

I think that that was also the source of the concern uh when we presented uh last year on this.

Um but I'll I'll let you all discuss that.

And then the other uh concern that the planning board had was was the outright prohibition of uh the asphalt and concrete plant.

And I believe that came from some discussion back and forth here between Councillor Pereira and attorney Garatowski over whether or not that was a prohibiting that use was allowed under state law, and I I think that's been worked out.

I'm not I'm not quite sure, but they were uh hesitant to prohibit it throughout the city.

It wouldn't eliminate the only batch concrete plant we have, that would still just continue as an existing nonconforming use.

And that is the summary of the discussion.

They were in favor of all the other uh special permit changes that you all wanted to make.

Thank you.

Any questions from the body?

Seeing none, what's your pleasure?

Motion to refer out to the full city council with a favorable recommendation would be appropriate.

Thank you.

Motion made by Councillor Golem, seconded by Councillor Carney.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing that I'll call the roll.

Council Burgo?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Carney?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Shulquette?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Gomes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Oliver?

Yes.

Yes.

Counselor Pemberton?

Yes.

Yes.

Counselor Roy.

Yes.

Yes.

8 to 0.

Passes 8 to 0.

That is our agenda for the night.

A motion to adjourn.

Made by Council Oliver, seconded by Councillor Pemberton.

Anyone on the question of adjournment?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

We are adjourned at 757 p.m.

Because it was everything.

No, they changed everything this when they had one edge closed Consul.

They just said we should just know those badge points.