During the meeting, a representative from the Bristol County Economic Development Consultants, Ken Fola, provided insights into the rationale behind the proposed zoning amendment. He highlighted the need to repurpose existing mills into housing units to increase the housing supply, noting Fall River’s vacancy rate for rental units is under 2%. The proposal includes a mix of market-rate and non-market-rate units, with developers required to ensure at least 80% of the units are market rate. Fola argued that this strategy could alleviate the housing supply issues in Fall River, potentially leading to lower rental prices.

The board engaged in a thorough discussion on the implications of this zoning expansion, including questions about the inclusion of specific locations, such as MG’s restaurant, within the new zone. This proposal is part of a broader initiative involving more than $70 million in private investment to develop housing in Fall River. The board also recognized that funding for such developments is limited to Gateway cities and has recently increased from $10 million to $30 million annually, opening up more opportunities for housing projects.

In addition to the HD1 expansion, the Planning Board considered amendments to the A2 apartment and M multifamily zoning districts. The current A2 district requires a minimum of 100 feet of frontage and 10,000 square feet for one unit, with an additional 2,000 square feet for each subsequent unit. Due to the limited availability of suitable parcels in the inner city, many applications have struggled to meet these requirements, creating a backlog for the zoning board of appeals. The board discussed recommending a revision of the A2 zoning requirements to align more closely with the M district, which has a minimum of 5,000 square feet for one unit and 1,500 square feet for additional units. This change aims to streamline the development process and increase housing availability in high-demand areas.

The board also debated the building height regulations within the A2 district. A proposal was made to reduce the maximum height from 70 feet to 45 feet, aligning with community concerns about how taller buildings might impact neighboring residences. It was suggested that any requests for taller buildings should require a variance. The board reached a consensus on modifying the A2 district to reflect M district requirements while maintaining the height cap at 45 feet, with the possibility of allowing higher buildings through a variance process if additional setbacks are met.

Citizen input during the meeting provided further context to these discussions. A resident, Brian Kurt, inquired about the HD1 overlay district, seeking clarification on its purpose and implications. A board member explained that HD overlay districts enable developers to access state funding for market-rate housing developments, which are only available within these designated zones. The overlay district does not simplify the conversion of existing businesses into residential properties unless they meet the overlay’s criteria.

The meeting concluded with the board expressing appreciation for a departing colleague, recognizing her dedication and contributions over the past two years.