The proposed facility, intended to serve various wellness services, faced criticism for its location in a predominantly residential area, raising concerns about increased traffic, safety, and neighborhood character. Residents expressed fears that the new building, which would be three stories high, could exacerbate existing issues related to parking and congestion. One resident, Lucian Jandro, particularly emphasized the potential dangers posed to children from a nearby preschool, urging the board to preserve the single-family nature of the neighborhood.

Dr. Lars Bowman, another local resident, argued that the proposed structure was excessively large for the area, with plans including a waiting area with 11 seats and multiple treatment rooms. He suggested that this would lead to a significant influx of patients, worsening parking issues. Echoing these sentiments, Susan Mur, who operates a daycare nearby, highlighted the dangers posed by increased traffic, particularly in light of her facility’s daily accommodation of 36 children.

Board members scrutinized the project’s compliance with zoning regulations, focusing on gross floor area and parking requirements. Concerns about the number of employees projected for the facility were raised, with members urging the applicant to consider potential future expansions that could lead to parking shortages.

In contrast, supporters of the proposal argued for the benefits of the new facility. Paul, a local resident, described the current lot as an “eyesore” due to its neglected state, advocating for the development as a means to improve the area’s aesthetics. Jeffrey Maderas also supported the project, emphasizing its proximity to a hospital and the value it would add to the neighborhood.

In addition to the medical office proposal, the board addressed several other development applications, each with its own set of challenges and implications for the community. Notably, a petition from Rezendi’s Residential LLC sought a variance to divide a property on Highrest Road into three parcels. This proposal faced opposition from residents concerned about privacy, increased density, and adherence to zoning laws. The board’s careful review of these applications highlighted the ongoing tension between development and community preservation in Fall River.

The meeting also addressed a petition concerning the subdivision of a property at 25-31 Street into two separate lots, both retaining multifamily dwellings. The board unanimously approved the application after determining that it would not be detrimental to the area. Similarly, Quintel Investments LLC’s request to divide a property into two lots, each with a multifamily dwelling, received approval without opposition.