Ordinance Committee — December 15, 2025

Yeah, you know what's a better idea?

It's because I think we can haul a bunch of sand back.

I can't hold it.

I just want to smell that a lot.

The sand's best thing, it's like it'll just stay.

It's not going to disappear.

It's going to be there for the next— yeah, until that shit melts away.

Yeah, I just want— no, the ice per se, the ice is going to melt in an hour.

Thank you very much.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

It is 7:05 PM on Monday, December 15th.

I'm calling together this committee on ordinances here in the City Council chamber.

Tonight I am joined in the chamber by Councilor at Large Jane Abreu, Councilor of Ward 1 Leo Choquette, Councilor of Ward 5 Joseph Lopes, Councilor at Large Naomi Carney, Councilor of Ward 3 Sean Oliver, Councilor at Large and City Council President Shane Burgo, and I am the chairman, Councilor of Ward 6 Ryan Pereira.

I will ask the clerk if there are any items to be read into the record at this time.

There are.

I have 4 letters to read in the record.

This one's from Councilor Morad.

I'm writing to inform you that I've been unable to attend tonight's committee meeting due to a prior commitment.

Please read this letter into the record and make my colleagues and the public aware of the reason for my absence.

This one is from Councilor Gomes.

I'm writing this letter to inform you that I've been unable to attend the Committee on Ordinances meeting on Monday, December 15th, 2015 at 7:00 PM due to a prior commitment.

I ask that you read this letter into the record to make my colleagues and the public aware of the reason for my absence.

This one is from Councilor Giesta.

I am writing this letter to inform you that I was unable to attend the Committee on Ordinance meeting on Monday, December 15th, 2025 at 7:00 PM due to a family emergency.

I ask that you read this letter into the record to make my colleagues and the public aware of the reason for my absence.

This one's from Councilor Baptiste.

I am writing this letter to inform you that I have been unable to attend the Committee on Ordinances meeting on Monday, December 15th, 2025 at 7:00 PM due to a prior commitment.

I ask that you read this letter into the record to make my colleagues and the public aware of the reason for my absence.

Motion to receive and place on file the 4 communications made by Councilor Abruzzo, seconded by Councilor Burgo.

Any discussion on receiving the items, on placing them on file?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

I will ask the clerk to read item number 1, please.

Item number 1 is a public hearing continued on a communication, Mayor Mitchell, to the City Council submitting an ordinance amending Chapter 9 comprehensive zoning by adding Section 4200D, solar energy systems, referred here on September 25th, 2025, duly advertised in the Standard Times on November 6th, 2025, and November 13th, 2025.

On November 20th, 2025, the public hearing was opened and continued to Monday, December 15th at 7 PM in the council chambers.

And 1A is an ordinance referred September 25th, 2025, November 20th, 2025, public hearing continued Monday, December 15th, 2025, at 7 PM in the City Council Chambers.

1B, communication.

Ann Laurel, Acting Director, Planning Department, to Councilor Ryan J. Pereira, Chairman of the Committee on Ordinances, advising that the public board— 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, Section 4000, by inserting Section 4200D, Solar Energy Systems, including the associated use regulation table for the purpose of regulating solar energy systems in residential and non-residential zone districts.

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

It was received here on the 14th of November, 2025.

November 20th, 2025, a public hearing was continued to Monday, December 15th, 2025 at 7 PM.

In the City Council chambers.

So these items are all continued hearings.

There's no action to be taken at this time, colleagues.

So at this time, I will call up, uh, Anne Lauro.

Or, um, is it Anne for this one or Mike?

No.

Um, hi, Anne Lauro, City of New Bedford, Assistant City Planner.

Um, with me is Mike McCarthy, my colleague, Assistant City Planner.

Um, I just want to address really quickly, we have a lot of material to go through.

So we are starting with solar.

We do not— as you recall in the past with the ordinances, we have some very thorough presentations relative to changes when we get to the parking and dimensional.

We did provide those to you.

We do have them tonight.

The solar and the ADU ordinances are, we feel, pretty straightforward and simple.

So we do not have a full presentation.

We just have the, the like front, like, frequently asked question kind of, uh, format that we're going to provide to you.

But I'm going to hand over the podium to— yep, you did.

You should have received those.

We did, yes.

Every call— every councilor has this packet.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, so I'm gonna pass over the podium to Mike McCarthy, who can go through the ordinance changes and answer any specific questions.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening, Mike.

Thank you for coming.

Would you like me to give a brief overview?

Yeah, just a brief overview, and then if you could follow up with what was discussed at the planning board.

Thank you.

Sure.

So we, um, we— the impetus for this ordinance change is that we frequently see solar arrays come before the planning board and the zoning board and Because the building and zoning commissioner has to treat them like accessory structures.

We don't have a specific solar ordinance right now.

We've gotten some feedback from solar developers that this— that other communities do have a solar ordinance.

It makes it very clear what the standards are, what the height expectations are, what the setback expectations are for that kind of development.

If they're treated like an accessory structure, they're bound by our accessory structure requirements, and it usually leads to not only them having to come to the planning board for site plan review, but also having to go to the zoning board for multiple variances to meet the setback requirements that would apply to a traditional building.

So we found that a lot of communities— we worked with, uh, SERPED, our regional planning office, to come up with this ordinance.

They looked at some best-case examples and helped us craft this.

And we found that most communities treat them completely separately from regular buildings and completely separately from accessory structures.

They get a little bit of a leeway on the setbacks and a little bit higher of a height expectation.

And when I talk about this, I'm talking about the ground-mounted arrays.

What we see a lot in New Bedford are the structures that go over a parking lot with underneath.

And while we wanted to also create— a decommissioning section to the ordinance because we learned through our research that in about 25 to 30 years, most solar— I keep wanting to say solar systems, and I'm going to say solar energy systems need to be decommissioned.

And the company that was responsible for putting them up may not be around.

So this— the decommissioning section requires that they put a decommissioning plan before the planning board when they come and also gives the planning board an option to request a surety.

So sort of like a performance guarantee we would have for a subdivision or like a bond.

So that way, if the company that put up the array isn't there for the decommissioning, there's a way for the city to pursue that.

Because there's a lot of chemicals involved.

It's a lot of components that need to be recycled.

So it's a little more of a complicated process than I initially thought going into it.

And in addition to that, we have just some very basic design standards where things can be mounted on a building.

You don't want a big battery conversion thing facing the public right away if that's avoidable.

On the side, in the rear, if it, if it's feasible, we ask that they set back the roof-mounted systems back from the roofline.

And then just some basic requirements about submitting truck turning plans, traffic plans, for— to make sure that there's maneuverability for emergency vehicles around those, uh, parking systems.

But that's pretty much it.

We have some examples of the, uh, the different, um, solar energy systems, and, uh, we can answer some, some questions for you if you have any.

Chair recognizes Councilor April.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Uh, thank you, Mike and Anne.

Um, I'm just wondering, and maybe if we scroll down, or we can, uh, maybe we can answer my question, but just maybe for my edification, for the, for the public.

Um, let's look at my notes here.

How does this ordinance define, um, small, medium, and large-scale solar systems?

Um, and are those thresholds appropriate for New Bedford?

I don't know the exact square footage off the top of my head, but they were, um, appropriate for what SERP had and when we found when we did the test cases when we were crafting this ordinance.

Okay.

All right.

And they're most— sorry, go ahead.

They're mostly set by what the Department of Energy for the state is promulgating, was promulgating at the time for regulations, which I think they'll finalize sometime next year.

We might have to come back for another bite at the apple on those, on this, when those are finalized, because they'll trump whatever we have if we don't comply.

But we were working with our, our zoning council on this to make sure that we were anticipating that at least.

And I guess my last question— pardon me, I have a little bit of a cold— um, what public outreach was, um, conducted while drafting this ordinance, if any?

And just, were residents' concerns incorporated into this ordinance?

Uh, so there wasn't a formal public outreach like a workshop or anything like that for this particular ordinance, but we, through the planning board discussions and the number of arrays that have come before the board, uh, lately have, uh, incorporated what we've gotten from public feedback.

Mostly we hear about glare and sort of the, the visual intrusion if you have something that's in your backyard, and we tried to accommodate that in the, uh, the special permit criteria for when something abuts residential use.

Okay, I think that's all I have for now.

Thank you, Mike.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll yield.

Thank you, Councilor Abreu.

Chair recognizes Councilor Oliver.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, thank you, thank you, Mike.

Uh, for the brief overview.

Sorry, uh, Councilor, excuse me, just for clarification, uh, Councilor Abreu, small scale was 17— under 1,750 square feet according to the ordinance.

Sorry, I did have that.

Uh, Councilor, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Again, thank you, Mike, for the brief overview.

Um, when putting this together, you said that some other, uh, communities had, uh, similar— um, what, what communities did we look at, if any, um, to draft this ordinance?

So I believe SERPD looked at Brockton, and it's either Swansea or Somerset.

I couldn't remember.

They tried to stay mostly within our region.

It was that technical assistance was at some point last spring.

So, and I mean, you had described the process, you know, planning board, zoning board, come back again to this board, that board.

Do you know of any projects that, you know, I'm sure maybe you can't even put a number on it, that maybe didn't come to fruition because of the lack of clarity that we had around this ordinance?

I can think of one, I believe, in your ward, the Sacred Heart Nursing Home.

They, because we didn't have a solar ordinance, they were very hesitant to commit to doing a project.

And it took them— it took a lot of back and forth between our office, the Inspectional Services Office, and their organization to really make us feel comfortable with them.

Because when— I think you all know a variance is deniable.

So that leads to— that's a whole component of uncertainty on that project.

So once we sort of walked them through what other people had been through and shown— and showed them that, you know, there is a— there is a way forward if you make a convincing argument to the board, they felt comfortable.

But removing that variance uncertainty was part of this.

Okay.

And you had spoke about a decommissioning ordinance that would— that, um, is there a reason why we didn't work that into the current, or that we— or is it— should we treat it as its own separate ordinance?

Oh, it's in there.

It's part of the solar— the solar ordinance.

Yeah.

So it's at the very end, and it just sort of lays out what the, the planning board can ask for, um, in terms of a performance guarantee.

Okay.

And, um, requires that the, uh, the applicant puts forward a decommissioning plan.

As, as, um, as a lot of these, um, as you said, companies kind of come set up shop and then by the time that these have ran their life, they may no longer be in business.

Um, there's no mechanism other than just the bond to, to decommission them as far as, um, if prices increased, like the decommissioning exceeds the bond.

Um, so the, the ordinance doesn't specify that it's a bond.

It says that the board can ask for a performance guarantee.

I believe at the planning board meeting, one of the members suggested that perhaps there could be a percentage of the profit or that's made off that, that put— that's put into some escrow account.

Sounds complicated to me, but if there's a way that we can work that out with the applicant and the solicitor's office at the time of application, we could try that.

But that's not a mechanism that we have at this point.

The ordinance doesn't specify that it has to be a bond.

It just specifies a performance guarantee.

So like in the instance of a subdivision, sometimes we held— we hold the land in covenant until certain criteria are met.

So that would be an option here too.

Then I guess my, my next question would be, who would determine what would be appropriate per project?

It would be at the planning board's discretion at the time of approval.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

That's all, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, any other questions at this time?

Oh, chair recognizes Councilor Carney.

Yeah, just a quick question.

I was looking over the ordinance.

I know that, um, nowadays, um, they're advertising like carports to put solar panels on carports.

Where does that fall underneath this ordinance?

I saw the ground mounting parking canopies.

Would it fall underneath there?

So if it's residential and it's on the roof of like an existing carport?

Or no, if somebody wants to build one because, you know, I think it would fall under the square footage.

Yeah, it would be under small scale.

So it would fall under that square footage.

Okay, 'cause I know a lot of, if you're going to put a carport or something, it might be, 'cause I know there was like a 10-foot setback, is that from on the ground too?

So if they put something there and it's close to— so yeah, there would be a side setback requirement.

There'd be a side setback.

Yeah, because I think that that would be treated as, as an extension of the building at that point.

Um, right.

So what is that side setback for if somebody wants to build a carport just for the purpose of solar panels so they don't have to put it on their house?

Well, that's a good question.

I don't know that off the top of my head.

I'd have to Yeah, that would be a building commissioner question.

Okay, we didn't account for that type of thing in the, in the, in the ordinance.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Carney.

Chair recognizes Councilor Lopes.

Thank you.

I know we've talked about this before, the ground solar array from somebody's personal backyard.

That was an issue because I have a lot of slate shingled roofs in Ward 5, and a lot of people wanted to put, you know, a small scale in their backyard.

Is that allowable now?

So it would have to meet the requirements under small scale.

Um, so under 1,750?

Yeah.

And that would still be like ground— they'd be allowed to do it on the ground in residential neighborhood?

Yeah, I think we treat it mostly as roof-mounted in the, in the, in the ordinance.

Okay.

Um, but I, I'd have to go back and look at those specifically.

I wasn't 100% sure offhand.

And then in the finance world, they, they require the company to take a percentage to remove it at the end of its life.

So if you call most of the commercial institutes, there is an actual formula that the bank requires because they don't want to inherit something that goes default down the road that they have to clean up.

So they require a setback.

You know, they cut out a— they cut out an estimate of what it would cost to take it down if they're ever subject to have to.

Okay.

That's what— so most large commercial banks use the same law firm in Boston.

They're a specialty firm that handles solar legal logistics.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Councilor Lopes.

Any other questions at this time?

From the chair, just for clarification, um, Mike, in Residential A, the only 2 allowable uses is small-scale roof-mounted solar or small-scale ground-mounted?

Yes.

That is the only use.

There's other uses that might require a planning board, but in residential A, those are the only 2 allowable?

Yes.

Okay, very good.

Colleagues, any further questions?

Okay, so to the general public, um, all of these are, uh, that we'll be discussing tonight are public hearings, so we can invite people up to speak in favor or in opposition.

We'll do that through a standard procedure.

So at this time, any, um, thank you, Mike.

If any members of the public would like to speak in favor of this ordinance, to speak in favor, they may approach the podium now.

Okay, anyone that wishes to speak in favor?

If anyone wants to be recorded in favor of this, you just simply, uh, wave your hand and we get your name and address for the record.

All right, anyone that would like to speak in opposition of this?

If anyone would like to speak in opposition.

If anyone would like to be recorded as in opposition.

To be recorded in opposition.

Okay.

Seeing no further input from the public, the chair will close the public hearing at this time.

Colleagues, any further debate?

Any motions?

Motion to send the item to the full City Council, the favorable recommendations made by Councilor Abreu, seconded by Councilor Lopes.

Any discussion on referral to the council?

No discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

We will now go to item number 2.

Item number 2 is a public hearing continued on a communication, Mayor Mitchell, to the the City Council submitting an ordinance amending Chapter 9, Comprehensive Zoning, relative to accessory dwelling units, referred here on September 25th, 2025, duly advertised in the Standard Times on November 6th, 2025, and November 13th, 2025.

On November 20th, 2025, the public hearing was continued to Monday, December 15th, 2025, at 7 PM in City Council.

2A is the ordinance referred here on September 25th, 2025, and November 20th, 2025.

Public hearing continued to Monday, December 15, 2025, at 7 PM in the City Council chambers.

To be as a communication, Ann Laurel, Acting Director, Planning Department, to Councilor Ryan J. Pereira, Chairman, Committee on Ordinances, advising that the Planning Board held a public hearing on Wednesday, November 12, 2025, to discuss a request made by the City Council for the Planning Board to review and make recommendation relative to amending Chapter 9, Section 2340 regarding standard permitting of accessory dwelling units, also known as ADUs, and associated definitions in Section 1200.

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

It was received here on November 14th, 2025.

On November 20th, 2025, the public hearing was continued to Monday, December 15th, 2025, at 7 PM in the council chambers.

2-2A and 2B are before you.

So as like, as like the first item, this, uh, is continued.

There's no action to be taken.

What I would like to just recap for the general public who has been following along with this and, and to remind my colleagues, we originally had an ADU ordinance.

Well, uh, but previous had some discussions, some good comment around that.

Planning board, the planning department went back to rethink some of our questions.

In the meantime, the state put forward new regulations that actually answered a lot of the council's questions.

The planning board then went forward— the planning department went forward with another set of ordinance to mimic state law, to have it on the books of New Bedford.

We then heard that there was some time constraints due to the way it fell, and did we— we had the public hearing, we closed the public hearing, but it fell outside of our actionable time as it's required by law to happen within a certain amount of days from the original public hearings.

Fast forward to the 3rd time it's before us, so we're just kind of following up on this.

So before you tonight, colleagues, is basically the same ordinance that we heard the last time.

I— due to the fact that this is a public hearing and for the public here, I'm going to ask the planning department to do a small and brief overview if they could.

But basically, it's the same exact ordinance that was here last time that we discussed.

It's just that, uh, we needed to reset the clock on all these public hearings.

So at this time, I'll ask the Planning Department to do a brief overview and then open it up for questions from the body.

Thank you.

Mike?

Sure.

Thank you, Chair.

So, um, as, uh, the Chair just described, we have an ADU ordinance that is on the books right now that is in not in compliant with state regulations on an ADU.

They're currently restricted to attached ADUs in single-family homes only.

The new state regulations allow for attached and detached in any zoning district that allows a single-family home in any lot that has an existing dwelling unit.

And the state defines a dwelling unit as any building that has a one or more dwelling units.

So that means under state regulations, we have to allow ADUs in multifamily rear yards as a detached, a converted garage, or in addition to the existing units in a multifamily dwelling.

So there are a few things we can do beyond the state law, which we've put as an option here.

The state regulations cap ADUs at 900 square feet.

We are allowing, via special permit from the zoning board, an ADU of up to 1,200 square feet.

And the state law also gives municipalities the option to prohibit short-term rentals in ADUs.

We are taking that option, recognizing that there is a need for permanent year-round housing here, so that if someone is going to construct an ADU, we want to have it be used to house somebody permanently, not as a vacation rental.

Other than that, the state law kind of really constrains what we're able to do here.

So we're mostly just bringing our ordinance in compliance with the state and taking those options when we can to exercise a little bit more local control.

But that is the short of it.

I'm happy to field questions.

Perfect.

Chair recognizes Councilor Oliver.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Mike, thanks again.

Um, with the, uh, past and present, um, ADU, um, ordinance in front of us, is there any, um, is there any consideration given to parking?

Is there any parking?

Um, that's a good question.

And yes, the— so the state regulations, um, I'll make it so if you're in 1/2 mile of a transit stop which is defined as anywhere where you can disembark from public transit.

So based on what I've had from feedback from the state, state office, that counts a bus stop.

So if you're within a half mile— next question.

Yeah, if you're within half a mile from a bus stop, we can't mandate that you have an additional parking space for an ADU, but we do require one off-street parking space for ADUs that would fall outside of that half mile.

I think it'd be probably hard to find this location in the city of New Bedford that doesn't come within a half a mile.

Yeah, maybe, um, in the depths of your ward near the Dartmouth Line, or Councilor Chiquette's ward, um, way up near Freetown, possibly.

But I, I agree.

Okay.

And, um, I had one more.

So the parking, and then What is the mechanism in place to, um, I guess enforce the short-term rental?

Yeah, so it's prohibited.

So it would be a zoning, uh, zoning enforcement.

That would be the inspectional services.

So basically if somebody is alleged to be doing it, then inspectional services would then go and follow up on that?

Yep.

And that would be, um, ADU only is what we're bound by right now.

So, right.

So if I built an ADU tomorrow and then started renting it out on Airbnb and somebody called, um, the inspectional services, then it would be up to that department to come and check it out?

Yeah, it would be a zoning violation, so handled by the zoning commissioner.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councilor Oliver.

Chair recognizes Councilor Lopes.

So I'm going to stress again with the, the short-term rentals, you know, that was my big discussion last time we had this discussion.

I think it's going to be hard to do the enforcement, especially considering that we have the building commissioner looking at illegal basement apartments, illegal roof apartments, and, you know, attic apartments and how long that takes.

I think this is going to be the hardest piece of the ADU to manage.

It's not going to be steps 1 through 4.

It's going to be 5.

And I just wish that we added a penalty in there for if somebody's not complying with it.

I know we can't.

I had that discussion already with the— I talked to the solicitor and he told me I can't do it.

But I still just want to bring it up because I know it's going to be the hardest thing to enforce for the building commissioner.

And it's part of an ordinance that has no teeth, which is hard to, to adopt for that one unit because it has no legal teeth.

So that's my one biggest concern with it.

I, I would it not be subject to a fine as a zoning violation?

I was told it'd be hard to enforce.

It's the cost of doing business.

Yeah, it's the cost of doing business at that point.

Yeah.

All right.

So that's my biggest concern.

It's not one through four.

It's just number five.

But it would be zoning.

So I've also given this a bit of thought, and I'm going to be honest with you.

With the cost of construction, that if somebody's building.

An ADU, they're probably not building it for Airbnb because I can't see the cost benefit for that.

Usually I can't see how it's intended to, you know, particularly, you know, we call it the in-laws apartment, but it's not cheap to build these things.

No, they average about $80,000 to $90,000 to build.

More than that?

I was going to say we have some builders here.

I think they would disagree with that.

I mean, unless you're getting a prefab off a truck type of thing, which I know there's, you know, as a matter of fact, the governor, this, this isn't rolled out as well as the governor had thought it was.

So, you know, last week the governor, you know, was again touting and trying to incentivize the ADUs.

And in a, in a city like New Bedford where we know the construction costs are high and the rental costs rental, um, look, you know, uh, income low.

I think it applies here as well, but that's just my opinion.

We'll see.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Councilor Lopes.

Colleagues, any other questions at this time?

Okay.

Oh, the chair recognizes Councilor Burgo.

Um, just anecdotally, I guess, uh, when did— was this a part of the Building New Bedford plan?

So, uh, readdressing ADUs was part of the Building New Bedford plan.

Uh, we as part of the zoning overhaul.

This started, um, probably research started in 2023 for this.

We— it was the first item that we debuted in 2024 as part of the, the zoning update.

And then, um, you had— you all had great feedback, and we knew that the state regulations were coming.

And from watching the webinars and reading the material that they were coming out with, we had originally designed this to be single-family only.

Because that was how I think a lot of people traditionally thought of an ADU, as accessory to a single-family dwelling.

The state added multifamily, and that kind of brought us— sent us back to the drawing board on this one.

I see.

So that led to the delay and refiling in the spring of this year.

I just wanted to make sure we understood that the building and repair plan that was released back in March of 2023, a lot of the stuff that's in there we're still waiting for, and then it was in wasn't until Governor Healey signed this into law in August 2024 that we wanted to wait for this.

Go ahead.

You want to say something?

And so this was drafted and we brought it forward.

We got comments and we brought it back.

Like Michael said, we don't— we don't plan zoning in a vacuum.

We attend multiple webinars by our regional planning agencies and state agencies.

And so knowing that the state was also drafting their own ordinance, we sat on it specifically because it didn't make sense for us to put forth a new proposal that we knew was going to get changed because the state was literally— because they were going to put forward something that was less restrictive than what the city was going to propose because they were going to broaden it more, is what I'm hearing, right?

Exactly correct.

Right.

So instead of New Bedford leading the way on housing, we wanted to be struggling.

So let me, let me be clear.

What we were putting forth would have just— we would have had to retract it because it just— at the same time, we were watching the sausage get made on these webinars.

So we could clearly see where the state was leading.

And it was different from what we had already drafted and had legal outside legal look at.

So I want to be clear, we had this ordinance drafted, but knowing that the state was coming forth with something different, it just didn't really make sense, we thought, to put something that would be in place for a month or so, people get accustomed to it, start pulling building permits, and then we have to retract and put something new.

That's not developer-friendly either.

Sure.

So I just want to clarify that what we're working on right now and what we're hoping to pass now is state-led, not Mitchell administration-led?

Um, actually, I would say it's a bit of both because we've put in, um, wherever we were allowed to, uh, put our own standards, design standards and things such as that.

Um, also wherever the state allowed us to do expand We did.

For example, the special permit to go from the 900 to the 1,200 square feet, um, the, the state— that's not part of the state.

It does allow you to do that.

Some design standards relative to setbacks and facade setbacks, um, it's allowed through the state, but it's not within the state ordinance.

So we took advantage of that.

So it's a little— the— I would say that the, the blueprint, the boilerplate, is the state, and then we added to it wherever we could.

Wonderful.

You're a great advocate, Anne.

I rest.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Burgos.

Anyone else on that first?

Councilor Oliver on a second.

Thank you, sir.

I appreciate that.

Um, Mike, the, um, the accessory dwelling unit— this is just one unit per, um, prop— per parcel, correct?

Yes.

No cap as to how many units citywide Right?

No.

So any and every parcel that can have one can have one?

Yes.

Okay.

Was there any— are we, are we just, um, kind of— obviously this is a, a, an initiative, um, from the state.

Are we just drafting this ordinance with a few tweaks to remedy that, or was there any, um, studies done for New Bedford specifically?

As far as how this is going to impact our already existing infrastructure issues with wastewater management, road conditions, and our, you know, general services like fire, police, EMS, and schools?

There were no studies done to that degree.

It sort of fell out of the scope of the technical assistance we had for this.

I can say that of the ADUs that I have seen go through the building permit process for new construction, not like converting a basement or an attic.

Our Department of Public Infrastructure is making sure that they comply with our stormwater rules and regulations.

So that helps with that sort of combined sewer aspect of things.

But again, we're— we are kind of constrained by what we can do this on with the state regulations in terms of restricting the utilities.

Basement attic conversions counted as an ADU.

So if I did my attic, I can't do my garage, correct?

Yep, one per lot.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Councilor.

Thank you, Councilor Oliver.

Any other questions at this time?

All right, seeing no further questions from the general public, if anyone— this item here regarding accessory dwelling units, would anyone like to speak in favor?

Speak in favor.

Okay, just please state your name and address very clearly into the mic before you speak, please.

Thank you, Chairman and members of the City Council.

For those who don't know me, my name is Christian Gavush Silvera of 84 Spring Street, New Bedford, Mass.

I'm speaking in favor of this as ADUs are something that I've been working closely with South Coast— South Coast Places for People, as well as other organizations to presentations throughout different municipalities.

Um, quite honestly, I haven't had a single person come up to me and say, I want to put an ADU on my property for an Airbnb.

I've had a lot of conversations presented in front of well over 200 people at this point between New Bedford, Fall River, Westport, Dartmouth, um, and not a single person has raised that.

Uh, additionally, the other thing I wanted to bring up was we're obviously in a housing crisis, but people aren't building these at the rate that they thought that the state thought they were going to get built.

So I know one point that got brought up is, can everyone build this in their backyard?

Sure, but it's just not happening.

The cost of it is substantial, and we're primarily seeing it with people who have older parents that want to downsize and have nowhere else to go, and they don't want to go to a nursing home.

So I just want to raise those points.

I did have a question for the planning department that they might be able to answer.

The state's passed some pretty clear regulations on the side to do with separate metering and utilities for these ADUs.

And a lot of different municipal DPWs have been getting in trouble for trying to require all different design standards that are not supposed to be getting required per the state ordinance.

So I'm curious what that looks like in the ordinance for those regulations.

Can't answer it?

Okay, no worries.

So that's just something to keep in mind is the restriction on metering and whatever it may be.

Thank you.

Thank you, Christian.

Stop that.

So I, I should have said this before Christian started speaking.

I apologize, but it'll be 3 minutes per speaker, uh, on this, on these items.

Uh, I— there is a timer so you can see how long you got.

And any questions that you have for the body in general, you can put the questions up, but the Planning Department and the body, uh, typically doesn't answer, uh, questions like that.

But just for general information so that, you know, you— the public knows how to frame questions and stuff.

But I appreciate the input.

And the public, uh, input for that.

Any ques— any other further comment in favor?

Anyone else wish to speak in favor of this item?

Yep, can approach the podium, sir, speak in favor.

Just state your name and address, please, clearly.

Audley Barton, 124 Mount Pleasant Street in beautiful New Bedford.

Uh, when it comes to these ADUs It's a wonderful and great thing for the city of New Bedford.

We are a growing city.

Everyone knows that we have extra spaces in our homes, whether it's the basement or the attic, that before we could not add that extra bedroom or that extra apartment.

With this ADU, we could actually go ahead and put that extra apartment just to accommodate.

We have kids that are growing.

Affordability is out of control.

And if we can add extra room or an extra apartment for our growing teenagers or young adults, it's a great thing for the city.

And we need to understand that, you know, the space is already there.

It's just making it happen.

And these ADUs will allow that to happen.

And it will alleviate a lot of this affordability problem that we're having when it comes to housing in New Bedford.

That's all.

Thank you for your comment.

Okay, anyone else wish to speak in favor?

Okay, speaking in favor.

Would anyone like to be recorded in favor?

Be recorded in favor.

Okay, all right, we already spoke in favor, so we got you covered.

Thank you.

Uh, your name please?

M-O-R-A-N-N.

Address?

24 Logan Street.

Who else over here?

Name?

Matt Marco.

Address, please?

647 Church.

Anyone else be recorded in favor?

Yes, your name, sir?

Uh, Ned Carson.

Ned Carson, 18 Tremont Street.

18 Tremont.

Would anyone else like to speak in favor?

I'm sorry, be recorded in favor.

Sorry, uh, Will Gardner.

Will Gardner, 17 Cottage Street, Fairhaven.

17 Cottage Street, Fairhaven.

Okay.

Yes, sir.

Mark Hess.

What's the first name?

Mark Hess.

264 Reed, New Bedford.

Yes, sir.

16 Crescent Drive, Fairhaven.

Nicholas Carvalho.

Anyone else would like to be recorded in favor?

Armando Pereira.

Anyone else who'd like to be recorded in favor?

Be recorded in favor.

Okay.

Would anyone like to speak in opposition?

Speak in opposition of this ordinance.

Would anyone like to be recorded in opposition?

To be recorded in opposition.

Anyone else from the public?

Okay.

So at this time, seeing no more public input, the chair will close the public hearing.

Colleagues, your pleasure.

Item to refer to the full City Council for adoption made by Councilor Abreu, seconded by Councilor Burgo.

Excuse me, uh, any comment on this?

Yes, Councilor— chair recognizes Councilor Burgo.

Thank you.

I'm just so excited, um, Um, to finally get this out of committee and hopefully approved.

As this council knows, and some new councilors that weren't here back in 2022 when this council was talking about ADUs, with all due respect to Miss Lauro, we as a city have been talking about ADUs forever.

It then came out in the Building New Bedford plan, and we were excited then, and nothing happened then.

And we know obviously the Affordable Homes Act that was signed into state law in August of 2024 was starting to be crafted back in October of 2023.

But there's some people in the room that might want to give credit to a certain person in the corner office and others that are great advocates, Ms. Laurel.

But I'm very happy that our state delegation and our governor finally moved forward because otherwise there is always going to be inaction when it comes to building new Bedford.

So I'm glad to see this one piece finally move out of committee.

So I'm hoping everyone will vote favorably for this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Burgo.

Anyone else to speak on this matter of referral to the full City Council?

All right, seeing no further comment, all those in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

I will ask the clerk to read item number 3, please.

Item number 3 is a public hearing continued on communication Mayor Mitchell to the City Council submitting an ordinance amending Chapter 9, Comprehensive Zoning, relative to parking requirements, Appendix C, Table of Parking and Loading Requirements, referred here on October 9th, 2025, duly advertised in the Standard Times on November 6th, 2025, and November 13th, 2025.

On November 20th, 2025, public hearing was continued to Monday, December 15th, 2025, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers.

3A was the the ordinance referred here on October 9th, 2025.

November 20th, 2025, public hearing continued to Monday, December 15th, 2025 at 7 PM in the City Council Chambers.

3B is a communication.

Anne Laurel, Acting Director, Planning Department, to Councilor 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 City Council for the Planning Board to review and make a recommendation relative to amending Chapter 9 parking requirements within Appendices A and C for principal use regulations.

The Planning Board voted to send a favorable recommendation for the ordinance amendment, which was received here on November 14, 2025.

On November 20, 2025, a public hearing continued to Monday, December 15, 2025, at 7 PM in the council chambers, 3, 3A, and 3B, an hour for you.

So again, colleagues, this is an item that's been continued.

However, we do have one piece— I made a mistake when I talked to you about it, so it's just this one.

Okay, uh, there was an item to receive and place on file the presentation.

Okay, motion to receive and place on file this presentation titled Parking Audit.

It's made by Councilor Liburgo, seconded by Councilor Oliver.

Any discussion in placing this on file?

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

Colleagues, do we all have this?

Anyone need it?

Okay, we're good.

Thank you.

I will turn it over to Ian-Mike Combo.

Hello again.

So we'll walk through this presentation.

There's our objective here.

So what are our goals with this ordinance?

We want to make New Bedford competitive.

Other cities and towns in the state, in the region are— have reduced their parking minimums.

Actually, I want to back up a little bit.

For everyone in attendance and the council's benefit, I just want to clarify.

I think when people talk about parking minimums a lot— I deal with it a lot, you know, since day one, it's something that I've dealt with.

I, um, I think when, when it comes before the planning board, it's clear to the board members what it's about.

But when we talk about a minimum That is the minimum required off-street parking space that a developer has to provide for a specific use.

Sometimes it's based on the number of units.

Sometimes it's based on square footage.

Sometimes it's based on the number of seats.

But that's what we're talking about when we're talking about parking minimums.

So this is the bare minimum throughout this presentation that a developer would have to provide off-street.

So we do this to make New Bedford competitive.

You know, other cities and towns have looked at this in the state, nationwide.

I think that you might be aware of this trend if you follow this.

So we examined what our peers and neighbors have been doing in this, in this arena.

We want to do it to make business friendly.

We're allowing market demand to set the supply of parking and reduce the cost of development because parking is expensive to supply.

When you're building it new.

One estimate has it at about $5,000 per parking space to create a parking lot.

That cost is passed on to the tenants of that space or the purchaser of the space when it goes up for sale.

So it's factored into the monthly rent.

Nationally, one parking space is estimated to increase rent by $225 per unit.

We also are looking at improving water quality.

I think as most of you are aware, the city is bound by state and federal regulations to have certain stormwater rules and regulations.

This— that responsibility is passed on through new development when a parking— when asphalt exceeds a certain percentage of the site.

That is expensive to put into the ground and manage, so this gives us a way to reduce those costs and to manage our stormwater runoff and provide the option for a site to have more green space.

So what changes are we proposing here?

First, our parking ratios have been adjusted.

The minimums are all lowered for commercial and industrial uses and for most residential uses.

Second, the Planning Board now has clear criteria when granting a special permit for parking reduction.

Beyond just general special permit requirements.

And the basis for these changes is to replace the old parking table with parking codes.

So previously you would have to find your use in the use table and then go to a separate parking table where the use might not actually be defined specifically as it is in the use table.

We now have an alphabetical code system that we're proposing as part of this ordinance update.

And then the use table would be amended to add a column with those codes.

So once you found your use, you found your— you— oh, I'm Code D, then you could go to the parking table and look up Code D. And each— now each time that a use is removed from the table of uses, it also allows the parking table to be updated.

Because in the past, if this step had been missed, it would— there would be inconsistencies, which was confusing for people.

So what informed these parking ratios?

Developer feedback, both through our office at the counter, the— what the planning board hears, what the zoning board hears.

Our Office of Housing and Community Development has been conducting developer roundtables where this issue comes up frequently.

When we have pre-permitting meetings with developers, this is something that always gets discussed for anything that's done at a scale that requires a certain number of off-street parking spaces.

Parking reduction data.

So we looked at the last 2, 2 years.

The planning board and the zoning board together granted a reduction of 658 parking spaces over that time period.

The majority of these reductions were for commercial and industrial properties.

Residential outside of downtown still has to provide off-street parking, just not at the ratio that's currently required at the table of 2 to 1.

And we also looked at how New Bedford compares.

So we're looking at— excuse me.

You know, we looked at a few other communities.

Fitchburg recently adopted these changes.

We know from our colleagues down the road in Fall River that they have done a parking analysis and are looking at doing this.

This is a means to make New Bedford competitive on the development market.

And we also look nationally at, like, the National Institute of Transportation Engineers.

And looking at our own census data for this city, we saw that only 60% of households have one car or less.

So with that, I'm going to get into the big changes, or the changes in the table.

Would it be helpful to pause here, or do you want to just run through and do a slide-by-slide.

Okay, so we start with residential here.

For single-family, townhouse, and duplexes, there's no change.

It's 2 spaces per dwelling unit.

It keeps one and two-family dwellings separate from the requirements of multifamily.

For our multifamily units, our multifamily buildings, those are now going from 2 spaces per dwelling unit to 1, except when there are 3 or more bedrooms, then you would have to provide 2 spaces.

That creates— that's a distinction that we saw across many cities that have adopted these changes.

We felt like it worked here for the city too.

There's no change to our assisted living facilities, and there is a change to the homeless shelter and service center where it is limited to parking spaces for employees.

So here is our lodging section of the, of the use table.

We're not making any change to the parking that's associated with hostels, which is actually a new use.

Based on what our consultant did in the technical analysis, that falls within the range what was already in there.

One space per guest room is the, uh, the common standard across the industry for hotels, and it removes the employee-based parking requirement.

And that's in line with what we've seen in other gateway cities on this subject.

For our commercial general services category, um, Category C, which will apply broadly to a few different categories here.

What we've changed here is the square footage where parking spaces kick in.

Currently it's 200 square feet.

Now it would kick in at 500 square feet.

And then if it's— but the businesses would not have to provide less than 2 spaces for each business unit on the premises.

After 10,000, it's 1 space for every 1,000.

For Category E, very similar.

It was at 200 square feet.

We moved that up to 300.

And then after 20,000 square feet, it's 1 space per 400 square feet.

The Category F, which would cover maintenance and repair of consumer goods, in this category, it comes up again later in the table.

There's no change there.

It's 400 square feet.

H, which covers funeral homes and other places of assembly, we'll see this again when we get to restaurants.

That's limited to seats in the establishment.

It's 1 space for every 5 seats.

It eliminates the square footage requirement there.

And then for Category J, which is moving services and this confusingly named category, if you didn't write it yourself, it's motorized single-user shared transportation station, which is essentially a Zipcar or other type of rental place like that.

That would be, uh, 1 space per 1,500 square feet of gross floor area of the building.

And then our drop-off zone requirements for adult daycare and child care, and making that based on, uh, the square footage of 750 square feet per space.

Moving into general and business office uses, These are Categories C and J, which I discussed in— on the previous slide.

So again, we're moving up the, the square footage floor there when parking would kick in.

Category E, similarly, we're moving up the square footage area here for when parking would kick in from 200 to 300 square feet.

And here, a footnote in the table does provide a little bit more flexibility for businesses in the downtown with within a certain distance from a parking garage.

Category D, this is for fast food restaurants.

It's 1 space per customer seat and a minimum of 10 spaces.

And then Category E, we saw on the previous slide, that's going up from 200 to 300 square feet.

These are our creative enterprises.

Category C, we previously discussed.

H is our place of assembly.

We previously discussed that.

And then L applies to sort of recreation sites, indoor/outdoor recreation, conference spaces, museums, sports complexes.

This would bring it up from— it was split so that it has places that don't have seats now fall under H. Or places that do have seats fall under H and places that may not have seats fall under L. So moving to our motor vehicle uses, we have E and F, which we've previously talked about here, and Z, which is no parking required.

So a car share facility, a parking garage, and a parking structure or surface parking don't have a parking requirement.

Our civil and institutional uses, L, which we previously talked about, is just a— that's the other side of the H category.

And then Z, which is no parking requirement: cemetery, wireless communication facility.

That's like a cell tower.

So here is our institutional uses.

I believe the— nope, we talked about K when we talked about daycares.

So everything in here has been covered previously on the table.

Medical uses, hospital and nursing home is G. It's tied to beds and then 3 spaces for a drop-off zone.

There's no change from what was previously in there for those use categories in the old parking thing— table.

And then medical offices is under C, which we talked about when we talked about general business offices.

These are our prohibited uses.

There's no parking requirements for prohibited uses.

Here is our general industrial uses.

Here it's more tied to square foot area.

So it's— here we've kept it mostly the same except we've removed requirements for spaces for vehicles used for the business.

We recognize that that will change over time and likely has some relation to the square foot anyway.

So here is our marijuana-related uses.

We've covered A, E, I, C. J is a new one, I believe.

This is tied to the number of spaces per 1,500 square feet, and then thereafter it's 5,000 or more.

I will note that there was a typo in what was submitted here.

Medical marijuana treatment center appears as G in the table that was submitted.

We would ask that it be just modified to E to be in line with the other retail marijuana establishments.

So here are our marine-related uses.

These are all parking categories that we've seen already in this table.

And then we get to our, uh, our agricultural uses.

No parking requirement for these agricultural uses.

Um, and then these are our special permit criteria for parking.

Uh, currently, if you look at that section of the ordinance where it talks about how the planning board can be a grant— can grant a special permit for parking reduction, what What's in there really right now is a list of examples.

Like, if the parking reduction is to be granted, the planning board may want to consider these options.

And then they're bound by the regular special permit criteria.

We've added specific criteria and different options that can be provided in order to cover it.

And then just for reference, these are our transit-oriented parking requirements, which would be the latest parking requirements that were passed in the city.

And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mike.

Colleagues, any questions for the planning— Councilor Lopes?

All right, so Mike, I just have a couple notes.

So if you go to D, commercial, general business, and office use.

Yes, I understand reducing from 500 to 300, but nowhere in there does that build in any space for employees.

I know it didn't to begin with, but the numbers were so much higher before that you built in that employee number into it, especially for, you know, professional office buildings, you know banks, if you have 3 tellers, an assistant manager, and 2 other people working, and there's 5 spots, and the bank only has, say, enough parking for 8 people, where do the customers or the employees park if it's in, you know, in an office outside of downtown?

Yeah, so this is, I think, a good example of letting the market drive the demand for off-street parking.

We— not specific to this example, but I can think of on, on Nauset Street, there's recently constructed Dunkin' Donuts with a sort of an office for the franchisee there.

They had to provide, I think per our ordinance, 32 parking spaces or something like that.

They came to the planning board and asked for 21.

I go through that area frequently.

You know, it's an area of the city I love.

Klein's Greenhouse.

I go there year-round.

I don't think I've ever seen more than 5 cars in that space.

So letting the floor be a little bit lower— what the national research and other communities that have enacted these changes has shown is that the developer provides what they need in order to do the business that they need.

And it's in— from what we've heard from developers, it's in their interest not to drive their customers to find parking elsewhere.

So if they're able to provide it on-site, they will.

Um, so again, we're setting the minimum lower, but they can still build more if they think they need it.

Nobody's going to put more if they're not required to put more in.

I guess I have a concern with that one.

Uh, and then the restaurants— I'm just going to use the Cisco.

When it was Davey's Locker, Cisco, there's not enough parking for the employees, never mind all the guests sometimes.

So that pushes everybody into residential neighborhoods.

Like, I understand what the market demand, but I can tell you, when it was Davey's Locker, I got a ton of calls.

When it was Cisco, I got a ton of calls.

I can't imagine what the— now the Ward 6 councilor is getting as it relates to Cisco as a prime example.

When you remove the employee-required parking spot, I understand it's great for developer, it's great for the business, but it's not great for the neighborhoods that some of these establishments are in.

So I guess when my focus is less on the residential side and more on the, the business side and how it impacts the neighborhood, you know, I can't support this if we're not going to add back the employee piece.

Because when you're dealing with it on a residential issue as a city councilor, you know, that's a big concern for the people that are in neighborhoods.

Not so much, you know, the small pizza parlor, that drop-off pickup, but some of those larger establishments where people are staying for 2, 3, 5, 6 hours, you know, and there's no parking requirement.

For the employees.

That's, that's an issue.

And I know downtown's exempt.

I'm not including downtown.

But there are several establishments in the city that if you remove the, the employee parking piece, that forces them into all the neighborhoods, which becomes a nuisance when they're blocking driveways, you know, you name it.

I understand the concern.

Cisco, I would say, is maybe a unique case in the city.

It's not really.

Marafa's and the Barbershop.

I, I can give you a list of spots, especially when I was the Ward 6 councilman.

Not— we don't have any restaurants in Ward 5 really, but the ward— I can tell you there is an issue with this, you know, as it relates to people parking in neighborhoods.

Okay, I— so I, I will inject that And then did I have another one?

I will relinquish my time if another councilor has questions while I look for my other question.

Thank you, Councilor Lopes.

Chair recognizes Councilor Chaukat.

Um, and can you come— can you come up here for one second, please?

Uh, go ahead, Councilor Chaukat.

To the principal's office.

Good evening, uh, Miss McCarthy.

How you doing, sir?

Good.

Um, I'm a little concerned about the multi-family, multi-business, multi-use uh, parking scenarios here.

And here's one place where I get a little worried.

It's smart planning to try to want to do a 1-to-1 or a 1-to-1.5 as far as maximizing the amount of people that can be on a lot.

But as Shakespeare once said, herein lies the rub.

On an end cap development in a, in, in a certain neighborhood if only, say, 15 spots are afforded for 15 people, where are these other cars for the people that indubitably have cars going to park?

They're going to park on the residential streets, and it's going to look like college drop-off day every day of the week.

There's going to be no spots in these residential neighborhoods on the street.

So No.

So listen, I served on the zoning board in this city for 3 years, and one of the things that was hammered into me was that we do not alter or derogate from the character of the neighborhood any decision.

So I'm having problems swallowing the fact that we're looking to change 2 cars per spot, or 2 cars per unit into 1 car per unit.

Because there's nothing on the books that says that the 2 people that live in an apartment are going to just say, yeah, we're going to get rid of 1 car and just keep 1.

And therefore we're only going to honor that 1 car per unit thing.

So where does the other person park his or her car?

Out on the street.

And then now you got problems with parking there.

So that derogates and changes the character of the neighborhood, especially if it's a full single-family rez neighborhood.

How are we going to, you know, tackle that issue?

We're just going to have gridlock on side streets.

And that's not what the people in— I know in Ward 1 definitely don't want that.

I can't imagine the people in Ward 6 where Councilor Pereira is, or Ward 5 where Councilor Lopes is.

I mean, I don't know.

So this, this is really bothering me.

So this B and B on multi-household and mixed-use, uh, I think that that should be stricken and remain Res A, both of those.

And that's what I'm going to make an amendment of later on.

I'm going to make a motion to change B and B, multi-household attached dwelling and mixed-use detached dwelling, from the B to the A so that you have all A's up there.

I am not for this.

And I apologize for the folks in this chamber, but, you know, I have to honor the people that live in my ward.

And this is going to overwhelmingly be opposed in Ward 1.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Choukat.

Since Ward 6 was mentioned, I'll just state Ward 6 residents complain about taxes.

And the most efficient way we can make being pro-business, I'll support the lower taxes by increasing increasing development.

That's what Ward 6 residents complain about— taxes.

Thank you.

Councilor April.

I was just going to say that, Mr. Chairman.

Um, we can't talk out of both sides of our mouths.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, to all my colleagues, can't talk about our high property tax bills, investment or lack thereof.

We need to build at least between 8,000 to 10,000 new housing units here in the city of New Bedford.

How are we going to address a housing need, a workforce housing need, a market-rate housing need, grow our tax base if we're not going to start looking at these things with a clearer lens.

This NIMBY attitude sometimes around here is frustrating.

Enough's enough with the NIMBY stuff.

Let's start getting rid of the bureaucracy.

Let's start developing in the city of New Bedford.

Enough is enough.

I'm going to yield, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

Okay.

Yes, thank you.

We're going to keep this to questions until we get to debate.

Thank you, Councilor Abreu.

No, I'm— Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, it's just— no, man, this is— it's been 10 years of this for me, you know what I mean?

Not, not here, not there, but yet my property tax bill comes and I've had enough.

It's like, well, we'll get to— I will.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, after the public hearing's closed, we'll, we'll open the floor for debate.

Any other questions for the planning staff on these items.

Okay, so from the chair on, a couple of questions for the planning staff just to revisit.

My one question is, so the item where it's actually on this page where it says it's 1 space per 2 units of dwelling, B, Section B, 3 or more units require the 2, correct?

No, so it's, it's 1 space per unit and then it's 2 spaces for every unit.

That's a 3 3-bedroom or more.

3-bedroom, excuse me, that's right, sorry.

So 1 or 2 studios, 1, 2 bedrooms in a multi-unit would require 1 space.

3 bedrooms, 4 bedrooms or more is 2 spaces.

That's correct.

If a developer, sometimes it happens halfway through a project, scraps a unit and makes some changes, who monitors that and adjusts that?

Would that be the— it could be hard, and I'm not saying they're not going to change all the— they're not going to go from a 2-bedroom building to all 3s.

That won't happen.

But it could happen where 1 or 2 units become 3 bedrooms as some, some stuff comes up in, in construction.

Is there any plan to adjust that?

It's probably very rare, but it's just something that came across my mind.

Yeah, it does happen.

And, and from a site plan approval decision or a special permit decision, if there would be a parking reduction here.

There's a general condition that's included with all of those that any changes to the approved plan have to be submitted to the Department of Inspectional Services and the city planner to determine if that applicant has to reappear before the board.

I think a good example is 278 Union Street.

They had a little bit of a reconfiguration of some of their units.

They came to us.

It did not have an overall effect because there's no bedroom requirement currently into the in their parking count, but they— the developer always comes back and notifies us because if it doesn't match up what was there on the plans when we go for a certificate of occupancy, then they have to answer for that discrepancy and it can delay the issuance of the certificate.

Okay.

So there is some provisions in there.

Yeah, we have a policy in place.

Okay.

Very good.

And then my last one is Actually, it's more debate.

We'll get to that after.

Uh, thank you both.

Any other questions for the planning department?

Questions?

Okay, no questions at this time.

Thank you, Mike and Anne.

All right, so this is a public hearing.

I will ask anyone who wishes to speak in favor to please approach the podium one at a time, please.

And though everyone will get a chance to speak once on on this item.

So no, I imagine a lot of people are going to want to speak.

So no, Armando Pereira again, 227 Union Street, New Bedford, Unit 509.

So we look at what we have, and I'm involved in design process, and I always hear that we've got to deal with stormwater management, and we also have to look at a lot of different things that are environmental impact us.

So one of the things that people don't understand either is that when we have a parking spot, we look at— as City of New Bedford says, it's a 10 by 20.

But people don't understand it goes beyond that.

It's not 200 square feet, it's required to have 400 square feet.

So if you get a 6-unit building and you eliminate one spot for every single unit, you are actually taking away 2,400 square feet of asphalt.

What does that do?

It reduces the heat island effect.

Okay, so now we're actually improving the environment in that respect.

We're also adding more pervious areas.

So here's another big thing that we're looking at.

When you start looking at all this additional work, people have to put a larger parking lot, you're taking away from the recharge system.

Therefore, it costs developers more money for the asphalt, it costs more money for the chambers to recharge the system into the ground, so it's not really helpful at all.

It also helps with green space, okay, that's one of the things that we're missing.

If you go out to Europe, Europe has a lot of little in-park, insert parks type of thing.

We don't have this here.

Our society, at one point, we've gotten to the point that we have to provide all these amenities.

I came over in 1970, okay, I was 6 years old.

It was only when I was 18 that somebody had a car in there, in that house, and that was me.

So we as humans adjust.

The city spent a tremendous amount of money on putting in a bike path.

So guess what?

Let's get it to be used.

And in all honesty, what I'm seeing in today's society is people are getting away from the cars.

With MBTA here, guess what?

People are going to start walking, they're going to use their bicycles, they're going to get on the transit system that the city has.

Let's get Searle full the way it used to be in the '70s.

I think it's an environmentally smart choice.

Because by eliminating the parking spots, we can actually create a lot of good for the society.

Guess what?

We're pushing the green system.

By putting the asphalt down, you're taking away from the green system.

So let's work together to make it a happy and a healthier place to live.

Thank you, Armando.

Uh, just for the record, there was no relationship— same last name— but Everyone from Portugal's Pereira, Gonzalez, whatever you want.

We're all the same.

So, but there's no relation.

Okay.

Name and address, please, for the record.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Christian Gavush Silvera of 84 Spring Street, New Bedford, also South Coast and Associates.

So there's a couple of things that I want to mention when considering this issue as a whole.

Number one, if you have any larger development projects like that old Chinese restaurant in the North End, if that goes in front of the planning board, many times the planning board will require for a traffic impact study or a parking impact study to be done on those projects to make sure it's not going to have the type of impact that, you know, that is potentially worrisome.

Another thing I want you to consider is if you think about the most congested parts of the city— I've lived in them.

I used to live on Crapo Street right near Mount Carmel Church.

I'd say that's probably one of the most congested parts of the city.

I always could find parking within one block radius radius of the apartment that I lived in.

Additionally, when I lived in that building, there were more— no more than 4 cars for the tenants associated with that 4-unit building, which were all 3-bedroom units.

I manage a 14-unit building.

I have less than 14 cars for all the tenants associated with that building.

We've been part of multiple real estate transactions in which the sellers are not willing to wait the time associated with the permitting of the city, in which a lot of these permitting things can sometimes be hindering, hindering on parking relief that's necessary for these areas.

I also lived in the North End on— right off of Briarwood Court, and there were times that people were parked in front of my house.

It didn't matter to me.

I don't feel as though it changed the character of the neighborhood.

I grew up in Dartmouth in a neighborhood that was a 40B development with cars on the street in front of the houses, and it didn't change the feel of our neighborhood, in my opinion.

There's a lot of things that go into this, and I think a big thing too is what it boils down to cost-wise.

So really, I think the biggest concern is larger-scale development projects.

This is really— these minimums are hurting the smaller-scale projects.

The larger-scale projects, they already go through the wringer when they go through the planning board.

So I hope you all consider these points when voting on this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Name and address for the record, please.

David Silvera, 39 Briarwood Court, South Coast and Associates.

As a designer and builder in the Greater New Bedford area for a little over 20 years now.

I've watched my clients slam into this table a bunch of times, and it's just— I've watched it kill deals.

I've watched it create revisions that are unreasonable.

You know, so seeing this today for me is like, like long awaited.

It's, it's one step closer to the walkable neighborhoods that, you know, where we're really for zoning reform.

This is, this is just a great step in that direction.

I'm 100% behind it.

We got to get away from this anxiety of what's going to happen, what's going to happen.

This is the problem with our, you know, our city, our county, our state, New England, and across the United States.

This is why we have a housing crisis, because we're too afraid to develop because of this anxiety that's going to change the character of the neighborhood.

What's happening, we're having developers turn, you know, first-floor level, you know, which once was a storefront with apartments above, they're turning them into apartments instead because the tax base is lower, because they're just trying to create units in some creative way, but it's changing the character of the neighborhood in a negative way to work around these zoning loopholes.

So this is a great initiative.

I'm all for it.

Thank you.

Next, please.

Uh, Jay Lanigan, 84 Front Street here in the city.

Um, I'm in favor of the parking reduction ordinance proposal that's been presented tonight, not so much because I think it threads the needle, but more so that it's a, a move in the right direction.

It sends a message to the development community that New Bedford is ready to build and develop.

I've sat in front of, I'd say, countless presentations on how many units we need to build here in the city, and it's, you know, 8,000 to 10,000 units.

Conservatively, that might be 10 million square feet.

I'm just not sure where we would fit the parking.

I don't think we we have that much surface available here in the city to accommodate the housing and the parking.

It's clear to me that if we're going to build that kind of scale, we're going to have to build multi-storey buildings, and in turn we might have to build multi-storey parking.

But we are at a point where folks describe this as a crisis, and if it's legitimately a crisis and you folks think it's a crisis, then you should address it accordingly.

And that would be to reduce the number of parking required to build in this city and send the message to the development community that New Bedford is ready to develop.

You know, and for those reasons, you know, I'm in favor of measures— of this measure and measures like this to develop more in the city, particularly in housing and of all income levels and price ranges.

So it's It's low income, it's affordable housing, it's workforce housing, it's market-rate housing, and it's luxury housing.

We need lots more housing for everybody, and the only way to do it is by making some changes.

I don't think that we're going to be able to thread the needle.

I don't think we're going to be able to pick and choose exactly, you know, how many spaces are going to work, you know, for each project.

I think we have to look at it more broadly.

And understand that it might be a mess before it's a masterpiece, but that the market will figure it out.

So I hope you take that into consideration in making your choice.

Thank you.

Name and address for the record, please.

Oddly, Barton, 124 Mount Pleasant Street.

Uh, thank you to the planning department, the zoning board.

I can tell you, as an emerging developer and a resident of New Bedford, I worked hard to be able to afford to help the members of New Bedford, the citizens of New Bedford, and I want to invest in New Bedford.

I have a couple of projects that I'm working on right now, and if it was not for the zoning board, the planning board, creating these affordable housing units or just housing in general here in New Bedford, I would not be able to do it.

Armando Pereira can be my witness here.

Is— I wanted to create 13 apartments, affordable apartment units, but because of my lot, which is pretty big, I could not squeeze in 20 cars or 30 cars.

I could only put maybe 12 cars.

And if it was not for the zoning board, I would have not been able to develop at least 9 units, which they did approve, because of the parking issues that we have here.

We need to understand that New Bedford is a growing city.

I grew up in Boston, and I also spent time in Rhode Island.

These parking requirements are really hindering the growth of this city.

A lot of individuals from the city also, I'm not sure if, if they're familiar with other cities of this size and how things are done.

We use the public transportation form to get around throughout the city and most of the state.

Requiring so much parking for each and every development it's going to not help us as much.

We want to move forward.

We want to build more.

We want other investors to come into our community and invest.

We want to be able to see economic growth for the city.

We won't be able to do this if we have all these parking requirements when it comes to building affordable housing or housing in general.

It's time to move forward.

It's time to think forward.

And it's time to make it happen in Bedford.

It's vital.

Thank you.

Would you just spell your last name for the record, please?

Last name is B-O-D-D-E-N. B-O-D-D-E-N.

Okay.

I'm also a member of South Coast Places for People.

And we're looking to move New Bedford and the surrounding communities forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right, next up, please.

Name and address for the record.

Uh, John Marana, resident of 24 Logan Street, New Bedford.

I'm hearing some anxiety from the councilors about overflow parking, and that's not something you deal with by mandating parking.

It's by managing parking.

And so it'd be good for the planning department to look into residential parking permits and parking districts and other ways to make sure that residents can park in the neighborhoods they live in.

That's— it's very understandable that that's a concern.

Now I have a brief statement.

The current 2 spaces per unit rule reflects a different era that no longer matches how New Bedford residents actually live.

It inflates construction costs, makes small sites impossible to build on and ultimately keeps rents higher.

Lowering the minimum doesn't eliminate parking.

It simply allows builders to provide the amount of parking that fits the project rather than an arbitrary number that produces unused spaces.

We often call this like right-sizing the parking to meet the demand.

If we want more homes and more investment in the city, this is the clearest, most effective steps we can take.

And I'm representing South Coast Places for people, and I'm in support of reducing parking mandates or even eliminating parking mandates.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, if I could have your name and address for the record.

Uh, Will Gardner, 17 Cottage Street.

That's G-A-R-D-N-E-R, 17 Cottage Street, Fairhaven.

And as Mr. Lawrence can attest, I have a deep investment in New Bedford and kids here and communities here and have worked in this city for over 20 years— for about 20 years now.

Look, this isn't a referendum on how people should travel or how many cars people should have or anything like that.

What we're talking about is mandates and changing these mandates so that housing is not unnecessarily expensive and so that rents are not unnecessarily high.

That's the biggest thing that this is about.

So if you're serious about housing, you have to be serious about unlocking this.

And this is actually compared to what some of the cities that have been most successful with housing and really housing forward, this is actually a modest proposal.

I would say this is somewhat diluted compared to what you could be doing and what some other cities are doing.

There are some cities that are completely eliminating parking mandates.

Gasp, right?

The sky does not fall.

Cities— the cities that are having success with housing are the ones that are allowing it to be built at all levels of affordability And they're doing it in large part— one of the big keys is reducing or eliminating parking minimums.

And the way forward, and this is really critical to the point about overflow parking too, is to decouple the cost of building parking with the cost of housing.

Because right now in this city, we've got about 60% of people who live here who either have 1 car or 0 cars, right?

And so with that population, if you're forcing developers to build housing with 2 or more parking spots and build 2 or more parking spots and maintain them per unit, what you're effectively doing is you're forcing those people who don't have 2 or 3 or more cars to pay higher rents to pay for the creation and maintenance of those spots.

We want to decouple these 2 things.

It's fine if people want to have however many cars or no cars.

They should have the choice to do that.

Right.

That is the American way.

But we shouldn't be forcing anybody to pay for something that they're not using or that they don't have.

And we shouldn't be building that into our rents.

Look, residents living on blocks where curb parking is already tight.

I understand that they're fearful.

I grew up in downtown Boston, and they're afraid that more people in the neighborhood will mean more cars competing for limited curbside parking.

Will, I'm sorry, you got 10 seconds left if you want to just make a quick final statement.

Excellent.

Yes.

I will just say the way to alleviate those challenges is not— it's never going to be through goosing supply.

Right now the challenge there is that parking is not managed in those neighborhoods.

When you give something away for free, guess what happens?

We all have people who are parking multiple vehicles, maybe commercial vehicles on our block, whatever it is.

And the reason that behavior is happening is because we haven't priced parking accordingly.

We need to remove the price of parking from the cost of development.

And then we need to move towards better management of parking citywide if there's problems in certain neighborhoods with that parking scarcity.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, thank you.

No problem.

All right, name and address for the record, please.

Elise Raposa, 42 Briar Street, New Bedford.

Um, I've lived in New Bedford— my family's lived in New Bedford for 4 generations.

Um, and so I just want to start by saying that I understand your fear.

There are definitely neighborhoods in New Bedford where it is very hard to find parking, where driving through those streets can be very difficult.

But those were neighborhoods that were built when there were no parking requirements whatsoever.

And what— that's not what's being proposed here.

I would say I want to reiterate that a lot of people are proposing getting rid of parking mandates altogether.

All they're talking about today is right-sizing the parking minimums to match demand.

And if people want to do more than that, they can.

This is just saying that you don't have to build more than is necessary.

I'm sorry, I got a little giggle when you mentioned taxes because that's actually the biggest argument to reduce parking minimums.

Because guess how much tax revenue a parking spot throws off compared to a commercial residential property.

You're going to get way more tax revenue if you develop land than let it just sit idly as vacant parking spots that never get used.

And what does that do if you get more park tax revenue?

That makes it so you can reduce the taxes on everyone else, because when there's more people paying, it reduces the burden on each individual person.

And so yeah, very modest proposal.

They're not talking about anything crazy.

This is just based on the basic science of what makes sense to optimize the amount of land that you have in a city.

Thank you.

Next.

Name and address, please.

Thank you.

Mark Hess, 1 Spruce Ave., Mattapoisett, Massachusetts.

I recently left a company, a development company that served mostly affordable housing on the Eastern Seaboard to set up shop in, in New Bedford.

My office is in the Groundworks Building.

Most of you know it's called Green Door Development, and we are focused on housing production right now, specifically in New Bedford.

In my former role, I was involved with a company that developed and redeveloped over 4,000 units and managed over 8,000 units mostly in New England, but as far south as Florida.

And I'm really excited about what New Bedford has to offer.

I raised my kids here on State Street in New Bedford, and I'm really invested in the community.

I, I see things from a couple different sides, having been a developer and invested in the community.

And I think that to reiterate some of the points previously made, we have— we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good here.

We have an ideal, but in practice, if housing creation is really a major part of the solution in these neighborhoods, we've got to eliminate the barriers both financially but also like the messaging, right, and the hurdles.

Like, how many steps am I going to have to take to get from here and there?

How hard is it going to be?

The reality is, and I don't know what the statistics are, but there probably aren't a lot of units in New Bedford for like, say, for buildings with greater than 4 units that have been built with 2 spaces per unit.

Like, I don't know what the number is, but it's probably in the dozens if it's not zero for multifamily.

At the end of the day, the land can't support it.

I mean, think about most of your neighborhoods.

Imagine if every unit in your neighborhood had 2 spaces per unit, how dramatically different the character of your neighborhood would be compared to what it is now.

That's not what New Bedford is.

New Bedford isn't a 2 parking space per residential unit city.

It's just not what it is.

And the reality is there is capacity on most streets.

Some places can't fit it, and there needs to be discussion.

Some of that friction is real, but with proper parking management and sending the right message to— you know, people that have been out there understand that you can get waivers and you can work and you can go to the Board of Appeals.

And if you have a great project, eventually people are going to get behind it and you're going to get the flexibility to do something because people see the benefit.

But for the medium and the small developers, the people that are here in your community that want to do something important, They see these rules and regulations that are unchanged and they get discouraged and it doesn't happen.

Just 15 seconds if you want to wrap it up.

Okay.

So I'm just saying that it's, it's an important message to the people that are here that want to invest in your community to lower these standards and kind of change the conversation.

Otherwise, we're going to continue to see the ideal of 2 spaces per unit, but no housing units created in New Bedford.

Thank you.

Name and address, please.

Freddie Estremera, 264 North Street.

Thank you.

E-S-T-R-E-M as in Mary, E-R-A.

I'm here to represent myself as a resident of the city, a renter, a renter in the city for the past 5 years.

I've lived in 2 different residences.

I used to live off of 6th Street right in downtown, and one of the frustrations I experienced as a renter in the city was when there was a mandate to— or a change to the parking in downtown to put up a lot of spaces that were residential spaces meant for only businesses.

So basically they put up a ton of metered parking spaces.

One of the arguments I had with the city in letters I sent at the time is, why isn't— why don't we have residential parking permits in the city?

I've lived in Providence.

I had a residential parking permit, which I paid for happily, and I walked a good amount to park there from my apartment.

And it's kind of crazy that we don't— I don't know if he's even been considered or discussed.

In my opinion, it would actually resolve some of the problems that the council members were talking about when it comes to having protection for the residents of these neighborhoods.

And in general, I think in all the apartments I've lived in, even in Providence, All those buildings had an underutilized tenant-to-parking ratio, way under, and no one really, you know, cared or was concerned.

They just wanted to live in those neighborhoods because they were walkable neighborhoods.

They were neighborhoods with restaurants, with good city streets that you wanted to be in that allowed you to have the ability and flexibility to get around.

Without having a car.

And granted, I love cars.

I have 3 cars.

I have a summer car that just— I use it for the summer.

But I also know that it's, it's excessive, and I know that, um, I, I am also a big advocate for biking and walkability.

So, um, yeah, I'm just, again, just pleading to the council members that consider, instead of limiting a parking to ratio a parking ratio that is more beneficial to residents, that you instead have some laws to benefit residents that are in those neighborhoods with the idea of residential parking.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, please.

Your name and address, please.

Hi, Nicholas Carvalho, 16 Crescent Drive, Fairhaven.

So I'm experiencing the housing crisis myself, and I'm an engineer, so I wanted to just bring up some statistics and numbers that I ran.

So one of the first things is how much does parking— does one parking spot add to rent?

So for the national average in about 2015, one spot added about $20,000 to the cost of the builder and about $225 to the renter.

I went in, did the CPI calculation for inflation, so I got that number at $3.08, which per year would be $3,690.

And so the median household income of New Bedford in 2003 was about $56,000.

I went and adjusted that for inflation to $60,000.

So requiring one parking spot is about 6% of the income of a household, and to mandate 2, it would be about 12% for that increase in rent.

So for the average cost of a car per AAA, it's about $12,000.

So for the median household of New Bedford, this would be about 38% of their total income.

For I also have it.

So there were studies done on whether or not people need cars based on their housing, and there was a direct correlation with the spaces added to an apartment building with how many people— with how many cars people will have.

So if they had 2 spaces, you were more likely to have 2 cars, but if you had 1 space, you were very much less likely to have 2 cars, and you were just likely to have 1.

If your housing had no parking, you're a lot more likely not to have a car.

And then there's the other thing of, well, do people really want cars?

Well, there was a recent study done in November, and it found out that 18% of people living in suburban and urban areas didn't want to have a car and would like to live car-free.

And there was an additional 40% that are open to the idea.

So I hope with some of the numbers putting behind these, we can see that not everyone wants to drive, or not everyone has the means to actually own 2 cars for a residential area.

Thank you.

Nicholas, what was the name of your street?

Crescent.

Crescent.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, name and address for the record, please.

Hi, Shane Trimble.

I'm 264 Reed Street, New Bedford.

Thank you.

I think the last time I was before standing before you all here, you were pointing me to the planning board.

And I have served honorably on that planning board since 2019.

And I have seen and heard and voted on more cases than I think I could ever recall.

And among all of those, I don't know if I have voted on a single case that came before the board without a parking reduction waiver.

So I, I want, you know, with all due respect to this ordinance that's before you, I think it's great.

I, you know, I actually think that we should be moving towards eliminating our parking, parking minimums, but that's not what we're here to discuss.

You know, I think what this is going to do is help to lower the— well, it will lower the number of required spaces, but I think we'll also start to see fewer cases come in asking for a parking reduction waiver, but that will not move to zero.

You could tonight, or when you go to vote on this ordinance, you could increase to whatever number you think is appropriate, and the applicants will still come in for parking waivers because the fact of our city is we just don't have the space.

You know, we don't have the space to accommodate the number of cars that our ordinance requires today.

We don't have the space to accommodate the number of cars that the ordinance has proposed.

But this ordinance that's proposed to you is to get us closer to a realistic demand for parking.

I have been a planning— a transportation planner for the past 20 years.

I go to the planning conferences every year.

I don't think I've ever attended a planning session where my colleagues were talking about increasing the amount of parking or talking about how do we fit more cars into our neighborhoods.

I don't think I've ever seen a session discussing increasing parking mandates or requirements of a city.

The industry is going the other way.

We are moving towards eliminating parking, but we're also moving towards travel and trip demand reduction.

And that's one of the things that, you know, is great about this ordinance, is that when, when those applicants come before us in the planning board, it's, it's all fair game.

We can, we can discuss with the applicant whatever is appropriate that we think at the time.

This ordinance will at least provide some structure to that reduction.

And give some guidance to both the board and the applicants on the measures that they need to have in place when they're asking for that reduction, so that both the city, the residents, the applicant, the board, the city council know that there is some structure and some organization to how these reductions— about 12 seconds left— are being granted.

But I do want to say that this is, this is a good ordinance.

It is far from perfect, but we are moving in the direction of perfect by adopting reduced parking minimums.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, please.

Your name and address?

Uh, Ned Carson, 18 Tremont Street.

Perfect.

Wonderful.

All right, I'm not a developer, I'm not a transportation planner, I'm just a taxpayer here in the city.

And I guess one thing that I'm wondering about is the council always talks about that taxes and housing are crises.

Taxing and housing are crises in the city.

And yet I hear from some councilors, and I see in their actions, that they're not treating it like a crisis.

They're not treating housing like a crisis.

They're not treating taxes like a crisis.

Now, maybe we're treating taxes like a crisis by trying to cut a ream of copy paper from some budget in a department up here.

At the same time that we're choosing to not unleash development in the city, that could mean that there are more properties added to the tax roll and we all have to pay less in taxes.

So I guess my ask for the city is that if we are going to talk about housing and we are going to talk about taxes as if these are crises, then we act as if they are crises.

And do something about it and choose to do something to make housing less expensive and do something to add to the tax base.

So that way all of us have to pay less.

Because if we're choosing to do the status quo, that means I guess it's not a crisis.

So that would be what I would submit.

The other thing I would say is if you think about the ugliest and excuse my language, dumbest properties in New Bedford, they're the ones with the most parking.

I would submit to you 2 properties that just really bother me.

And my guess is they had about the right amount of parking per the building code.

One is Taunton Federal Credit Union on Union Street.

We've got a beautiful Union Street filled with development, old houses, restaurants, all sorts of interesting things happening downtown.

And then an empty parking lot with acres of parking right next to Custom House Square.

We're trying to get people going.

And, you know, it's just empty parking doing nothing.

The other one bothers me.

I bike to school on Church Street every day, up to 2nd Avenue Del Mar.

Thank you, Will.

And if you think about the Burger King on Kings Highway, that building probably had the right amount of parking per the building code.

And I would submit to you that on Burger King's busiest day of the year— I don't know what day that would be, maybe April 20th, who knows— there is no one that fills that entire Burger King parking lot.

Councilor Choquette, I would ask you to see, is there ever a time that parking lot has been filled?

So this is what happens when you let just these outdated parking codes rule our city.

You get acres of unused asphalt that are, as other folks have said, contributing nothing to our tax base.

You get ugly parking no one uses and us fighting over taxes every single year on cut night.

Yep.

Thank you.

All right, I was only giving you a 15-second warning there, but all right, thank you.

Next, please.

Name and address for the record.

Hey, Matt Marko, M-A-R-K-O, 647 Church Street.

647.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Cool.

I am a, um, local homeowner, a local business owner.

I am also trying to expand my business up in— shout out to Mr. Choquette in Ward Looking at some property up there that is not only going to be business but also residential.

So I'm very excited about that.

In this past campaign cycle, I got a little bit involved.

And when I was going door to door, when I was talking to folks during the city council campaign, as some former folks had stated, the 2 big crises that everybody was talking about were housing and were taxes.

Property taxes specifically, and especially up where I am in Ward 1, a lot of people had concerns about those taxes.

As many people have stated tonight, a clear driver to increase our tax base is more development in the city, and one way to do that is by doing this.

This, like most folks said, is pretty moderate.

A lot of us would be more willing to support something that did something a little more drastic, but this is a great start.

It's not, uh, as somebody said, it's not perfect, but it is a good start.

So I would just urge you all, if you care about housing and if you care about lowering property taxes, to strongly consider this proposal.

Thanks.

Thank you.

And next, please, name and address for the record.

Gary Gagne, 1370 Cushion Avenue.

Um, so the big initiative is pro-business, right?

New Bedford's trying to be pro-business, trying to bring money in, and to be pro-business is to reduce parking.

Whether people pour into residential neighborhoods that the business isn't affiliated with, that's part of living in a city, right?

That you can't get away from it.

But the business— so we'll go on the underutilized properties, the American Rescue Plan Act, which Mayor Mitchell said, and I quote, revitalizing underutilized properties can energize businesses and neighborhoods alike.

This program will give developers and businesses the support they need to move stalled projects ahead.

I don't even understand what we're doing here, right?

That businesses, right?

This is what we have to do because Davey's Locker— I mean, I've been in the city my whole life.

That place has been run down, been out of business since I was a kid, right?

This is the point of moving forward.

Um, I've, I've never seen a 6-family with 12 parking spots.

I've lived in apartments my whole life.

I never, until I was an adult, lived in a single-family.

I've never seen a 3-family with a 6-car parking lot.

You would need 2 separate parcels to inhabit the parking that's required nowadays.

You would have to knock down the 3-family that's on the side of it and actually put it just for parking.

I would say I own about 20 units in the city, And I have 2 parking spots.

I did not build them.

The houses were built early 1900s.

And I don't get any calls.

I don't get any complaints.

This is part of New Bedford, right?

We're talking about changing the character of New Bedford.

These buildings were built in 1900.

What character are we talking about changing?

This is the character of New Bedford.

This is being a city.

I'm not quite sure what people mean by changing the character of the city.

If these buildings that people like myself and others are buying in 1900 didn't come with a driveway.

I'd love to have a driveway.

That's not the character of New Bedford.

It never has been.

I think we're moving in a really good direction.

I think we should get back to where the ordinance was in the 1900s because none of the— actually, one building has 2 parking spots.

So 4 other buildings of mine have no parking spots.

This is all pre-planning board, right?

Pre-zoning laws.

Gary, 15 seconds, okay?

Thank you guys for your time.

All right, thank you.

All right, would anyone else like to speak in favor?

There's no line anymore, so I'm going to say no.

All right, speak in favor, anyone.

Would anyone like to be recorded in favor?

If you stood up to speak, that's already being recorded.

In favor.

But would anyone like to be recorded in favor?

You spoke, it still counts.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

All right, be recorded in favor.

Okay, would anyone like to speak in opposition?

Would anyone like to be recorded in opposition?

Be recorded in opposition.

Okay, seeing no further public comment, the chair will close the public hearing.

Colleagues, your pleasure.

Excuse me, I apologize.

Let's just do one bit of housekeeping.

The chair would like to make them— would like to have a motion made to amend Section 1 under the chart listed medical marijuana treatment center.

Is it Section 2?

Section 2.

I already have it here.

Oh, so I can make the motion if you'd like.

Sure, make the motion.

Asking from the floor, make the motion.

So a motion to amend Section 2 of the table of uses by parking code column under medical marijuana treatment center to strike out the letter G and replace with the letter E. Okay, as in Echo.

And I would need a second for that.

Okay, the motion was made by, uh, Councilor Burgow in Section 2 to strike medical marijuana treatment center where it says G strike G and insert E. It was seconded by Councilor Oliver.

This was a clerical error that the planning staff made, so this is just correcting something on that.

Any discussion or debate?

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

Okay, so that's been amended there.

I have that if you need more.

Okay, colleagues, your pleasure.

Yes, I could— I'd like to make a motion.

Okay, I move to amend Section 2 in table by striking the letter B as it corresponds to the multi-household and attached dwellings and mixed-use attached dwellings and insert in place thereof the letter A.

Motion by Councilor Choukat to strike the letter B in multi-household attached dwelling, mixed-use attached dwelling, and replace it with the letter A.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Councilor Oliver.

Any discussion?

Any dis— yeah, I have it.

Any debate on the item?

Roll call vote.

Well, no, hold on.

Recent question.

I'll give my roll call, uh, my, uh, reasoning.

So again, I am worried about overflow parking.

And a lot of the folks here bring up great points.

I am not against economic development by any stretch, okay?

The problem is, is that when you change the neighborhood, and again, for the gentleman that mentioned, you know, what do you mean neighborhood character, I'm talking about single-family homes like, you know, Cherokee, Sasquin Ave, I'm talking about, you know, areas like Maryland, Jerry, Ohio, where you have long straight strips of homes one after the other.

If overflow parking is allowed to come into these kind of areas and clog it up, now that changes the character of the neighborhood.

Okay?

Is there any way that any of the developers here, if I were to— and I'm just one voice, okay?

If I were to agree to the 1.0 per unit change, okay, how do we guarantee that overflow parking is not going to be an issue in these neighborhoods?

Do we have like residential parking only signs?

I mean, yeah, so this is a traffic commission issue.

Okay, so I'm putting the motion out there, uh, because you know how I feel.

Um, I'm sure my colleagues will vote it down, but I'm just trying to go on the record here to make sure that people understand my thought process.

So thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Choukat.

Uh, colleagues, please don't try to, uh, to speak on the, uh, motives of other councillors.

Chair recognizes Councillor Oliver.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, I, uh, I, I seconded the motion.

Although I don't agree with it per se, I understand it's difficult as a ward— it's difficult as a ward councilor as you're trying to advocate for your ward.

But most of us, we do harp on the taxes and the economic development.

And we do have to do something.

If anything was proven here tonight, I think that this was although well-intentioned, and I think that it has to— it should have its— the motion should have its, uh, its day in court, if you will.

Um, I still think that we have to move forward if we are really serious about, uh, fixing this— these crises that we continue to talk about.

So I'll get off the soapbox, as the committee meetings are normally not for, for that.

Um, I just think that we have to act and we have to act now.

Um, and, uh, we also have to remember that we— although we rec— the ward councils represent wards, uh, our votes do impact the entire city.

So thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Oliver.

The chair recognizes Councilor— Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Um, getting a little chippy in here tonight.

I like it.

Um, but no, it's all in the, you know, public discourse of spirited debate, which is great.

I mean, I think everyone knows how seriously I take constituent service, and I think everyone in this room— I know everyone in this room does so as well.

We don't want to compromise the integrity of any neighborhood at any point ever.

Nobody wants people parked in front of their home where residents or visitors are throwing trash out or blocking a driveway or blocking a fire hydrant.

Nobody wants the integrity of any neighborhood to be compromised at any point.

And that just needs to be paramount, and we need to get that on the record.

It's not about that.

It's just— well, before I even get to that point, if we want to talk about, you know, overflow parking into neighborhoods and an influx of parking in neighborhoods, I think it was said before and it's true, that can be litigated at the traffic commission.

Okay, it's incumbent upon that neighborhood, that street, they can mobilize, they can get 60% or more of the property owners of that street to sign a petition to make that neighborhood or that street resident parking only, and then they can go before the traffic commission for the hearing, a deliberation, and a vote.

That's where that gets litigated.

That's where that issue can get played out.

Okay?

We're talking about development here, okay?

We're talking about trying to grow our tax base.

We're about trying to figure this out so that we can hit 2 birds with one stone— grow tax base, have our economic development tuned up, and serve a housing need that's critically needed here in this community.

It's pretty simple.

Can't talk out of both sides.

That's all.

That's just my view on it.

I understand the argument.

The ward councilor, my friend from Ward 1, he's absolutely correct about the quality of life and the sanctity of that neighborhood.

I take it very seriously.

I know he does too.

We all do.

But to my other friend, the other colleague of mine in Ward 3, he is right, especially me being an at-large.

But any ward councilor, we take votes that are for New Bedford proper, the entire city, and we need to just sort of have, you know, stronger peripheral vision, I think, on some of these decisions, are we looking to, you know, we're looking to service the greater good.

And I think, and I think one of the speakers said it very eloquently, this isn't a perfect ordinance.

No ordinance is perfect.

No law is perfect.

But it's what we've got.

And we've got something.

We have a framework to work with going forward to try to loosen that bureaucracy and slash that red tape.

So So that's all I have to say about that, and, um, I yield at this time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Abruzzo.

I recognize Councilor Burgo.

Thank you.

Yeah, I just wanted to again explain, um, my rationale for why I'd be voting no against this amendment.

I do agree that parking is a significant concern in particular wards and especially in particular neighborhoods, but what I think that this ordinance change does is really work on the different nuance between those departments.

What I want to highlight here is our colleague from Ward 1 touted his experience on the ZBA.

He should know that unlike the— like, I should say, like the ZBA, the Planning Board offers variances all the time and reduces these parking minimums all the time for these larger projects and developments.

What we're doing here is reducing that extra step for development and allowing them to come in and just do it for them anyway.

Instead of having them come before, have these hearings just to grant them a reduction in parking anyway, why not cut— as my colleague before me spoke about— cutting that red tape to allow for further development?

That's what we're doing here instead of being a further burden and hindrance for development in New Bedford.

We can continue to work on other ways to make New Bedford a walkable city, but this is the next step to that.

So I just wanted to highlight the fact that we already require parking reductions, and the planning board has already done that for many years.

This is just removing that step.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President Burgo.

Chair recognizes Councilor Lopes.

Thank you, Chairman Pereira.

So You know, back of the math envelope, 101,318 people live in New Bedford.

There's 44,000+ residential units, 61, almost 61,000 cars.

You do the math, that comes out to 1.7, you know, percent cars to spots to people.

I think if we reduce it instead of 2 spaces per unit to 1.5 spaces per unit, it's a compromise between where were and what the councilor from Ward 1 is looking to do.

It still reduces the parking, it still makes it easier for developers to move forward, but you keep within the statistical average of vehicles and units in the city of New Bedford of what we currently have.

So I think if the Ward 1 councilor would amend his change to 1.5 units— I think 1.5 units to cars— I think we'd be in good compromise.

So I, I would have to say, I would think the councillor— we— I have someone else on deck, but I would say the motion is to change the letters and you're asking to change what's in the letters.

So I'd say he'd have to withdraw his and make a different motion, not amend that motion.

So I would put it to the councillor from Ward 1 if he would withdraw his amendment at this time.

I will withdraw the motion at this time.

Okay, so if you would like to make a new amendment, it would be to revise Section B, uh, item— table item B.

Yes, I'd like to make that motion to 1.55 space per unit.

Where it says 1 space per unit, it would now read 1.5 space per unit, correct, if I'm understanding the amendment correctly.

Is that correct, Councilor Lopes and Choquette?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Yes, yes, Mr.

Chair.

All right, so it'd be— it would read— hold on, let me make sure I got that.

One second.

All right, so it would be Section 1 under Parking Code A.

You have to read— you want to I'm sorry, parking code B.

Excuse me, parking code B to read 1.5 space per unit and the rest the same.

That motion has been made by Councillor Choquette, seconded by Councillor Lopes.

Any discussion on this amendment?

I'm, I'm just talking.

I, uh, the motion's been withdrew, so do you— would you like the floor?

Councillor Carney.

Okay.

Thank you.

So, so, um, as I looked over this amendment and listening to everybody, I think the, the way this is presented is a happy medium.

I know we have a parking problem in the city of New Bedford, but one of the biggest parking problems in the city of New Bedford is also all the trucks on the city.

So I think once we hit the ordinances and look at the parking and the requirements for trucks, I think it'll alleviate a lot of this this parking that we're looking for in these neighborhoods.

Because every single neighborhood, whether it's Residential A, whatever it is, I see people bringing home trucks.

The trucks are on the street, the cars are in the driveway.

So I'm going to support the way it is existing now.

I think it's a very happy medium of this— the ordinance that exists, not the amendment, the ordinances that exist is what I'm going to look at supporting, because I think it is a happy medium what we're looking at.

And as my colleague said, that they can come down to zoning and planning to get a reduction, but the first eye— how many people are we losing on the first look?

The first look before they even decide to go for reduction, what are we losing?

So I think that, um, Um, we need a lot of work in the city with parking.

I think somebody mentioned that, that it's work on parking, not on building, and I will support this as it exists.

So thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Carney.

Colleagues, this is a new amendment.

If anyone would like, uh, first on this debate, the amendment to amend to 1.5 parking spaces.

Anyone else to speak on this item?

The chair is requesting a roll call vote on the amendment.

Councilor Avril?

No.

Councilor Avril.

Councilor Virgo?

No.

No.

Councilor Virgo.

Councilor Carney?

No.

No.

Councilor Carney.

Councilor Choquette?

Yes.

Yes.

Councilor Choquette.

Councilor Lopes?

Yes.

Councilor Lopes.

Councilor Oliver?

No.

No.

Councilor Oliver.

Councilor Pereira?

No.

No.

It fails, uh, 2 to 5.

Item fails 2 to 5.

Colleagues, motion to refer out to the full City Council for approval as amended.

Motion to refer out to the full City Council for approval as amended, made by Councilor Burgos, seconded by Councilor, uh, Abreu.

Sorry, I drew a blank there.

Uh, point of information, is this— point of information, point of information— is this, um, Councilor Burgos' change that was in— that was a mistake?

The clerical change?

Yes.

Thank you.

That item has been made and second.

Anyone on the question?

Okay, Council Oliver, do you mind?

Yeah, 3 minutes starting now.

Yeah, start now.

Quick, hit the button.

The chair will recognize Councilor Pereira.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So I fully support this item before us, this ordinance.

I will vote to send it out.

I urge my colleagues, this is an economic development ordinance.

There's no other way to look around it, no other way to frame it about it.

We cannot sit here and make a decision on this item over one location or one project, because I will state that while my colleague from Ward 5 did state correctly regarding the Cisco property, of the issues surrounding that neighborhood.

We work to mitigate those issues through resident permit parking on those adjacent streets.

And I would also add even that that is a very unique property in the city of New Bedford.

There is nothing that can compare to that property.

There— I'm sorry, that nothing else in my ward comes even remotely close to the draw that Cisco has.

It is probably my my, my number one, uh, uh, active activity in constituent service.

It is a very unique property in we took measures to protect the neighborhood, and the owner was cooperative in locating extra external parking.

So there was a happy medium because even though he didn't need extra external parking, he wanted to do it for his guests.

I think it was stated earlier that a developer might not want to go and get— no, if the developer can, they'll try and put more parking for their customers.

Also, I've heard it stated— I'm a little old-fashioned and I still go to the bank even though I do have mobile banking and all this stuff.

I still like to go to the bank and the teller.

I don't— I think that I've seen about 13 empty parking spots at Bristol County on Ashley Boulevard, if not more.

I go there, there's 3 cars.

I know who they all belong to.

It's all the employees in my truck.

So that's where we're at there.

I just— across the board, I see a lot of empty parking spots, and we need tax revenue.

We need more development.

We need more commercial development.

Commercial taxpayers in this city carry the burden.

And so yeah, we might be focused on some of the residential portions of this regarding apartments, I look at the commercial aspects, Mr. Chairman, and I think that we could really make strides in increasing our commercial tax base.

The people who pay a lot more money compared to the residential tax base in the city of New Bedford, and that helps the residential.

The more of those commercial guys we bring in, the more of that pie that we see every— right around Thanksgiving when we're doing tax classification.

Location.

The bigger that commercial piece gets, the lot of money the taxpayers are going to save, the residential taxpayers will save.

I yield at this time, Mr. Chairman.

I urge my colleagues to refer this to the full City Council, let it have its day in the City Council, and vote up and down on the council.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

Uh, anybody else on there first?

Anyone on there second?

Seeing none.

The chair— is it— that's it?

It's all set?

Roll call vote request?

No?

Okay.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

I'd like a roll call vote, please.

Too late.

Yeah, the ayes have it.

Okay, so, all right, so that item passed on a voice vote to the full City Council.

I'd like to thank my vice chair, Councilor Oliver, uh, for stepping up, uh, twice.

The first time because I had to use the men's room, the second time because I wanted to debate.

Colleagues, it's 9:15.

Um, I think it's been a long night, a lot of debate, a lot of interesting, uh, items discussed.

Would anyone like to hear the next item, or do we want to call it and reschedule and continue these to the next, uh, month?

I would like to continue to next month.

I don't know about anybody else, but I know a few of us have had colds or whatever.

Yeah, we don't have a large quorum tonight.

I would suggest let's continue.

Is everyone okay with that, colleagues?

Take the date, please.

Yeah, well, you just have to read it into the record though and do the whole formality just in case anyone is here.

Correct.

Yeah, I just wanted to— before we went through that, I wanted to make sure the body didn't have any objection.

I'll inform the rest of the public.

So if anyone is here on items 4, 5, and 6— well, excuse me, 4 and 5.

6 is a regular motion, will stay on the table.

But on items 4 and 5 on tonight's agenda.

Due to the fact that this took up a large amount of time, they were important.

I want to make sure we're not rushing anything moving forward.

So the chair is going to suggest we'll read these items, continuing them to January 26th at 7 PM in this chamber.

So if you are here for that, it won't be readvertised or anything.

So if you are here for the dimensional use, the infill ordinance, or the table of use, please return on January 26th at 7 PM, uh, and we'll discuss it then.

But I'll ask the clerk to read item number 4 into the record.

That's to January 26th.

Item number 4 is a public hearing continued on communication, Mayor Mitchell to the City Council, submitting an ordinance amending Chapter 9, Comprehensive Zoning, relative to parking requirements, Appendix B, Table of Dimensional Regulations, Residential Infill Development, in multiple building per lot, referred here on October 9th, 2025, duly advertised in the Standard Times on November 6th, 2025, and November 13th, 2025.

On November 20th, 2025, the public hearing was continued to Monday, December 25th, 2025.

Oh, that's a, that's a misprint.

December 15th, Christmas.

December 15th, 2025, at 7 PM.

The city council chambers.

4A was the ordinance which was referred on, on the same day and continued at the same December 15, 2025.

And 4B was a communication from Ann Laurel, uh, relative to the parking requirements and comprehensive, uh, zoning, uh, making a recommendation.

Um, 5 and 5A, without objection, are also being read.

Public hearing continued on an ordinance of amending Chapter 9, Appendix 6A, Table of Principal Uses Regulation, referred on October 9th, 2025, duly advertised in the Standard Times on November 26th, 2025, and November 13th, 2025.

November 20th, 2025, the public hearing was continued to Monday, December 15th, 2025, at 7 PM in the council chambers.

And 5A was a communication from Anne Laurel, Acting Director of Planning, uh, submitting a favorable recommendation, uh, for the ordinance amendment with the exception of changes proposed by Batch Asphalt and Concrete Plants and Contractors Yards based on comments received during the public hearing received on the same date, heard on November 25th, 2025, continued to December 15th, 2025 at 7 PM in the council chamber.

5— 4A, 4B, 5, and 5A are now before you to be continued to the hearing on January 26th, 7 PM in the council in the council chambers, made by— well, okay, sorry, do you have to do the whole like, anyone wish to speak in favor?

No, no, we're just continuing the hearing.

Okay, we haven't even started.

Uh, motion, uh, made by Shane Burgo, if you need to say it.

Motion to make— motion to continue the hearing by Councilor Burgo.

Yeah, seconded by Councilor Abreu.

We will continue items 4 and 5, which is the item regarding the, uh, dimensional regulations and the infill ordinance, and a recommendation regarding Chapter 9, Appendix A, the table of views, principal uses.

We're going to continue that to January 26th at 7 PM here in the council chambers.

These will not be readvertised, so if you want to hear about that, please come back to the chamber on January 26th at 7 PM.

Made by Councilor Burgos, seconded by Councilor Abreu.

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed, the ayes have it.

Item number 6.

Item number 6.

Motion to table.

On the table.

Yeah, okay, it's, it's already on the table.

You don't need to do that.

Okay, it's there.

The chair is just clarifying to keep the order of the meeting.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Uh, motion to adjourn made by Councilor Carney, seconded by Councilor Oliver.

Any discussion on adjournment?

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed?

The ayes have it.

We are adjourned at 9:18 PM.

Thank you, everybody.

Am I being frozen?

Because my neck is killing me.