[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6786813,"mediaKeyId","5672006-043be17893e1eae9052087ba84226a63","parentId",5672006,"title","Committee sends plan to remove council from auto special-permit decisions to full City Council after debate","audioSeconds",2473,"startMs",105800,"endMs",2579650,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5672006-043be17893e1eae9052087ba84226a63&start=105&end=2579","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5672006-043be17893e1eae9052087ba84226a63/thumbnail_105800.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6786813/New-Bedford-City/Bristol-County/Massachusetts/Committee-sends-plan-to-remove-council-from-auto-special-permit-decisions-to-full-City-Council-after-debate","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6786813-a5ce0891e4463d7e8419e02755620c18/orig.mp4?Expires=1771133579&Signature=VgJzJJe9fYHR4Ica~BC~z0ir-4fzB5GK7jn7h~UGKb82F3IS2aS7lc6Y7CT6qczQUx~mM5EPQxxjGrOjm2upgEtvlGBhwShFNkbsZ1G4xBDkO-FzAPC6j0DFyooluTDCwmtccrYtpfBrVNTAH7pe3WU9kbRwpNPfcasMBgT~yQwipsqVRE8nGOVkNz-v6vJrHXqrZ40SfJUv~IXQb~N-aQYwpmue5dipNRPn7TgsTAuVF9ux8gSofiP8AubZEoAcmbxIdqRqRP~fYRxgBhKfsMzrF7unB1I6F79g2JoRP99c3cdte1S4IcxrGOdidvMmB8VyYk7dPjWhaB6DFHY57g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Bedford","date","2025-08-25T00:00:00Z","article","The Committee on Ordinances for the City of New Bedford referred a proposal to remove the City Council as the granting authority for automotive special permits to the full City Council after roughly an hour of presentations and debate.

Clerk Dennis Farias opened the discussion by describing the existing process: when the building or zoning commissioner identifies an application that triggers a special permit the applicant files an application (an initial fee “anywhere from a $700 to $900” depending on parcel size), the matter proceeds through appointments and briefings to a full council vote, goes to the mayor (who has 10 days to sign), then returns to the clerk for a 20‑day appeals period. Farias also noted the separate licensing board conducts criminal-history checks and charges an annual licensing fee of about $300.

Councillors expressed sharply different priorities. Councilor Ian Abreu and others warned that removing the council’s role would reduce elected officials’ immediate authority to respond to neighborhood complaints: “You would lose that immediate direct authority,” Abreu said, arguing that constituents call their councilors first when problems arise. Several members said council hearings offer a public, media-visible forum where neighbors can testify and elected members can press applicants on operating conditions and car‑capacity limits.

Proponents argued the process imposes duplicative steps and delays on small businesses. Clerk Farias and other staff described the timeline and costs as burdensome for applicants. The zoning commissioner, Danny Romanowitz, told the committee the 2003 change that routed motor‑vehicle special permits to the council was intended to allow elected representatives to weigh in on neighborhood impacts but acknowledged many permits are routine and enforcement can be handled by licensing or the council if complaints arise.

After discussion, the committee considered a motion to table the referral but the tabling motion failed on a roll call. A subsequent motion, made by Councilor Sean Oliver and seconded by Councilor Choquette, to refer the item to the full City Council for “no further action” passed on roll call by an 8–3 margin. The committee therefore will not pursue ordinance text changes at this committee meeting and will transmit the referral and accompanying record to the full council.

What’s next: The full City Council will receive the referral and may choose to take up ordinance changes or leave the granting authority in place. Staff emphasized enforcement options remain available to neighbors through licensing and follow‑up investigations.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","New Bedford - Ordinance Committee","oneSentenceSummary","The Committee on Ordinances for the City of New Bedford referred a proposal to remove the City Council as the granting authority for automotive special permits to the full City Council after roughly an hour of presentations and debate.","taxTitle","New Bedford City, Bristol County, Massachusetts","taxId",5758,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6786803,"Planning staff outlines sweeping use‑table revisions; committee continues public hearing and requests details",2821,4249330,7071260,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5672006-043be17893e1eae9052087ba84226a63&start=4249&end=7071","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5672006-043be17893e1eae9052087ba84226a63/thumbnail_4249330.jpg","/articles/6786803/New-Bedford-City/Bristol-County/Massachusetts/Planning-staff-outlines-sweeping-usetable-revisions-committee-continues-public-hearing-and-requests-details","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6786803-b82cece46d8bfc9670d0a84e8b448785/orig.mp4?Expires=1771133579&Signature=mdvrOMk10dDFPcZJG91yvtLLi90xKAZGAWbaMMk6WunX~fT1NQQSTAql7HZR1irNhykZdfyA726EsI21gjVp3GJrWHemEOXQrkyFC4d-r2mWawkjhExrMF9ZJYIyJJiNK-DH1M8ErOaiWjk07-AN4DaS9NdEI6wZaIMOuumLYHCvbzwzaLsZ3Lw~wzfsPdvqAcDvP0D7Zj5RTn5zHDRjaMk93U~W1vms-5bkW-8mNhR4u0qMiYEW2rf3s2Ya6p407zRkt6LYEPe9pvl5n3tjIyuS5rMkwTCtW3X3vt2~QLfjvYVr~7UHZB42aJ4jxAnN4cYHQZTI27Q1Ja~ERhGFKg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City planning staff presented an extensive update to the city’s zoning use table and related definitions during the Ordinances Committee public hearing on Aug. 25.

Assistant City Planner Mike McCarthy and Planning Director Jennifer Carloni guided councillors through the packet, which reorganizes use categories (residential, lodging, retail, eating/drinking, arts/creative enterprises, motor‑vehicle uses, marine and industrial). Notable changes include newly defined uses such as hostels (commercial short‑term lodgings requiring an on‑site employee), brew pubs, food halls/public markets, and more granular retail and industrial categories. Staff said the update gives permitting authorities more precise use categories and makes the use table more consistent with present‑day practices.

McCarthy told the committee the Planning Board reviewed the referral and recommended some changes — for example, the board was comfortable removing the church separation distance for body‑art establishments while advising broader Council discussion about schools and childcare. Planning staff also flagged that some ordinance sections and the use table had conflicting references to approving authorities (for example, assisted‑living special regulations reference the Planning Board) and said they would provide a detailed crosswalk of any approving‑authority or district changes.

Staff described an upcoming, related form‑based code initiative — a separate zoning tool that would manage building form and scale in specific districts (downtown, Acushnet Avenue corridors, County Street/Riverview areas) to better control contextual infill than broad use‑table changes alone.

The committee requested additional details and a line‑by‑line explanation of any use‑table changes that alter approving authority or permitted zones. The hearing was continued to the Ordinance Committee meeting on Monday, Sept. 29 to allow staff to deliver the supplemental information.

What’s next: Planning staff will provide a follow‑up memo clarifying approving authorities, a list of uses reassigned to different approving bodies, and counts or examples where zone permissions changed; the committee will reconvene Sept. 29 to continue the public hearing.","Planning staff presented an extensive update to the zoning use table that adds and redefines many use categories; the committee left the public hearing open and requested supplemental crosswalks on approving authority and zone impacts.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":80,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6786808,"Committee weighs removing church separation distance in body‑art rules; Board of Health raises no concerns, public hearing continued",4474,2597050,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5672006-043be17893e1eae9052087ba84226a63&start=2597&end=7071","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5672006-043be17893e1eae9052087ba84226a63/thumbnail_2597050.jpg","/articles/6786808/New-Bedford-City/Bristol-County/Massachusetts/Committee-weighs-removing-church-separation-distance-in-bodyart-rules-Board-of-Health-raises-no-concerns-public-hearing-continued","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6786808-9cdd89b305d193ea0007caa2f7c42ba9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771133579&Signature=K3QeW5iiJcojBylMQSCzF3V4KlQO9v2a~frR9Rj8n0Ez3hmkJL8VKP4~LKohTQTF~4ui2iUgsk44MfZxhNyTcoQe-Y9Gmyz07F~QDB2f6yOoF121IOl0qzmQnLVR7TWtL6mmkx-YVcrdnxaKT6RociHRE4hZ7mUbdKDtJ2QTsW6DKEjUn8XtYciiObUsJOiAJSogkqT6U8ROWeGI2vsP~FYUoTdzyjEwc7H5yNLloBMCKHBmW-75PXGpnGBbkhsQBQDSWaJuhotN1QXHcbps--YAi8cdlBudFIc7kz452Km26DNELiYQHVbRpNrkY3-xisRS-Tk8PH3MkaH8qlLm-g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Committee on Ordinances took up a referral to revise Chapter 4200 (special regulations for body art) and heard Planning Board and Board of Health testimony on Aug. 25.

Stephanie Sloan of the Board of Health told the committee the board had reviewed the proposed change and “we don't have any concerns,” adding that existing health requirements and annual inspections would remain in place. Assistant City Planner Mike McCarthy summarized the Planning Board review, saying the board was comfortable with removing separation distances between tattoo shops and churches but left broader questions — for example, distances from schools or childcare — for the City Council to decide.

Councilor Joseph Lopes moved a related motion to strike the word “church” from the separation‑distance provision in Section 4220; the committee called a roll‑call vote on that related motion and recorded individual member positions during the hearing. Attorney Garatowski advised that any zoning text change would require the statutory public‑hearing and referral process and therefore could require re‑advertising if the committee adopted substantive changes tonight.

Members debating the change raised two recurring concerns: fairness to existing businesses that complied with the current dimensional rules and preserving neighborhood protections where concentrations of certain uses are undesirable. Planning staff said they would follow up with details requested by councilors — such as where approving authority or district permissions had changed in the draft use table — and the chair moved to continue the public hearing to the committee’s next meeting on Monday, Sept. 29 to allow staff time to provide the additional information requested.

What’s next: The committee left the public hearing open and asked planning staff for supplemental materials to be delivered in roughly 45 days; any ordinance text changes to zoning will require the formal public‑notice and referral steps the solicitor and staff described.

","The Committee on Ordinances reviewed a referral to update body‑art regulations and heard that the Board of Health raised no health concerns for the proposed changes, while the Planning Board recommended a council conversation about removal of some separation distances.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee sends plan to remove council from auto special-permit decisions to full City Council after debate

Planning staff outlines sweeping use‑table revisions; committee continues public hearing and requests details

Committee weighs removing church separation distance in body‑art rules; Board of Health raises no concerns, public hearing continued