Planning Board Meeting - January 5, 2026

Good evening. It's January 5th, 2026.

Happy new year to all. And this is the town of Dartmouth scheduled planning board meeting. Per our previous meetings and ongoing, the planning board voted in a public meeting to continue meeting virtually in accordance with the governor's 2025 extension of the virtual/hybrid open meeting option through June 30th, 2027.

This meeting is being recorded and at this point in time, I'll take a roll call vote. Kevin Estes here.

Lorie Miller here.

Killio Rosa here.

Nick Cyclopis here.

All right. Brings us to a public hearing item that we have heard in the past. So at this point in time, it would be ideal to have a motion to open the public hearing.

Did we leave it open?

Come again.

Did we leave it open?

No, I don't think so. I think we need a motion. Well, we continued it. So, I think we need a motion to open tonight's public hearing. If not, Ross, please advise.

It would just it'd be a motion to re-enter. It's it's still it's it was left open from previous. So, motion to re-enter.

Second.

Motion made to re-enter the public hearing regarding the planning board special permit PSP-25-2 813 State Road made by Helio Rosa.

Seconded by Kevin Estes. Helio Rosa.

Yes.

Kevin Estes.

Yes.

Lori Miller.

Yes.

Nick Cyclopedus. Yes.

I will let Ross um if you've seen the packet, there was a letter earlier in the packet about this item, but I also see somebody on. So Ross, do you want to just bring us up to speed if anything transacted throughout the business day that we don't know about?

Yeah. Um so nothing's taking place regarding this application today. Uh it should be the same as when the packet was sent out. Um I I thought I may have seen someone from Zenith here. If they want to speak on it, they can. if they want to read that letter in. Otherwise, I have it here. I can do it.

Um, good evening, Ross and Mr. Chair.

Uh, I I was just here to uh confirm that the continuence was received by the town.

It was. And, uh, Ross, would it be just uh at this point? Can we read it in if you mind if I read it in?

Yeah, go ahead. That works.

Yeah. So, uh, regarding this item, which is 813 State Road, we received a letter from Zenith Consulting and Engineers. It describes the fact that they're respectfully requesting a continuence from the scheduled meeting with the planning board on January 5th, 2026, which is now, to the meeting on January 26 2026.

And had we had any questions regarding this request, it could have been directed to Jamie, who's on with us tonight to confirm that the letter was received and we're all on board. Uh Jamie, pretty straightforward from our perspective. Uh if you're okay, I'll be happy to move forward and take a motion for the continuence.

Thank you.

Motion to continue as requested from the January 5th meeting today to uh I'm sorry January 26th 20 the January 26th meeting at 7 p.m.

at 7 p.m.

Perfect.

Seconded.

So, we have a motion made by Kevin Estes per the applicant's request to continue agenda item number one in the public hearing from tonight's scheduled meeting to the next meeting of January 26, 2026.

Motion was made by Kevin Estes, seconded by Helio Rosa. Kevin Estes, yes.

Helio Rosa, yes.

Lori Miller, yes.

Nick Psychopatis, yes. Jamie, thank you for coming on and um objectively, you know, confirming this. I mean, the transparency is good for everyone.

All right. Thank you. Have a great night.

Good night.

So, at this point in time, we need a motion to close the public hearing and re-enter tonight's schedule.

Continue.

Move to Sorry about that. Sorry.

Continue the public hearing and re-enter the scheduled January 5th meeting.

So moved.

Second. Was that moved by Helio, seconded by Kevin?

Yes.

So motion made by Helio Rosa to continue the public hearing regarding 813 State Road until the next um desired meeting January 26, 2026 and re-enter tonight's scheduled planning board meeting and seconded by Kevin Estes. Hilly Rosa, yes.

Kevin Estes, yes.

Lori Miller, yes.

Nick Cyclopis, yes.

All right, that brings us to agenda item number one under administrative items.

Approval not required. PNR-25-10 regarding 158 Little River Road. Ross, do you want to do an overview of this?

Yeah, no problem.

So, this ANR plan is for the reconfiguration of map 15.

Sorry, I think there's a fire alarm going off my building. I don't I don't think it's my unit. Sorry.

um lots 44 into lot A and lot B as shown on the plan. This lot is in the single residence B zoning district and it would satisfy 1.101A of the subdivision regulations that states that every lot to be created has frontage of the distance required by the zoning bylaw on a public street or a street that the town clerk certifies as maintained and used as a public street.

So because of that that this plan would be eligible for endorsement if the plan uh the board decides to do so.

I have a question.

Yep.

Ross, I I know I had no questions when I was in there this afternoon this morning, but on page five of our agenda, it says the owner is Barbara Richard L.

Trustees.

You go down to page six of our agenda and Annel tells you that the owner of the property is Peter Richmond and Gail B. Richmond trustees.

And then you go down to page eight of our packet and it says the applicant signature. The applicant is the Buzzards Bay Coalition and the owner is Richard I. Raymond and Gail B. Richmond. Who is the owner? Is it Barbara or is it Richard?

I had it on our record as Peter and Gail Richmond trustees.

That's what I have in my report here.

Is it? Well, yeah. because the town has it as Barbara.

Okay.

Um yeah, that's I can I'll have to I can confirm that tomorrow just to make sure.

Um when it's trustees, sometimes it can be multiple trustees.

Yeah, I hate to throw a monkey wrench in this, but I noticed it this afternoon when I was reooking at everything and I said, "Wait a minute. is three pages with two different owners and the applicant is the BuzzFit Bay Coalition, right?

So, it I looked at I go, I know it's a simple ANR, but wait a minute, who is who, right? No, it's a it's a valid question.

It's a valid question.

Uh, and Lori, I would second that as well, the validity behind your question.

Um, however, I hate to follow up with a question. Can we approve this administratively for Ross if the ownership and/or the applicant structure here is clarified and consistent?

We've we've done that in the past, right?

Yeah, I would think so.

I'm I'm basically asking if the board's comfortable with such or or if there are any further questions. I mean, I don't think the ANR itself is complicating in nature. It's just to Lor's point, I think the application process and the names should be consistent across the board.

Yeah, I don't have any issues with that personally.

Yeah, I don't mind voting on it. I just kind of wanted to verify who the actual owner is.

Helio, do you have a point one way or the other as it relates to, you know, how we could handle this? I have no objection to approving it with the contingency that the ownership is just straightened out.

Okay.

So, if we all agree that this um ANR is exactly that, an ANR and we understand it. Um perhaps if there are no further questions, we could entertain a motion that this could be handled administratively as long as Ross or Dan um identify and maintain a consistency and ownership from the application to perhaps what's recorded. Um not sure what language you want to use, but a motion of such would be helpful.

I will make a motion as described by our chairman.

So second.

All right. We have a motion made by Kevin Estes that um should read somewhere along the lines Ross that the 158 Little River Road assessor's map 15 lot 44 approval not required known as PANR-25-10 before us tonight um shall be approved as an ANR once you or Dan administratively have confirmed and recorded the consist consistency of names and ownership throughout the application.

Sure.

With that said, Kevin Estes, yes.

Gil Rosa, yes.

Lori Miller, yes.

Nick Psychopis, yes.

Okay, wonderful. Um, do you mind really quick? I think that is my fire alarm.

Can I just go do a quick sweep and make sure everything's okay?

Need to exit the building.

Okay. Give me give me one second.

Sure. While Ross is doing that, um, agenda item number two, uh, it's basically discussion regarding the site plan revisions and potential changes for article 24.

Um, we're not going to go too far without Ross, but does anybody have any comments and or um something they'd like to add or subtract from what we were we're able to review?

Mr.

Chair, I have a a couple comments. Go ahead to heal.

Sorry, Kevin. Um, go.

Just more curiosities than anything else. I've I've gone back to this a couple of times and and it's unfair because Ross is not currently um on his screen and um Dan is not present, but interrupt you one second. I'm so sorry.

If y'all if you all want to pause, we can pause. I just figure from a discussion perspective, we could continue, but up to you folks.

Well, I think I'll I'll throw this out there and see if anybody else on on the board has any comments or um any feedback, but two things stood out to me. Um the the table of off- streetet parking or parking in general. Um I'd be very curious to see, you know, the changes I don't disagree with. Um the recommended revisions I think are on point. I'd like to get some insight from

Ross um obviously through Dan as well.

um what the the thought process is into the recommended changes. And the other one that stood out as well um for parking design standards, there's a recommendation to reduce the minimum stall depth to 18 ft. Um cars aren't always getting any smaller in in some cases. Again, in principle, I don't object to it, but I'm wondering if 20 ft still remains the right depth with some caveat that it could be

subject to the board to reduce the depth as they see fit as opposed to just making it prescriptive.

Okay.

It's it's a very very good point, Helio.

Um to to add to that and I I'm trying to scroll through and get to that point, but to add to that, I've seen plenty of situations where parking is not compromised by by the size of the spot, but the space if you would, the thoroughfare in between the two rows of spots can become very very difficult. Um so Ross, were you here for that? Did you hear what Helio's concern was? Yep.

Yeah. So, I I this came from um some point in the past uh the planning department or the planning board had a review of article 24. It was prior to Dan Ori's time here and we found that report and a couple of the things that were recommended um we we interpreted into here. One of them being that in a in a in an attempt to reduce lot coverage, uh, impervious coverage that

they could do 18 ft. So, we put it in as a placeholder kind of as a discussion point, hence the question mark of whether or not we would want uh or the planning board would want to do that even in today's world. So, it it's mostly there to kind of spark the conversation, which I'm I'm glad that it did. Um, and there's that's basically the reason why why it's there in an

attempt to work with that original review. Um, which I believe we had sent out in the fall maybe. Um, if not, I'm I'm going to make a note to check on that, but that's why that was there.

And Ross, my other question was, you know, if it's not on this forum, you know, the thought process behind the other recommendations on the for the the table Yeah. off streetet parking. What the thought process is into into those recommendations. Just give us the foundation of why the board is considering these these revisions, which again I don't object to, but I'd love to understand the thought process,

how they get there. Yeah. So, we we Dan and I kind of reviewed multiple towns in the area as well as that original review. Um I to be honest with you I don't exactly recall the exact consultant that the planning board used at the time but a couple of them came from there and then when it came to a couple of them I believe motor vehicle sales um I believe motor vehicle sales

came from a couple of other towns that we found used that and then we did a combination for example motor vehicle sales we have a potential change of one per 1,000 square ft of gross floor area rather than the current 150 adding on additional only three per service bait because that's what we saw that um was recommended at the time by motor vehicle sales for repair. So, we're figuring

most most dealerships, for example, would have a lot of their parking or a lot of their visits would be for the um repair areas or service and then a lot of them um don't need as many spaces for sales. A lot of in a lot of today's world, you know, people shopping online for cars and whatnot. Um, and I believe the same for the offices for non-medical, I believe, was was from

that original report. And then the warehousing one was from a conversation that we had had at a workshop that we had um during one of our concept review meetings with other town officials.

So, what we could be potentially doing is minimizing the re impervious requirement that some of these parking regulations um require us. And I know some of the more recent particularly on the motor vehicle sales where there was quite a bit or is quite a bit required of imperous surface with the current requirements. I think that is a huge win for the town to to minimize that impervious service while still providing

what in my experience um is still adequate amount of parking spaces. I guess I'd love to hear if there's anybody that feels any any different about um the reduction from 20 feet to 18 feet if anybody feels like that is winning on the impervious surface side.

Um but are we creating any other challenges by just making it prescriptive at 18?

I I I definitely have um a comment. Uh um if I if I may really quick, I'm really sorry to interrupt.

Go ahead. Um, I did just get a call that there is a fire in the other half of my building.

So, I'm going to try to jump on in a few back on in a few minutes. It's not on my side. It's on the other half. But, I need to just go make sure that my family members are okay. Okay.

Be be safe, Ross.

Thank you. Thank you. I'll be back.

Thanks.

Uh, while if if can I chime in just for a moment?

Sure. The way I look at it, um, we have some great examples of parking in this town and we have some horrific examples of parking in this town. And the rag, and I'm sorry, I was just looking at the length of some vehicles, but it it it plays a role when the aisle width is narrower than preferred and if the spots are on 90° or 45 degree angles. And I I see that the minimum

aisle width is reflective of the difference between a 90 degree and a 45 degree spot parking angle, but the 18 versus the 20, I'm not sure that 18 can be considered anymore. I mean, Toyota Tundras, which is what I drive, GMC's, large GMC's, a Denali is somewhere around 22 feet long.

So, and and you need all of that parking spot sometimes, especially on a 45 to go forward and reconfigure yourself depending how your neighbors parked left or right of you after you parked, trying to create a better angle for yourself.

So, what I'm really getting at is based on the size of many modern vehicles, family related vehicles, not commercial, just family vehicles, if we reduce it to 18 for all of the good reasons we would from a functional perspective, we might have to consider maximizing the minimal aisle width because these vehicles are going to have less square footage to jockey for position. within their own

space trying to exit their space depending what happened after they parked. And I don't know if that makes a lot of sense, but I've come in pretty straight to a spot and my neighbor to the right is bow first on the left tightening my front end and now I can't cut my wheel to the left to back out accordingly with the angle. So what do you do? You make six, seven, eight

maneuvers trying to buy yourself some positioning.

So if we reduce it, I I think we're setting ourselves up a little bit for less than desirable functional parking unless we compensate on the aisle with and then if we do that we haven't approve we haven't improved anything in terms of permeable or not.

So I'm not sure what the answer is. I'm not I'm not sure that making the aisle wider to accommodate an 18 foot spot has any value when the net gain for the town or for the environment is going to be zero. Sorry. Go ahead, Helio.

Well, I I don't disagree with you at all. Here's one thing I'd like for everybody to ponder.

If we go to if we allow for 18, I would suggest that we increase the aisle to 26. Well, Helio, how is that going to benefit? Why are we doing that?

Well, I think where you can go is where you have double acting parking spaces.

So, an eight, you know, a parking space, an aisle, and a parking space like many of the parking lots are.

What you're requiring is 64 feet, right?

But if we reduce to 18 and increase to 26, the overall length would decrease to 62 feet. So, in the scenario where you have the double-sided parking, we could still see a benefit of the reduction in impervious, still allow for a wider aisle. Now, when it's just a single space with an aisle, no difference, no change, right? If you do 18, you go to 26. If you do 20, you can do 24.

However, when you add that that second aisle and if you do both of them at 18, keep the aisle at 26, then your overall depth would decrease by requirement by 2 feet.

Yeah, I think it's a great compromise.

Yeah.

And and we're we're talking about reducing the minimum, correct? the minimum still up to each developer to decide how big their spots want to be.

Correct. We're establishing the minimum.

I think we also though in the 2024 1826 scenario when many parking designs have that double barrel assignment we're still have the opportunity to reduce the impervious while maintaining a safe depth and distance for vehicular traffic because the the things that that I've I've seen and this is kind of related to uh to to our chairman's comment. Um, but taking it a little bit on on a tangent

is uh the the parking spots. I I haven't experienced or seen that the actual size of the spot was the big issue. And it wasn't even so much the width of the uh the the the throughfair, it was the design of the throughfair. Meaning if if you have a uh and I'm just going to pull out a a a name here, you know, a Dunkin Donuts drive-thru on one end of a parking lot, you're

going to have to take into account what how that would affect the opposite end of the parking lot because people are going to stack up.

Uh I I I think that that that pays more that that that drives more at least from what I have seen or experienced the the the real challenge has been who designed this flow.

I don't disagree at all.

It's a very valid point.

I mean as a rule of thumb you guys I mean I don't want to beat a dead horse.

Anything that reduces impervious surface for me is is a win. Um, provided it doesn't have any cataclysmic results.

And especially if we're not mandating it, we're just reducing a minimum and allowing each developer to make their own decision. I'm all for it.

I I have a question based on what we're talking about and your point that we're addressing the minimums. Um, we all agree that there's a lot of what I would call nonreving asphalt in town, non-revenue generating asphalt. Um, I wasn't part of this then and I can't say that I've looked back to understand those projects. But since we're describing the minimums, is there any value in describing or defining or

including the maximums to be better focused at the goal of decreasing imperous surfaces?

You know, is there room for I don't know the answer to that. Is there room for that discussion?

Or better yet, let me just add this.

Whatever the requirements were for a lot of these retail establishments, the requirements clearly were overshot. They're not necessary. We all I think we all have at one point or another made a comment as to how underutilized a lot of this white lined and defined asphalted areas are. How do we mitigate that or you know make a point of that not happening in the future?

Well, I think the the big win it we're taking, you know, steps and and you know, a lot of times I think this is a game of inches, but um you know, the the minimum is is a good thing to allow for a smaller minimum as long as it doesn't bang anything up, but and and I agree with you that maybe we should take a look at at a maximum uh and and implementing that. Um, I

think the real if we're if we're driving for reducing impervious surface, it's the number.

I have to get off, guys. The police are here. I'm really sorry.

That's okay. Thank you.

I'm really sorry. I'm I'm safe. I'm safe. Okay.

Is your family safe?

I'm Yes, everything's good. I just I got to go. I'm really sorry.

Thank you. No worries.

Bye.

um the the the number of spots and and that's incredibly industry specific because the number of spots for a dentist office is going to be very different than a grocery store uh you know based on you know the size metrics.

Yeah, 100%. So, you know, it's it's that there have been a couple times where I we've looked at this car dealerships, the number of required spots for car dealerships has changed and it, you know, I we I think we we'd really do well to review what the the required number of spots are. I've always wondered like well you know is is it wh why are we requiring a number of or holding fast to

a requirement when it's really the function of customer service and if a developer wants to cut it down let him cut it down and and you know his his customers may not be very happy but at the end of the day that's that's up to Yeah, I I like it. I in my mind there's in my mind um when I look at and and let's be honest, I mean Hill, you and I are the are the

two youngest members in terms of tenure on the board from from being exposed to I didn't mean age- wise tenure on the board. So, um, like what I've learned so far and and how I feel about what I've seen around the town and I've been in business, you know, for the age that I am. I've been in business my whole life. So, I mean, I'm I'm constantly at a rate of

building and the rest of the mall had we accounted for ghost spaces for the amount of asphalt that's virtually never used if those were still trees and landscape with ghost opportunity that was never exercised. It would have been completely different on the eye, completely different on the environment.

Now, it's unnecessarily layered with asphalt. So, although we're talking about minimums, I couldn't help but ask when and where can we talk about maximums? And if in the future, if I'm part of the board or not, if in the future the ghost concept, if there's like an 8020 or a 7030 rule where they develop 70% of the proposed save 30 for ghostlike function, and if we see it as a town and they see it as a

business, materialize, exercise your ghost option. But until then, we didn't just layer with asphalt. So, I don't need to go much further. I just like the fact that we're even having a seated conversation about this. That's all.

Well, I I I think it's well founded. Um, parking spaces are not cheap to develop.

I don't think most developers are going to build parking unless they have to.

Um, establishing the minimums is the criteria. The maximum establishing maximums can be a little bit tricky. Um, you know, Kevin, to your point, you know, the proposed um ratio change on this new table uh starts to address the swaths of asphalt for car sales locations. There's also one other um line that I'd like to call to everybody's attention just based on this discussion, which is so great. Retail,

right? We're talking about the the Dartmouth Mall and other locations.

There are two delineations. there's 10,000 square ft or more or less than 10,000 square ft. Both of them, either one of those have very distinct requirements for parking.

Um given the retail habits having changed in the last 20 25 years and we see a lot of unused um uh parking spaces, should the table consider a third criteria for large retail? Maybe it's a $100,000 threshold where the parking spaces can be this parking space ratio could be one to every 750 square feet um as another mitigating because if you 10,000 square feet that requires you know 1 to 500 you do 100,000 square

feet you're just exponentially multiplying based on a random square footage number. But should we consider that once you get to that large um do we incentivize to reduce parking requirements further?

I think it's a great question. I don't I don't know what I don't know what our capacity is authority legally andor ability, but for the purpose of what we're addressing, it's really a half dozen to a dozen large parcels that are within a few miles of all of us that can be really easily assessed. we just missed a great opportunity, the holiday season, which is an exception, but I still think it's something that can be

assessed um if we so choose. I'm not exactly sure how to do it and um ethically and legally and morally bring it into the context of a meeting, but it's a matter of counting spaces and counting vehicles and seeing what happens at peak hours. But I just know no matter how peak the peak hours were, there was always asphalt available. Um, so I I don't I hate to be sarcastic. I

don't think this is an algorithm. I think it's simple math. It's just a matter of can we do it, should we do it, and is it viewed as legal and so on. But we can have I think we should have this conversation um with Ross and Dan. Um, and quite frankly, I mean that Lori, I hate to say it, but I mean you and Margaret have been very involved for a

long time. How do you feel about this?

Oh, I definitely feel about cutting parking spaces. I have no problems with that. We either have to cut them or we have to do the ghost green spaces, which is fine with me. Um I I think it works.

I I've always been very unhappy with our parking plan. I mean, from day one. And past members of the boards can tell you I I used to say, "Why are we doing this?

It just doesn't just doesn't make any sense."

But it in one aspect made sense 30 years ago because 30 years ago you didn't have Amazon, you know.

No, I I can understand in 1974 why somebody thought putting asphalt around the entire mall might have been a good idea. Might um have been a good idea.

I agree. I wasn't for that. I wasn't here for that one.

Um but no, I agree wholeheartedly with everything everyone is saying. I think we have we've just covered everything with asphalt and it's not needed. Um I looked around this season because I knew this was coming up and I I paid close attention to Walmart and Target and the mall and the mall had plenty of spaces.

Walmart had plenty of spaces. Target was a little questionable, but you could still find a space. the most easterly part of Target, the most easterly part, so the furthest from the front door rarely gets used, right?

Um, so, so I agree. I agree. Cutting I agree. Cutting spaces is just we don't need them anymore. I'm not even sure we ever needed them, but we definitely don't need them. I agree with cutting them. Um, I'm not sure I agree with going down to 18 feet on the spaces only because I mean the town hall is a good example. Trying to get in and out of that town hall is horrendous.

Agreed.

Um, I've gone there and parked and then had these two big Ford H super whatever and it's like I can't even see on either side of me to get out to begin with. So when I do get out now, I have to go and cut so hard.

So I'm not sure I agree with lowering the spa lure lowering it down to 18. But if we keep it at 18 and do what um Helio said about the um you know the center aisle, I think that works.

But no, I I agree wholeheartedly with everything that everybody has said.

Absolutely. I have no problem.

Okay. Well, I mean, I think this is great subject matter and um great dialogue. So, we can all we can all continue our thoughts. And I just want to ask the board based on the absence of a director or assistant director as well as Margaret, do we really want to continue this meeting at this point in time based on the fact that there's nothing to vote on or should we consider not continuing this meeting um and

resuming at the next meeting and tableabling the the remaining items?

Does anybody have any input?

I don't I don't want to have a committee I don't want to have a committee interest discussion really without Margaret. Um yeah, I don't have a problem with continuing it. I think that's important because I do think we need Dan here. I do think we need Margaret. But I have I do have one other question. Um at the top of the table of our street parking under standards it says number of parking

spaces exclusive of employee parking that required by I don't like the way that's worded when we originally had the committee that I attended that was worded um that we had to include um employee parking and does anybody else read that differently than me exclusive of I I thought it I thought that it implied employee parking plus this.

Okay. So, you did read it that way.

Okay.

What What page are you on? What page are you on?

Um it's on page 19.

Yeah. What was 19 packet?

Yeah. 19 of the packet.

It's at the top of the table where it says t um table of off streetet parking.

I just didn't like the way that was worded. I I maybe I'm just reading it wrong.

Well, I don't I don't disagree with you, but I think it's just imply imp implying that you got to go to 375-243A for the employee requirements. And this matter here, this table is exclusive of anything and everything defined in 37524-3A.

I understand why you don't like it. Um, I think I just think it can be worded simpler and and 375-24.3.

I don't see anything there that requires It says um, unless I'm in the wrong section, it says a special permit may be issued by the planning board to reduce the number of parking spaces required by up to 12. It It doesn't talk about employee spaces, so I'm not even sure what they're talking about.

Well, let's make a point of bringing this up because it really should not leave any room for interpretation, right? I agree because what this is supposed to be is that you're supposed to have one space per employee unless we unless we, you know, adjust it. But what they're saying under this other 20 375.23-3 23-3.

Number two, I don't know.

Well, let's make let's just let's address this with with Margaret and then with Dan and Ross and perhaps in this table.

If we clarify what it's exclusive of, maybe we expand that box, that gray area, and the definition of what it's exclusive of is there. So somebody doesn't have to go from here to 375-24.3A.

In other words, it's it's defined within the table.

Yeah, it's a it's defined right above it number three where it says the following min minimum parking spaces are required in addition to employee parking spaces.

And the reason we were putting it down, we decided to put it down again was because a lot of engineers weren't looking at this and saying, "Oh, I forgot we had to do employee parking, too." So, I don't see why we can't put it at the same language. number of parking spaces in addition to employee parking or somehow maybe I'm just reading it wrong. Maybe it's just me.

I know I think you bring up a valid question. I mean someone like myself at first glance said okay this table is exclusive of that.

However, if you pause for a moment and you say what is that? You know then that poses a problem. So, how do how does the rest of the board feel?

Helio, you deal with this more than we you know h how do you feel? How do you read it?

Did we loed Helio?

Sorry about that. It ends up feeling like it's a lot of legal ease, but I I can understand what's trying to be conveyed. I think there's this there's this um asterisk that says here here's all the required parking. Don't forget about the required employee parking. So if you look at page three of the of the um chapter 24, Austri Parking regulations, section A, paragraph 2, literally right above the table, there

additionally shall always be a parking space allocated on a property for every employee except as otherwise expressly noted in the table of off- streetet parking. The number of employees shall be determined by the largest shift at any one time. Fractional numbers shall be added up. That's it. It's we have to accommodate for that parking. So it's almost like this continuous loop, right?

2A says you need parking in addition to the off- streetet parking. The off streetet parking table says, "Oh, but you also need park employee parking." So it's always it's like this neverending back and forth.

Which isn't bad. It just might be a little bit confusing to what it's okay. What do you guys make of 375-24-3A where number one says a special permit may be issued by the planning board to reduce the number of parking spaces required by up to 1/ half.

I like it.

Yeah.

Uh I I had a discussion with uh with Dan on this. Um if the the more flexibility that we add into the the these ch proposed changes, um the the fewer trips and projects will will take through ZBA as opposed to the planning board. if if we can offer the flexibility that's that some people say, "Well, you can't offer it, so I'm going to go to the ZBA and and then you know

the who knows what what uh what they ask for at the ZBA." You know, it because when when you're in front of the ZBA, you can ask for anything you want. Um, I think applications can stay on the the the path as intended if we have a greater level of flexibility here.

And I think it serves us better to have flexibility uh in in by the way of special permit.

Mr. Chair, I agree. Yeah. Go ahead.

So I agree with Kevin. He's right on.

The board can reduce it by half, has the authority to reduce it by half. Should there be any criteria establishing what conditions should exist in order to reduce it by half as opposed to just being completely open-ended?

You asking if it's a grenade. It's a grenade.

No, it's it's a good grenade though. But I So are you asking I'm going to use the phrase laundry list. Are you asking or suggesting that a laundry list of conditions could be included here for the reduction by half to be met at the planning board level otherwise it could not be achieved here and then moved to the ZBA. So or in in my in summary, are you asking for more regulation because it's kind of vague.

I think we should consider whether some criteria should exist to consider to reduce by half. The board, the town has these reg these minimum standards for a reason. If we're going to deviate from these these minimum standards, what are the considerations that we should estab or should they be established in order to consider? Should it be because there's wetlands? Should it be because of lot size? Should it be

what? What should we consider?

Or why should we be consider reducing it by up to half? Because I wonder, are we leaving it too open-ended for somebody to come back and say, "Well, why did you reduce it to for them by half, but you're only reducing it for me by a quarter?"

Yeah.

So, without some established criteria, then are we subjecting ourselves to some undue hardship without the established criteria?

No. Understood. Understood. And because we don't know who's watching and and how much of our meeting they're following, I want to be as transparent as possible.

And in response to that, I just want to read in below 375-24.3 special permit for reduction in parking.

A special permit reduction in required number of parking spaces. Number one, we talked about the reduction up to half.

Number two states that the planning board may reduce the required number of parking spaces if any one of the following requirements applies and in the area of unbuilt parking spaces normally required under article 24 is maintained in the landscape condition. A the parking spaces could be built on site but the proposed use is such that it can be demonstrated that the full number is not needed. B. The mix of uses

is such that parking demand is different is at different times which must be demonstrated. The reduction in spaces will minimize storm water runoff in an area experiencing flooding or water quality deterioration. And D the reduction in space in spaces will benefit the neighborhood by providing additional green space as a buffer to nearby homes and would reduce the impact of parking vehicles. This section is

concluded by number three in granting the special permit. The planning board shall find that at least one of the above requirements subsections B parenthesis 2 A to parenthesis D applies and that the proposed reduction in parking spaces will not contribute to congestion in the neighborhood. The planning board may add conditions to protect the neighborhood and to ensure compliance with any of the above

requirements for the special permit. So that's for the public to know that there are four itemized conditions rather broad and then that brings me back to us here at the board level. Helio, would you say to make those more defined than they are or expand on them?

What are your thoughts?

Yeah, I I let me chew on that for a little longer. Yeah, it's it's you have a great point and and perhaps this is um I'm on I'm on I'm at the bottom of page 14 and the top of page 15 for us in the packet. Bottom of 14, top of 15. Um this along with a couple of the previous things we mentioned could be focal points uh at the beginning of our next

meeting under administrative items once we have a full roster.

Yeah, I'll um I'll chew on that a little longer.

Anybody else? Any comments as it relates to this? Just food for thought between now and the next meeting?

Lori, I have a question for you. Um, historically, have you seen or are you um able to share with us perhaps a parking reduction request that needed or that needed further conditioning andor conditions outside of what we just read were applied? And and what I'm really fishing for is do you have any food for thought for us in terms of how things might have been managed in the past

regarding a parking reduction of up to 50%.

I'm trying to think of one that we did.

Um they had to meet one of these conditions. I know we've did a couple, but they did meet one of these conditions.

Um the area that I'm thinking of is on Ventura Avenue and they met the condition that um it was a different demand of um you know some worked during the day and then they were gone and the others came in and worked at night. So they didn't have to have the parking for 50 people. They only needed the parking for 30. And I'm just using you know roundoff figures.

Um so that worked out fine. We didn't we didn't do a lot of the other ones, but the ones that did we did do, they fell underneath one of these conditions.

And we never had someone come in and say, "Well, you did it for them. You know, why aren't you doing it for us?"

We didn't have any of that.

Okay.

Um and you you got to remember that this was this is written in gold and you can't change it. But if we do it the way we want to do it now, we have the ability. we will have the ability to um do some leeways.

Yeah.

Yeah, we will.

And my approach to that would be uh you know, Hillary, you bring up a great point. Um but if somebody asked me, hey, you did this for them at 50% and I'm only getting a reduction of 25% but I'm asking for the same 50.

uh I mean each each application as we've come to understand is a a comp a very unique story stands on its own uh different dynamics different uh different I mean two car dealerships you you can't even say that well that's a car dealership and my car where is it located it's located in a different place with different different requirements, different surroundings, uh you know, a different kind of car

dealership even. You know, there are so many things that make each application uh incredibly unique that we that I think that we would be very um defensible with with feeling free to to make our own decision about what's best.

And I don't disagree with that. And I I'm coming from the standpoint that I want all of us as a board to be in the right spot that we've maximized the transparency of all of our decision-m and sub and um being conscious of any recommendations that we propose on these maximize that level of transparency for all of our decision- making. That that's strictly where I'm coming from.

Yeah, I I I I agree with you. It's a great conversation point and and you know I'm grateful that you that you brought it up Hillio. Same here. I mean the objectivity of what you're suggesting that we achieve is phenomenal because in the end we're acting on behalf of everyone in the town in the best interest of the town. But that isn't always how a proposer sees our decisions or our

judgments or or any part of what we do.

So having the structure, the objective structure to reference as to why we acted a certain way, I hate to say it, shifts the burden away from us subjectively and keeps us within the rules and regulations, which I like a lot. Um, of course there are circumstances where we have to make considerations, but if we narrow it down, it's better for everybody. So, I like it as well. So, we'll put some thought into it.

I'm not crazy about the fact that we're continuing a meeting without somebody from the planning department themselves, Dan or Ross, being with us. Um, and and also without Margaret. Um, I agree.

Is any if if anybody feels like we need to continue this meeting, I'm happy to do so.

Otherwise, the remaining items which are site plan review, revisions, and potential changes for article 24, which we just dove into, um discussion regarding prioritization of committee interest would not be fair to do without an active member of the board. So, that's going to get tabled.

the ongoing discussion with Dartmouth future zoning to be transparent to everybody that should be tabled as well because the housing plan and any updates from Dan will be vital in terms of guiding us along that d uh discussion.

Minutes are not applicable as uh this is the first of 2026 and I also believe we may be behind on minutes although that was getting resolved. correspondence is in the possession and hands of Dan. And for your information, old business, new business, we could not go through all of that without Dan. So unless anybody wants to actively contribute something else to tonight's meeting, I think it's

in the best interest of all of us and the town that we table the rest until the January 26th meeting as planned. I'm happy to hear from any of you. Otherwise, by no means am I trying to get off the meeting early, but for the reasons mentioned, I think it's a good decision.

No, I I I agree with you. I second that.

I as well.

Yes, I agree.

All right. So, if that's the case, um again, for anyone who's watching, unfortunately, due to an emergency, we are without our assistant planner, Ross Cody, who was with us, and we're also down a member of the board. With that said, we're about to make a motion to adjourn and continue the remaining items on January 26, 2026. So, I'll need a motion.

So moved.

I need a second.

Motion made by Helio Rosa to adjourn the meeting of January 5th, 2026. Seconded by Lorie Miller. Helio Rosa.

Yes.

Lori Miller, yes.

Kevin Estes, yes. and Rick Cyclopedus. Yes, I I appreciate everybody. I I don't like the fact that we're wrapping it up early. Uh but based on the circumstances, I do believe it's in the best interest of everybody to do so.

Yes.

Agreed. Everyone have a good night.

And wherever Ross lives, uh we should keep uh keep the the tenants in that building in our thoughts.

Yeah, absolutely. And I believe he lives um in one of the newer complexes on Route 6 heading west just after Walmart.

Dartmouth Woods I believe. So we'll have to look into that.

So prayers for everybody. Be safe.

Good night. Happy New Year.

Thank you and stay warm. Byebye.