Planning Board Meeting - March 23, 2026

7 PM on March 23rd. This is the scheduled Town of Dartmouth Planning Board meeting. As previously stated, the planning board voted in 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 public and is currently remote through the Zoom application and is being recorded. Welcome everybody.

We'll start with a roll call vote. Lori Miller here.

Margaret here.

Kevin Estes here.

Hillio Rosa here.

Next cycle I will pay this for the record here.

Good evening. This brings us to the agenda item, public hearing, which is a public hearing for an application for planning board special permit known as PSP-25-2, better known as 813 State Road, which we are all aware of. There's a letter on behalf of this project. I will let Dan discuss that at this point.

Uh first, uh Mr. Chairman, we just want to get a motion to open.

Sorry about that. Yep.

Yeah. So, backing up, we need a motion to open the public hearing.

So, moved.

Second.

Motion made by Helio, seconded by Lorie Miller to open Margaret.

Oh, Margaret, sorry about that.

Helio Rosa, yes.

Margaret Sweet.

Yes.

Lori Miller, yes.

Kevin Estes, yes.

Nick Cyclopus, yes. All right. With the public meeting, public hearing now open, Dan, go ahead, please. Um, we discussed this a little bit last time. There was um an item up in up in the air about the sewer um tie-in capabilities. Um, the applicant was working with DPW um to to sign a review um to be done by Stantech, who is the town's review consultant for the sewer. Um, they still have not

finalized that contract yet. So at this time we received a letter dated March 18th of 2026 stating um to chairman psychopatis we respectfully request a continuence from our scheduled meeting with the planning board on March 23rd 2026 to the meeting on April 6, 2026 and that's signed by Jamie Besonette who's a representative of the applicant um professional engineer for Zenith Consulting

Engineers. Um at this time I would recommend um granting the continuence.

However, for the next meeting um we're kind of running out of time for statutory deadlines. So um at the next meeting we're trying to get revised plans outside of the sewer question from the consultant engineer um all addressed. So that would be the only outstanding item. So, at that time, the board could um vote to close the hearing hopefully on the April 6th meeting. Um and then that would just

leave us with um a condition for the certificate of action for the special permit that would basically say um all all outstanding issues based on hopefully a letter from the DPW that um would would be addressed. So, that's what we're looking at. That's that's where we're at on this project. Um but at this time I would recommend to the board to um grant the request for a continuence till April 6th at 7 PM.

Dan, thank you.

Any questions from the board or the public?

Can I say something, please?

Please, Lori.

I'm a little disappointed in this. DPW asked this um developer who by the way is a town citizen has lived in town most all of his life to do this study after everything had already been approved and he had they haven't asked any other one any other people to do this up until this point it's a 15 if I remember correctly Dan it's a 15 apartment complex 15 units correct as proposed

Um the same developer has a um a uh an apartment complex in the neighborhood and is wellrun very neatly taken care of and I'm disappointed that we have put this developer in a pickle where now he has to expend extend enormous amount of money to do a study.

Not only that, the cost overruns on this project is going to be enormous because of this the cost of materials and the cost of labor and and I'm just very disappointed in the town. It's it's not us. We're ready to go. But I'm just disappointed in the town that this is a town resident that's not being picked on, but asked to do something that in the past no one else has been asked to do.

Thank you for letting me speak.

Thank you, Lori.

Anyone else?

Anybody from the public? If not, we're in a position to entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion to continue this project till uh this meeting to April 6, 7 p.m.

Second. We have a second. Was that Helio?

Kevin.

Kevin. Sorry, folks. Great. We have a motion to respectfully continue the meeting until April 6, 2026 on behalf of 18 uh 813 State Road. Motion made by Margaret, seconded by Kevin Estes.

Margaret, yes.

Kevin Estes, yes.

Lorie Miller, yes.

Helio Rosa, yes. Nick Psychopatis. Yes.

At this point in time, we'll need a motion to return back to our scheduled planning board meeting with noting the fact that this has been continued.

So moved.

Second.

Motion made by Helio Rosa, seconded by Lorie Miller to resume the normal scheduled planning board meeting of March 23rd, 2026. Helio Rosa, yes.

Lori Miller, yes. Margaret, yes.

Kevin Estes, yes.

Nick Psychopatis, yes.

All right, that brings us to administrative items. Uh, number one, approval not required, 253 Gaffne Road.

Dan, you want to speak on behalf of that?

Sure. This is um an application um as mentioned for 253 Gaffne Road um also known as assessors map 24, lot 10. This was filed through our portal application under PNR26-2.

This application is for the reconfiguration of said map 24 lot 10 into two lots as shown on the plan.

These lots are located in the single residence B zoning district. Um they will have the required frontage um to be eligible for endorsement and this would satisfy our regulations under 1.101.A A of the Dharma subdivision regulations that state every lot to be created has frontage of the distance required by the zoning bylaw on a public street or a street the town cler town clerk certifies is maintained and used as a

public street. Um so at this time um it is recommended that the planning board could endorse this plan and we have the myar in the office ready for endorsement by the board members.

Thank you, Dan.

If there are not, based on the fact that it's an ANR and we've all reviewed the plan, we could entertain a motion.

I make a motion to uh approve the ANR at 253 Gaffne Road as requested.

I'll second.

Motion made by Kevin Estie, seconded by Helio Rosa to approve the approval not required for 253 Gaffne Road. Kevin Estes, yes.

Helio Rosa, yes.

Margaret, yes.

Lorie Miller, yes. Nick Psychopus. Yes, thank you for that. At this point in time, uh we could have discussed this in the beginning. We are awaiting town council this evening, but based on the fact that he will join us when he joins us, we will move beyond number two, the potential changes in appointment for article 24 changes. Um Dan, am I correct? We can proceed to number three and four accordingly. Yes. So, we'll

just table number two for the time being.

Great. Um, do we want to do we want to table number three as well and start with four and then roll back into production in article changes or do we want to go in order?

It's up to you. I mean, the housing production plan, I believe, Dan is something that you were hoping and we the board at this point in time should be looking to approve. Correct.

Um, yes. I I do know there was um one typo in there um that that'll need to be adjusted um if if any of the other board members have any comments. But at this time we we we could go on to number four and then return to number three if the board so chooses.

Okay, we got a thumbs up from Hillio.

Other board members, are we okay with that?

Yep.

Yes.

Lori and Margaret. Great.

Yes.

Margaret, you're okay. Good. All right.

So, let's go to administrative item number four, release of lots from performance covenant for Golden Farms.

Dan, go ahead on that, please.

Yeah. So, this is this is a request um from the performance covenant for all seven lots for the Golden Farm subdivision. Um, also known as map 37, lots 20 through 20-7. Um, it was filed in the portal under application RLPC 26-1.

Uh we did receive a bond um that was reviewed by town council and um the treasurer's office. The treasurer's office did receive the hard copy of that. It is on file. Um there's a letter in your packet from Gary Carrero, the director of finance and town treasurer confirming that. Um so at this time um it is my opinion that these lots are eligible to be released from the performance covenant with the charity posted.

Thank you. Then do we have any questions specific to Golden Farms, the shity and the covenant?

I'm fine with it because everybody's looked at it. So, you know, everybody said, "Okay." So, I'm fine to to do that. Agreed.

Great. If we're all comfortable based on the letter provided and what Dan has shared at this point in time, we can entertain the appropriate motion.

So moved.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Motion made by Lori Miller and seconded by Helio Rosa to release of lots from the performance covenant as requested regarding Golden Farms. Lori Miller.

Yes. Helia Rosa, yes.

Margaret, yes.

Kevin Estes, yes.

Nick Cyclopus, yes.

At this point in time, we can have some discussion regarding our future zoning if we would like. And um we can also go back to the housing production plan as we await town council. Um why don't we talk about the housing production plan for a moment? Dan, would you like to perhaps point that one item or make a point of that one item and then anyone else can share what their concerns are?

Sure. Um, so on page 78, um, there was a question about the 80 ADU size. Uh, hold on, let me get to the document.

I believe it was listed at 600. Um the state regulation is 900 and the town would actually let you go up to a th00and.

Um so we just want to um get that cleaned up.

Does anybody else have any items that they want to address from the plan?

Um the I I'm not going to go through my detailed list because I already went over that with Jan uh earlier uh today and um the only thing I would say is that throughout the throughout the document especially in the beginning a lot of abbreviations are used and if you're not in the town or you're not working with the town some of these abbreviations people don't know that they really don't recognize. I'd like to

see in the beginning if they would put like SHI, subsidize housing inventory, if they would put that in there then in quotation marks or whatever those little things are put, you know, SHI so people can understand that without having to go back to the legend which is in the back.

So I I think that would be one thing that I would like. And I don't know, Dan, should I should I go through my whole list or just cuz some of the things you said are boilerplate. Anyway, yes, if you um if you would like to, you know, I would I would bring them up. Let the board be aware of your concerns. Um one thing that I can speak on um the question regarding those two hub

subsidized housing um questions on page 33, right? Um there are two listed without addresses um that Missu asked me to look into on North Hicksville Road and Bolton Street. Um so the answer I got um these may be group homes and as part of the filing for group homes, they're not allowed to list the addresses.

Okay.

Um so that was the thought. Whether or not that's I can't confirm 100% but that would have to be requested. The state keeps that inventory. Um, but that was the quick answer I got on those two.

Okay, that that's fine with me. Um, they talked about uh I think it was page 12, deed restrictions in perpetuity. Um, that's a little concerning to me forever. And, uh, they want us to pick specific sites.

This is page 13 for 40Bs.

I don't know how we can pick specific sites for 40Bs and we may not have to because of all the 40bs we have now coming before the town. Dan, if all these go through, will we reach our 10%.

Yes, we should be well over it if everything as proposed goes through.

So, we don't have to be too concerned about picking other sites in Dartmouth for 40B for a while anyway.

But well, Margaret, we can zone an area, but we can't zone specific sites. That's not kosher, right, Dan?

This um this was um through the chair.

This this is more um just identifying specific sites for which the municipality will encourage the filing of a comprehensive permit application.

Um I don't remember that being in the discussion we had. I might have just missed on that one, but um I don't know.

And and that was I think um Margaret's point. I don't know if we want to get in the business of recommending sites for future 40B locations.

And it is sites, Lori. It's not locations, it's sites. So, I really don't think we, you know, we can do that. That's my opinion. So, we can leave it in there because I guess it'd be tough to take out. Um, let's see what else. Uh, you address the, uh, four units.

I guess that's about it, Dan. The rest I I guess is not that that important. The correction you made was important. And, uh, the 40B I Yeah, I will reach out to the um, representative from Sured to clarify that one. And I I I still feel that we should do something about all the abbreviations used in in this report.

Maybe as I suggested, I I strongly agree with Margaret. When something is designed or or available to the public, I like to think that not everyone is a specialist. The minute not everyone is a specialist, acronyms should not be used unless they're well defined and they really shouldn't be in the back. They can be in parentheses the first three times they're used on page 1, three, and five and then become a

functional acronym. But for for the public in general or the lack of a specialized individual reading a particular document, acronyms are not very useful. And the the other thing I want to add to I I couldn't assume a better way than to buy us trouble in the future than to use the word sites as as indicated here. I I just the legality of it upfront seems bothersome

to me. Um, and I think it puts us in a position for a lot of push back and eventually scrutiny and a finger pointing at this board or whoever uses this housing production plan as an operating document. So Dan, I'm not sure how much room there is or isn't, but I'm with Margaret on the word sites. I I I don't Well, I believe Lori or Margaret or both. I don't like the word sites.

Sure. I can I can bring up these questions, like I said, back to the representative from Serped. Um, get a final opinion on that. I can also run it by the selectman's office to our concerns. Um, and then see where we go from there to make a final uh endorsement at the next meeting.

And the the instinctively what comes to mind is that there are too many abuing adjacent abuing sites that we would identify today or tomorrow. And there are equally almost equally so abuing parcels of land that could be considered a site. And how do we how do we make sure that we do not miss or not include as a matter of right what somebody should or shouldn't have in the future?

I listening to it sounds dangerous.

Well, that that was my point and and you know we could as Lori said we could identify an area but not a site. There's a big difference between site and area.

Sure.

I I remember conversation about potential town owned sites.

Yes.

For housing opportunities, but I don't remember that specific terminology. So, I go back and look at our notes.

Yeah. Because I don't remember. I was there and I don't remember that either.

I thought it it was town owned land that we could designate as possible sites.

Right.

I and I want to expand on that. So, not not to complicate this or imply that I'm or imply anything, no pun intended, but are we really talking about if we get away from the word sites and we talk about an area, are we talking about boundaries, rather they be geographic pin drops, sorry, andor street boundaries, which then is really taking the shape of an overlay, but it's not an overlay. We looking to use boundaries

that way to define this. I think I think this is a a a different subject alto together to be honest with you. Um I just I I just don't remember that terminology being used in that form in the discussion. So I' I'd be just looking for clarification on that.

Fair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have two cents if I can add please.

So as we've alluded to in the past, this is a very thorough document. It's got a lot of information. and they did their due diligence. Um, the information is valuable. In some ways, there's conflicting information that the data is is zealing, but and I go back to the the way it's presented. And I go back to pages 11 and 12. And 11 and 12 are really our marching orders, right? Those are those

are the, you know, where you want to go.

Everything else is is a lot of supporting data.

And as we go forward as a board and as a town, you know, using this as a guide, for me, if we go out when this goes out to the public and if others want to use and see a reference of where the board is maybe framing some of its thoughts, some of its decision-m, I would love to find a way to highlight differently these two pages because they just they're concise. There are there are you

know our call to order. They are you know are the direction that we want to take as a board and like I said when this is referenced to the public instead of going through 181 pages of information it would be helpful at least from my perspective to just shine a light on these two pages because they give the town direction.

Thank you.

different ink, different something, right? You know, a background that somehow when you open this document, this screams at you as to why we're going the direction that we're going through, Mr. Chair. That's that's 11 and 12. So, that's the housing goals and then the housing strategies, right, just go ahead. Just to to Dan's point, the information that comes after that, in my opinion, is what feeds those two pages.

Anyone else?

That's that's that's the that's the main summary of what this report is is shooting for.

That's the book, right? And so how do we how do we I better identify how do we better communicate that to the general public that might not have an appetite to go through all 181 pages?

Okay, I will bring that up.

Well, maybe it's just the order that they're in because it does, you know, introduction you have about a housing plan production and then maybe uh we don't need to see the public engagement right there. Maybe we need to go into page 10.

and the goals in 11. Okay. And then maybe go, you know, just put that more in the NASA so that people will say this is the housing plan. This is what we need to get done, you know. But ask ask Yeah, I could I I mean, looking at the two pages, there's a lot of white there.

So, I can see um what Helio is talking about. Maybe give it a a thicker border, some kind of something that just really draws your eyes to it as you're scrolling through the document because I feel these two pages are the hook. They're the marers.

Every other page blends into the other, right? This this really doesn't feel like it's in my opinion the the punch.

So, it would just be helpful, I think, to the board, the town, the public to see that this is what we're these are our orders. everything else is what's supporting it.

Got it.

And I I I guess that begs the the larger question of it's great that we're coming up with this housing production plan.

It's important. It satisfies a lot of uh you know requirements and and uh a lot of thought has gone into it. But more importantly, how is this going to be promoted and uh um put out to the community beyond just the production of the plan. Uh that's I I think that's uh in addition to maybe changing the presentation of this, it's that how are we going to push those two pages out? Uh I mean really that's

effectively marketing the uh the this this information and the goals and the strategies. Uh how is this going to be pushed out to the public as opposed to just here it is. It's saved in a nice PDF.

You can download it from the website if you want. Um I I I think that's uh the these two pages should be part of a a marketing plan.

Agreed Kevin.

Well, when when we've got the final draft, um Dan, doesn't uh the selectman make some comments on this?

Yeah.

After we make our endorsement, then it'll go before the selectman for final approval, too, and then they got to send it to the state, isn't it?

Yeah. I'm just trying to think of what the department I I think it's the HLC, but I will um for final approval, but don't quote me on that one.

Dan, how long do you think that will take?

The the state one, but so that we get the final copy all all approved by every I'm assuming we should have it for the next meeting. These are minor things.

Either they'll they can make the changes or they can at least advise us and then I can report back to the board. But getting the approval through the state and everything, how long does that take?

Do you know?

I don't know that. I can ask because this might be taking these two pages and photocopying them and giving them to town meeting members also so that they can see them.

If it's a, you know, last year, last year we gave um a town meeting a copy of our goals of what we were going to work on. I mean, this is something that I think would be important for town meeting to see, too, to get it out into the start getting it out into the open even more so later on as we're looking to make um recommendations or changes at town meeting. You know, when Dan has

stand in front of town meeting and and explain the recommendations that we're making, we're not making them in a vacuum. you know, these these two pages they've already seen something.

We'll be, you know, supportive of any changes that we're going to to recommend.

So, you know, so maybe we can do that in June or October depending on when it gets its final approval, right? I will I will find that information out.

The public will recognize that the board is not doing this in a vacuum. We're not doing it on a whim or, you know, we're we're doing it in support of what the data already supports.

Yes.

And this will also go back to um assuming just these minor changes from our standpoint. This will also go to um all the stakeholders that took place that took part in the um in the meetings to develop this plan as well.

All right, we're comfortable at this point with the fact that we've covered the housing production plan to date.

Yes.

If so, if so, once again, as we await town council, we can move on to agenda item number five, our ongoing discussion regarding Dartmouth future zoning.

I have a question though. Do we need to vote on this, Dan? Do we need a vote on this production plan tonight?

Um, I mean, if the board wants to to take a vote to to continue the discussion till the next meeting, I don't see any issue in doing that.

But do we need we need to take a vote on this to approve it so it goes to to the board of selectmen?

Right. We're going to give a recommendation for approval so can go to that. So, we can either just table it till the next meeting or if the board feels um a little better about making it official and just continuing the discussion till the next meeting.

I'll leave that up to your discretion.

Well, they're going to come back with some changes, aren't they?

That's the hope. Yeah.

So, I think that we need to continue it till the next meeting. That's my opinion.

Yeah, I agree. I agree with Margaret.

I'm on board with that as well. We we all know the pressurees on and at that meeting we're going to make a decision if we're going to push it forward or not but expecting changes and voting on it tonight just doesn't seems silly.

Okay, sounds good.

All right. So, do we need a motion to continue it then or just the fact that we all agree that we're going to table this to the uh April 6th meeting?

Um it's not a public hearing. It's not anything we're going to issue. So, okay, great.

It's it's whatever you feel comfortable.

We can just table it to the next meeting.

Sure. So, uh, yeah, unanimously we have decided to table the housing production plan, um, decision until the April 6th meeting where we hope to hear from you regarding some of the items addressed.

Yep.

Moving on, agenda item number five is an ongoing discussion regarding Dartmouth future zoning. To be transparent, I was not present at the last meeting. Um, and I've actually missed two meetings in recent history, so I'm not sure where you as a board left off regarding future zoning.

Dan, do you have any comments as to perhaps the last discussions? Were we at the overlay level?

The one the one thing I will add that was put in the packet is the final um regulations have been issued by the state regarding the 40y regulations.

that was one of the um potential items for discussion in regards to potential um future zoning. Um so I included in that.

I don't know if the if any of the board members had any comment on based on what they what they read through those regulations. Um a couple a couple things I noted from our discussions that I can just call out. Um the the starter homes have certain size restrictions. We talked about what those will be. So those are all listed in there. Um number of homes that have to have certain bedrooms. That's all been

listed. Um one item that came up as a possible option um in the income restricted units. Um we talked about if there could be like kind of like a tradeoff, you know, pay for you know something else that might not be in here. Um it's specifically laid out in these regulations that starter home zoning may not provide for payments in lie of incomerestricted units. So the incomerestricted units

would have to be um part of whatever development that we had. Um it kind of talks about site plan review. So if we came up for regulations to allow for flexibility and creativity. Um, so they're kind of looking at it to, you know, have a be able to have some flexibility in how we would design these projects. They do have provisions for mixeduse development projects in there. So that's something we talked

about. So um, we can see how that goes. As of today, I don't it is my understanding that no towns have adopted a 40 wide district.

Obviously, they just came out last Friday. um a week from f last Friday, but in the packing on Friday. Um so we don't really have much to go from from an actual in somebody's zoning regulations. Um so we're kind of just going by what the regulations are right now. Um hey Dan.

Yep. If I could interrupt just I have a question on a related issue that you just kind of touched on a little bit. Um, you know, we we came up with our own ADU bylaw.

Yeah.

Uh, then the state followed up with their own version of of the bylaw. So, for the towns like Dartmouth that were a little bit ahead of the wrinkle and and uh uh came up with their own, you know, there were some inconsistencies between the state and and the town bylaw. Yep.

Um and I remember that there was some discussion about well you know whi which which uh version of of the uh the the differences was going to prevail. Uh has there been any final discussion or decision on hey 900 ft versus a,000 feet or or any difference because you know I mean 100 feet could be a a difference any any Yep. So, um through you, Mr.

Chairman, any um anything that we had in our bylaw that's more restrictive than the state, we can't enforce. Um cannot enforce. Correct. Um things that are more generous like the thousand square feet as long as it's more than half of um sorry, less than half of what the the size of the building is. So, size of the existing dwelling is only 1,800 square feet. they'd still be limited to the 900. If they were over

2,000 square ft, they could do up to the thousand that's in our regulations. Um there's still court cases going on on a few of these things, which is um I've stayed in contact with town council on this, you know, to see when we want to look into removing some of the things from from the bylaw to get it into compliance with the attorney general's comments. Um, so we're still kind of on

hold on that, seeing how how certain things play out and there's still like any other new regulations, people are finding things that don't quite mesh. So those those court cases are ongoing. So we don't want to rush too too quickly into revising that bylaw and have to make a third change. So as it is right now, it's working for the people that are applying for for the ADUs. um the

zoning enforcement officer and like I said anything that's that's more stringent than our regs he has to go by the state guidelines but he can't allow up to the thousand square ft for the houses 2,000 square feet and above.

So, I'm I'm taking a look in the past and and using that as a platform to to look into the future of of these zoning uh changes that we contemplate uh and continue to compl uh contemplate. And I I I give us, you know, a lot of praise for for being proactive and ahead of the state uh state momentum for for some of these changes. Uh but I'm just uh we we we should understand what ramifications

might be to be to to of being ahead of the state uh the state mandates that might come down.

Correct. And one thing I mentioned to a few of the board members that have come in, I also um so last Friday or the Friday before I watched a um a hearing in front of the state house. If you have any of the board members have time and want to look into it, um the proposed house bill number 5000, um they're proposing to basically get rid of home rule and say any lot that's existing or proposed

5,000 square ft with 50 ft of frontage has to be given a building permit if there's town water and town sewer.

That to me seems pretty extreme. I'm hoping we don't get to that point, but that's obviously something we need to keep an eye on because that'll drastically impact even the need to come up with these other forms of Yeah.

of housing. So, um try to keep an eye on as much as I can um for what's coming down. But yeah, you're 100% correct.

These 40 wide, they are official. They are on the books. Um, so we do have that as a reference point if that ends up being one of the options we want to go by.

Um, that that new housing bill has been talked about in in I think both the Globe and the uh Harold um maybe maybe even Tim Dunn talked about it because it's really rather extreme very extreme. Thank I think.

Yeah. Yeah, I guess maybe, and this is just my opinion off the cuff, I guess they don't like towns anymore. They want every town to be a big city. And that's what to me it feels like they want to do because Well, that that was one of the thing in discussions, the towns they were referencing where lots where, you know, the max minimum lot size was 15,000 square feet. So there's a big difference

between going from 15,000 to smaller lots and going from 80,000.

I in our benefit, most of the 80,000 square foot lots in town don't have town water and sewer. There are a couple areas where that would impact. Um but most of it wouldn't be eligible for that because there's not town water and town sewer. Um uh just on a note, Mr.

Chairman, I did notice that attorney Cruz has joined the meeting. Great.

So, if you wanna make the switch, let's um let's pivot here. First of all, um good evening, Brian. Thank you for joining us.

At this point in time, we'd like to introduce and thank Town Council Brian Cruz for joining us specific to administrative item number two, the appointment regarding potential changes for article 24.

Brian, fair to give you the floor at this point.

Uh, sure. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair. Um, so, uh, this came up, uh, through Dan.

The general idea being is there was a there was a lot that was, um, considered in need of revision for the site plan, revisions of the bylaw. Um, out of the discussions I had with them, what really came up was that ultimately the board look seems to be looking for more flexibility um uh to be able to uh look at things on uh uh siteby-sight basis and be able to

be a little more flexible in how uh standards get applied. And so what's being done here is um removing a lot of the standards from the bylaw itself um and instead granting the board the ability to create uh standards by regulation.

Um this has uh two consequences. One of which is if you feel that a standard doesn't work anymore or needs to be tweaked, it's much simpler for you guys to go and uh revise your regulations than it is to update the zoning bylaw.

So that's one. And then secondly, you can't u grant waiverss to the zoning bylaw. That's a variance. Plan board doesn't have that authority. But you can create through your own regulations the ability to uh wave uh in any given instance the standards within your regulations because they're your regulations. So um similar to how you would do site uh subdivision uh uh approvals waiverss are requested. You

could grant them if you thought it made sense to with conditions. You could do that under site plan review as well because they're your own design standards that you created through regulation. Uh so those would be the two uh benefits that would come out of this change. Um there's some other technical things that have been revised but that that more came from Dan and Ross uh on the on the technical end from a legal

structural perspective. That's that's really the big change that would be taking place is is how the actual design features themselves are created um and amended from time to time. Um, so, um, I'm happy to talk about that in more detail if you'd like, but that that's really a it in a nutshell in terms of, um, how this would be changed. And obviously, um, I also, uh, we updated the regulations as well, uh, to see what

they would look like. Obviously, you wouldn't pass those until and unless town meeting approved the bylaw change.

Um, and then the AG did as well.

Thank you, Brian.

Can you folks hear me? Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I'm sorry about that. I'm just having a little bit of an issue. Sorry. At this point in time, uh, do any of us have any questions for Brian as it relates to the changes?

Just to clarify, Brian, for the public, we're making it clear that the board with these changes would be able to make changes without going to town meeting in an effort to better improve our process and opportunity to be more flexible in the future. Correct.

With respect to certain things around design standards, you would not be able to change setbacks.

Understood.

Requirements dimen dimensional things would be staying in the bylaw.

architectural features, parking plan design, that type of thing is would get pulled out and would be within the scope of you guys deciding through your regulatory process. Um, so so the the the the guts of zoning aren't getting changed, but it's the more aesthetic features. Um, rather than you guys having to try to figure out how to one size fit all the aesthetics into the bylaw and then finding out that, oh no,

doesn't work. We need to go back to town meeting again. It's an attempt to make that process easier for you guys to um update the aesthetic aspects of site plan um on a more uh continuing basis.

Sure. The reason I asked the question that way I want to make it very very clear to the public that we are not making an effort to act as the ZBA andor have such controls that this this has nothing to do specific to what attorney Cruz said the dimensional requirements of zoning. Um, so thank you for that clarification Brian.

That should be anybody from the board.

It should be that should be made abundantly clear on any document of what the reason is for the change. Leave no ambiguity.

No. And I I like explain that the planning board if we find out we we can change this without going to town town meeting. And Brian, what do we do? just go have a regular meeting if we you would have a public hearing a public hearing. It would be an update to regulations. You'd have a a published hearing, you know, the public the public can comment um and then you'd proceed accordingly just like the board of

health does its regulations or Hong Kong does its regulations. Um so for example um you could not alter the the the parking space numerical requirements but you could decide you know we want to change the size of them the orientation of them um you know that type of thing.

How far close they are from a building or a roadway those little design elements would be within your per regatorily. Um, but you would not change, for example, if a particular use says you need one parking space per 300 square feet of four area.

That is what it is. That's in the bylaw.

That's not changing.

All right. Thank you, Brian.

M. Mr. Chairman, if I could through you, please.

Just just a just a couple quick examples. Um, so in the bylaw, there would still be the special uh permit requirement for parking reduction. Um, so that would still be something that would need a special permit that would stay in the bylaw. Another example, um, as Attorney Cruz mentioned with setbacks, that's something that they've we've had applicants that have gone to ZBA requesting, you know, sideyard,

front yard relief from parking. That would still be a requirement that they'd have to go to ZBA. So things like that wouldn't be um something that the board would be able to wave. It would have to be a a variance request through the ZBA.

Um, you're you're really talking about design standards for parking, landscaping drainage lighting that type of thing.

Um, Terry Cruz, I just had one question that came up. Um, sure.

In in the sections for applicability, um, for the non-residential uses in a residential district. Um, it had in there the caveat including exempt uses defined under MGL chapter 48 section 3.

Yeah, that was a question that came up actually recently. Um if that why the why this isn't exempt where other parts of the zoning bylaw they bylaws they can get exemptions from. Um specifically this was for um um a a educational use and they were wondering why they had to come to site plan for parking facilities. So the only thing that 4DA section 3 and particular the do amendment provisions of that section

exempt particular uses from is any use restriction.

That's it.

Dimensional requirements um any underlying um design requirements in that district they still have to go through those aquafer district something like that.

Yeah. If now that on a fringe case that they could demonstrate that there is what is essentially on the surface a dimensional requirement that's really been put in to essentially prevent them. But as a general matter of course they don't get to exempt themselves from the general standards of the district or or in this case the general standards for site plan review in general for non-residential uses.

they just get to say, well, we know that you don't allow, you know, x use in this district, but we get to go there anyway.

That's their only exemption.

So, it is appropriate to keep that terminology.

Absolutely. Like there there's you can absolutely require them to go through site plan review. Um, where it gets a little sticky and maybe that there's some confusion is some towns because site plan review is not a statutory thing. It's a creation of case law in towns. So when this was first evolving decades ago, some towns had site plan review incorporated into their special permit process. And so there's a line of

case law about special permit site plan review versus as of right site plan review. So if you had only special permit site plan review, that would be a problem for the do uses. But since our site plan review is as of right, it's not an issue.

Okay. Excellent. Thank you very much for that clarification. And the only other note that that we had remaining um through our back and forth um was the question on the parking levels for considered stories um in regards to parking facilities. Um it's it seems to be from my opinion just to remove that section, but I just wanted you to um your opinion on on that.

I want to go back to comment. Um, it's um, so yeah, I I I was looking for my comment. I found it. Um, so whether you have this or not, that's a policy consideration. I just don't think it makes sense to put it in here because it has implications for other parts of the bylaw. Um, so um, if it's something that you want to think about as a requirement, that's fine. But it should be

incorporating the zoning by in a way that doesn't contradict provisions from other district uh bylaw provisions. Um I think my example was yeah in the in um bliss corner you know um the setback requirements actually modified based upon the number of stories. So that could have impact there. Um, so I would just I what I say is I would if this is something you're thinking about, I would think about it

separately from revisions to site plan review.

Okay, that's all.

And um my last comment um was just in procedurally how we go about if getting the regulations on the books. So if assuming we get the town meeting in June that gets approved, would we then hold a a public hearing directly after that to go through these regulations?

So you could if you wanted to. Um just I would just make clear if and when you do so that any vote approving the regs is contingent upon the AG still signing off on the bylaw revision. If you don't want to wait for the AG, you're in a little bit of a weird situation because technically the approval of the bylaw by the AG would retroactively make it effective to town meeting date, but you're obviously

not going to be operating under this after town meeting till you make sure the AG signed off on it. So, um, for all practical purposes, you're not going to be utilizing the regulations until we get confirmation from the attorney general's office that, uh, there's no issues with the warrant article. Um, so if you want to go ahead with the approval process for the regs in the interim um you could,

the only thing that's kind of interesting is at that point, is it clear that you have the authority to approve them? I mean, retroactively you would, you may want to just hold off until you get the attorney general's approval. While what I could say is you could have meetings discussing the regs to get them in a final format that you're happy with and then once the AG approval comes through

for the bylaw change then hold your public hearing for the final public comment portion of that with a final document that is pretty much ready to go from your perspective and then you can get that on the books pretty quickly. Um but I would not my my concern is just the bylaw gets into effect and then we don't have the ability to enforce the regulations.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, so, um, one thing you could do, we could add in a provision into the warrant article itself that says um that the until such time as I I have to think about it could be in the war article itself or it could be in the in the in the bylaw revision, but something the effect of until such time as the planning board approves its first iteration of regulations under the new

authority under the bylaw that the prior standards under the previous iteration of the bylaw for design standards will be the default standards and that way there's just continuity um and even though they're not in the bylaw anymore um in detail it's referencing the earlier version of the bylaw saying those standards are the standards until such time as as the board promulgates their own specific

standards. Um, and that's probably what I would say is the easiest course of action on that. Um, and I I want to think about whether it makes sense to actually have that as a provision in the revised bylaw itself or whether it should just be a wording in the war article.

Okay. Um, and just and just for the sake of the board, just as a reminder, we are having our public hearing on this article 24 um bylaw change next at our next meeting on April 6th. that has been advertised and ready to go for next the next meeting.

Okay, thank you Dan. Thank you.

Thanks, Dan. Thanks, Brian. Any further statements on behalf of the board or questions?

I I'd like to add I just I caught the tail end of your conversation about the new potential uh 5,000 foot legislation and that's uh the best I can say is and I've told this to Dan as well is at this point it's very hard for me to recommend anything related to long-term planning because every six months to a year the legislature is just throwing something new out um or the voters are or it's just It's

I understand if you are frustrated because I I I I actually it's unclear to me how you can plan out zoning or development of the town under more than a six-month to a 12-month cycle at this point because you just know what's going to happen coming out of Pico. So that's tough. Um it's very especially when it's this extreme.

Yeah.

So, um, we'll see what happens.

Unfortunately, cities probably have the ability to understand what their average revenue is per square acre and and clearly the average revenue per square acre in a town in any town is not going to perform accordingly because it's a density issue. So, it's an unfair argument, I think, from the state to look at city jurisdictions and impose them or apply them perhaps conceptually to towns. Fortunately for us, I think

there are very few postage stamp lots left that would take advantage of this.

Correct.

Well, it's not just existing. They can propose under the current iteration of this of this bill.

Yeah. I mean, they could they could find it viable that they could take a lot with a house on it, knock it down, and they have four lots, right? They could create, right?

That's as long as long as there's municipal sewer and water available, right? That's that's the one caveat that is could be helpful to us.

I just think what's tough. Yeah.

I I I just think it you you you can't on an issue like this, you just you can't legislate the whole state and and each town with its own own specific changes, its own specific uh history that makes it what it is. You you can't legislate uh just across the the whole state and and impose rules like this. This is what they did with the MBTA communities.

Yes, they did.

Y I I know. But I I'm I'm It's not a good direction. I mean, it's it it's not I I object I I object to it.

Well, and just procedurally as well, leaving aside the politics. um the they're not really understanding how municipal governance works in towns with town meetings and like it's just it's not a schedule where you can just react quickly, right? Um it just isn't it's not a city council like it takes a year or more of planning to get things ready to go and for a town meeting and then who knows

what happens at town meeting and it's just it it doesn't move quickly and the legislature just seems to be frustrated that things don't move quickly and so they're just it's just a constant iteration of oh what about this what about this what about this um so you know we're getting more and more of the state level regulation of zone zoning where you're actually getting regs out of the state that

override the local zoning. Um, you guys didn't have to deal with MBT immunities, but ADU stuff is still, you know, impacting us. So, my my guess is we get more and more of that where suddenly you're getting a state level regulatory scheme that overrides the local zoning to some degree. Um, and we'll just have to re, you know, deal with it the best we can.

But Brian, that that is the plan and it's really frightening because uh you know um our towns are very important to the state of Massachusetts. They really are.

Yeah. I mean it's a lot of agriculture, a lot of different things that you can't get in a city.

Yeah. I I I understand the frustration and um out of professional obligation I refrain from giving any opinion as to pros and cons. Um but I will say it complicates things on the legal end dramatically and it makes your guys's job very right complicated.

Um and that's that's unfortunate that you you were in a constant reacting phase. I mean we we spent two years updating the ADU bylaw only to find out four months later that it was meaningless. Um, so that's that's kind of just where we're at now with how things are are coming down on the housing end.

Ryan, in the high likelihood that somebody tomorrow morning is going to call one of us and ask iately about this 5,000 foot thing, they're going to call it thing. Where is this bill at this point in time in process so that we the board members can respond accordingly.

Yeah. So it's actually it's a it's a it's a it's a voter referendum that is what's currently happening is the legislature is seeing whether or not it what the latest my understanding is there's I mean there's two referendum there's one to make this really small lot obligation statewide and then there separately the rent control provision that would and it seems like the way the legislature is

saying to these two groups cuz they're basically at loggerheads you it they literally like one is going to over like you can't do both of those in a way that actually works. So the legislature seems to be telling the two groups, could you come up with something that is a compromise that we can just pass as a bill? Um so the answer is you guys can't do anything about it right now. Um and

it's not even clear the legisle is going to do anything about it. They may just toss their hands of it and see what happens at the next election. Um, so you know, we'll see. It's it's it's it's one of the things that happens when you have a voter petition, uh, is that the language doesn't get crafted necessarily in a nuanced way and and it's it is what it is. So, um,

if someone calls you I rate, they have a right to vote at it. If it's vote on it, if it's on the ballot in in the poll, that's Yes, they can tell.

You you you call this a a referendum.

It's a non-binding referendum.

No. No.

No. It would change state law, right?

It is. So, it is a binding referendum.

Yeah.

Yeah. It's just the it Yeah. It's it's being done by voter initiative as opposed to through the legisl legisle is holding hearing on it because they're trying to figure out some if there's some way that they can do something that and again this is my best understanding do something that would be enough for the proponents.

So they drop the stition off the ballot without um but but doing enough that they do that while also um the legislature being able to tweak it in ways that don't cause such problems to municipalities. Um but unless it gets tossed by the courts because of some technical procedural reason, it's going to be on the ballot if they don't volunteer to withdraw it. Um, so it's interesting that the legislature has

been holding hearings on this, but it's not actually it was not initiated by the legislature. Um, and I think Dan mentioned it's it's pretty funny because the the the state's push was all 40 Y and then this came out and that was brought up at the meeting that the 40 Y reg just went into effect as a as a potential solution to some of these concerns.

So who who are the proponents?

Yeah, but They have an acronym. I'd have to go back and see what now you're getting into the details that I just it's not I don't want to speak to something that I I I there's no way I could give you that level of granularity. Um but I it has been in uh the globe recently a bunch of stuff about it. Um MMA was just up on hill talking about it. Um so it's

Yeah, I'm sure you're going to see a lot more in the papers.

Oh, you are.

It seems so counterintuitive that zoning and topics such as this one are so fluid in such a short amount of time.

Counterintuitive to the boards and and the efforts that are made to create policies, maintain standards, and employ them and approve them and and produce permits that are going to fulfill those obligations. And then you make all this effort and you're back to the like the ADU was a great example. So many of us talk to so many people about that ADU bylaw and next thing you know we're talking about the states.

And while we have you, Brian, I I I'm I'm befuddled a little bit and probably just showing my my uh ignorance on the the procedures here. How is it that a a a a referendum can be proposed and in a in a binding manner? Uh yeah. So it's a it's a yeah I I believe it's a provision under the state constitution. Um and they got enough signatures and it got signed off

on by the attorney general's office is my understanding and then it it forces its way onto the ballot.

Wow. Okay. It's we I think it's interesting. I think we have I think there's a there's a lot of these on potentially on this year's ballot. Um it historically has not been used that often. And this year there's going to potentially be a lot of them. And that that's kind of the big news actually more than any individual topic is the fact that there are so many of them at

once. Um I mean this is how this is how marijuana was legalized in the state.

Yes.

It didn't it didn't start in the legislature. It started through this process.

Okay, thanks for your uh your input. Really appreciate it, Brian.

Yeah, no problem.

Anybody else? Any fur? Oh, sorry, Margaret. Go ahead.

No, just thank you, Brian, because this is good and you your explanations are always really easy to understand.

So, um thank you. I appreciate it.

Well, it's the truth. Thank you on my behalf as well. Brian, I thank you for your time, your explanation, and all that you do for the town without I appreciate you guys also waiting on me to get here. So, thank you. I know like uh he might have been sitting around waiting for me, but I I appreciate you guys. Um I uh we're the planning board. Do you really think we had anywhere to go?

I was I was getting back from ice skating practice.

Oh, I remember those days.

Ah, I love You're You're not assuming that I Wait, you're you're just assuming I wasn't the one that was ice skating.

Like, you could have been my ice skating class.

If that's the case, Kevin and I can show you how to skate.

There you go.

Thank you so much, Brian.

All right. Thank you, guys.

Good night.

Have a great night.

Have a good night.

You, too. Bye.

Well, now that Brian's gone, I'm pretty sure all of our heart rates are up about 30 points based on that.

It's disappointing. That is frightening.

I think I gave you I think that gave you a good gauge on why I kind of hold off on certain things when we talk about things to give a little pause on some of these items of discussion.

Listen, if the um if the state if the voters approved an audit and that hasn't happened, maybe there's hope for other No, that's a big different thing. It's a different thing.

It's a different thing.

The thing I get fear from is that they passed the MBTA. they pass the ADU.

That's that's what brings me fear on this subject.

The rent control.

Do you honest do you honestly think Do you honestly think that the people in towns like Dartmouth would vote for 5,000 square feet?

Of course not.

But it's not.

It's not going to be up to us. The whole state, right? There are more towns than cities.

I would hope you know what what the the thing that's fearful to me is it would come down to marketing just like we were talking about marketing the housing production plan.

Which of the two groups for and against has more money to promote it more effectively as a solution or or uh to to put it down? Um uh and it who does a better job at marketing?

Well, it's it's headlines like you said.

marketing. It's headlines. It's showing the 25 to 35 year old crowd is leaving the state in high volumes. And how do we solve that problem? And some of the other provisions that came forward, why aren't they showing the results? And that was one of the arguments. The only way we can get these places affordable for that missing middle is it's a it's a land equation. There's only so much land. Well, how do we make land

affordable?

change the density. That's that was one of the big arguments.

But but you have to see too that um Route 128 corridor in the big the bigger cities in this town uh and in this state uh they're going to vote for that.

People are going to vote because of because of the housing crunches in some of these areas. And like I had mentioned right before Attorney Cruz came on, we're talking about drastic differences between 80,000, even 40,000. These towns what they're talking about zoning is 15,000, 10,000 12,000.

It's not as dramatic to a lot of these voting communities.

I think any community that doesn't have the majority interest as it relates to the word preservation of such preservation, they're they're gonna They're going to vote this in. I mean, the reason we're so adverse to it is because we understand the nature of our town that needs to be preserved. We understand parts of our town carry more commercial burden than others, but we we maintain a good position, I think, as a

board and as a town understanding the nature of each of those parts of town.

Take away the act to preserve, maybe take away the disparity between the volume and the commercial sector versus the residential and the rolling green pastures. making this decision, it'll be a lot easier.

And I'm afraid there's a lot of people that will vote that way. So, to to Kevin's point, I don't think it's a slam dunk. No.

Oh, it is.

It's a It's a numbers game.

Well, it's something I'll definitely be keeping an eye on and um I will any information that comes across my desk, I will definitely be informing the board.

I send you a lot of stuff when I see it, Dan.

Yeah. you know because uh and the the rent the rent is is rental units are another problem that big rent control is a very big problem. Okay, that's a very large problem because we don't have a lot of multifamilies, but that is a problem concerning um landlords because if they can't raise the rent, if you sell, let's just it's I think it's four four family, isn't it, Dan?

The rent control will be for above four families, I believe. So, but we also have just in our neighboring city, New Bedford, the regulations that they're that they're putting on the books about having higher densities on properties they've changed.

So, you know, parking's drastically reduced and they're allowing um higher densities on on on lots, small lots.

I just think it's problematic because uh you know don't want to change things too fast. You've got to kind of ease into changes. You can't change it like they're talking about because you don't once you change it, you can't change it back. You're stuck once you start subdividing these lots.

And that that was one thing that was the one thing that was concerning um in the discussion was like, well, year one didn't pan out the way we wanted to.

Okay, it was year one, right?

You can't we don't you don't need to change directions completely after year one when we had high interest rates and other things going on as well.

Sure. I I think uh no pun intended, evolution takes time.

When towns evolve over time, it's a very natural phenomenon and it's more easily accepted by all parties, the young, the old, and the middle. when you just make a blanket statement and create a title wave of some sort, it's very disruptive and not easily acceptable by many and it forever changes the landscape. So, we clearly would be a town that such bill would be extremely adverse to. At the

same time, probably good segue to make this statement. I really want people in town to recognize the difference between what boards do, including our board, and property owners rights. It's important to know what the zoning bylaws offer to one to do or not do to their property and recognize the fact that some of these boards have no control over the outcome of what happens on a particular parcel of land, i.e. do

not build or build or develop or don't develop. So, um I just that was a good opportunity to make that clear one more time.

Anything else on this subject at this point in time?

If not, we um number six regarding minutes. Dan, correct me if I'm wrong.

You made it clear that the minutes are not ready.

They are not. I I had this this on my agenda um just for for the benefit of the rest of the board. We put we get our agenda set up on Wednesday. I left this on there with the hopes that we would have them before the meeting. We did not. That's why it's still on the meeting, but this will just be an item that'll be pushed on to the next meeting.

Right. So, we'll table the minutes for the March 9th meeting to the April 6th meeting. Number seven, correspondence, City of New Bedford. Dan, um, just typical notifications that we receive. So, I would just recommend that um, let's just acknowledge and file.

So moved.

Second.

Motion made by Lori, seconded by Helio Rosa to acknowledge and file correspondence. Lori Miller.

Yes. Haley Rosa, yes.

Margaret, yes.

Kevin Estes, yes.

Nick Cyclopus, yes. Brings us to number eight. New business, old business, new business, incoming CBA application, legal ads. Dan, you want to run with that?

Um, no new applications there. There were um three decisions that were in the packet. Um I don't know if any of the board members have any specific questions on them. one um zav 2513 that was actually withdrawn by the applicant that was we had talked about it at a meeting I don't know how far back it had been continued a few times this was for a use change on um the old

city view where the ice cream um shack was for those that are familiar with the area um but the applicant decided to withdraw that the other two weren't um really under the concerns of the planning board one one was approved for a um for a pool house and the other one was set back relief for a for a house addition.

That was it for decisions.

Excuse me.

That property have a pool.

They're proposing a pool. So, this is for plumbing. Anything that has plumbing in a accessory building has to get a special permit from the ZBA.

They keep they they have certain conditions they put on it, you know, to make sure it doesn't half the joke.

Oh, sorry.

Sorry. We'll slow down.

We had the ADU, you know, right? That's a really they could just go the ADU route and then they wouldn't have to do this. But this is specifically, you know, that's the way they went their permitting route. So, yeah, that's crazy.

any subcommittee reports?

Uh yes. Um the last meeting of the community preservation we approved to take to town meeting uh warrant recommendations. I can tell you um basically what they were. I won't go into the amounts or anything. Uh DCTV, they needed renovations.

Deval Field, which is a property off of uh Hosnik Road, Crapo Field Lighting Rehabilitation. They want to uh they needed some funds to make the fields for baseball a little brighter and a little uh no shadows. for the kids. Um, and the Dakmouth Cultural Center needed uh they needed uh funding to complete the work that they're doing there. And uh the Dartmouth uh farmland agricultural

commission has uh requested some money to start looking at purchasing farms again for the town. And um all those were approved and they will all be at town meeting.

Very nice. Thank you, Margaret.

You're welcome.

Anyone else?

Uh I have Serpent meeting on Wednesday, so I might have something to uh to talk about that. Um it it's it's not really a a board under the the the planning board purview, but if if you're okay with this, uh Mr.

Chairman, uh I'm the chairman of the broadband commission. Uh and is it okay if I just give a a quick little bit of news on that?

Please do. Please do. Um we have a a fiber provider uh that is not Verizon that has taken permits out uh or it's my understanding that they've taken permits out and the uh the company is called Ripple Fiber and uh they they are planning on uh uh laying fiber to the town. So, it would be very similar to Verizon FiOS uh and uh it'll uh uh hopefully be a a very strong alternative to uh the the

areas that are really don't have any other options besides uh the coaxial cable that's presently being offered.

Well, that's good news.

Thank you so much, Kevin.

Have you uh through through you, Mr.

Chairman. Kevin, have you seen um like a map of the area that they're starting with yet? Has that been I I have a tenative map? I mean, it's it's uh I I am very hesitant to share it until I meet with them on the 26th.

Okay.

Uh and ask them for their permission before I I share it in a broad spectrum.

No pun intended.

I see what you did. That was not I see what you did there, Kevin. I I really was not.

You're full of him today, Kevin. You're full of I like it.

Oh my god.

Thank you.

Nice. Thank you very much.

Uh Dan, do you want to talk about the master plan though?

Um nothing really with the master plan.

we kind of been talking about obviously site plan review that's going to you know go into in to um the commercial side of things obviously the housing stuff that's going to impact from that standpoint um one thing just for a planners report I had sent an email out to the board um for um a little quick seminar on the new um energy um sitting regulations that came out um one thing that was advised that we're

going to be looking towards maybe as soon as even for fall town meeting. Um a regulations in regards to at a minimum battery energy storage systems. That's a big up andcoming thing right now. Um I'm going to be meeting um with a few different departments tomorrow and the fire chiefs to start the discussion on that. Um so as we progress on that a little bit that's something we might be looking for as a

playing department to um revise similar to um like the solar system the solar um bylaw.

So you're talking about where we can situate these things. um probably at a minimum to start. Um you know, if we're going to restrict those to not allowing residential districts, um they're associated a lot of times with with the with the bigger solar arrays.

Um so that's a big concern um for fire suppression, which is why I'm meeting with the fire chiefs on it. Um, so just just basically kind of starting the discussion on that and seeing what we we want to do because I think there there are some coming in now that aren't specifically assoc associated with that through like the you know the ever sources of the world to have um those bad battery energy storage systems. So

um we're going to have to take a look at into some of those regulations. Right now there's talk we're talking about legal cases um whether or not they fit into the do amendment that we just talked about with in regards to some exempt juices. So there's some question on that of whether they can just be by right. Um but we can look into districts where we'd allow it at a minimum like I

said. So, it's just something we're just getting started on, but um just want to keep the board appraised of what we're looking at in regards to that.

Dan, I I I am hearing more and more people that have a solar net metering agreement with Eversource uh and solar panels uh in a residential application and contemplating uh ditching the uh um the the net metering agreement uh in favor of uh of bringing a battery inside the house.

Yeah, I don't think it would be stuff for that. These are like big big heavy duty battery systems. Um Yeah, I know. Like it seems like that seems to be the way they're going for credits now. You're not getting the you know, you're not getting the credits for the solar panels, you're getting the credits for the batteries now. I know that's something um that they're looking at, which I can I can see the validity

of that, right? You're paying for the solar and then what do you do with it?

At least you can have some backup battery. You know, you have a blizzard like we had a little while back and if that gives you a little extra time to to power your house if the power's out for a day or two. Um, but yeah, I don't think this is for the for for bigger capacity questions, at least what we're talking about through those those regulations through the U DOER.

Got it. Thank you.

Any department updates, Dan?

Nope, that's it.

All right.

All right. From my perspective, I want to apologize for not being present last week. I appreciate Kevin Mel.

Sorry, Mr. Chairman. One thing, one thing I did want to we talked about briefly and I just wanted to make sure we don't forget. We do have that uh public hearing set up for um our next meeting. Um I know one of the board members isn't available that day. So, I just want, you know, we talked about I just want to bring up um, you know, if if you hopefully the rest of the board

members could be there to let us know because it is a public hearing. Um, and if you are unable to attend, if you wanted to write a letter, email, um, voicing your support, voicing your opinion, that could be read in at the meeting. Um, that would be appreciated, too. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you so much. Uh just uh premature roll call vote, but as expected for next uh for the April 6th

meeting. Lori, do you expect to be there?

Yes. Yes.

Margaret, you expect to be there?

Yes, I do.

Kevin, yes.

Great. And Helio, perhaps we can proceed with something in writing supporting your position and we'll read it in being that public hear. Yeah.

Perfect. Great.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Uh keep it short from my perspective. I know April 6th is our last meeting before the election in town. Then we'll have our first meeting after the elections. I think it's important that perhaps we start thinking about election of officers and what the following year looks like. And more importantly, um, we're obviously here because we all contribute during the

elections and we vote and so on. And there are some contested races. And I think it's very important that we work appropriately for whoever we think our candidate is and why we're in support of that candidate and work hard throughout the town to get that candidate the appropriate support he or she deserves.

Um, with that said, I don't have anything more. Um number nine is the magic motion. If anybody wants to share anything at this point in time, fine.

Otherwise, we can look to adjurnn.

Motion to adjurnn.

Second.

Motion made by Margaret, seconded by Kevin Estes to adjourn the meeting of March 23rd, 2026.

Margaret, yes.

Kevin Estes, yes.

Lorie Miller, yes.

Helio Rosa, yes. Nick Psychopatis. Yes, thank you to all of you. Great meeting. We will not go to bed thinking about 5,000 square feet. We'll give this some time and we'll discuss it in the future.

And we have a myar and the shity ready ready to be signed when um when everybody can come in and sign those.

Excellent. Thank you all.

Thank you. Good night.

Good night. Good night.