Planning Board Meeting - May 11, 2026

Good evening everybody. It is May 11, 2026. 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. Please know that these meetings are being recorded.

At this time, I'd like to take a roll call vote. Lori Miller here. Kevin Estes here.

Margaret Sweet here.

Billy Rosa here.

Nick Cyclopedis here. Good evening everyone. We'll need a motion to open the public hearing.

So moved.

Second.

Motion made by Helio Peel Rosa, seconded by Kevin Estes to open the public hearing. Hill Rosa, yes.

Kevin Estes, yes.

Lori Miller, yes.

Margaret, yes. Nick Cyclopedis. Yes. Brings us to application for planning board special permit 813 State Road which was requested to be continued.

Dan, give me just a second if you don't mind or chime in.

Sure. No, I can I can read the letter.

I'm sorry if I missed it. Did you just did you mention that the the meeting is being recorded?

I did.

Okay, awesome. Sorry. I said it quickly. I'm sorry. I know.

No, no problem. I just wanted to make sure for for the record. Um, we did receive a letter dated May 6th um, addressed to to us and to chairman Psychopatis. We respectfully request a continuance from our scheduled meeting with the planning board on May 11th, 2026 to the meeting on June 1st, 2026.

And this was signed uh, for Zenith Consultant Engineers, Jamie Bisson, PE manager, senior engineer. Quick update, they are contracted now with Stantech as our consultant engineer for the sewer.

So hopefully we'll get some answers in a relatively soon time frame. Um so at this time I would recommend a motion to continue to the June 1st meeting at 700 p.m. and to return to our regular meeting.

Moved.

Second.

Who was the second?

Lori.

Lori.

Motion. Motion made by Kevin Estes, seconded by Lori Miller to continue the application for planning board special permit 813 State Road to the June 1st meeting as requested. Kevin Estes, yes.

Lori Miller, yes.

Margaret, yes.

Y Rosa, yes.

Nick Psychopatis, yes.

At this point in time, we'll need a motion to leave the public hearing and return to the schedule planning board meeting of May 11th.

Moved.

Second.

Motion made by Kevin Estes, seconded by Hu Rosa to close the public hearing and return to the scheduled May 11th Dartmouth Planning Board meeting. Brings us to administrative item number one.

You want to take a vote on that first?

Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry.

Kevin Estes, yes.

Rosa, yes.

Lori Miller, yes.

Lori Miller, yes.

Baruite, yes.

Psychopatis, yes.

Brings us to administrative item number one, town meeting planning board warrant article. Dan, do you want to summarize where we're at with that? Do you How do you want to handle that?

Um, yeah. just a just a brief summary.

Um so this um I had sent out to the board um some information on a um new bill that is being proposed by the governor. Um in that bill there are sections for site plan review to be codified into chapter 48 of Mass General Law. A lot of the items in that bill are very similar to what we have were proposing, but there are some differences. Um, which would make a fundamental change to how we were

looking at these bylaw amendments. Um, I spoke with, um, town council attorney Bryant Cruz about this. Um, and I think we're in agreement at this time. It would probably be in the best interest um, to postpone having this at the Springtown meeting. and um take a have it take a look at um what's going to go through. They're hoping based on all the information I have that this will be

voted in this session of Congress which would go until the end of July. Um I also invited attorney Cruz to the meeting tonight. Um so he I believe he is here.

I am.

Yep. Um so he can answer any any um legal questions for this if the board has any.

Thank you. Thank you, Dan.

And sorry, I just Oh, I didn't see Brian. I do know. Thank you, Dan. And thank you, Brian, for joining us. And welcome, Brian. Do you want to provide uh perhaps a summary of your perspective?

Certainly. Um, so this is uh I believe it's called the uh Mass Winds Act. It was um filed by the governor on April 16th uh which was I believe just just after you guys held the public hearing um or maybe just before. Um in any event um it would codify site plan review for the first time statutoily as Dan mentioned.

Um the the couple things to note are one, it would uh require any um design standards to be in the bylaw.

So our plan to convert a bunch of those under the current bylender regulations would no longer be a possibility under this new statuto requirement. Um it would also eliminate uh any ability to have architectural requirements.

um which is not particularly a big deal uh from your perspective since currently uh you have suggestions under the bylaw rather than requirements. Um but be aware of that as well. Um, most significantly, honestly, I think is the fact that, um, uh, it would create sort of the equivalent of what you guys do with subdivision definitive plan approvals, which is that it would specifically

codify in statute the ability of the planning board to issue waiverss for uh, design standards under site plan review.

So rather than having to get a variance or any of that, um it it would be uh more along the lines of how you greet uh and treat uh waiver requests under the subdivision control law for definitive plans. Um so that actually would in a large way address some of the concern that was the impetus for these borations we were doing which was that you guys uh couldn't uh address unique circumstances

in a way that you wanted to under the bylaw um in terms of design standards and you wanted more flexibility through the regulatory process because you could wave your regs. Well, the legislature is potentially going to give you the ability to grant waiverss under the bylaw design standards for site plan review now anyway, which may completely obiate a lot of the reason for the proposed major revisions that we were

having. Um, so given all that, um, rather than have a redux of what happened with our ADU bylaw revisions, uh, where 6 months later we found out the legislature decided to, um, completely, um, throw a wrench in what we had done. Um, there's no pressing urgency to do these revisions. Um, this was something we thought was a good idea, but we're not under some obligation to get it done now. And um at

the very least in the fall we'll know whether or not this is something that's going to get uh completed by the legislature. So um you know there and there would be no more work to do. If if nothing happens to the legislature, we can just rehold the public hearing in the fall for this and uh and you can proceed accordingly if you want to.

Unfortunately Dan and I looked into it and I think like was it Dan by about um a week or so missing the deadline in terms of time frame so you don't have to hold another public hearing. We'll have to start that process again.

Um, but like I said, it's all drafted and nothing nothing stops you from just sitting on it and waiting until the fall. You just have to let the select board know that you want to pull it from the warrant because it's your article.

Um, so it's not like uh it has to go on unless you want to go on. You're the sponsor.

Brian, thank you so much.

Can I ask a question?

Please, Lori, go ahead. Brian, um I've and I I talked to Dan about this. I've been through this I can't tell you how many times where legislation is going to be passed. It's going to be passed. It's going to be passed and it's never passed. What do you feel the chances are of this getting passed?

So, I I guess I would say two things to that. One is that this is part of the general push we've seen in the last few years to um uh uh create more and more um legislative routes to enable faster housing development.

So um I I treat this more seriously than um sort of similar situations in the past.

This is more along the lines of MBTA communities and then the ADU bylaw uh revisions by statute. Um it's it's it we're going to see more and more of this legislation coming down the pipeline in terms of trying to uh fasttrack how development occurs. So I I know in the past things have sat in committee forever or died and they could propose the next session and then they die. I I

think we're in a different paradigm in the last three or four years. Um so that's one. Two, um you're you're looking at just post postponing till the fall because you'll know the answer to this over the summer.

It's it's not like you're going to sit on forever. Um, and um, it's often pretty typical that you guys do uh, uh, zoning articles in the fall anyway. Um, so it wouldn't be abnormal.

It's already all done. You're not going to be um, the way I would say is if if that legislation passes, you're going to want to start from square one in terms of potential revisions. So, um, and you have to do that no matter what. This is why I say you whether you pass the whether you propose this as town meeting or not this spring and whether or not town meeting proposes it or or approves

it this spring. If this legislation passes, you are going to have to revise bylaw again no matter what. So your only question is are you doing that once or twice? Uh because it's going to impose new requirements and and and um processes that we don't currently have in our bylaw. So, everyone, if this passes, everyone's going to be looking at their site review bylaws moving forward. Um, so you're going to have to

do it at least once this legislation passes. If it doesn't, you already have the one you've already done lined up, you can go. I'm not telling you can't move forward this spring. That's ultimately your call. Um, but if you do and this legislation passes, you are coming back to the drawing board again and coming back more profoundly than if you just waited. So that I think that's the biggest takeaway is the revisions

you would have to do if this legislation passes are greater if town meeting passes this warrant article now than if you wait.

Okay.

Mr. Chair, can I ask a question?

I think you I am I am sorry I was trying to speak and realize that it was muted. Um please go ahead and I want to share something.

Yep.

Okay. Oh go ahead. No, I was just going to share the fact that if if we go down this road that's being advised, we the next step here tonight would be uh a motion to withdraw what the planning board is sponsoring as it relates to the proposed article 24 changes along with a request of the select board to remove the article, specifically article 24 amendments from the warrant. And this is

a rather time-sensitive decision on our part as they're at the hall now. Um that that's what would have to follow if we agreed on that. But please go ahead, Kevin.

Uh well, do you want to take a vote on it right now then?

No, not not yet. I want you to share, you know, share your thoughts and so on and we we can Okay, Brian. Um, it it sounded to me like if if the more of of the items under site plan review moved to 41A as you described, we it sounded to me like we would have less of an opportunity to uh to to make uh changes or special permits.

So if if this legislation gets codified, what will happen is um these standards for site plan review, those all the design standards will have to be in the bylaw. And if you want them changed or tweaked, you'll have to go back to town meeting, but you will also be given the authority on a case-by case basis to grant waiverss from them if they don't make sense for the particular project. So there's a you're getting

you're losing something and you're gaining something. Um, okay.

But it's a completely new way of looking at it that is distinct from both the current bylaw as well as what you guys have proposed in this warrant article.

Um, it's it's just a it's a complete overhaul of how site plan review would work. And it puts it in some ways more akin to subdivision review. Um, not entirely because you're not proposing through regulations the standards. Uh but the proc once the standards are set by the bylaw, the process for it sort of is more analogous now to uh a subdivision review of a definitive plan.

Um, so, um, regardless of whether or not you pass any, uh, you you propose anything this spring and how many passes it, um, if you look at the current bylaw or if you look at what you proposed, neither of them are completely in alignment with what this legislative overhaul of 4DA would require of us. Um, so that that's that's the ultimate reason why I think I'm I'm recommending and Dan was recommending a a waiting uh

period just because it would so fundamentally change how site plan review has been operating. Um, it would no longer be a case law derived and local bylaw derived process. It would be an official codified statutory process uniform throughout the Commonwealth. Um, which you know there's good things to that, there's bad things depending upon how individual towns have been operating. But it's so fundamentally new

that um I think it makes sense for you to hold off. Uh but that's ultimately not a legal decision. So if you want to roll the dice, you are free to. That's your call. Um I just if that if you do that and we pass it at this Springtown meeting and then the legislature passes this legislation, um we will have to undo a lot of what is revised by this warrant article. So just be aware of

that. Nick, can I ask another question?

Are you finished, Kevin?

Yes, I am.

Please.

Nick, can I ask another question, please?

If this is passed, how soon will it go into effect? Will it go into effect immediately? And you when you say, when you say this, do you mean the legislation or the warrant article?

The legislation.

That would be up to the legislature.

They could say it goes into effect on January 1st. they can say it go to effect immediately. That's entirely the legislature gets to decide that when they pass pass the act.

Okay. So between now and uh between now and their vote on this, we could be working on an article to take to town meeting eventually to codify what they're codifying.

conceivably you rather than you can have the one we've already done, you can keep it like in your pocket if nothing happens with the legislature, right?

And at the same time, you could be thinking about how you'd want to uh craft things assuming the legislation does pass. Um you know, you would if you waited to see what happened legislature, you have a few months to do that anyway. But if you want to get a head start, there's nothing to preclude you from doing so.

Uh that that's up to you.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll I'll comment if I can.

Please proceed.

Just a another perspective as well. Um, two things. If we if we did enact um these changes, um, we could potentially be complicating matters for um, residents or anybody doing business in Dartmouth by having a short window of time where these different regulations, you know, bridge where we are now. and where the state will will codify. I don't know if that's the fairest or in the best interest of Dartmouth to to

have that scenario, this bridge um scenario. The other part too is if we wait um you know when we have to present or when Dan presents to town meeting the presentation itself and the the education component to the town and the presentation component to the town goes down a very different road if it's codified by law versus changes that the board wants to do independently. and that might set um us down a better road

or a different road for sure. Um but we certainly have more standing when the state requires us to do certain things than if we don't and I based on that I would recommend us pulling the article.

Thank you, Helio.

Hey, you're back. Yeah. Don't don't don't ask me how. I I don't have an answer. Anyone else regarding article 24?

If not, we need to make the decision. And again the if we want to propose the motion to withdraw it would be the withdraw the planning board sponsorship of article 24 as well as request to the select board to remove article 24 from the amendment 24 amendments from the warrant I too I haven't chimed in I I too am sorry I'll just share this really quick my position on this is by all means uh

to follow Brian's guidance and recognize that in my opinion we're not doing ourselves or the town a favor by pushing this through when we understand more than likely to a reasonable degree of what is coming only to create greater obstacles for us or case load or workload um in the future because of a decision we make tonight for example to not pull it. So, I'm in support of of backing off, asking that

the warrant be pulled and waiting for the state to make a decision.

Same.

Unless anybody else has a different opinion, perhaps somebody could make a motion.

Again, it's going to be motion made by Lori Miller.

I'll second that. Second motion made by Lori Miller, seconded by Helio Rosa to withdraw the sp the sponsorship by the planning board of the proposed article 24 changes and request to the select board that they remove article 24 amendments from the warrant. Lori Miller, uh, yes.

Rosa, yes.

Kevin Estes, yes.

Margaret, yes.

Nick Cyclopedus, yes. Brian, thank you for your time uh and your work. Thank you.

Yep. Again, sorry guys, I've I think I mentioned this before, but the likelihood that you will continue to be dealing with new proposals out of the state house with respect to local zoning, it's just something you're going to like it's it's going to be a struggle. You're going to be working on something for two years and then find out, you know, that it it's been overridden by something new coming out

of the state house. Um, so just don't I I wanna just don't feel like, oh man, we messed up. No, no, this is just this is probably going to keep happening. And you know, the town meeting process for uh zoning reform is going to end up getting outpaced by the speed at which the state house wants to see things getting done. I think that's just practically what you're going to have to be dealing with. Um so

um you know, just be prepared for that, unfortunately.

Much appreciated, Brian. All right, have a good night, guys.

Thank you, Brian.

Thank you.

Before we move forward, DCTV, can I ask you a question?

Yes.

I'm aware that my camera is now functioning. However, I do not see myself present on the at the strip across the top with all the participants. Any suggestions? Um, if you change your view to gallery view, um, in the upper right.

Done.

Do you see yourself there?

I do not.

We can see you.

Okay.

We can see you, Nick.

As long as that's fine.

We can see you. You've never looked better.

If I may, Nick, also in that menu, there's a drop down. You'll also see show self view.

You may have that deselected in that same.

Thank you so much. I got it.

Awesome.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Absolutely.

Brings us to administrative item number two.

Mr. Chair, Mr. Chairman, one one quick thing and we can table this till after um you you get to number two, but as part of number one um was the handout we were going to do for town meeting the planning board update.

Sorry about that.

Like I said, we can we can table that section till after number two, but I just want make sure we don't um just skip over that portion of we we can stay on schedule. That's fine.

Let's let's go ahead and discuss that.

Um, so this we we we spoke on this at the last meeting. Um, I I had requested if the board wanted any other items added to the planning board update 2026.

This was a document I was going to give to the town clerk to include in the packet to be given to all town meeting members. Um, I did not receive any additional comments. Um, there was a couple little minor revisions that we added from comments from the last meeting. So, if the board is okay with it as um it is included in your packet, um I can get that to the town clerk

tomorrow. If there's any discussion on any of the items, um we can talk about it now.

Nick, I have a question.

Please proceed.

And Dan, I forgot to ask you about this.

Under number four, where we updated our um procedures, we held a public hearing on that. Should we put underneath that we you know holding a public hearing such and such a date?

I don't believe we held a public hearing for rules and regs.

I don't believe so.

You sure?

I thought we did.

I'm not 100% sure, but I don't believe we did.

Okay.

Does any other board members remember having a public hearing on that? I I I feel like I feel like I actually asked a question. Anybody from the public? Yeah, I feel like she might be correct vaguely.

I don't usually for rules and regulations. It's not a public hearing.

Yeah, we don't have to. For rules and regula, we don't have to. It's might I don't believe we have to.

We just approve them and have a meeting and and vote on it. Okay. I don't know why I'm getting it confused with something else then.

We had a public hearing for the article 24 amendment changes.

Right.

Yeah, that's right. That's right. Sorry, Mr. Chair. Does um item number one apply anymore?

No.

Well, we're still working on it. So, we we are working. It said has been working on the following to amend article 24.

So we are working on it. It's it's it's going to be in my opinion a lot of the things that are in the bill are items that we we talked about as advantageous to include in in any kind of changes. So obviously it's up to to the board, but it's definitely something we've been I mean we've been working on this since at least last August. So regardless, we're not saying that we that that we got

article 24 amendments to pass town meeting, but we are working on it. So it's up to the board, but it's definitely been a big component of what we've been doing for the last year.

I I I won't I won't disagree with that, Dan. Um, you know, maybe if it said amended instead of amend, it would have been better. Yeah, I I'll I'll retract my my statement.

in one form or another. I I I I do think it's important that certain residents contributing members on certain levels are made aware or apprised of what we have done or have made a concerted effort on regardless of the outcome. Um so does anybody feel differently?

Mr. Chair, if I could just add one thing please. If we do go to a different version um of the bylaw amendments, we have a draft that's very similar to what this will look like if it goes the other direction. So um it's it it won't be like starting from square one. We have a pretty good draft of the bylaw um that we had before we looked into taking the regulations out

that incorporate a lot of the changes that are in um this Mass Winds Act. um staff and other departments had seen this kind of coming down the path a little bit. So, we had done a lot of research into the bills that were in front of the house and incorporated a few of the items that are ultimately in this mass winds act. So, um I feel like we're on a good path either either

direction it goes after the summit.

Great. Greatly appreciated.

Anyone else regarding handout and summary?

If not, are we uh basically suggestion should suggesting that we use the summary uh as proposed?

I'm good with that.

I think it's a good one. Uh it's a nice job Dan.

Okay, great. Nobody feels differently and uh you know, we're in support of the summary at this point. Dan will proceed accordingly.

Dan, you good with that item?

Yes, I am. Thank you.

No worries. Thank you.

Number two, election of board of officers and other appointments.

This is a meeting where the new year has begun following the election that occurred a few weeks ago. We're all present. Tonight's the night where perhaps we expressed interest in what we would or would not like to do in the upcoming year in terms of roles and responsibilities, chair, vice chair, clerk, followed by other appointments.

Do you want to put this do you want to put this off and do the site plan review number three because I think there are people here for it.

If that's the case, absolutely.

Yeah, absolutely.

I'm fine. And I see them now. Uh, as as members of the board, are you okay with continuing the number four and I'm sorry, number three and then coming back to the election of officers?

Yep. Yep.

Margaret.

Yes.

Yo, you okay with that?

Yes.

Good deal. All right. Uh, number three is site plan review. We will return to number two. Site plan review for 411 Fonts Corner Road Assessor's Map 63, lot 12. I'll let Dan, if he's okay with it, bring us up to speed.

here. Uh, Mr. Chairman, this is an application for site plan review. Uh, it's at 411 Fonts Corner Road, also known as MAP 63, Law 12. This was filed via the portal under application PSPR 26-1.

This proposal is for a 5,355 ft building. Um, the proposed use is a gas station with convenience store and a and a food service all on the same building footprint. Um, this is brought forward by Raymond Young from South Coast Development. This, as you remember, had come before us for a different project. Currently, it was an existing vacant car dealership. This law is currently located partially in the

office industrial zoning district and partially in the limited industrial district. The work itself will take place in the portion of the lot that is zoned for the um office industrials district. It is also located in the marijuana establishment overlay district and the fonts corner overlay district.

This project received a use variance from the Dartmouth Board of Appeals under application ZAV2-11.

Um a little background on this. They um submitted plans um probably about a month ago. Um staff did an initial review. Um supplied comments back to the applicant and their engineer. Um they submitted plans back to us. We had a few minor comments um that were relayed back to the engineer on May 5th. Um we hadn't received comments back from them yet for that, but there's only a handful of

comments. Um I think it's appropriate for them to come before the board and present their project. Um and then we can address any concerns the board has along with um the additional comments that staff had were the comments staff had were minor in nature. All that I thought could easily be addressed. So I'll let them speak on that. Um they are also um under review from the DPW for some outstanding items. I know the

applicants engineer is working with them. Um the few comments on the portal um via other departments in town are included in the packet um under your under your report for this project. Um one thing I do want to point out to the applicant and their engineer um for conservation. I know they've recently filed a notice of intent. I spoke with um the agent for the conservation commission. They just wanted me to point

out to them that they will need updated plans for the storm water review. The plans that were submitted are not the same ones that are currently before the board. Um I'm assuming after this meeting they will be um close at least to submitting revisions based on comments tonight and those additional comments. So um I will let them speak on that. Um, and at this time I think it would be appropriate to let the

applicant and his representatives give their presentation for this report.

Dan, thank you very much. Um, I just responded to the DCTV chat to allow screen share.

As far as proposals are concern, sorry, I was just confirming. Is that Philip, Raymond's, and Mickey? All three that are in attendance, please do so. Yeah.

Hello. This is uh Ray Young, South Coast Development. Uh I'm the applicant and uh I believe Phil Henry was uh there's a chat was he allowed in to this meeting.

I'm here. Thank you.

Good evening, gentlemen.

Good evening.

Ray, would you like to start or do you want me to would you like me to give a brief overview?

Uh, I like your overview better than mine.

Okay. Um, good evening everyone. My name is Phil Henry with Civil Design Group.

We're the civil engineers on this project. Um, Dan gave a a very comprehensive overview of of the plan.

So, so rather than um re repeat what he says, what what I would like to do, chair, Mr. chairman is uh to share my screen and I'll show the site plan and then I could sort of walk you through the site plan and then we can just get right into some questions if you'd like and I could I could provide some color and feedback as we go.

That would be great. We would appreciate that.

Yep. I'm just trying to be efficient with everybody's time.

Um okay, so what I'm showing here is the is the site plan. Um, and if there's any other sheets that you'd like to to look at, um, I'm I'm happy to to do that.

Just just to orientate everyone. Um, um, North is is is face up. Can everybody see the plan?

Yes. Yes.

Okay.

North is up on the page. Uh, where my mouse is, Bon's Corner Road is on is on the left going up and down on the page.

Um and and the site uh those of you that are are familiar with the site, there's an existing single family home and a detached garage on the property that would pro most likely be around where where my mouse is here and then the garage is located here. There's also a cell tower um uh in the in the back as well. Um this is a very large site. It's a very long and skinny site. So the

viewport that you're seeing right now is just the viewport of a few hundred feet off of the roadway and and what you're looking at here is a proposed um automotive service station, a gas station with a proposed convenience store and and drive-thru. So just in no particular order, working from left to right, we have two full access curb cuts off of the roadway here. you you could enter uh via via

this curb cut or or this curb cut.

You'll then be met with some internal driveways. Uh some accessory parking here. There's a driveway here. What you're looking at here is the maybe I could uh start drawing. This is the the the the um the fuel stations. There's there's eight uh we call them in a double dive uh configuration. It's two rows of four. So, there's 16 available fueling positions. Uh, this this gray hatch area is is the 5300 square foot

convenience store and and the the the drive-thru window is located as such. So, if you wanted to get into the drive-thru, you could you could enter here or enter here and then you would go around the drive-thru and then and then exit. this um we worked pretty closely with with uh Dan and and Ross and they were very helpful in guiding us in in what a the board likes to see in conforming with site plan

rules and regulations. Um as Dan had indicated uh they had issued some some minor revisions or minor comments. Uh Dan, I think Rey uploaded those plans today and and this plan we we think reflects uh what what's the latest round of comments, although I you know, you can be the judge of that. Um but those were some minor minor items such as um adding crosswalks I believe um and some some additional striping and

then also adding uh some information about the about the the order board and and and and the speaker and some um parking space requirements. So So we updated all that on the plan. Um in total we have 38 parking spaces. Like I said, there's accessories par spaces here, spaces here, spaces here, and then employee spaces in the back. Um, we have a um a a drive around or I'll call it like

an escape lane of the drive-thru. So, the so folks that want to circulate around the building or get out of the drive-thru are are not dependent on the on the car in front of them. They can pull out and then drive around. Uh and that's also consistent with, you know, fire apparatus standards. There's um dumpster here. Um all in all, we're proposing um 34 trees and over 200 shrubs and ground cover. Um you know,

despite it being a fairly narrow site, uh it was it is a fairly deep site, which allowed us to provide a what we would consider a very good layout uh for for this type of use. Uh we're also adding pedestrian access off the roadway as well. Um so with that being said, that's the that's the 10,000 foot view, but I'm happy to answer any specifics.

Um as as Dan did mention though, we are working with through some comments uh with DPW and we we think we're there with from a planning perspective. Uh but we are happy to field any questions u and answer any questions that that the board may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Phillip. If you don't mind, I'd like to ask a quick question regarding the proposed use of the convenience store slash restaurant. Will there be any dining in?

I don't believe so.

It would be more of a coffee shop situation that would be inside the uh the four walls of the convenience store.

Less less likely to have tables and chairs. Most likely. Yeah, correct.

Yeah. Thank you.

Anyone else?

I have a question, Mr. Chair.

Please.

Um, the 38 spaces that you have for parking, uh, is that driven, uh, more by bylaw or or is that what, uh, what you guys have chosen to, uh, to support your your business?

Yeah, that's a good question. Um, the the short answer is um the the the planning the the bylaw as we see it combined with some input from from from Dan uh about making sure there's enough employee spaces. This plan was requires 34 parking spaces of which we're proposing 38. So, so we're pretty close to what the requirement is. Um, so I guess that that's our that's our answer.

We have a we have a surplus of four parking spaces.

But let let's say if the if the the requirement bylaw requirement uh indicated that there's 20 spaces needed, would you choose less?

Um or or or or did you go to 38 because that's that's what your you met by your measurements that's what your business needs. Yeah, I think I think based on um client feedback and and and industry metric standards, we we typically see anywhere between 30 to 35 spaces or 30 to 40 spaces for for a site of this size in terms of the size of the restaurant uh the restaurant the the convenience

store and the number of fuel dispensers.

Got it. Thank you. I would like to add that um we have developed a similar style uh you know gas station convenience store and we've met the requirements for parking spaces and we've gone in after to add parking spaces just for convenience. So that number is you know Phil was speaking of for the parking spaces that really works for our model. So, we would have done it either way. But the other thing I think

that um Phil didn't mention is I think uh Ross was saying we could uh take advantage of uh claiming the parking at the islands at the at the pumps, but I don't think we even included that. So, technically, and Phil can correct me if I'm wrong, I technically would probably be more parking spaces if we included those. So, let me know if I'm on the right track there, Phil.

Yeah, you're correct. Yeah, we didn't include spaces at the pumps. It's sort of customary to to not do that unless unless the bylaw in local municipalities are are very extensive or or or or restrictive, which is which is not the case here. We we think this is a a very adequate parking requirement.

Okay. I was just curious uh and and obviously if if you felt like you were being pushed by by law to provide more spaces were we're very interested in reducing imperous surface and would work with you if possible.

Okay, Mr. Can I follow up? Oh, sorry. Go ahead. you I I wanted to just take um advantage of what Kevin is um commenting on and I would challenge the applicant to take a deeper dive on what the actual number of spaces they require to run their business. Um using our bylaws and how they're set up, whether it's the parking underneath the canopies as as a requirement, we need to make sure that

we provide the minimum number of parking spaces. I also want to challenge and be careful that we don't provide too many parking spaces because that's adding imperous surface. It just gets hotter in there with with the additional paving.

Um there are similar businesses scattered throughout Dartmouth. Um I think we all know um which ones they are. Um, I venture that there's not 30 plus parking spaces in similar type of businesses and I frequent them enough to know that very rarely are all of them taken up. So, um, I just want to throw that out there. I we need to provide the minimum, but I challenge to figure out what that

minimum number is so that we're not um overpaving the site.

And then a couple of other questions if I can. Um on your on your site plan sheet three and your landscaping plan one. I'm trying to marry the information that's on both of those. So uh uh great use of trees along the property lines um against the abuing properties. Um I love that that that design. I did see on the grading plan um or at least on plan three, you've designated a lot of that

space as your snow dumping space or your snow storage space, which is which is great to see, but your grading um seems to your grading plan, which I think is sheet number four, um has the site drop off considerably towards the abuing properties, and I'm curious what the snow loading in the winter would potentially do to run off on onto those properties. So that's question number one. And then question number two,

really minor one. Um on the north on the north side of the spaces along the building, you have you have a hatched area which is a crosswalk that goes um facing northerly.

you have a tree there that so if you're walking along the walkway in front of the building you kind of have to do an S turn or a zigzag to get to that crosswalk and right beside it is a tree and I just want to caution about you know over time the route structures because you know accessible path getting to the common path of travel or a public easement public way towards sponsor road

are we with with the the way that that is designed are we w risking the rooting of those trees potentially disrupting that pathway to to the crosshatch. Yeah, that tree right there.

Right here.

Yeah. Just the way that that zigzags and you know, you're going across the um the um the driveway, the aisle to get to the other side to get to the opposite sidewalk. Keep um sc cursor north. So, you're crossing Yeah. So, you're talking like this this way.

Yeah. So that tree right there, you see how you're going to make that if if that's supposed to be an accessible path, you know, are we going to be uprooting that um sidewalk over time just because of the way it's designed?

Again, minor thing, just something to to consider.

And then but bigger thing is is you know that snow dumping ground. Are we are we introd on both the north side and the south side? Are we introducing any unwanted um nuisance to the abutters?

Okay. Um yeah, we this tree can be uh reviewed. I could ask the landscape architect if if this particular tree has what I'll call aggressive roots. Uh and if so, we can we can reroute it or I mean relocate it. Um if not, you know, we can we can have an we can have an answer on that. Um, with regards to the snow storage here, um, let me go to the site plan here. Um, you

are correct. You you you do note that that that the sites raised up a little bit. Uh, and that's for storm water purposes. Um what what we planned to do or what our what we were mindful of was particularly on the south side here is is create a shelf I'll call it like a plat a graded plateau such that when snow is stored it's not snowed it's not stored on

on on the slope itself. Um, also we we think that um there's ample room to to put snow, particularly along the back here, which will obviously stay on our property. And then on the north side here, there's actually run on. So there's there's going to be a swell along this property line here. So there so the the abuing property, if I recall correctly, is at the same elevation or even higher than us. So

that's not a concern at least on on on our standpoint, but we were mindful on the south side to create sort of a level area off pavement. I will give you a peak behind the curtain. Um we are extending this wall um uh uh easterly a little bit um because the DPW does not want us to significantly change the grades over the over the existing sewer easement which runs along the southerntherly property here.

So, we are going to be reintroducing a wall. We actually had it removed it and are reintroducing it. So, they'll So, long story short, there'll be uh like a flat area of like 15 to 20 feet right off of where that snow is going to be stored, which will give it time to settle and and not not be intrusive onto the abuing property.

Yeah, that that makes sense. Um, you know, the flat area where your site is predominantly, you're at either 146 or 147. I it's hard to see the swale on the northerly side, but you know, you're at somewhere between 146 147 along most of that. And you know, the the grading does dip a little bit into that swale, but it's it's impossible for me to know the the extent of that swale. And then

obviously the other side of that shelf that you're referring to, you're going from as much as 146 down to 140 and below by the time you get to the proper line. So, you know, a good a good amount of um of drop off there. The shelf, I think, will help on that. I don't know how you protect anything from going over the shelf so that you're not overburdening the runoff on on the snow

and the and the silt and the debris, but something to consider.

Okay. Yeah, I think I think this actually, you know what? Let me see if it's on Oh, no. It's not on the plan that we submitted today, but that that that wall that I speak of is going to extend along here. So, there's going to be I think I think it's 15 feet here. So any any snow plow or or even a bobcat won't be able to push snow off that off that wall and and that

slope is going to disappear because the wall is going to take up that grade change. So even if snow ends up falling over the wall, this area here that I just circled will be flat. There won't there won't be a slope on that and and the revised grading plan will reflect that.

Great.

Mr. M oop, sorry, Mr. Chairman, if I could just respond real quick to one of those comments.

So, um, in regards to the the tree on that landscape island that that one tree is a requirement as part of the landscape requirements. So, I would recommend um Mr. Henry's request for talking to his landscape architect about seeing what kind of tree. That's why we do the concrete sidewalks instead of the asphalt. Asphalt has a more of a tendency to have R intrusion there. Um but from the board's just kind of FYI,

that's one of the things we are we will are looking at into the bylaw um amendments um to allow if there's conflicts between landscaping and utilities and other things that that's something that the board can have discretion on. So I just wanted to add that little bit for future reference when we further talk about our our bylaw amendments. But as of right now, there is a requirement to have that one tree

in that landscape island.

Thank you.

Thank you, Doug.

Anyone else?

If there are no further questions um from a proposal perspective, Ray, Phillip, anything else you want to add that we haven't asked that you think we should hear about?

I don't think so. I mean the the we are working with um like I said Dan's office and then DPW on answering any technical questions. Um I know this is administrative re review. Um you know we're here to request an approval. Um if the board feels comfortable on that, we would certainly accept that and with the conditions of continue working with staff.

to my board members how you feel about an administrative approval at this point.

Uh how does Dan feel?

Um it it in my opinion I haven't seen the full plan set of these revisions. I think they're minor in nature. I don't think it's anything that's um going to be an ongoing concern. Um DPW I don't have as as good a grasp on what needs to be changed for that. Um, I would like to to see a revised plan set at that point.

I would think we should be close enough at that point if there's just some outstanding DP DPW items for the next meeting that that's something um that could be approved administratively with a condition that outstanding DPW comments to be addressed. But, um, in my opinion, I would I would like to to see the revisions and hopefully we're down to just those DPW. Final couple questions.

Yeah, Mr. Chair, I if I can, I would um I would second Dan. Without the DPW review, I'm less comfortable on the administrative approval today.

Very fair. And I think it's uh we got to exercise some caution too not to set a precedent in an area of gray where maybe it doesn't get applied to somebody else in the future in a similar uh format you know or gray area. So um Philip and Ry um as good and as defined as the plan is are you comfortable with coming before us one more time for the board to see

those revisions and then allow for an administrative effort by then if needed? Um, I think that we can accommodate that very easily because I think we're pretty much well there.

There were I think only four comments on the planning end of it. Uh, we'll just have to work on the DPW items which I know Phil's been working on. So, I think uh we can get most of those resolved. I I think to to credit the fact that you think you're you know that you guys are just about there. I I think um our side is more of a procedural decision. It's not about the plan. I

mean, the plan's well defined, but procedurally, it'd be good to have the next step before us.

Sure.

Understood.

And Mr. Chair, if I have one more comment, please.

Just more more from a a commentary. Um these plans were very well put together.

um you know, from the plans that I've had a an opportunity to review, um you all did a really nice job in providing a comprehensive, um set of documents.

Thank you.

Thanks, Phil.

Thank you both. And um we look forward to seeing you again and seeing this true.

Okay. Thank you.

Excellent. Thank you. Have a good night.

Thanks.

Good night, everyone. Good night.

To be clear, that was administrative item number three, site plan review for 411 Fonts Corner Road. As we mentioned, we are going to go back a step to administrative item number two, election of board of officers and other appointments.

And that brings us to a point where the board traditionally year after year following the election has to make changes and or fulfilled positions for the year ahead. And before we proceed, I just want to say that um I I truly thank you all. It was a pleasure being chair because of a couple of reasons. Two big ones are the fact that it was a learning experience to say the least and collaborating with you all

meant a lot to me for the time that we spent together although it was virtual for the most part. Um I truly want to say thank you. The experience was great to put it mildly. With that said, I'm hoping that we can make the decision to determine who's going to be chair, vice chair, and clerk this year. And like any other board position, I do like the idea of someone other than me being chair and

it being somewhat a revolving position so that everybody gets a chance to fulfill the role. With that said, how are we feeling? Does anybody want to offer what they're willing or not willing to do?

And hopefully we can have some dialogue and get to the point where we start to a point accordingly.

I should share since it's small pause there. It was a short silence that I I do have a complicated 26 27 year ahead of me and I'm I'm hoping I'm I'm hoping to not be chair, vice chair or clerk, but I'm looking forward to hearing what everyone has to say.

Nick, I'll I'll throw um out if If um if the board um is willing to entertain my service, I don't have any objections to holding a vice chair or clerk role for the board.

Um I think the chair role for me at this point um given everything else that I have going on um in my professional and work life balance is probably not in the best interest of the town to um to dedicate the time that's required for it. But in other roles, I can um certainly um throw my hat and offer if it if the board feels it's um in the best interest.

I appreciate you coming forward, Helio.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll uh I'll I'll second the I don't want to repeat this the the same comments, but I think I'm in the same boat as uh Helio and uh I I I would uh entertain taking uh whatever Helio uh uh does not whatever position he does not end up taking if if he ends up taking one of the two.

Much appreciated, Kevin. Thank you, Lori and Margaret.

Or we can backtrack and make a motion.

Margaret is prog Margaret is presently clerk.

Margaret, how do you feel about taking something?

No, I'm not going to take anything. So, I mean, I don't care what you you know what what you people do. It's up to whatever whatever you people want to do is is your is okay. I'm not uh going to ask for anything.

Lori, would you be okay in the chair role?

Yeah, I've been chair in the past. Um, I will take chair, but it will only be for one year. So, whoever is vice chair will have to step up next year, next year.

Or we'll we'll have an open communication about it next year.

Yes.

Yeah chair.

I'd like to I'd like to move to appoint um Laurian Miller as chair.

Second.

Motion made by Hill Rosa, seconded by Kevin Estes to appoint Lori Miller as chair for 2026 2027 planning board.

Killia Rosa.

Yes. Kevin Estes, yes.

Margaret, I'm abstaining from voting.

Nick Cyclopus, yes.

Regarding, clerk, and vice chair, uh, Helio and Kevin, you've you've both made it clear that you're willing to step up. Um, do I do I have do I have the right as current chair to contribute to a motion?

Okay.

Uh, I I don't think you can make a motion.

That's what I'm asking. So, I'm asking if I'm sitting back waiting for you folks to make a motion on a chair, vice chair.

I would I would make a motion and and if he's willing to accept it, I would I would move that uh that to appoint Helio as vice chair. Uh I've been impressed with his uh the depth of his knowledge and attention to detail and I think he would make a very strong backup.

Second motion made by Julio be before we complete that. Are you okay with that?

I'm okay with that.

Okay, Kevin, as long as you're okay with it.

So given the motion, I will assume yes.

Motion made by Kevin Estes and seconded by Lori Miller to appoint Helio Rosa as vice chair for the 2026 2027 plan.

Kevin Estes, yes.

Lori Miller, yes.

Nick Cyclopus, yes.

Which leaves us with clerk.

I'd like to make a motion to appoint Kevin Estes as clerk.

Second. Motion made by Helio Rosa, seconded by Lori Miller to appoint Kevin Estes as clerk for the 2026 2027 Dartmouth Planning Board.

Ilia Rosa, yes.

Lorie Miller, yes.

Nick Cyclopanis, yes.

That brings us to other appointments.

Dan, do you have that list?

Dan, you're muted.

Sorry about that.

That's okay.

Um, would you like me to go through it and I can list who what the different um items are and who is the current representative?

It would be good if you don't mind.

Okay. So, first we have for the SERD commission um we have a need for a member and also for an alternate member.

Currently Kevin Estes is our commission member and Helio Rosa is our alternate member.

I enjoy uh the you know learning most of the time. uh most of the meetings are are are I find interesting.

So I don't mind taking that and continuing it and I wouldn't mind staying as ultimate.

Dan, do these require votes or not?

Um yeah, we they we can vote, but do we want to just vote on the a slate at the end?

Can do that, too. Probably.

Okay, next item.

Next item is a soil conservation board.

That position is currently held by Nicholas Cyclopedus.

I'm embarrassed to tell you that we have not done anything, nor have I participated in anything. I believe it's been quiet, but I'm happy to stay there.

Okay.

Next is the community preservation committee currently held by Margaret Swuite.

Uh it's a very active committee. So uh I've learned a lot. I don't know if anyone else would like to be on that committee. If they are, I will step down.

Margaret, would you be willing to stay on it?

Uh I think I can. I wasn't going to because I'm on another uh board and another uh personal thing, but it's meets at a different time, so I could stay on it. But is there anybody who wants to to to join that?

You learn a lot.

Margaret, when you say active, how active and when do they meet?

Uh second Tuesday, once a month. Second Tuesday.

But it's a very uh you know you know what it does. So it's a very active committee.

If you're willing to stay, I'm happy to have you there. If if if anybody else feels differently, you know, speak up.

Otherwise, you know, appreciate Margaret maintaining that position.

And what's the next item?

So Margaret is staying. Is that the That's what we're staying with.

Yes, I am. Yep.

Okay.

Well, let's back up. It seemed like you were willing to stay unless one of us wanted to grab it.

No, it just it's nice sometimes to move around and learn different things.

And I'll tell you, I uh the agricultural preservation trust that Kevin's on. Have you done anything with that, Kevin?

Zero.

Well, see, that's going to be coming up because of the CPC. What's happened with the CPC? Uh the agricultural preservation trust is going to be active after town meeting, I hope.

Oh, so they're going to fund the council.

Yes. Oh, okay. would like to be on that.

Margaret, did you say it was broken up on my side? Did you say you would like to be on that?

I would like to be on the agricultural preservation trust because uh you know, I'm out in farm country and I I I uh really uh would like to uh perhaps uh help those people a little bit with uh what they're trying to do. Only again because I know through CPC what they are trying to do. They're trying to buy more farms for the for the town of Dha and they are going to get if the town

meeting votes they will get funded.

I uh on on that assumption uh I I will flip-flop with uh Margaret right and and take the CPC.

Great. So Kevin will be community preservation committee and Margaret will be with aggravation agricultural preservation trust.

That brings us to the linking park plan approval authority that is currently held by Margaret.

Um I think she can speak that not much has really happened recently. There is some um whispers that they're trying to do something with that property. So it might be something that might be coming up in the next year.

Um concern.

I'm happy to stay on that because uh you know uh I do know a little bit about it.

Uh and of course I'm sorry to say we have not had one meeting but glad to stay on it.

Thank you Margaret. Lincoln Park Plan approval authority. Margaret Sweet.

The next is the charter review committee that is currently held. We have two representatives Rosa and Kevin Estes.

We didn't review much charter.

You gentlemen willing to stay there?

My my spot there.

Yo yo, you willing to stay on as well?

Yes, no problem.

Dan, what else you have?

I'm sorry. I was just looking to see um Lori, were you were you here when we did these these appointments last year? I just didn't see you on here, so I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything.

No, I was here last year. It was people stayed on the same committees.

Okay. All right. I just want to make sure I'm not missing anything. Thank you. So, for the charter review committee, we're staying status quo.

Helio Rosa and Kevin Estes. Yep.

Okay. Um, Dartmouth Open Space and Recreation Committee, Kevin Estes.

Uh, we we we actually were quite active uh as part of the uh the master plan and developing an open space and wreck plan.

Uh I I don't anticipate a whole lot of changes to that. I don't mind keeping it.

Okay.

the housing production plan committee.

Um that was Helio Rosa. I think that's pretty much um completed. I don't know if there'll be any need for any further meetings in the coming year, but that is currently Helio Rosa.

I don't mind staying on unless Lori wants one.

No, that's all right. I don't think you're going to have any more meetings because they've completed the housing production plan.

I would say that's pretty Good assumption. Um, alternate board member, I know we spoke last meeting um about asking Kevin Melo if he would like to continue in that role. Um, does anybody have any input on that one?

Unless anybody objects, Kevin is confirmed that he will be an alternate.

No objection.

None.

That's good.

And that brings us to the end of the list. So, if somebody would make a motion to um approve all appointees as noted, we can do that.

Hold on just a second. Is waterways no longer on the list?

No, I think that I think we talked last time that that one is has been defunct now.

Okay. So, that is is that common that that comes and goes?

I don't have enough history to be able to tell you that one way or the other. I don't know if that was specifically set up for a specific regulatory reason. I don't know if any other board members can offer any input on that.

Blows my mind as much of a seaside community and active waterfront that we have recreationally that that comes and goes. But isn't the waterways Isn't there a waterways committee that's working on Pontigans and and the redesign of it?

Well, they have they have done that.

They've come before CPC. They've gotten money to do it. So, uh I think maybe that's why. Um is it there's a a meeting that's supposed to be held? I think it's next week.

Yeah, public meeting.

It's a public meeting.

That's that's the waterways committee.

Is that appointed by the selectman?

Yes.

I don't think that's board members, but I could be wrong.

Okay. I just I thought in previous years that we had waterways on our list, but that's fine. If if it's if it's not there, it's not there. If something develops and there's an opportunity, we can handle it.

I can double check and we can we can add that to the list next week, next meeting if they missed something.

Just to make sure there's no confusion there. There is a newly formed committee, the water quality committee.

Uh that's different though.

Yeah, that's different. And I have I'm I am on that committee not representing the planning board just at large.

Do they Kevin? Did they ask for a planning board representative or was it just at large?

I was I was surprised that they did not.

But uh um I'm I'm not sure who who designated uh you know what what boards would be represented on on that.

But uh you can count on me to uh uh to represent us even if uh I'm not completely representing I'm representing our body of knowledge that I pick up.

Appreciate that Kevin.

Anybody else? If not, we can make a motion uh to approve as appointed.

So moved.

Second.

Motion made by Helio Rosa and seconded by Kevin Estes to approve as appointed in regards to the other appointments necessary for the 2026 2027 Dartmouth Planning Board. I Rosa, yes.

Kevin Estes, yes.

Lori Miller, yes.

Margaret, yes.

Nick Cyclopis, yes.

I don't know if you got me. Yes, I got it. Yeah. Does that heal you?

I think we lost him, but I did hear him vote yes. Is everybody else with me?

Yes.

All right, brings us to number four, ongoing discussion. Dartmouth future zoning.

Not sure if we're beginning to repeat ourselves.

Um, I'm I'm here to hear what you members have to say. I feel like we've said a lot about be and the public has become more aware of be and and what it means and perhaps maybe they're learning, how much less control they have over it than if they had met the housing requirements.

We as a board as well as residents are beginning to learn of why aka starter home zoning.

And as far as future zoning, we have spoken quite a bit in different segments about things such as increased density, which is something I was a big proponent of because we have plenty of developed footprints, not pad sites, but footprints already developed whereby additional floors such as above retail in different levels could generate a significant amount of housing units. Quite frankly, in parts of the town where

transportation, health care, employment opportunities, food, etc., the retail, the retail circle that's necessary for such an increase.

I I feel like we're at a little bit of a standstill.

I feel like I'm starting to repeat myself. I know we're waiting on a few things. I know that and we've talked about this and Dan has helped us that the amount of plans that are before the town and approved once they mature, we will meet the needs to be able to defend ourselves against the state and 40b applications or the thought of them, but we're not there today. So, the threat remains.

I'm all ears. I'm not sure which way you guys want to go with this conversation tonight about future zoning. Uh, but I but I will tell you that I hope one day that I'm old enough to see increased density in places where I think it's least impactful to the nature of our town and yet most successful in that it defends against the potential of other 40bs.

I'm all yours.

Uh, if I may, please.

Part of the mass winds program is uh facilitating a conversion from commercial to mixed use uh particularly for underutilized uh commercial parcels.

Um, so I I think that that uh would would would be if assuming that that goes through uh that uh that would that would be a big help. Um you know take a a look at if uh I mean to a greater extent think of uh the mall with the second floor.

Agreed.

And I I'll add to that that Dan and I spoke today. And another another caveat to the Mass Winds proposal is it will take away the existing and I say this with all due respect and caution to our fire department and the services that are needed, but it will take away the current height restriction. I don't know what that means big picture.

But that's a big deal. Um, so there are there there is opportunity in this mass winds proposal that quite frankly will be a way of right according to mass general law.

It may be offensive to those who simply don't want it, but it will be an instrument by which we the board will be relieved of such effort for conversion to happen along the commercial routes and the mixed use potential mixeduse applications whereby that will become a matter of right and then we can start to achieve some of our numbers in places where as I've said before the rolling hillsides, the green pastures,

etc. will be preserved and at the same time our housing stock will increase.

It's it's a it's hard it's hard to communicate with those who only care about not developing, who only care to say do not build, who only care to say no more in Dartmouth.

But those statements have nothing to do with our current needs, our our proposed needs and reality. The reality is we have needs and the reality is the 40B today can come into our town and do exactly what we don't want. So unless we focus on what defends against the 40b and we nurture and we cultivate it and we feed it and it matures until then we have no defense. So I'm struggling but I think there are

times when the state is our enemy. The state might be creating a therapeutic opportunity. not to use a, you know, a clinical phrase, but this might be a therapeutic opportunity for towns like us and municipalities that have housing stock needs.

Dan, was there anything else that stood out that would support our future zoning discussion?

Um, I that's all I saw from from an initial review of it. Obviously, I was more focused on the site plan review. that was more of an immediate concern, but um definitely things that um will impact our our thought processes going forward.

Um as attorney Cruz had mentioned in the previous meeting years before us, unfortunately the goalpost seem to be moving every 6 months with regulations coming from the state level. So, we have to be flexible and come up with like we've talked about, you know, be proactive in what we want to do and then adjust as these new laws, regulations come into effect. So, we will make sure to keep an eye on everything and we'll

keep um trying to move forward with the plans of of the planning board and the town.

Thank you, Dan.

As far as this agenda item for this evening, does anybody else want to contribute?

Otherwise, we will revisit it and in the interim as things develop at as things develop at the state level, you know, I'm sure Dan and Ross will get it before us. If not, we can go to agenda item number 25, which is the discussion of the 2026 2027 priority list.

Anybody want to begin or expand on that?

Can I make a comment, please?

I think the last time we discussed this, we asked the town planner if um he had any thing he wanted to put on the list.

So, I don't mind having strictly the planning board's priority list, but underneath that, maybe we should have um the departments that, you know, the planning department's list because there are a number of things that they can work on while we're also working on something else. Dan, do you remember you gave three items? I forgot what they were.

It was for the battery energy storage system bylaw. Um, which we had our first workshop for that. Um, just real preliminary discussion. We're looking to have another one this summer. Um, that was recommended to planning staff to take a real strong look at that for even to try to get it in for potential fall town meeting bylaw. That's something that's coming up more and more and the

town should be prepared to um have a bylaw on that. Um the other thing staff is working on is a use table. Um there was a use table that was approved a few years back at a town meeting. Um after going through it with um me staff and the um zoning enforcement officer, we found a lot of discrepancies with the bylaw in that use table. So that's something that needs to be updated.

We're in the process of doing that. Um it's pretty substantial in in its depth.

So, we are currently working on that.

And also staff is working on updating the subdivision um regulation updates. A lot of the same issues with the site plan review, filing procedures, making sure we're still in line with other industry standards, regulatory um changes that have been made within town and at a state level. So those are three things that staff is working on currently.

So my recommendation is can we make this the 2025 planning board members slash director's um priority list underneath maybe underneath number six we can put planning staff's recommendations and list the three so that we have them there so that we can check them off as they get done. I mean, that's I don't care how the rest of the board feels, but I think it it we need to have those

on the list so we know where we where we are standing and getting stuff done that the staff needs and sees that we have problems with and needs to be um revised.

Agreed.

I'm good with it as well.

That's fine.

So, staff, uh, Dan, can you revise that list and put the department underneath number six and put where you the three items you just mentioned?

Sure.

Thank you.

I would also recommend Sorry, sorry, Mr.

Chair. I would also recommend I mean of the list that we have here um the architectural guidelines do not seem to I think in my mind rise to the immediate pressing needs of of the town at this point and I would I would strike that I was about to share the sentiment is Dan did you and I discuss that the state may have an impact over the guidelines that we discussed that.

Yes.

So, so although our architectural guidelines are just guidelines based on what's in the new state language, they may not carry any weight. Uh so to Helio's point being that there were only guidelines and now that we're likely to have less of an effect on that subject you're moving it's all fine and good. Uh, from my perspective, the one thing that I did share with Dan, as far as our architectural guidelines

go, our our town has evolved over time in in different ways. In my opinion, when when you look at the commercial sectors again, Route 6 on Scorner Road, Crossroad, before you know it, we'll get to the Reed Road intersection. and there'll be greater developments there on a commercial level.

The there's there's a difference from a 1974 threetore 6,000 square foot glass panel storefront with a flat rubber roof total height 14 ft and obviously that of perhaps the Bed Bath and Beyond Plaza just to be dramatic and so is the signage. But there are towns where, and I'm not sure that Portsouth is a matter of bylaw or or or what, but for instance, in Portsouth, a lot of your

commercial signage is on wooden posts.

It's engraved wood with the same exact color palette, two or three colors. And I've seen that in other towns uh south of here.

We don't come anywhere close to achieving such an organized look at the commercial level. So I say that respectfully not to the town actually. I say it respectfully to proposers that may come before us in the future.

I won't say we I would show a lot of respect to their marketing campaigns and their decor and their nationwide and sometimes global brand but nationwide brand.

I'm all for architectural guidelines coming off this list. And what I'm really saying I'm all for in a particular section sector of town that is predominantly commercial that on those thorough affairs more than roads because of the volume that they see and the commercial traffic they handle that proposers are allowed to maintain their national standards in comparison to we asking for subtle

changes just to prove a point. we will not achieve what some of the other towns have been able to do because they had their foot down from the beginning consistently. So to apply it to a proposer two, three or four in my opinion doesn't hold any water. So I just wanted to share that as my last night as chair regarding architectural guidelines.

Anything else on this list?

So, were you going to take away number four?

Yeah, I think that's fair. I mean, we don't we don't need to make a motion on this. Correct. We're just discussing it.

I just want Yeah. Make sure everyone I was It might be good to to at least get her get a a list that everybody's got their their hands in on and and uh can bless.

I'm not sure it requires a vote, but well or or all in favor all in favor of removing item number four from the planning board priority list known as architectural guidelines. Kevin Estes, yes.

Lori Miller, yes.

Margaret, yes.

Hill Rosa, yes.

Nick Cyclopus, yes.

Done.

Anybody else with any of the other items?

If not, we can move on at this point in time to agenda item number six.

Actually, we cannot. Correct, Dan.

Minutes.

Nope. We can um we haven't been able to get this um voted on for the past few meetings just because we only had three people at that meeting. um Laurian Miller, Margaret Sweet, and Helio Rosa to vote on it. They're all here tonight.

So, if those three are willing to vote on it, we can get this off the list.

I move that we approve the minutes of March 9th, 2026.

Second.

Motion made by Lori Miller, seconded by Margaret to approve the minutes of the March 9th, 2026 meeting. Lori Miller, yes.

Margaret, yes. IA Rosa.

Yes.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Number seven, correspondence. Dan, um, these are standard notifications we get on a week- toeek basis from City of Fall River, City New Bedford, and the town of Westport. So, any barring any comment or discussion, um, I would recommend a vote to acknowledge and file.

I'll, uh, I'll make a motion to acknowledge and file with just one comment. Uh if anybody saw the uh the interesting um event regarding the the deck construction in Westport, um it is a a tricky tale of um sometimes things getting out of hand, but my motion stands.

Second.

Motion made by Helio Rosa, seconded by Lori Miller to acknowledge and file agenda item number seven, correspondence. Helio Rosa.

Yes.

Lorie Miller. Yes.

Margaret Sweet.

Yes.

Kevin Estes.

Yes.

Nick Cyclopus. Yes. Brings us to number eight. For your information, old business, new business. Dan, incoming ZBA application.

Yes. So, we have one ZAV 263. Um, there's a little interest from the planning board's perspective. Um so on the application they're looking to u build a garage that needs relief. Um this garage if you look at the site plans on a on a small triangular lot for the most part map 50 map 49 lot 233.

Um included in your packet there's a plan um for a subdivision of King Meadow Preserve. This was um an OSRD plan. as part of that OSRD. Um, if you look in the notes under number four, the parcel where the proposed garage um, is to be placed, this was parcel A on that subdivision plan, parcel A had a note to intended to be combined with a budding land of Diane St. Pierre. Um, so this

law was supposed to be merged um, with map 49, law 22. Um, so I would like um to make a comment to the zoning board of appeals to reference this plan and make them aware that these that these two lots um should have been combined.

I will take any input from the board in regarding that.

And does does that happen through the ZBA or or would that come back to I think it should I don't know if it'll be if they would make a condition to follow through on that. There is a deed that that lists the lots. It doesn't necessarily say they're combined. It just says that they own parcel one, which is the lot um with a house on it, and lot two, which is parcel A on that

plan that I referenced. um what that does for lock coverage and other things that they need relief from that could have an impact. So I think it's an important for the ZBA to know that that was the intent. Um it's a little weird case. They per the assessor's billing records they have them as combined through our assessors maps. They don't. Um, so I think it's just important for the ZBA to

be aware of that and for the them to represent to the applicant that this was something that that should have been done as part of that plan approval.

Does anybody object?

Not at all. Great work, Dan.

Yeah.

Otherwise, Dan will proceed accordingly.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dan.

Uh appeals decisions.

Nothing new for that subcommittee reports. Does anybody have any reports?

If not, the planners report regarding bees workshop update?

Yeah, I mentioned this briefly. Um had our preliminary workshop meeting. Um he had some feedback. Um, unfortunately, one of the departments we most wanted to hear from the fire department. All three fire chiefs had been out um all night and day due to the fire that was in Westport. The town graciously assisted in that fire. So, um there's still a lot of items to discuss. We're still in the

early stages. We're looking to um have another meeting sometime this summer, uh late June, early July. Um, at that point hopefully we can start getting a draft together and um, we can start the process of looking at what that bylaw would look like.

Excellent. Thank you so much. H brings us to master plan implementation report.

So at the request of the board's last meeting, we had a we had a discussion um about this item. So, um, what Ross did was he took, um, that section of the master plan that kind of gave a outline of all goals and highlighted anywhere planning board was listed as a responsible party. That would give the planning board an idea of what we're looking at. We've been mostly focusing on the land use and housing um sections,

but this gives the board um a chance to see everything that was kind of included there um to hopefully guide um this line item forward as as we go through our meetings for this for this year. So, I don't know if any if people have had a chance to take a look at this yet um to begin trying to form how we want to view this item line item going forward or um

I take any recommendations, any things you would like to see me do going forward and um make the best use of this of this line item.

Much appreciated, D.

anyone?

If not, uh, planning department updates.

So, a couple other items that were discussed at previous meetings. I spoke with Timothy Barber, um, DPW director of about coming in for a discussion on the sewer capacity issues. this will obviously have an impact as we look towards overlays um new regulations all of those important items. He is he is willing to come and speak and speak on behalf of that item. Um so I told him I

would come back to you the board to see when you would prefer to have him come speak and he will work it out into his schedule.

Much appreciated.

As far as um did did we have a sorry for a second I was just my brain was going two ways. U did we propose a date that we wanted some of the builders andor any of those professionals to join us or did we we hadn't that was one of my other items my well I have two Mr. Barber and to the developers. I do have been in touch with with one stakeholder um about some

preliminary plans to come in. Um I spoke with another one just from real preliminary about um coming in and he was willing to as well. Um so with the at the board's recommendation, I can reach out if we do have um a time or a or agenda per se of what you would like to speak on. Will will those will will that be part of a regular scheduled meeting or will that be a special meeting?

I would say it would be part of a regular meeting just as an administrative item as an appointment.

I'm just concerned that if we have two or three stakeholders um categorically their specialties might be slightly different and the conversation might be expanded as such where I just don't know how much if we have them committed what I'm really getting at out of respect for them I don't want to be short on time. Um, is is that a meeting that we want to limit other than, let's say, a special permit or something

pressing? Do we want to limit what's on the agenda? Because we know, let's face it, we have two or three developers here tonight. It's not going to be 15 minutes. It's going to eat up most of the meeting.

Yep.

How do you guys feel about that?

Mr. Chair, I just want just one question. um you know in respect to your leadership but and just as importantly you know what's well this will be happening under Lor's um leadership. Um Lori did is this something that you should mull um over on on how best to proceed and not necessarily have to make a a decision today.

Again, with all due respect, Nick, I personally think and I don't know how Dan feels, but I think it should be a meeting where we have just the developers, just the the the the three hopefully the three of them can all come together on one meeting. I'd rather have them all together and just have that discussion because I mean that discussion could be 15 minutes or it could be two hours. We we just don't

know. I tend to think it's going to be, you know, at least an hour or two hours.

So, I mean, we can approve minutes. We can um do something like that, but I personally would rather have the appointment be just just them. I don't know how the rest of the board feels.

I I'm I'm all for I'm all for that. I don't see how I don't see how a meeting with the individuals that we collectively have in mind when we're talking about housing stock and how to reduce the cost of a one-bedroom and two-bedroom unit and how how the cost is adjusted if it's above an existing structure versus baking breaking ground after you acquire that ground and what it means to us and rent and what it

means to the residents in terms of opportunity. This is going to be a long meeting, a deep dive with them. And it's not only the fact that it's going to be a deep dive on our behalf. It's what some of us for me for sure have expressed to residents is going to happen. So I think by no means should it be complicated by other agenda items. Um even and I I realize this will be under

under your direction.

Even if that meeting is a separately scheduled meeting, so we have three weeks in a row where we have a meeting, the middle one is specific to that, a stakeholders meeting, I'm I'm all for it. But that's one of one of the board members. I'm all for it. I'm here. Um regardless of what we decide, Mr. Chairman, if I could just offer a quick opinion on that.

Sure, please. I I think it might be appropriate and make best use of time if if the board kind of came up with an outline of items for discussion in that what we were looking at ahead of time so we can direct the conversation um a little cleaner. So I think that might be a starting off point would be to create some kind of outline of items for discussion with the with the

potential stakeholders that we bring before us. I I don't disagree at all.

My next question is um do we want to make this an in-house meeting because I'm not well maybe not. I'm not sure where all the stakeholders are going to be. Are they are they coming into Dartmouth? I mean well the one that was absent for the winter down south um you know he's here he's he's here for for the season.

um couple of the other ones for the most part are here regularly.

So it it's I mean at that point we would be sitting uh at town hall with them out of convenience so that they don't have to handle it through Zoom make it more personable.

What What are your thoughts?

I'm all for I'm all for showing up at town hall for that particular meeting. I think there's a lot to be said for shaking hands and sitting next to one another.

Completely agree.

I agree.

Completely agree.

Margaret, are you on board with that?

You're on You're on mute, Margaret.

Sorry. Yes, I am.

So, uh, collectively as a board tonight, we have all voted yes to schedule a meeting in between two of the scheduled planning board routine meetings to welcome and hold a stakeholders meeting as promised to discuss housing needs, current housing stock, and what generating new stock would cost and how to affect those costs ultimately to not control rent but to create housing opportunities that are let's say

socioeconomically consistent with our demographics or median household incomes etc. So I'm all for that. I I think if each of us can put together perhaps what our questions are and Dan, if it's okay with you, we submit those and I'm happy to stop in if necessary and help put together a concise list from those lists that we each provide.

Okay. Um, do you want to look into having that for an item for discussion? I know you said you don't want it to be a too busy meeting. So, for next weekend, we're going to have 411 back. U, we are going to be having a special permit and a site plan review for the potential Audi dealership on Route 6. And we're most likely going to have site plan review for the Big Y um potential grocery

store. So it could be a little a little long for this meeting. Um we can put it as just an item for I can put it in just for an item discussion under an administrative item. We can put it on hold until after town meeting. What what's what's the just my thought if next if we know the next meeting is going to be as busy as it's going to be why don't we put it on

for the following meeting gives us ample time to provide it to the department you and Ross however with no delay as early as this evening or the next meeting at the latest why don't we determine which Monday in between two scheduled meetings is going to be the stakeholders meeting.

What I'm really getting at, ideally for the stakeholders that we're going to reach out to, I think a 4-week notice uh at a minimum would be reasonable. I I don't think we should give them a one or two week notice. We got to propose a date, reach out to them, confirm that they're willing to come, report back to the department that they're confir confirmed, and then schedule it. So

again, I know this will be under Lor's direction, but here we are almost the middle of May. Are we picking the first meeting in July to be or or or the first non-planning board week in July to be the stakeholders meeting?

Truth be told, by July, everybody's in town for the most part.

Well, I think what h I think that um Dan needs to get in touch with the stakeholders and find out number one when one we can coordinate all of them to come together and then I think it should be just them at the meeting. I don't I don't want to have Audi come before us or anyone else because I mean we could spend an hour on Audi or we could spend half an hour and I would

rather personally speak with these gentlemen and women um you know and and get their real good feedback and tell them what we're looking at. And I think that can take a while. I want just just those three stakeholders and I don't care whether it's at a regular meeting or if we have a third meeting that month.

Yeah, I I I I personally uh would be happy to support that it be its own meeting.

So So for the meetings coming up, we have Monday, June 1st, which is also the day before town meeting. Then we have June 22nd, July 13th, and July 27th.

Those are our meeting dates coming up for the next few months.

So just just an idea that that July the July 20th, Monday, July 20th be a soft date that we who are Dan as well as any of us who have the ability to talk to any of these stakeholders casually ask would you be available or or or we pick June.

I I guess what I'm really asking is it would be nice when we talk to these people to have an idea of when we're going to have the meeting sooner rather than later. What did you say the June schedule was there?

Um we have June 1st and then June 22nd.

It could it could even be June 29th if if we want to kind of uh June 29th I will not be in town, but we're not going to do it then.

Um yeah, we can revisit this date perhaps at the next meeting and but but we all know we all know what we're after here and we all I think we all agree at this point the stakeholder meeting will be the only thing on the agenda. It'll be a specific meeting in between our scheduled meetings and then once we get a date or two, we can start talking to these stakeholders about

their availability and that we'd like to have them come before us.

And in the meantime, u we can get our thoughts together on potential talking points items for discussion.

Yeah, I think we should I think we should try in the next two weeks. Um even if we have time to revise it, which we will or amend it, we should all try and propose a put together a list and give it to you and Ross to summarize. U so should should I put on for the next uh meeting agenda a discussion item for stakeholders housing meeting something to that effect?

I think that would be great. At a bare minimum, we can run down the questions or topics or categories just to make sure we have an approach to them.

Okay.

Members, are you okay with that?

Yes.

Yes.

But we just can't pick one date. We're going to also have to try and, you know, pick a date where we can get all of the stakeholders together.

So, it's not us picking a date. It's calling them and saying, "Look, this is what we want to do. These are the dates available. What's good for you? Can we get you all together on the same date?"

I don't disagree. Um I I I don't disagree. I just what I'm really getting at is tomorrow one of us is at a coffee shop in the village and runs into, you know, subject A and casually has a conversation about how things are going in the town. By the way, will you be available late June or early July to participate in the stakehold that that's also I think in the next meeting or so

we have a couple dates. That's fine.

Okay, Dan. And then the other thing I would like to see, I don't know how the other boards, the other members feel about this, is I would like the uh plans at the meeting so that if we're talking about subject A, we can look at the plans and we can see what's existing on the what what they have, how many spaces they have.

Um, can we make sure we can accommodate this? I'd like to see the floor plans.

one of the floor plans. But are we are we talking about specific sites or we're talking in more general terms? I wasn't I wasn't thinking specific sites for some of these people.

Yeah. Good.

I was thinking about general topics.

Yeah. Not not specific sites.

That's where I'm at.

Yes. Same. Um Lauria, are you talking specifically about what we just discussed and what we're going to propose or request?

Well, are we bringing in the stakeholders that are going to be doing this possibly?

So, my thought is we're bringing in we're bringing in stakeholders, which sounds very very specific regarding their investment in a project, but from my perspective, what we're bringing in is an engineer or two, a commercial builder or two, a residential builder or two. And from my this is my perspective.

Um good evening and thank you all for being here. Uh these are some of the challenges we see as as a board and as a town. This is what we've been faced with as a need. This is what we've contended with from mass general law. This is what the residents are not crazy about. And here are some opportunities that we see.

And then we start to from my perspective it would be how would you feel if you knew that you could expand upon again let's just generalize the Route 6 corridor on any existing use that based on Mass General law if it's passed you as a developer will be able to reach out to the property owner and expand above that footprint and create create housing stock and then you know if they like the idea because they see

numbers in And then we kind of go full circle and say, "Well, listen, we understand in Dartmouth on a stick build residential unit, it's about $400 a square foot to build a decent home, not including the land. Now that you're not buying the land and now that it cannot be stick build or maybe metal studs and it doesn't have to be hardwood floors and it can be VCT tile, how can you help us

understand how that cost per square foot can come down and what does that mean to the proposed rental market? So now we start hearing from them because they know cost per door, they know cost per square foot and they know what room they have and where.

They also know when they build at 400 a square foot or another builder in town who builds beautiful homes at 650 a square foot starting. They know who their target who who their targets are, their audience, who their buyers are.

We're here to tell them we have a housing crisis and a housing need. And by the way, this is your audience. I'm just going to be hypothetical. 1,200 for onebedroom, 1,800 for twobedroom, 2,200 for threebedroom. That's your audience.

That's the housing stock crisis. That's our need. By the way, that's also what's going to defend against the 40 be in years to come. How can you help us achieve that? They might look at us in the first 12 minutes and say, "You guys are crazy. That's not possible." But that's what we're looking to know. So from my perspective talking to stakeholders, it's understanding what their opportunity is either by mass

general law or the work that we've done.

What is their opportunity in that corridor and does that have any potential in solving or contributing to the resolution of our housing crisis? If it does and they are interested, then the race becomes who is going to talk to the property owners and how soon because that's that's the next that's the next step and then you slowly close the gap and as those two come together hopefully

the department start to see applications and we start to see things before us. So from my perspective being selfish that's what I want to know when I talk to these people.

Does anybody else have a perspective of what we're looking to get out of them in this meeting?

I'll only say that's exactly where my head was thinking, Nick. It's just a it's a dialogue.

Yeah.

So, and and Lori Margaret Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Margaret.

I think uh we need to talk to people um developers who we can ask, look, we're thinking of putting a second floor on the mall, what's it going to cost to move the HVACs? Is it possible? Are we dreaming?

Sure.

Those are the kind of things that I need to know because, you know, sounds good, but can we do it feasible? Is it feasible?

Feasible. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed.

Anyone else?

If not, I'm going to be selfish again and make my report about the ba about the past year. Uh from a personal perspective, uh there are really no words on my behalf to express the the level of gratitude and appreciation that I have to be part of the board and the notion that I had when I became part of the board to learn and be involved in all that has by all means been

fulfilled. Um you guys have all been extremely respectful. My time has been very very much enjoyable.

Most people wouldn't understand this other than those that serve in these capacities. I look forward to our meetings and I just genuinely want to say thank you and I look forward to being a board member for my fifth year of 2026 27 the final year of my term.

With that said, agenda item number nine.

before we do if someone's feeling brave. Yes.

Uh, I I just wanted to say that I I I think you you uh you represented the the board well.

Uh and and you projected a uh uh a an an air of uh of getting things uh done and moving the the ball forward.

uh and and bucking what whether we disagree or agree uh what some people would would would say uh uh you know a lot of talk and not a lot of action. I think that you've you've turned that around and uh I I for one um really uh have appreciated your leadership uh and uh and and uh everything that you've you've all of your efforts to to get things in action.

I uh saying thank you is not enough, Kevin. I really appreciate your words.

Thank you so much. And uh before I move on to uh item nine as well, just want to um express uh gratitude for your leadership, Nick. Um your care and passion for the town and the board is um more than evident. So um thank you for the past.

Thank you. Thank Thank you. Thank Thank you all. Thank you. I really I really really appreciate um you all and collaborating has been fun and I look forward to the next year.

Nick, thank you very much. Um I can't say much more than the other two have said. Um you have shown your love for this town by you know stepping up and it's in every meeting you people know that you love this town and you um support taking care of it. Um and thank you very much.

Thank you.

I agree.

Thank you so much. I I appreciate everybody. Best of luck to the new positions for the uh for the year ahead of us and I look forward to your direction.

It's going to take somebody brave because it's 9:03 p.m. and I know nobody wants to go.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to adjurnn.

Brave man.

Second.

Motion made by Helio Rosa, seconded by Kevin Estes to adjourn the May 11th, 2026 Darmouth Planning Board meeting.

Hillia Rosa, yes.

Kevin Estes, yes.

Margaret Sweet, yes.

Lorie Miller, yes.

Nick Cyclopsis, yes. I thank everybody.

Dan, thank you. Wish everyone a good night.

Good night.

Have a good night.

Thank you all. Good night.