Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting - April 6, 2026

That's April 13th.

That's for April 13th.

And that will be at Dartmouth High School. And we also have after that, we have another one scheduled for the Sherbrook Farm 40B, which will be heard on April 30th at 6:00. That one will be at town hall as well.

So, moving on to the public hearings portion of tonight's meeting, we have special permit 26-2. The petitioner applicants Paul Flanigan. The owner Scott Pavo. Subject property is 43 Lucy Little Road, also known as map 42, lot 38. Property is located in a single residence B district, and it was legally advertised on March 19th and March 26th of this year. I make a motion that we wave the reading of the list.

Second that motion.

All in favor? I I the eyes have it.

This petition uh being filed by Mr.

Flanigan who's seeking a special permit to install an 18 ftx 44 ingground swimming pool on a parcel containing approximately 18,295 square ft. The proposed pool will increase the total lot area total coverage from 3,73 square ft, which is roughly 20%. To 4,87 ft, which is 26%. They're seeking relief under article 375-28.5 A8 prohibitive uses and article 375-28.6 A1 special permit uses.

So, at this time, I've got some letters that I'm probably going to read.

Let's see. I got this one.

There's the denial letter. I'd like the denial letter first.

I had it on my other package. Don't on this one, but that's okay.

So, we'll put this.

All right. This letter is dated December 26 and it's addressed to Mr. Flanigan.

It's from the building department.

minutes regarding 43 Lucy Little Road and it indicates that I've reviewed your application and at this time your proposal cannot be approved due to non-compliance with current zoning regulations. Applicant proposing to install an 18 ft x4 foot inground pool on a parcel with approximately 18,295 ft increasing the lot coverage from 3,73 ft 20% to 4,87 ft 26%. A special permit is required to increase the

nonconformity of lot coverage per 375-28.6.

They're going they're requiring special permit uses and also the applications being denied under 375-28.5.

All righty. And I believe we have some town comments from other departments.

Here we have the board of health. Board of health indicates that this facility has had a recent tank pumping report of March 25th, 2025, 1500 gallons.

Proposed pool per site plan stamped by RLS Richard Hood. The sewage disposal system and components will not be impacted.

DPW.

Well, it's their typical requirements, which is compliance with their DPW regulations. I don't need to read them all into the record. All right, that's it. Those are the only two. And I don't think we have any of Butter's letters.

Do we have any of Butters either in support or in opposition?

Doesn't appear we do.

Uh, yes, because it's within 100 letter, right?

Hong Kong. I think I just said no.

Oh, okay.

All right. So this is a determination of applicability that's that's been filed and the ingground pool and the pool aprons within 100t of the buffer zone. All right. So but this is not a requirement of an order of conditions. It's just a requ determination. I guess they call these RDAs.

Mhm.

Yeah. It's all good. I it it appears to have been approved.

It has.

Yeah.

So if they have a negative last page. Okay.

Yes. I'm going to head there right now.

The work described in the request is within an area subject to protection of the bylaw but will not remove fil dredge or alter that. And I don't see where it says here to me. Can you can you direct me to the area where there's approval?

I'm not saying you're not all right, Mr.

Page Page 30 of five, box check three, referring you to what you just looked at that that's all they're required to do.

It doesn't require the filing of a notice of intent.

Correct. That's right.

Okay, good. So, that's why we don't need a certificate of compliance at the end of the project.

All righty. So, at this point in time, I'm going to call upon the petitioner or the representative to come forward and state their case.

If you could please state your name.

Sure.

For the record, Mr. Flanigan.

Uh Paul Flanigan.

Scott Pavo.

Thank you. So, what what we'd like to do is um in the rear of the property within the grass area, we're looking to put an ingground swimming pool and we know we're above on the aquifers setbacks.

Um, we went through the, uh, conservation commission and went before the board there and they gave us our approvals and we're looking to get relief from you because there's nowhere on the property that I could we could put a pool that wouldn't require the setback in regards to lot coverage.

Lot coverage.

Yeah, lot coverage. I don't see a setback issue.

Lock coverage. I'm sorry. In regards to lock coverage. Yes.

Because you're in the zone two aquifer district. Okay.

All right, gentlemen. Anybody? I think it's pretty straightforward. Any You have any questions? Attorney Newman.

I have no questions about you, Mr. Mr. Schum. That's straightforward.

Attorney Far, any questions?

All set.

Dr. Agai.

All right.

So, um, this is a public hearing, so I always give people an opportunity to be heard. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak either in favor or in opposition to this request?

So, I can report to the viewers at home that at this point in time, we only have one other individual in the room other than the petitioner and the property owner. Um, that and no one's come forward to speak either in for in favor or in opposition. Um, and the only reason that you're here is because of the fact that this property just so happens to be in the aquifer protection district and there are different reg

there additional regulations to preserve our our drinking water sources. All right.

Um, I believe we put together some proposed findings and some proposed um, well actually this one's because it's a special permit. It's only some proposed findings for the board. And interrupt me at any point in time, gentlemen, if there's anything you want to correct or you want to add or change.

So, in this case, which is 26-2, the proposed findings would be the subject property is located at 43 Lucille Road, Damoth, Massachusetts, and is also known as assesses map 42, lot 38. The property has been owned by Scott Pavo since September 30th, 2008 and is located in a single residence B, Okafer 2 zone and Dartmouth waterfront overlay districts.

The petitioner seeks a special permit to install an 18t x 40ft ingground swimming pool on a parcel containing approximately 18,295 square ft. The lot is approved by an existing 1 and a half story single family home. The applicant petitioner is seeking a special permit pursuant to 375-28.58 lot coverage above 10% or lot coverage above 2500 ft of any lot whichever is greater and sections 375-28.6A1A

unless a protected and lawful use or an exempted use. The following shall require special permit from the board of appeals. One, expansion or modification of a non-conforming use to modify the existing lot coverage of 3,73 ft, which is 20% to 4807 square ft, 26%. The board finds that after reviewing the submitted plans and the nature of the proposed 18t x 44 ingground pool is proposed in a manner in such a manner

that it will be appropriate to the natural topography, soils, and other characteristics of the proposed site.

The board finds that the increase in lock coverage from 20% to 26% will not significantly burdensome will not significantly burden will not be significantly better.

Oh, you have it. We not my pen. Oh, here I got it ready.

Will not significantly burden the property and will not be detriment detrimental to the neighborhood and is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning bylaw.

Mhm.

Any comments, gentlemen?

No. No, that's fine.

All right. Um, this would also require the additional um conditions uh of necessary permits you're going to get.

You already got one, which is the concom, but whatever permitting you're going to need from any other town agencies, you got to obtain those. So, there not being any further comment, I'll entertain a motion to close the public meeting.

I make a motion that we close the public meeting for special permit ZP26-2.

Second that motion.

All in favor?

I I the eyes have it. Gentlemen, what's your pleasure?

Um I make a motion that we approve special permit ZSP-26-2 with the stated findings and conditions.

I second that motion.

All in favor? I I the eyes have it. Congratulations.

Thank you both. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Hope you'll be swimming by June. It's up to We'll keep our fingers crossed up to this guy.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

Yeah.

All right. So, gentlemen, is there any other business that you believe? Oh, we we can go through all of the uh administrative stuff. We got plenty of time.

Uh I think why don't we take like a 15 minutes recess just to go Sure. Absolutely.

I didn't really have All right. Um We're going to the board will be in recess.

Thank you.

Zoning board is back in session.

Gentlemen, I'm going to take the liberty of moving some things out of order here.

We're going to go into the administrative portion of tonight's meeting. Um, and we're going to address some of the uh minutes that we have. So, first that we I'd like to address is one of four matters. First is the review and approval of administrative minutes of January 22nd, 2026.

I have no comments. I have nothing to add, gentlemen.

All right. I make a motion that we approve the administrative minutes of January 22nd, 2026 as written.

Second.

All in favor?

I.

I. The eyes have it. Moving on to the review and approval of variant ZAV 25-14 minutes State Road map 53 lot 2.

I have nothing to add.

I have nothing, Mr. Chair.

Neither do I. I make a motion that we approve the administrative m minutes for variance zav-25-14 as written.

Second.

All in favor?

I I the eyes have it.

Moving on to review and approval of a of variance zav 25-12 minutes of 1 Cleveland Street continued from January 8th 2026.

I have nothing, Mr. Chair.

I have nothing to add.

Nothing.

I make a motion that we approve the minutes for variance case ZAV-25-12 uh 1 Cleveland Street as written.

Second.

All in favor?

I. The eyes have it. Review and approval of comprehensive permit ZCMP-25-2 for 498 O Westport Road continued from December 11, 2025.

I have nothing to add.

Nothing, Mr. Chair.

Neither do I. Well, I do have something.

I already addressed it with Michelle.

I'll give it to you here.

Uh, attorney Faria.

Nothing.

Doctor, thank you.

All right.

I make a motion that we approve the minutes of comprehensive permit ZCMP-25-2 uh as written.

Second.

All in favor?

I I the eyes have it.

All right. That concludes that portion of the meeting. Um, if there's anything else we need to discuss, any old business, new business?

Not really. All right. So, we'll go into uh probably a five well probably a 15minute recess.

Zoning board is back in session.

Moving on to the public hearings portion of tonight's meeting.

The next matter that we have on is comprehensive permit ZCMP25-3.

This is a continued case. The petitioner is Philip Cadero on behalf of the Hathaway Dartmouth LLC. the owner applicant via purchase and sale agreement properties known as map 57 lot one located on Haway Road. It's located within the single residence a district.

The matter was legally advertised on December 18th and December 25th. We've already waved the reading of the abuters list at a prior meeting. Um the petitioner in this case is seeking a comprehensive per permit pursuant to Mass General Law 40B sections 20 through23. to speak up publicly. I'm tired of hearing I will ma'am and if I'll do the best I can.

Okay.

The comprehensive permit guideline 760 CMR56 from the Massachusetts general laws and Dartmouth zoning bylaw regulations. The petitioner is proposing a development on approximately 113 acres to be known as the Hathaway to be located at Hathaway Road in the single residence district. The development will have a total of 300 residential units.

Um, I just like to announce, we've previously announced this, but uh, Dr.

Agai has previously recused himself at prior hearings on this matter, and he is um, uh, renewing that position of, uh, recusing himself.

Why is he here then?

Well, that's excuse me, that shocked me.

It kind of did. Um, well, we typically, uh, if he had any voting that he was going to partake in, then he wouldn't be here. But there's no voting that he's going to be uh involved in. Not even any input whatsoever.

I had read you know something I will ask him if he wants to. Dr. Agai there's concerns with people in the public who feel that you should not be in the room if you're going to recuse yourself.

I leave it up to you. If you want to stay, that's up to you. But they're asking whatever the president you decide whatever it is.

Well, I'm not going to I'll leave it up to you to decide.

Is there any other room that I could hear what goes on today? M M Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, if he is not participating in any of the discussion or deliberations of the board, he's allowed to be in the audience the same as any other member of the public.

I agree with you. However, there have been different positions that have been brought to me in the past. I've been asked to actually leave the room myself rather than pushing the issue. I've left right on other concerns. But I believe that you're correct that that would be the the law if there would be an applicable law for this. So, but I leave it upon him if what whatever he wants to do what is it

would like to see attorney wait opinions but anyway moving on. Um, so at this point in time, I'm going to call upon the petitioner or their representative to come forward and bring us up to date as to what's transpired since the last time we were be you were before the board.

Chairman, just quickly, David Calhoun uh with Saxon Partners. I'm the applicant.

Um, Phil Cado is our civil engineer. A couple of times we have referred to him as the applicant. He's the civil engineer part of the team. Tonight I'm joined by my associate Jack Leel, Phil Cado from Allen and Major our civil engineer, Mark Donahghue from Fletcher Tilton, our attorney.

Do you have a copy?

Uh, and Jeff Durk, our traffic engineer.

Um since we uh last met um we were awaiting uh peer review of the traffic uh study and we also uh had already made some adjustments to our traffic study.

Some additional work you want us to look at. Uh so if it's um agreeable to the board uh we understand that a peer review has been completed of the traffic uh was received by the town on April 1st. We have not received that yet. Uh but your traffic engineer is here. Uh so with Jeff here and your traffic engineer here, uh our hope for tonight would be for uh Jeff to run you through and give

you some updates on the traffic, let your peer review, uh basically report uh have a traffic discussion. Uh once we finish that up, uh we would like to move to civil engineering. There was a request of the fire department that we create a secondary dedicated access just for the fire department. Uh that came to us about 10 business days ago. We completed that design, submitted it back, and Phil is here to walk you

through it. Uh the board then asked us to do some quote modeling slash sections of our development in comparison to the neighborhood over in Eisenhower. Uh and Phil can also walk you through that uh at the conclusion of uh those items. Um perhaps discussion on next steps.

All right. We could do that. But and I thank you for you know wanting to move this forward but quite frankly I'd feel more comfortable if we had um I forget his name but your traffic consultant come forward. We'd have our traffic cons uh peer reviewer come forward and provide us an update as to what their understanding is. and then I'm gonna open up the public comment on that issue

tonight and see how far we go. Uh and we I've always promised my board that we don't go beyond eight o'clock on these things. So hopefully we'll see where we're at. If there is some time um to discuss some of the and and present an opening with civil then so be it. But if there isn't then we'll have to push it to the next to our next meeting.

So and Mr. Chair as well because you had directed and that recording of the last meeting was shared with the applicant and their council that you had shared that this meeting was all going to be about traffic. your civil peer reviewer is not here tonight. So, I just wanted to make sure you were aware of that.

That's fine. Okay. And obviously, if they just want to give us a brief overview first time, that's one thing.

But if there if there isn't, there isn't. Um, and I'm sure there are a lot of people here that have a lot of questions about traffic. So, we're going to try to ensure that we have that all answered as best as we can. So, the floor is going to be yours, I believe.

Thank you and good evening, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board, for the record again, my name is Jeffrey Durk, the managing partner with Vaness Associates, uh the transportation consultants on the project. Um so you had heard a presentation from me at the last uh public hearing on the overall um summary of the transportation impact assessment. And I think as you heard uh from the applicant, we've since that time, we've had the benefit of peer

review and responded to that. And I think it would just be helpful. I'm going to do a very quick walk through of um what we've done since the last time we were here uh before you. So you can go to the next slide, Jack. Thanks. So just by way of a kind of a chronological summary of where we've been and where we're at. Um so in January of this year, we submitted the formal full

transportation impact assessment. I presented that to the board at the last hearing which was on March 2nd, uh 2026.

Uh we took back comments from the board as well as from the public and we also had the benefit of the peer review uh from Howard Stein Hudson who is here tonight as well. Um they identified uh 26 comments or issue areas for us to address.

Excuse me. I'm sorry. It's a lady who has here. Could you speak a little more slowly because you're talking fast and I know that's probably the way you always talk.

So ma'am words are kind.

So the thing is this just by rules and we have to follow them, right? We all do. If you have a concern, if you have a concern, you have to address it to me and then I will address it to him. Okay, I'm addressing it to you.

Okay, fair enough. You're addressing it.

You're looking at him, but that's okay.

You're addressing it to me. So, I guess that she would like you to speak a little bit slower. Uh, and there's no reason to rush this tonight. We're going to have time. I want everyone to have an opportunity to be heard on this issue, right? We're just we're dealing with traffic tonight. I think I she reminded me that at the last meeting, I hadn't remembered that, but at the last

meeting, I said we're going to deal with traffic. I think it might have said maybe solely traffic, but if we have time to get to delve into something else, we may do that. But people are gonna have an opportunity to raise their hand to speak.

We will do that. I will give you an opportunity. But for now, we're going to hear from this expert. We're going to hear from our expert that we're we've hired to ensure that what this gentleman's doing is fair and accurate.

Um, and that it's addressed the concerns that you may have. So, there's a process. We'll get there. I'm sure by the end of tonight you may not be happy with the results but you'll know that these things were addressed and you were going to be heard. All right.

Thank you.

And just as a friendly reminder if you could not so fast that's all.

All right. But I do want to thank whoever put this together. It's good size print for me. That's great.

All right.

So thank you Mr. Chairman. I'll start over again. Um, so on January of this year, we submitted the transportation impact assessment for the project, which I presented to this board at the last public hearing, which was on March 2nd of this year.

On March 6th, we received a peerreview letter or memorandum from the board's peerreview consultant, who you will hear from tonight, that identified 26 issue areas or comments on both the transportation impact assessment as well as the site plans that were submitted for the project. On March 23rd, we issued a response to each of those 26 comments that were raised. Um and as we understand the board has received a

draft at least of uh the peerreview consultants review of our response to their comments. Um I optimistically uh indicated that either tonight or I think shortly thereafter uh we will receive that supp subsequent review of our follow-up response to comments. um at which time we'll um address any lingering questions or comments that the reviewer may have. Um next slide, please.

Thank you for that procedural history.

Yes.

So, I thought by way of um kind of uh going through or providing an expeditious way of looking at the 26 comments that were raised. Um I would just give you a summary of the major items that were addressed or asked to be addressed as a part of uh the peerreview comments. So the first is the study area. Um the board as well as the audience had uh inquired as to why the

Rockdale Avenue intersection with Haway Road was not included in our transportation assessment because that does provide a connection from Haway Road down to uh Route 6 and get you into New Bedford. So there was a request that we add that to the study area in the uh transportation assessment that was also reiterated by your review consultant. So we have done that. So traffic counts

were performed at that intersection. Uh we in updated the motor vehicle crash history to include that intersection and we provided that analysis as a part of the uh response to comments letter. We were also asked to obtain local crash data. So, this was crash records from the Dartmouth Police Department as well as the New Bedford Police Department.

Both of those police departments have pulled all of the crash records for us.

Uh, we have to pay a fee to have them pull that information. We've paid the fee, so now they're going to provide that to us. So, I would say in terms of followup to our response letters, we need to summarize that data. Um, I believe Dartmouth has already assembled everything and I think it's probably on its way to us in the mail. Um, New Bedford does the same thing. So I expect

probably within the next week we'll receive that local data to be able to kind of check the box as to how that compares to the information that's available through the department of transportation.

The next item was on vehicle parking and this kind of crosses over to the site plan as well. We had discussion about land bank parking and also about the parking ratio and I think the board uh had reminded us of some previous decisions of projects that they have in terms of looking at a specific parking ratio that they had approved for other projects. So there was a discussion about um basically documenting how much

parking are you constructing how much is going to be land bank um and so we've done that and and reconciled what those numbers look like um as well. And then as a follow on to that, there was also some questions about if we allow land banking of parking, how what is the mechanism for us to have that parking constructed if it's needed? And so in our response letter, we've outlined a parking monitoring program for the

project, which essentially has us going out and monitoring the parking as the project is constructed. Uh we've made some suggestions as to when that benchmarking would take place. uh the first benchmarking or monitoring would occur at 80% of occupancy. Then we would then go back out and undertake the monitoring at 6 months thereafter and then 12 months thereafter. So it's essentially monitoring that parking for

three time periods as the project is constructed. And again, this is just our suggestion, but we would suggest that we establish an initial baseline at 80% occupancy or some level of occupancy, and then you'd want to go back and visit it as the project is kind of built out and then just kind of have a final check within 12 months thereafter. Um, and the purpose of that is to say if we're land

banking the parking, we would want some monitoring. So, as if we were showing that the vehicles were we needed more parking essentially, that would be the trigger for the parking being constructed. the monitoring program would document to you how the parking is actually being occupied would then allow the building inspector through your condition of approval to say you need to build the parking. Um so we identified

that uh bicycle parking uh we also have quantified the number of bicycle parking spaces that will be provided and where they will be provided in the site.

There was a comment about the transportation improvement program. So we specifically identified some improvements both physical uh construction of improvements, signs, pavement markings, um signal retiming and such that would be undertaking. Uh your review consultant had asked us to kind of clarify what our approach was to that mitigation. What are you building?

What is being deferred to uh grant applications and that? So, we've outlined that in our response letter uh for the review consultant on-site circulation for firet trucks, moving vans, and trash and recycling vehicles.

Um, so that's a part of the site plan, but your transportation consultant also reviews circulation. So, we've provided some updated drawings to show how those vehicles circulate within the site. Um, a site triangle plan. I'm going to show that in a few minutes. Uh, one of the things I know the board is very familiar with Hathaway Road. Um, as you look at where the driveway is, we talked a lot

about topography within the property itself. There's also topography on Haway Road and that affects our site distance calculations. And so, your review consultant had asked us to look at how the grade of Haway Road um is accounted for in our site distance calculations.

And then I said in a minute I'll show you a drawing of that. Um, and then lastly is construction management. Uh one of the things I don't want to say it's often overlooked but is overlooked as we go through um the assessment of the project is construction related management activities. So really we had presented to the board a transportation demand management program but there's also management as it relates to

construction vehicles as well. So this is really about reducing the amount of construction related traffic. And then also I think importantly um in looking at all the neighborhood streets is making sure that trucks are not driving through neighborhood streets that we're keeping them on designated truck routes.

And so we've also outline that to some extent as well as a part of our response letter. Um so now I'm just going to go through a couple more slides and um just to kind of go through what we've done.

Jack, next slide. Um so this slide here just again you've seen this as the past meeting just shows the context of the project site um in relation to the transportation infrastructure interstate 195 you can see clearly uh running in the east west direction just to the north of the project site and then route 140 uh to the east side of the project site you can see as well um you will not

see Rock Bale Road on this because it's very difficult to see but we'll go to the next slide Jack thank you and so you can see that we've added Um the add additional intersection with Rockdale uh just to the uh west east I'm sorry it would be to the northeast of the project site all the way down to where it intersects with Route 6. So we've included traffic counts also looking at pedestrian and bicycle accommodations

along that roadway. And then Jackie you can go to the next slide. Um just reminding you of the amount of trips associated with the project. So the top number, the 1,338 is the two-way 24-hour volume. The next two volumes are the amount of traffic that's produced during each of the peak hours on a weekday. So weekday morning peak hour, 118 vehicle trips, weekday evening peak hour, 111

vehicle trips. The box underneath the table defines what those peak hours are.

Um just because I think we had some questions at the last hearing. Um, as you look at the peak hour numbers, um, it's not, you know, one trip or two trips produced by each unit during the peak hour. And what we're showing here is the highest amount of traffic that occurs during a 1 hour period in the morning between 7 and 9. There is more traffic that occurs outside of those

hours, but the amount of traffic that's produced outside of that individual peak hour is less than the numbers that we have on this slide here. Um, but the total would add up to 1,338.

Next slide, Jack. So, what I wanted to show on the next two slides was the impact of adding the additional uh intersection in Rockdale to the study area. So, this is our original dispersal model. So, back to that table I showed with the peak hour numbers. We added that traffic onto the roadway network based on the distribution that you see here. Now, this is the distribution before we added Rockdale. Next slide,

Jack. And this is the slide after. The effect of this is that traffic that wants to head to and from the east of the project site primarily along Route 6. We had originally assigned it down Sloum Road to get to Route 6 to travel to the east. Now, as we add in the Rockdale intersection, that traffic will now use Rockdale. So, this is a shift.

It actually removed some traffic from Sloum Road because logically if you can come out of the site, turn left coming out and then a quick right, that's your quickest travel route to head get down to Route 6. Um, and so this diagram has been updated to reflect that change in the trip distribution, which as I said does reduce some of the impacts along Sloum Road.

One second, sir.

I I have a question. We're going to wait till everyone's done that speak that both their their expert and our expert.

The two experts are going to speak first and then I'm going to open it up for public comment. Okay.

All right. But keep in mind if you need to write it down, we'll give you a piece of paper. But keep it in mind so that you'll be able to ask.

Yes.

Thank you.

Sure. There you go.

That's it.

Mr. Chair, I just I think on this sheet eight, the revised, we now at 105%.

I don't I don't know if it was changed to reduce the five the the 5% that was added for Rockdale doesn't appear to have been reduced on another one. Unless my math is wrong. 35, 45, 50, 60, 70, 105%. So, I don't know if the there's now 105% of the traffic shown.

All right. Well, I'm sure he's going to blame it on his associate.

He's the one that handed this out, so he didn't do the math correctly, but I would presume that there'd be a 5% lessening somewhere else. Or maybe 10% five of the 10% to and from the east of the project site, 5% of it goes up.

um Rockdale and then the other 5% was assigned down to Sloum Road. So that that's how the 10% was broken up.

Well, they're not supposed to add up to 100.

The whole the external numbers, the 30, the eight, the 10, the 10. Yeah, that actually I think I think the problem is that five. Well, no, it's that's actually the 5%.

10% at the end of the 10% at the end. The five gets added to the 10. So that's that's where the I guess that's where the um that five shouldn't be there is what you're saying Susan.

No, the slum should go down to five.

The slum is five and that has the turning movement there.

The slum says 10.

Yeah.

No.

All right.

Sorry.

It's okay.

Look, we do know this. The traffic is going to be the So, let me be very clear, but these are guesstimates. You don't know for sure what the percentage is.

No, let me just let me be very clear on this.

So the so if you look at So those of you that have the figure in front of you, and I'm sorry this is so small for everyone that's in the audience.

No, I don't need that.

the 10% of the traffic that is shown on the Republic of the Highway, 10% to and from the east of the site as you get down to the Hathaway Road, Haway Avenue or Rockdale Avenue intersection. If you look at the figures that you have in front of you, 5% turns up that road, heads up to Hathway, and then turns left. Of that 10%, 5% goes up, 5% continues along to Sloum Road and then

turns up Sloum Road. there is still 10% coming from Sloken Road this way from this area where the school is located.

So that that's how the numbers add up.

What the issue is is where we're showing the 5% arrow with the two-way head there. If you add up all of the black arrows, you're right, it comes up to 105%. So it's that black 5% arrow that really shouldn't be there. That 5% actually comes from the 10% that is coming to and from the New Bedford side.

So that's where the error is.

Okay.

What is it?

So I I apologize for that. That's where the error is. But the trips that were assigned to the roadway network were assigned correctly.

Okay.

In terms of that 10%. That's how it adds up. But if yes, the black arrows, the 30, the five, the 10, the 10, the 20, the 15, and the 10 should all add up to 100% which they do. Just for a moment, folks in the audience, we have to record this and then it has to be trans transposed onto typewritten form. She needs to be able to hear it with the

background noise. She's not going to be able to hear it on the tape. I need to be no conversation while the gentleman's speaking, please. Thank you.

Continue.

Sure. Are there any other questions on this before I turn to I think I understand you.

Okay. So, the the black 5% arrow is that's incorrect. The smaller errors are all correct on that.

So the last slide I want to show is the site triangle slide, which is what we've shown here. So looking at halfway road, the road slopes upward to the um toward New Bedford. So this would be to the east of the project site at about 6%. So as you're going up the hill as it relates to sight distances, if you think about driving your vehicle, you go slower as you're going up the hill, you

go faster as you're going down the hill.

if you think about trying to stop your vehicle. It's easier to stop your vehicle on an upgrade than it is on a downgrade. And so because of that, we make corrections to the sight distances um that are calculated for intersections. So in this case, the sight distance going up the hill um is 360 ft approaching from the west heading toward the east. But if you're heading from the east traveling toward the west,

the sight distance instead of 360 feet is 360 feet. So there's an increase of about 20 ft in the sight distance because of the grade going down the hill because it takes you a longer distance to slop stop your vehicle as you're going down the hill. The sight distance that's available is greater than 620 ft.

So, and this is just a again a question from your review consultant just to verify that we've accounted for the grade of Hathaway Road, which we've done and we've shown it in the slight triangle. But again, our available site distance far exceeds what's required uh for even with the grade corrections that we applied.

So, I've uh that concludes kind of my summary and I I guess I'll turn it over to the back to the chair u to answer any questions or to hear from your consultant.

Chair.

Yes. So, at the end of the prior hearing and this information was provided to the applicant's team, there was a discussion about this presentation. Mr. Durk, as you can remember, was trying to go fast last time and he had three or four slides that were all the potential mitigation to address the traffic that got went through very fast. And so the request had been that the mitigation be

represented so that everyone, the board and the public can understand it. So I don't know if Mr. Durk has his presentation from last time to walk through what the proposed mitigation is, but that was not fully discussed last time and was requested to be represented tonight.

So if you bear with me, Mr. Chairman, we'll see if we can bring up the old presentation.

This is going to take a couple.

Well, I can I can walk through the recommendations, Mr. Chairman, if it's helpful. Sure. Um so as you might recall as we went through the initial kind of highle summary of the transportation assessment we had um some locations that were defined as high crash locations meaning that they had a crash rate that was higher than the mass DOT average crash rate. So we have a series of recommendations that are intended to

address safety at those intersections.

Um, and then we also have some physical improvements that uh relate to uh either missing signs or pavement markings or operational issues that could be addressed through specific improvements at intersections. So, safety improvements and capacity improvements of the two buckets that we put those uh improvements into. We also have what's known as transportation demand management measures as well, which are

measures to reduce the traffic and parking demands associated with the project. Um so the first location that we identified as a high crash location requiring uh mitigation is the Route 6 intersection with Haway Road and the Burger King driveway. Um that location historically has been a high crash location. It also is a location that has queuing uh relating to some backups specifically on the Hathaway Road

approach to the intersection. Uh we did identify that the state mass DOT does have an improvement project listed for that intersection that includes signalization of the intersection. It's currently listed for funding for the construction commencement in the spring of 2027. Monies have been allocated to that project. It's on the transportation improvement program list uh for the 2027

uh program year. Um, so no additional improvements we've suggested are needed at that intersection beyond the signalization that's going to take place as a part of the mass project. And again, funding is committed to that improvement project. It still remains on the tip list for a construction start in 2027.

Uh, the Route 6 Sloum road is also a high crash location. So we did identify some potential improvement measures to address the crashes occurring at that intersection. um they entailed looking at the uh traffic signal timing at the intersection and specifically the uh safety related performance uh measures in the timing which is the yellow and all red clearance intervals. So the yellow phase is the um vehicle phase

that allows you to clear the intersection if you're not able to stop prior to a red indication. And then the all red is if you can't stop and you've gotten into the intersection, the light stays red on all approaches to allow you to actually clear the intersection before a green light comes up. Um so there are specific timing parameters for those clearance phases um that the state

sets. And so one of the things to do is to look at those timings to make sure that they meet standards not only as they relate to mass DOT's current standards but also the speed of traffic that's on the roadway because the yellow and all red are set based on the actual speed of traffic going through the intersection. And then the last safety uh timing phase is the pedestrian phase

time. So making sure that the sufficient time for a pedestrian uh to cross the intersection. So we suggested all of those should be reviewed. Uh we did look at the signal equipment that's at the intersection and identified some specific things that could be replaced or enhanced at the intersection. Uh dealing with adding back plates to the signal heads, reflective yellow tape around the borders of the signal heads

um and such improvements such as that at the intersection. So those are all safety related physical improvements that can be done um and proven to enhance the uh visibility of the signal indications at the intersection. And so we've suggested that that is something that can be done. Uh one of the things we identified as to the specific type of crashes is there's a lot of rear-N crashes that are occurring at the

intersection. Those rear end crashes are can be attributable to signal timing which we said we would adjust, but also if the vehicle detection system is not operating properly. Um sometimes it's it's broken, needs to be repaired or there's some settings in that that need to be adjusted. So testing and repairing the vehicle detection system is something that we said also uh should be done at the intersection. And then

lastly, reapplying the signs, the stop lines and the crosswalks at the intersection on all legs are also something as a safety measure uh that we've suggested should be done at that intersection. That intersection does not currently have an improvement project and that's why we've identified some specific uh physical improvements to be done at the intersection.

At the Hathaway Road Sloum Road intersection and the Hathaway Road uh Wilbur Avenue intersection, we did identify some sign and pavement marking improvements to be done at those locations. U there is delays if you're trying to exit either from Sloum Road onto Hathaway or from Wilbur Avenue on Hathaway. uh the project doesn't significantly exacerbate those delays, but again in looking at the existing

conditions, there is the need given the fact that we're increasing traffic uh to enhance the signs and markings. So, we've made some suggestions as to what could be done at those locations. Uh primarily replacement of the stop signs and the stop lines on the approaches to Haway Road.

The next two locations are in New Bedford and these are the locations with the Route 140 ramps. Um, aside from the uh discrepancy on that uh trip distribution slide that we talked about um most of our traffic if you look at it about 70% is somehow or some way ending up at that interchange. So we have most of the traffic um is up at that area there. So, the interchange with Route

140 and Hathway Road is both a high they're both high crash locations, but they also have capacity related issues and that we noted if you're getting off of the highway or off of 140, uh, there's delays in vehicle queuing that occurs on the ramps themselves. So in in looking at those two buckets of mitigation I had discussed. So for the safety related mitigation at those intersections, we're really looking at

some enhancements through signs and pavement markings that could take place and looking at the types of crashes. We are identifying, you know, the the opportunities for stop signs, stop lines, uh where there aren't any. Um some addition of some reflective red tape to the signposts where the stop signs are located. And then um as you approach those intersections, they're quite wide and they're devoid of

pavement markings. So specifically white edge line pavement markings to narrow up the roadway, but also to provide proper positioning of vehicles as they're approaching the intersections. So at both intersections, we've identified sign and pavement marking enhancements.

Looking at capacity related enhancements in order to reduce the backups that are currently occurring on the ramps, uh you do need to implement some level of traffic control. So currently they're under stop sign control. So the next level of traffic control would be to install traffic signals at those locations. Um modern roundabouts, which would be the other alternative, there's not enough rightway or property at

either one of the ramps to install that type of a device. So the enhancement would really be installing traffic signals. um something that um is beyond kind of what this project could um fund at both those locations. It would be several million dollars to install traffic signals. And again, those are masked out intersections in the city of New Bedford. However, with the fact that

we have affordable housing going in at this location here, uh there is the opportunity for grants to allow for some physical improvements to be made there.

again those safety enhancement enhancements but also those operational opportunities of installing traffic signals. So that's where we've suggested that to the extent that the city of New Bedford and Massd were interested in having traffic signals installed uh as a part of this project, we could facilitate the grant application through the city of New Bedford to improve the interchange and install traffic signals

at both of those intersections. again the creation of affordable housing at this location. With that interchange being a critical location for traffic to be entering and exiting from the property, but also for, you know, residents of the town and the city of New Bedford, it does open up that opportunity for state grant money to to improve the intersection. So, we've committed to doing that.

And then the last set of recommendations are the transportation demand management recommendations. uh there is no public bus service available at the project site, but that doesn't mean that there's not measures that we can undertake to try to reduce the amount of traffic um that's associated with the project. So, the transportation demand management program are things that the applicant um

and the management team of the property would undertake to be able to let it residents know what's available in terms of public transportation resources. So although we might not be able to directly reduce the amount of traffic on um Hawthorne or Haway Road, what we can do is make them aware of opportunities to reduce regional traffic. So the um New Bedford Fall River commuter rail line, letting them know where the

station is, how to get there, what the SC service schedules are, things like that, so that they're aware of how to get there from the area. And again, the idea would be try to reduce regional traffic demands. Um I spoke about bicycle parking within the project site.

So we all we have weather protected bicycle parking within the project within the buildings. We also have exterior bicycle parking. Um there are not bicycle lanes on this section of roadway where the project site is located. But if you go toward the New Bedford side, you do see that they've started to develop bicycle lanes at some point that will extend down um into Dartmouth as well. So the idea is to be

able to provide some opportunities to be able to connect up to those uh future opportunities. Um that is um the end of my presentation as it relates to the mitigation. Uh I'd be happy to answer any questions you have now or after you hear from your consultant.

Sure. Gentlemen, you have any questions?

Uh not at this time, Mr. Chair. Let's hear from the peer review first.

Question time.

Okay, you can step down. Thank you.

was yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll do my best to speak slowly and clearly to please everybody. So, um, for the record, my name is Steven Finland. I'm with Howard Stein Hudson. We're a transportation uh, engineering and planning firm. We've got about 120 employees with four offices located in Massachusetts. Uh we specialize in transportation.

Um and I run our Bridgewater office. So um my experience I've been in this industry for over 30 years. Um I do a lot of peer reviews for other municipalities.

Um but I also do traffic studies as well. So I kind of see both sides of kind of how things are done. So I think I bring that here to the to the town. Um and really what my role is or our role is on this project is to really take the information that's provided to the town to us and review it to confirm that all the information apply you know you know

goes to all the standards to the town standards things like that and that goes to the traffic study as well as the site plan. So that's what we do. So we look through it in detail. You know, some of those traffic studies are very lengthy.

We spend the time, we go through those.

So our role on behalf of the the zoning board of appeals is to do that. And our services are not paid for by the town.

They're actually paid for by the applicant. So we're here tonight um to talk about, you know, kind of where we're at. Um I do want to say that I did watch the March 2nd hearing. I was not here. I actually watched it in its entirety. It was quite a long meeting.

It was um seemed like a long night for you folks, but I did watch it um and you know listened to some of the concerns and uh as we did our review. So just I think there was a timeline that was presented earlier. I just want to kind of repeat it. So, we submitted our initial review letter on March 6th uh where what we identified as 26 issues and those go back to some of the

concerns that we had on things that really we um may need additional information on that maybe conflict with what the town requires. Um so that was submitted on March 6. Like I said, the applicant, as they stated, submitted a letter to us dated March 23rd um responding um to those issues. I also want to say it wasn't on their timeline, but a revised site plan was also submitted um on March 30th um which was

dated March 22nd. So that came in after the actual um uh responses from the applicant um came in. So we but we did get that and we're looking at that. So currently where we're at is we're in the process of reviewing and preparing our letter. Um we haven't finalized our letter. We're here tonight to listen to the board, to the public, and then as we work through it, we'll finalize our

letter. We'll submit it to the town and it'll be forwarded along to the applicant. So, contrary to what was said, we have not submitted a final letter for the public. So, that being said, um I know the applicant's traffic consultant went through a lot of the issues. I'm not going to go through all 26, but I would like to comment on a few of them, kind of where we're at and what

we've received in. So, the first one I think has to do with the study area. We had asked the applicant to look at if any of these intersections generate more than 5%. And from that, they came back and said that the Hathaway and the Rockdale A intersection does that. So, they actually added that to their study area. They went out and did traffic counts. they included that I think you

know some of the trip distribution that was talked about earlier was done some of the figures were updated and that was provided to us um we did look at that analysis and we did see some inconsistencies with actually what's out there today based on the information that was provided. So, we're going to be asked we we're going to be asking the applicant to kind of look at that intersection and the analysis that was

provided to potentially do some field calibrations to see what's out there is actually what it says it is and potentially, you know, do some field observations and things like that cuz, you know, the model can tell you one thing, but you go out there sometimes things will tell you differently. So, that was one thing that we've, you know, we're going to be asking them to go back

and look at. Um, a few other things, you know, had to do with some of their traffic data collection. Um, some of their how they collected their volumes.

We were okay with that. Um, the next issue I wanted to bring up was the crash data. I think it was stated earlier when we first got the study. It was, you know, in accordance to the mass dot, you know, 2018 to 2022 because that's really what the most in most recent information that they have. However, there are cases where we do ask the applicant to go and ask the local, you know, police

departments for more recent information.

So, we've asked for that and I've heard earlier that they're going to be, you know, they're doing that. They'll compile that information that'll be provided to us. So, if the crashes, you know, if there's more crashes in in more recent years, we'll know that. Um, and then some of the other things just going through the list, you know, we talked about background growth. I think that was something that need to be

revised. We're looking at that to make sure that the numbers do all add up. So, that's something that we'll look at. Um, and then, you know, some of the, you know, typically in a traffic study like this, they do identify other roadway roadway improvements that are on the books, let's just say. So, they did that. They've identified those. And I think some of the um things were talked

about. I'll get to that in a second. Um I know trip generation was brought up at the last hearing. Um the land use code 221 that was used. We did look at that.

Um that is typical for a project like this for suburban location. Uh and the information that comes from that um you know is right out of the IT instit in Institute of Transportation Engineers.

uh and that'll tell you exactly a project like this uh will generate. So, and I also I think the um the item of a Saturday, why wasn't Saturday done? For a residential project like this, you typically don't do a Saturday analysis.

Um you focus on the weekday mornings and afternoon peaks. So, that was something I believe that was brought up at the last hearing. So, I just wanted to mention something like that um that was brought up. And like I said, we're looking at that. We're looking at the responses. Um I do want to touch on the parking that was um provided. Um as currently proposed uh at opening, the applicant is um

proposing 341 spaces for the 300 units, which equates to about a 1.14 spaces per unit.

So we were a little concerned with that.

So, we brought up the idea of potentially looking at, you know, doing some monitoring because the last thing you want to have out here is not enough parking. So, um, like I said, that 1.14 was associated with the 341 spaces.

They've identified what they called these landbank spaces, which are spaces that could be constructed within the footprint of the site as is. So, if they were to use all of the landbake spaces, which I believe are 131, um it would bring them to a total of 472 total spaces on site, which equates to about 1.57 spaces per unit. Um, and like I said, our concern is, you know, when they at

90, you know, 80% occupancy, things like that, you know, we want to make sure that the original number that they proposed makes sense. And if it doesn't, they're going to have to add these landbake spaces. So, um, and the other thing I I wanted to bring up because what you do on a on a parking study like or uh a parking generation for a site like this is to again look at the Institute of Transportation Engineers

parking generation um document. It's it's uh it's a book that you look at. Um so they've done that and they've used the applicable and based on that information um the 1.57 uh is higher than what it would require for something like this. So but like I said we raised that concern um that there's enough parking here but like I said we're still reviewing the information and things like that. Um

trip distribution we already talked about. Um the traffic analysis obviously is something that we look at in in in very closely to make sure it's done. Um the analysis that was done is seems to be done you know the way it should be done. Um the TDM measures um that were just discussed were also something that we looked at as well. Um it seems applicable here. So it gets into the off-site mitigation. I know that the

applicant just kind of summarized uh what they talked about at the last meeting. Um we're look, you know, we're looking at those off-site mitigations uh specifically at the locations that were described earlier. There's quite a few of them. Um and you know, basically from what we've seen um has been, you know, this is what's going to be done. So, we're going to ask the applicant for some additional

information in terms of, you know, details on what some of these um improvements are going to look like, you know, from a conceptual level, you know, and, you know, how these are going to, you know, look, cuz we want to see kind of what's what it's going to look like. So, that's something that we're going to be asking for at several of the locations.

And um we're also going to you know we want to have a a level and we want the town to have a level of comfort of you know how these improvements are going to be built. You know the applicant talked a little bit earlier about their fair share contribution about how much traffic would be added um and what you know typically is done with that if they're generating x number of vehicles

and they're going to contribute x number of dollars to to go to these improvements. So that's something that we've asked for. um for the applicant.

Um we the site site access and circulation um you know we did look at that as well.

Uh there's a couple things that we've asked for clarification on on that. One specifically had to do with some of the movein moveout operations. Um so it seems like they've done that. Um and then we also wanted to confirm that a fire truck can get in and around this site safely without any issues. So we've asked them to coordinate or you know confirm that they've had conversations

with the fire chief to do that. So it seems like that has happened. So and we've also you know we want to make sure that the chief or the the department is um told the applicant the correct u apparatus the size of the vehicle to make sure this is what's going to be out there. So that's something we've asked for as well. So, um, and then, um, I think the site distance was talked

about. I know there's been, um, a proposed streetscape wall, uh, and some plantings that are being proposed. So, we just want to make sure that the sight lines, you know, safety is very important for any project we review. So, we just want to make sure and I think you saw some of the sight triangles here and was also talked about earlier is you know when we first got the stopping site

distance and some of the sight distance um calculations you know it didn't take into account some of the slope change that you know we had observed out there too. So, I heard earlier that it sounds like that's something that, you know, they've looked at and we just want to make sure that um there's enough stopping site distance, intersect site, you know, distance like that to make

Uh, we're in the process of reviewing the information and once we finalize our review, um, we'll be sending it off. So, I'm here to answer any questions that the board may have.

Thank you.

Uh, attorney, any questions of this gentleman at this time?

No questions, Mr. Schuba.

No, no, at this time I don't have any this I don't. So, at this time, I'm going to call upon anyone in the audience who has any questions that the questions have to be directed to the board first, and then we'll determine who's the best person to actually answer that question on the one that would be most appropriate to answer it. Um, when you come up, please state your name as clearly as possible and

your address because we have to record all of this. So, you had a question. Come on up.

I have to stand up in front of you.

You can go right up there.

The podium. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The podium.

You can bring the microphone down a little bit. Name and address.

Watch out.

Um, one of my concerns is there's a lot of talk.

You have to identify yourself.

Name and address.

Oh, sorry. My name is Geraldine Perry Lopes and I live on Eisenhower Street.

And do I need to give my number on Eisenhower Street as well?

If you'd like. Yes.

And I don't have to.

That's fine. If you don't want to give the number, you don't have to give the number.

Okay. There aren't too many houses to choose from anyway. Um, one of the big things that stands out to me is that um, in all honesty, a lot of these presentations are based on pipe dreams, suppositions, for example, what the state is supposed to do down at Hathaway Road and Route Six. They've been talking about that for 20 years and we haven't heard anything about when they're actually going to start

now. Does anyone have a response to that?

No, you got to continue.

Okay.

2027.

Uh, well then again, they seem to be depending a lot on the town and what's the town going to do?

Well, they can't make the town do anything. And if um for example, Wilbur Avenue, exiting from Wila onto Hathaway Road, if you're going to take a left turn is dangerous because there's a hill there. And when you come out, you can't see down the hill and the cars come up pretty fast. And I know that from walking, driving, and what have you in that area for many years.

Um, the the things they're talking about like stop signs is what I understood and and various things they wanted to add.

Again, that falls on the town or the state. So, who says that any of that's going to happen? And what if it doesn't?

Then we are stuck with more traffic, more danger because that my family's been in accidents at the top of Eisenhower Street long time ago.

But it happens because getting out onto Hathaway Road from Eisenhower Street and presumably from Dean and Kennedy as well is a very dangerous business. The cars come very fast, shall we say, and it's very hard to get out, especially especially if you want to take a right turn. So, in essence, what's happened to my life, and I don't know about any other neighbors, but I have different ways of driving now

because I can't go the way I used to go.

Like I never come down Wilbur anymore and take a left onto Hathaway Road because it's too dangerous. So I have to go down uh down Bryant Lane to Sloum Road, take a right on Sloum and then when I get to Haway Road, take a a right on Hathaway.

It's definitely safer, but it's a lot more trouble. And not anybody would know that unless they lived in the area.

H that that's all I can recall right now. I didn't bring my paper with me, but trust me, I'll have more questions.

Thank you.

Thanks very much.

Great.

Anyone else?

Hi. Um my name is Paula Almeida. I live at 58 Wilbur Avenue and please correct me if I'm wrong on some of the details, but I had some questions on the applicants uh traffic study. Um speaker, I didn't really hear any details, specific details of what they're going to do in terms of traffic mitigation at Wilbur and Haway Road. Just like the prior speaker uh came up and and talked about, it is very dangerous. you can't

see the traffic coming up Haway Road um heading north and you it's very very dangerous and I'm not quite sure what they what they want the town to add there. Is that going to be a light or a stop sign because we already have a stop sign?

So did you guys hear what the speaker said they were going to do at the particular at the intersection of Wilbur and Halfway Road? We're going to ask we'll ask them and we'll ask our consultant if there's anything that they feel needs to be done there first. And if he does feel that something needs to be done, then we'll we'll pose a question to the um petitioners.

Perfect.

The other intersection would be Slumm Road and Haway Road. Same thing. A lot of traffic stops there to make a left on Sloum Road. A lot of cars go around it.

It looked like from one of the images that was shown in the presentation that one of the buildings is going to be to the right of the church that's on Hathaway Road. Is that correct? Is that where the entrance is going to be to the project or to the Hathaway?

We can we can put the plan up and show you where that that would be. Okay. Because I think that's going to be another area of congestion that I don't think was presented or at least I didn't hear the details of how they were going to mitigate the traffic at that at that intersection.

Uh the applicant uh the traffic um expert also brought up the Route 6 and Haway Road and how the state the Department of Transportation for the state is going to start uh redoing that intersection in 2027. Was that calendar year 2027 or was it fiscal year 27 2027 if that could be?

We'll ask that as well.

Okay. Um, I drive to Boston and I follow Hathaway Road down to 140 and the intersection there with Rosy's gas station, Dunkin Donuts, uh, all kinds of traffic going in. It is, you know, I'm a pretty good driver, actually. Pretty aggressive driver. And I can get around people that are not blinking to get into the gas station, going around them. I think this project adding increased vehicle activity is going to

create some problems. Not at that interse, you know, not only at that intersection there, which is a major intersection where you get 140 south, 140 north, you've got the gas station and New Bedford is thinking of doing something in that area. Uh they want to do an industrial park. So, not that that's a problem for the town, but it will be.

Um my last two points is Cumberland Farms.

So Sloukum Road and Route Six. That is also another hot spot. And if this project is going to be Haway Road near the church, that's going to be an incredible we're we're going to have some major major traffic congestion. You have bishop staying. You have middle school. Um you have an elementary school.

uh is just I I would like to end and this I know we're talking about traffic at this meeting but has the board considered maybe instead of 300 units less units would that be workable and that's it.

Thank you. All right. So at this time I'm going to call upon our our expert to address some of this.

You can come up please. So, there's a concern about what type of traffic mitigation has been proposed, if any at all, with Wilbur Avenue and Haway Road.

Well, we're going to get to that one.

One at a time.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just I was just pulling out my notes, too, to make sure.

How familiar you are with that particular intersection, but um Oh, I am. Yeah, very familiar. Um, but I believe the improvements that were talked about at specifically at Wilbur AB and Hathaway had to do with the um stop sign and the mark stop line. Um, and then just taking that a step further. I just was slipping.

I think I think that the concerned resident has indicated that there's already a stop sign there.

There is location.

So, we've asked them to actually add a stop bar.

Hold on. Hold on. You got to got to come to me. All right. Otherwise, if this falls apart fast um so can you describe to me?

So stop bar is essentially the painted material that goes on the roadway and it's white white paint.

It should follow the typical standards that u are required according to MUTCD the manual uniform.

What's the expected improvement that you can that one could expect to come from that being there? I don't see I think I I look at that it's just nominal, but I don't know anything about traffic.

Yeah. I mean, and you know, the applicant's consultant can follow up too if he if he feels like it, but they're really saying that there's an existing stop sign there today. They've analyzed the conditions at Hathaway and in Wilbur, which I believe is what the concern was. And in terms of the level of services, level of service is kind of what you look at for unsignalized.

they've presented that material those results. So based on that um for the no build condition which was the uh the 2032 as well as the 2033 uh build condition we weren't seeing based on the analysis anything um that was beyond um I think the worst we were seeing was level of service C. Like I said earlier, we would like to see some calibrations or some field observations to confirm these as well. So

now you just rambled a couple things off and again he knows what you're saying.

Yeah. And he's shaking his head no. So I'm a little concerned.

Say based on 2032 and 2033.

What is that?

So I'll just take it a step back. So uh what the typical procedure is in developing a traffic study. So the first thing that you do is you take Excuse me, I can't hear him. also.

All right. Thank you.

Um, so typically what you do when you're preparing a traffic study is first thing you're going to go out and do is traffic counts. So that's what you identify as your existing condition. So that really shows what's out there today. So then what you do and I think the applicant stated a little bit earlier and what's included in their um their study is you need to project a future condition, what

we call a no build condition. So typically, um, Mass do requires the the seven-year, uh, window to do that. So that's what you call your 2030 year 2033 no build condition. So that's the analysis without the project. So then what you do is you take that no build condition, you add in the trips that are going to be generated by this project and then you plop those into the no build to create that 2033

build condition and then you analyze those numbers. So that's what the applicant is saying is going to be out there when the project is built in in the future.

And is that the analysis that they conducted on this? They did and that was conducted in conformance in how a typical traffic study is done.

Your opinion that's accurate, the methodology and how their analysis did. Yes.

Okay.

All right.

The methodology is accurate and also the calculations based on that methodology are accurate. those of us who aren't savvy traffic people. Um, does that mean that are you saying or is everybody saying that there'll be no additional traffic from this project?

I'm not saying that and the applicant is not saying that. They're showing that there will be impacts from this project and they're looking at how they're going to address those impacts and they're looking at the offsite.

Usually, usually somebody comes up with a number. There'll be two additional cars. There'll be three additional cars on the roadways. Is there anything in these that that says that?

Yes.

And what is it?

It depends on each intersection.

So, all right.

So, it goes back to the original existing conditions. They look at what we call the study area intersections and I think you saw them earlier on that plan, the locust plan. They identify which intersections are going to be mostly impacted from this project. you know, additional traffic and I think they showed the what we call the trip distribution, where they're coming and going, what's being generated and where

they're coming and going. So then you kind of drill down a little bit more and you look at the intersections for that build condition and you present what that analysis is going to be and some of the analysis we were seeing, you know, they are showing some substandard operation operating conditions out there, which takes you to the next step.

How are you going to address those concerns? That leads you into the off-site mitigation. what you're proposing and how are you going to, you know, make that happen. Does that make sense?

Yes.

Okay.

Oh, the bigger problem is who's going to pay for it.

Well, Mr. Chairman, like I stated earlier, that's something that we've we're in the process of we're going to throw something back to the consultant.

We want to get some more information.

Let's say, you know, one of the things that was talked about is applying for a grant to make these improvement happens.

If that m if that grant doesn't happen, then what happens? who's on the hook.

So, that's something that we've asked for additional information on. We will be asking for additional information on and we want to hear what they have to say about that.

Right. So, of of all the intersections that have been analyzed, which one and if you don't know the answer right now, I'll give you an opportunity at a later time this evening or even another date.

Which one will be will have the greatest increase or impact in number of cars that will create a queue or slow things down of the intersections that have been analyzed? I would think that maybe Hathaway Road and Route 6 would be one of concern and also Hathaway Road and 140 but 140 140 and Hway Road. I'm just I'm only guessing based on what I know as a a lay person and what I experience as a lay

person driving these roadways.

Yeah. And I don't I I don't want to take the time to go through each one of them, but we could talk about that at the next hearing and and look at that a little bit more in detail. Um but you know there are some locations that um and what I described earlier was the 2033 no build condition without the project aren't you know are operating below uh level of service they're operating at

level of service F which means they're failing today.

So there's already a problem that exists at this point in time.

Correct. And we've clearly, you know, they've they're stated that, we've confirmed that, but we're also saying, okay, what are you going to do about it?

And, you know, that leads into the the off-site mitigation and then how much they're willing to contribute.

I'm sorry, I don't remember what the other questions were.

I'm just listening. There was another question about the uh I think it was Sloum Road. Well, I think there was also a concern about the site visibility at Wilbur Avenue and Haway Road.

When you're heading north on Wilbur Avenue and you're going to take a lefthand turn to go west on Hathaway Road that there's a concern that that's problematic there. I guess it's the line of sight distance there. Is there anything any analysis that's been done there that maybe improve that concern?

So, just to confirm, are we at Haway and Sloum?

Well, I I first is Hathaway and Wilbur.

Yeah. Which I think we talked about earlier. They're proposing a additional stop bar in addition to the stop sign.

That's not, you know, that's a condition that's really not going to change.

Well, that's not going to improve I don't that's going to prove the concern that the that that particular resident has.

Yeah. So, in terms of operations, how it's going to operate. So, they've analyzed that in terms of how many cars are out there today, how many cars are going to be out there in the future, and that presents the the level of service.

Like I said, our level of service is kind of like grade school. A is the best, F's the worst for signalized and unsalized intersections. So, they've analyzed that and based on, you know, that intersection, from what we're seeing in the analysis, we weren't seeing anything beyond a level of service C. Anything, you know, that goes into a D, E, and F is you're concerned.

So, for that intersection, you know, I'm not sure what more you can do there. I mean, maybe there's some additional measures that you could implement to to address some of the concerns of the residents, um, traffic coming, things like that. But, you know, it's something we can definitely, you know, we'll dig down, we'll dig further into that, too.

Now, what about Smoken Road or Route Six?

Um, so, sorry, I'm just flipping through my notes here. So this goes into the um that's a mass dot roadway.

It's controlled by the state.

So what they've stated is, you know, that's a high crash location. Um and um I believe there's a there's a project which I believe is the Route 6 corridor improvement project. It's got a mass project number 612524 which means it's in the system. um that's you know clearly identified that there's concerns there and improvements are going to be made and the applicant you know has included

those as part of their analysis.

Now there's also an improvement that was referred to for the 2027 uh for Haway Road and Route 6.

Um and actually that improvement was represented to us was going to transpire in 2025 when another applicant came before us with mass DOT. Now whether or not it's in any closer or any better situation than it was when it was represented to us in 2023 that that was supposed to happen in 2025 and we know that 2025 has come and gone, but now it's proposed for 2027. I don't even

know if that's going to happen in 2027.

But the question was, is that in fiscal year 2027 for the state or is that in calendar year 2027?

According to the information provided by the applicant, it says that the improvements are being funded with the 20 year 2026 TIP, which is a transportation improvement program for the um Souththeastern Masset Planning Organization with construction expected to commence in the spring of 2027.

So that's information that they've investigated. They're provided to us and that's what we have.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right. So, I'm gonna ask someone else if they've got any questions. I think this lady had her hand up before.

Hi everyone. My name's Nancy Almeida and I'm actually representing my parents Antonio and Guimar Almeida who live at Two Spring Hill Road on the corner. It's on the corner of Hathway Road and Spring Hill. their house is directly in front of Wilbur Avenue where that stop sign is. Um I think everybody knows we all deal with situations and making decisions better when we have all the facts and a fact that nobody in this

room can deny is that this current we have a current traffic problem as it is without adding anything else to it. this uh corridor project that they're saying is going to mitigate that that the traffic problem that we currently have is just to address the problem that we currently have. It does not include an additional 300 residences that is you're adding it's like you you you s you came

up with a solution. You're trying to solve the problem, but now you're adding more problems to it. So, we don't even know if it's going to correct the problem that exists right now, never mind adding 300 more residences.

Another thing that I've been hearing all evening is that every single intersection that has been mentioned is a high crash intersection.

More problems as it is. I was the one that mentioned about adding the Rockdale Avenue intersection at the last meeting because it was not on there and I was shocked. You have to pass by that intersection to get down to 140 or even in the opposite direction. My sister lives on Wilbur Avenue. That is a very big problem that um the uh first young lady had mentioned a major blind spot

over there. All of these band-aids that they're trying to put on these exits and the traffic is is exactly what it is.

It's band-aids. It's not You're going to paint a bar. People, yeah, people may pay attention to that, but you still have to stop at the stop sign, you know, and and if you're talking about adding lights to mitigate the traffic, that's going to delay the traffic even more.

You have to stop at the red light. I just I'm still in disbelief. I would like to ask the board to either put a hold on this project or a kibash on it until we deal with what is currently a big problem for us right now. And as our traffic person had mentioned, we have substandard intersections. Why are we even talking about this if we can't if we haven't fixed the current problems

that we have right now? Who knows if if that project gets finished and it it didn't it didn't correct the problem the way we thought it was going to. And now we have another mess with 300 more residences involved.

That's what I would like to say. I would I just want the board to put a hold on this and say we need to deal with one problem at a time and not add more uh uh more problems to it, more traffic.

That's all I have to say. This is just ridiculous.

Come on up, sir.

Ron Doolong, 24 Dean Street. So, they're talking about uh 472 parking spots for 300 units. You got your onebedroom two-bedroom threebedroom studio apartments.

So, that that's 1.5 uh parking spots per unit.

Uh a studio apartment, one car. A maybe a a one-bedroom apartment is maybe one or two vehicles. a two-bedroom, two or maybe three. A threebedroom apartment could be up to four or five vehicles.

471 that's going to add so much traffic. I I live on Dean. I come out of when when everyone gets out of uh work, they're going to the mall, wherever.

Takes me three, four, five minutes just to get out of my street at that point of time. And I've seen the traffic backed up from Route Six all the way to Sloum Road a number of times.

A number of times where you have to wait at that stop sign, you know. So now you have to go some other which way. But and then you going So I'm going to take a shortcut. I'll go down slow. Slow comes back all the way up past the golf course. So now you got to go down Wilbur and take root Route 6. It's amazing.

That's that's right now. Can you imagine adding what 472 which is that's a low number which I just explained to you. It's probably more like five or 600 vehicle where and plus where are these people going to park when all the parking spots are taken on Haway Road.

So how is how is a painting a how is painting a white line going to do anything? Oh yeah that's going to mitigate the problem. Come on. That's all I got to say.

Thank you.

Hi, Heather Pierce, 28 Kennedy Street. Um, what? I didn't hear the last name.

Pierce. P I E R C E.

Thank you. Um, a couple of the items that they did mention that the speed going up is um, it's 30 miles per hour in New Bedford and then increases to 40 just as we're crossing over to the Dartmouth line which is going down that hill. So, people are speeding up as they're heading just to our our streets now and then heading into this development.

So, that's not going to help with the additional cars coming out. Um on the previous meeting they did state that the increase in the traffic would be mostly to the left coming out of this development which is across all of our streets here um heading down and that would be the greatest um impact.

Um let's see the route six. They're talking about the lights again just like everybody else has said. We've been waiting for this forever. There's no guarantee it's going to happen. um adding stop signs and lines on to these intersections really doesn't do anything. Nobody's looking at the lines now. Sometimes they're not even looking at the stop signs now. Um and then you also talked about adding previously

about adding possible um bus stop in front of the development which would then cause backup again because then the bus would have to stop and block traffic. So, nobody's going to go around the bus because it's very narrow in there to begin with. Again, increasing the the risk that we can't get out of our um our streets. Now, like Ron said previously, it's 3 to 5 weekends, much longer. I mean, I can't get to the I

leave really early on a Saturday to go to the grocery store because if I come out in the afternoon to run my errands, I can't get out of my own street. Um and I can't have company to come down to my street because they can't get down there either.

Um, let's see.

And, um, how can, as they mentioned before, how can we include the stop lightss on Route 6 if we definitely, like you said, it was in 2023, 2025, now we're talking 2027, is it 2028, 2029? Is it going forward?

But at the same time, in that time frame, since I know money has been allotted, but it still hasn't happened.

Um, same thing with the development that's going to be happening in New Bedford. It hasn't happened yet, but that hasn't been um brought into into the fold.

And then again, as people mentioned, I know it's traffic, but the size of the buildings um aesthetically maybe if you're driving down Haway Road, it's not so bad, but for us neighbors, like my face my house physically faces the woods where these apartments will be. So instead of seeing woods and the sunset, I'll be seeing huge buildings. Buck my view. And that's all I have to say.

Is there anyone else? Come on up.

I'll give you a chance.

Uh Daniel Rodri, 17 Eisenhower Street.

Um so both experts have been talking today um on how they generated this data right uh these simulations or analysis or calculations right but it's all based on traffic counts that they did in November so if anybody knows the area right the golf course is not open in November um there's no recreational really traffic in November nobody's running nobody's there's no nobody biking in that time so

I just want to ask the board um how they feel that a traffic count done in November is actually accurate or reflective of what the worst case condition is going to be um throughout the year.

Um I don't know if you recall but the our expert had indicated that they wanted them to actually do an on-site review of traffic itself just to not just based on data but based on actual count a number count of automobiles.

Yeah. Yeah. So they they did count in November. I think the experts say maybe they wanted to look at how that was calibrated or how that was done. I'm not sure but we'll get to that.

We'll get to that.

Um, so, you know, everybody's been talking about the the mitigation that they're going to do, right? Are they going to uh apply for grants, right? And and we've all said, well, what happen if if the grants don't get approved? Uh, is the town going to going to pay for the mitigation if if the state doesn't fund these grants? Is is the applicant going to put a bond up to pay for this? you

know, I'd push the board to condition any kind of uh permitting or certificate of occupancy based on these grants being approved or the mitigation actually happening.

Um, additionally, looking at the study, um, it the the I I mentioned this at the last hearing, the the project that's planned for New Befford right now for the industrial park, um, that wasn't included. Um, and neither were all the other 40b projects that are going on right down the town. So, I think we can't look at this in a vacuum. We have to assume all these other 40bs are going

to go through and that data needs to be analyzed and added to all these assessments that are being done.

And the other thing that was mentioned was the speed, right? So, in New Bedford, uh, the speed limit is only 30 m hour. Once you get to Dartmouth and you start coming down the hill, it comes to 40 miles an hour. um adding these 300 units. Um I I think that there should be some condition placed on the applicant on getting the speed limit reduced to 30 um to to be uh more consistent with the

the settlement that'll be after all these units are built.

Um and the I guess my last uh question would be I know at the last meeting we we provided the um additional crash crash records from Dartmouth that we received from the police department. Uh, I know the applicant is still waiting to get those. Um, I guess is is the assessment going to be updated with that crash data once they receive it? Um, and will that be peer-reviewed as well?

That's a question I have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, just I want to address those things, those points and then we'll address yours.

Yeah. I think I got all about four of them down.

I got five.

All right. Okay. Omega five. Well, I don't know how important one of them is.

U the the future impact or that some future construction of maybe an idea. I don't really think we take that into consideration, but nonetheless, yeah, the first uh issue that was raised had to do with the traffic counts.

So, the counts were done in November. Um the information that we reviewed is for counts in November. We haven't received any other information for counts that were done in other any other period.

Okay, thank you.

Um, the second I think just was the question about who pays if the grants don't go through. I don't know.

I think it was about it was more of a statement about conditioning the granting of this on the grants being actually uh correct approved, right? But like I said earlier, you know, we've asked some additional information if you know what their plan is. So, we'll get something in writing of how they're going to address that. Um I think the next question had to do with the other projects and the the

background uh projects. Um the information that we received um included all the projects that have been approved. I think was stated at the last hearing. Uh there's a couple other projects including the golf course um that are not actually that hasn't been approved yet.

Right.

That project has not been so correct. So you can't include that as a project.

um because it has not been approved. And the the other thing I just want to add to that is, you know, for this project and for other projects, you know, if this, you know, I'm not going to say that if this project gets approved, but it's like it's sort of the next person.

So, they need to take the information for this project or if there's a project that's approved, that needs to be kind of looked at as well. But right now, the projects that they've included in their study are projects that have been, you know, presented and approved. And that's really what you do for a traffic study.

You can't project the future.

No, I figured that.

Mr. Chair, can I do you mind if I ask you a question?

So, this this application was filed on January 8th. So, the board has 180 days to review this J July 7th. The two other 40bs are closing this this month and the beginning of May, which means they may be approved. We'll see. The board hasn't acted yet. Given that this application hearing doesn't close until July and those projects are going to be over 300 over 400 units does that information that should be included in

the project.

They include them in are are those once those are if if the board votes to approve those in the next month two new projects with over 400 units.

Yes. Is that information that should should the reports be updated before the hearing closes?

So I think I got a little off there. So the two projects have been included in the study.

Oh, they have.

It's the golf course project that's not included. So I just want to clarify that.

So hold on. When you say the two projects, which two?

The other 40B projects that are in the town of Dartmouth.

When you say the golf course, I'm thinking the golf course is h uh the Hawthon. Is that the one that's been included? No, he's talking about the new Bedford Whailing whailing golf course.

Oh, okay.

That was brought up earlier in the hearing.

Number 40B is a golf course, too.

Sorry. Yeah, I should have specified the whaling golf course.

So, that's what Okay, I was that was the one that was Why wasn't that included? So, that one is not approved, but the other two have been included in their study.

Even though they've not been approved, they've already been calculated in to this assessment.

Correct.

Okay, fair enough.

All right. And what was the other one?

Oh, I think there was two other ones.

So, was about reducing the speed. What What is your Not that we're going to do that, but what is your opinion on heading easterly? I mean, westerly heading westerly, southerntherly on Hoth on on Hathaway Road. On Hathaway Road, it's 30 m hour when you're in New Bedford. And when you get into Dartmouth, I don't know if it's right at the Dartmouth line, but somewhere in that vicinity, it increases to 40 miles an hour.

Correct. So, I don't know who the governing board is in town. if it's a select board that controls that sort of thing. But if that was something that was to be pursued, uh I don't know if you're the governing authority of that, but there is a process that you can go through uh with the state to request reducing the speed limits. So if that's a concern, we can have the applicant look at that potentially.

The other one had to do with some accident data. You had a question concerning the accident data. the crash data right?

Crash data. Yes.

So, I think that was related to the um it sounds like the resident may have gotten the information already. I know the applicant has stated that they've requested the information, they've paid the fee, and they're the the police department is compiling that. So, Mr.

Chair, I mean, if there's a way to share that data to save a step for the applicant, you know, that's up to you.

But what we were told is they're waiting for the information and waiting to compile it.

All right, that's the five I had.

Thank you.

Yep.

Hi, Mr. Chair. My name is Helena Fious.

I live at 8 Eisenhower Street, Dartmouth, Massachusetts. Um, I have a couple questions and I guess more so concerns than anything. Um, and some of our fellow neighbors have also addressed them themselves, but I just kind of want to reiterate them because I think they're genuinely the most important things to consider in regards to traffic. Um, as my neighbor here to my left had said, when you have apartments

that are just a one room building, right, a one room apartment, such as the studio apartments or just those one-bedroom apartments. Some of those people may have a roommate or it's a couple living in those apartments. And that means there's two cars most likely.

You have those other rooms and those other buildings and they have more and more cars. So, you're consistently adding the number and as he said, it's going to go up more than the allotted amount that they're considering even with that 1.5 per se seven uh ratio.

You're going to have way above that realistically.

Um, and in that consideration is the idea that there's going to be children living in those apartments and those children need to get to school. They're going to have to get either a bus to go to school, but honestly, more often than not, most of those parents are taking their kids to school. They are getting dropped off by their parents and they're taking the time out of the day to take

another trip every single day twice a day to go drop off their child, pick them up, or if they have to go do something in the middle of the day cuz their child needs to be picked up from school because they're sick or etc. or brought to an afterchool program, there are multiple trips that are going to be additionally added just because of the children that live within those buildings.

Another thing I want to consider and add on is with the additional aspect that there was the management program for parking. If there is that parking that is not necessarily being added right from the forefront, right? You're only at that 1.14 I believe it was. If you're not adding that from the beginning and you're using that management program, when is that actually going to take

place? Right? So when it's when it's decided in a year from now when all those spots are already taken over and you've overflowed into those neighbors that are nearby us who are living there and we can't even easily access our streets because you have cars on both sides parked on both sides. When is that actually going to take into effect that those lots those parking spots will actually be added on? Um, and I

understand that there wasn't necessarily any consideration for the Saturday for the traffic report. And I understand that they had said that it's not necessarily important, but as a fellow citizen in the town, just trying to drive down on ha on Hathway Road to get to Route 6, I'm waiting upwards of 10 15 minutes just to get onto Route 6. Never mind trying to just get off my street.

It's kind of a little ridiculous to consider anything above that. that wasn't a part of the traffic report cuz that's the Saturday and that's the Sundays in the middle of the day every single weekend.

One last thing that I want to add because of the consideration of the lowering of the speed limit. It's not going to fix or ruin fix the problem at hand. If anything, it's going to make more congestion. People are going to drive slower and the people behind them are going to drive slower and slower and slower. So, you're just continuing to add on to the concerns that are already in place. preach.

That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Hold on. I'm going to have him come up.

So, I think the first issue had to do with the parking. So, parking was definitely something we were concerned with and that's why we've asked them to take some We're going to address that. Yeah, we're going to address that. Um, we're actually addressing it on another location. They're going to have to increase that number, okay, the ratio.

That's number one. Number two, um we we would put no parking signs along Haway Road and also along Sloum Road.

So that these people are really going to consider, you know, twice whether or not they want to move into this location if they don't have parking for their automobiles. And it's going to create, you know, a problem for management.

So, we're going to we're going to ensure that they're not going to be able to do that. Uh we did we're actually considering doing some of that. At least I know we're going to be doing it. We discussed it as a condition on Sherbrook.

Mhm.

For Old Westport Road. So, um I I'm I'm okay with that.

Okay.

Is there anything else that you want?

I know. I think that was something, like I said, that was an issue that we've raised and we haven't finalized. We're not We haven't signed off on that yet.

Oh, no. Absolutely. Which we're still in the middle of this, right?

Okay. Thank you.

I think that was it. Right. Okay.

Come on up.

Try to say something.

make sense to everybody.

You can bring it down a little bit for you so that we can pick the correct suggesting that I'm short.

No, no, no.

That's a sensitive subject. You just But you do have to uh state your name and address again.

Okay. Geraldine Perry Lopes Eisenhower Street in North Dartmouth. And um this question is not quite related to traffic but is it is related to parking. Where I live I'm the wetlands are right there behind me. I mean I don't think a house is going to be built in back of me because it goes down 10 ft at the end of my property.

But they talk about parking spaces and then they talk about extra parking spaces. I forget the term he used. But I'm concerned about all that pavement that's going over the property. How is that going to affect the um wetlands that we have?

That's actually for that's for next week. Oh, not next week, but that's for our next meeting. We're going to discuss that and if there's a little bit of time I may give the applicant an opportunity to have their civil expert or their civil engineer come before us and just give us an overview as to what they've been doing with regard to the civil part of this. We had also asked them to

provide us some renditions of what it would look like based on the height of these buildings for budding property owners.

So that's really not the topic for tonight. Okay. But we will get to that and just keep the question in mind and it's going to be addressed. It will be addressed.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

Anything else?

No, that's it.

There's a lady back here that'd like to come on up.

Name and address, please.

Parious in our street. Uh my concern is about parking on it is in eyes in our street.

is going to be a problem because the chairman says we're going to put do not park on autoway road, right? So, where those people going to park on Eisenhower Street.

That's an easy fix, too. They're going to pay to put up signs on Eisenhower Street. If that's what you want in front of your house, we can have that arranged.

We just want saving the problem.

All right.

You get that Susan?

Yes. And I I think Mr. Chair, you could also consider and we can discuss it with um I can talk to DPW director. There may be resident parking only or something like that. So that if they have a guest that they want to allow park in front of their house, they can. Right. So there's a balance between no parking. And those houses all have driveways. Yeah.

I I went by there. I actually was I walked the land a little bit in the back. So, I could see the concern. Uh but there's a fix to that.

Okay.

I wish all the problems were that easy.

All right. Is there anyone else? So, again, come on up.

It's Tom Bradington, 19 Kennedy Street.

So, I asked the board when you have a chance look in the weeds of the traffic analysis. get way back into like page 80 100. That's where all the tables are.

That's where you'll see all the loss of service go from like an E to an F for like Route Six and and um Sloum, Route Six and Hathaway. You'll see that change in service levels. The question I have for the um the traffic engineers, are they assuming that the the mitigation the the improvements for um Route Six and Hathaway is already completed when this development is completed? I believe they are, but I'll let

So, so what happens? What happens if the state says, "H, we need the money for the Cape Cod bridges. You're not getting anything. You're not getting the improvement." What happens then? That's needs to be done in the in the study. I understand for a for a plan B, you know, right? Anything else?

Um I really think um we'll talk more about civil right when we get there.

Fine.

I'll take so I'm going to have the gentleman come up to address that. And I think the question is in this analysis that's being presented to us by the applicant, does it already take into consideration the improvement that's expected to occur in 2027?

Yes, it does. Mhm.

And the concern is if that does not happen that we're further we already have we already have a substandard uh amount of traffic in in these particular intersections and that'll only further contribute to it.

Correct.

And then the other question had to do with you know how you know we did look at the level of service tables very closely. They do have tables. I don't remember which one it was, but you know, they analyze the no build like I said earlier, the no build, the build with the project. They also have some tables that talk about the build with mitigation condition. So, it shows the comparison about what will happen before

and after that mitigation is is implemented.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right. Is there anyone else? Come on up.

Uh Dan Rodri, 179 Is Street. I just had one other question that I missed earlier was um the traffic impact assessment didn't um didn't identify the cart crossing uh for the golf course. So uh Memphis Country Club, there's a cart crossing on Sloum Road, right? Uh people going to travel from the front of the course to the back. Um I want to know like what's the plan for that? That wasn't uh assessed. I guess maybe

because they did it in November when nobody's playing golf. Um, so is is that going to be looked at or was that looked at?

If you're not sure, that's that's a fair response. We have the gentleman who can tell us right here.

It wasn't included in the study.

It was not. Okay. So, I've got a nod saying it was not included. Thank you.

Yep.

Let me ask you this. Do you think it would be highly relevant that it be included in the I was just going to say as a golfer um and I mean I can't expect that you're going to see queuing from golf carts crossing the street but like you said I don't want to go on the record but that would be my initial thoughts which would be what I don't think you're going to see any

queuing on the roadway to let these carts go by unless that's a condition that you see out there today. We can have them look at it, but it is a I think we'd all admit it's a hazardous condition to begin with in in its current state now. And when that was developed, there wasn't as much traffic on Sloum Road as there is today. So obviously the people that set that up

never expected that there would be the impact that we're experiencing today.

Yeah. So like I said, the the analysis, the traffic study did not include this because it was done in November. So, we don't have information to review and we can't I can't get up here and and state my opinion other than, you know, I don't think it's going to be an issue. But, if that's something we want the applicant to look at, we can we can definitely do that.

I'm not going to say yes as of yet. I think as a board, we we we probably have to consider that.

Okay.

All right. So, is there anyone else in the audience that would like to come forward and come on up?

Hi, Barbara Rutled from Wilbur Rav. I've lived here over 30 years. They've talked about doing down at the bottom putting the traffic lights since I moved in.

The other thing, when you say at the bottom, you're meaning at Route Six and Hathaway Road, right?

Okay.

The other thing is all the years I've lived here, I have never gone to the corner of Wilber and taken a left. I go the other way by Cumberland Farm, which is going to be a problem because you already see people from Halfway Road cutting down our street and going where I would go to Cumberland. So now this is even going to be worse.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else?

All right. So, we'll be touching upon this again, but obviously not at the same level that we're doing it today.

Let's see. What do we got for time here?

Well, we still got another 10 minutes.

So, unless you want to reserve it till the next date, but if you can make an opening on civil Well, I I got my my colleague here wants to say something.

No, Mr. Chair, I'm not sure if um Mr.

Durk wanted to say something. We heard uh oh or was there any Okay for the You're absolutely right.

I apologize for not having considered that.

Mr. Chair, um I don't know if the board knows it, but you have this for March 2nd and what this document here.

Oh yeah, we had it here this morning. We had this expectation.

Oh, that one that's from to the last hearing.

Yes.

That pretty much addresses almost everything that you talked about this evening. Each individual road improvements, etc. So, it's there in writing for your convenience.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, for the record, Jeffrey Durk with Vanessa Associates. Um, you know, I think as I had said at the last hearing, I think the combination, we've obviously heard the concerns of the residents. Um, we've tried to address the concerns in terms of expanding our study area and specific focus um, items that may not have been um, addressed in the original transportation assessment. We appreciate

the peer review. I think it's raised some good issues which we've responded to and we'll respond to um, any additional items that came up um, tonight. What I do want to say is is just really a couple of things. Um, this is a professionally prepared transportation impact assessment. I'm a professional engineer licensed in the Commonwealth. I conduct these studies.

I've been doing them for over 30 years.

I also represent boards such as this board. Um, what I want to assure the board and your review consultant serves um this purpose as well. Uh, this study complies with accepted practices. um it is 100% appropriate for questions to be raised and that's what we're here is to answer those questions and it's it's really about making sure it's a valid study that's presented to you. I will

tell you it's a valid study. Um um again, professional engineers stamp the study. You've had it reviewed by another professional, but we appreciate the the questions and comments. The study incorporates all of the background developments that are required. Those 40B projects for good or bad. I'm the traffic engineer for those projects.

They're in here. um we've assessed them, we presented those projects to the board. They're in the traffic study. Um there's nothing that's been done in terms of data collection, analysis techniques, or anything um that is not in accordance with accepted practices.

And again, that's what your peer reviewer's role is. As you look through their original review and you look through the 26 items that were addressed, you will see none of them.

Zero of those comments deal with the technical portions of the traffic study.

They all deal with some questions about adding expanding study area, providing additional crash data, but not one of those comments says that there was one thing done in this transportation analysis that was either non-standard or incorrect. So, I think we really need to look at that as well. So, the basis is good, but that again does not mean that there shouldn't be difficult questions

asked and that we should provide those answers and we will do that. Um the very last thing I want to say is again I apologize for the error in the presentation. I will issue a new slide.

It doesn't affect anything that your consultant had looked at. Uh but we will issue that so that you've got a corrected slide for the record um just to eliminate any confusion. So I again I appreciate the comments from the board as well as um the audience and we will continue to work with your consultant.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All righty.

All right. So there's only 7 minutes left. Are we going to reserve to start with the civil for the next hearing date?

If I can make a suggestion, Mr.

Chairman.

Sure.

There there's a number of slides. You've got a hard copy of it.

Okay. Just got to identify yourself first.

I'm sorry. Mark Donghue from Fletcher Tilted Council for the applicant. Um there are a number of slides. You have a hard copy of it. And what I think might serve of a benefit is rather than reviewing them in detail is for Mr.

Cadero to just talk at a high level of what they are and and so people can understand them, we can then put them into the portal so people can access them before the next meeting, have a chance to digest them. But I'm afraid if they don't have any context, people will take a look at them and not really understand what they're looking at. Can you do that in 10 minutes, Mr. Cado? All right, come on up.

That's this package here, right? This is really I will go very quickly. Uh for the record, Phil Cordiero Allen and Major Associates, principal professional engineer with an office address at 10 Main Street. Um, as Mark pointed out, I'll go through them quickly just to get the board situated, get the public situated, and we could talk about them in greater detail. Uh, the elements that

I wanted to talk about very specifically were items that the board had requested us to look at and general progress that we've made on the application since we appeared in front of the board in March.

On the civil side, uh, we did have your peerreview meal engineers, MEO associates looked at the application. We had provided a response to them. They have now provided a response to us from last Thursday. They have a couple of final comments. We'll seek to address those very quickly. In the meantime though, we did talk about at our last meeting, we did speak very briefly about the sports court and whether or not the

need for the retaining wall that's uh technically off property would need a variance, which this board could not grant because it was off property. We have identified that the retaining wall uh if it's under six feet in height does not need to require does not need to uh meet the setback standards and we'll ensure that that retaining wall is 6 feet and under. Um we also made mention

uh we have continued our coordination with the fire department. It came up several times during the tonight's presentation but the vi the fire department very specifically asked us for two bits of material. one confirm that we're using the right fire truck which we have done. The swept path analysis that is on record not only now but in before was the largest apparat apparatus model that the department

uses. We have confirmed that with the fire department. Uh but the second element is they asked us for a point of uh egress or ingress into the site exclusively for the fire department. So a second access. So that was recommended as part of the traffic study. We have now formally incorporated it into the plans and it is located here. It'll be gated, locked only for the fire department. It'll be located here as you

look at the screen. Uh lastly, we talked about uh parking tonight. 472 parking spaces. We talked about 131 of them being banked parking spaces. At our previous hearing, we had talked about the banked parking spaces along the southerntherly property line and the westerly property line. We have also indicated graphically that we can incorporate 44 banked parking spaces along the northerly property line. I

just want to reference for the board that's where those spaces are coming from in the aggregate. we can talk about them at the future meeting. And your peer review for the civil side wants to make sure that our systems fully and completely accommodate all of those if they're fully built out, which they do and they will.

Um, advancing forward, we'll talk about this more. Uh, we really do want to focus on the development of the crosssections, the site experience that the Abutters on Eisenhower Street will have. We're going to talk at great length about the distances that these buildings are set back from the property line as denoted by the blue line and we want to do it in context with the distances the existing houses are set

back from the opposing side of the property line which is that green line.

Um this for general reference this is the site section we'll talk about it's how the site steps and how we use the grade. Uh and then this is the cross-sectional view. You saw these, the public, the board saw these slides during our first introduction um of the application several months ago. We've repeated them here. Uh we're also going to talk about at great length again those distances between the property

lines as we walk down the sections from our development through Eisenhower. What the what the public and the board hasn't seen and this is what the board requested us to do is you wanted to see contextual photographs of how this development will look and feel from Eisenhower is the closest residential street. So what follows is a series of uh photographs. This is a street view photograph that we took on site. It

obviously faces the the vacant land now where the development will be located.

We've built a 3D model. We've superimposed the 3D model relative to all of the site constraints, elevation, woodline, etc. We talk about it at the next meeting. And ultimately what you'll see is this is how the buildings will contextually fit into that future condition of the site. And what we'll also talk about and this first view says no proposed landscaping. And I just highlight that for the benefit of some

future slides that we then do incorporate and you could see them here on the front. some trees some trees through here sort of masked by some of the existing vegetation that we are able to maintain along the shared property line between ourselves and Eisenhower but we'll also discuss the benefits of an increased uh landscaping buffer through there and dense screen as long as um proposed privacy fence. So, just

to jump through the slides, not to um bypass any of them quickly, but I want to walk through them so we can say that we've talked about them here. And as Mark pointed out, we will submit them through the portal tomorrow. We then take the next section down Eisenhower here.

Take the cross-section through here. And then we take those same photographic view looking into the development. What the cleared area would look like relative to those buildings, relative to what that height and massing would look like and relative to what the effect of a dense vegetative screening can do um when accomplished along that shared property line. Moving further down Eisenhower

removal, the effect of the buildings and then the effect of the screening that we can introduce through there. Another section down down Eisenhower and the development. Here's the screening buffer, the removal of the trees uh in the background and obviously what those buildings uh can can situate on and then the effectiveness of the screening uh along that shared property line. And then lastly, as we move down to the

lower sections, the removal of the trees. This one ju if I jump back and forth, you can see where the the background trees sort of disappear. The building is sort of uh tucked away in the back through there. And then the last photo view that we have is we're all the way down Eisenhower on the street view. And again, that lo the loss of the trees in the background as I jump

back and forth between the slides uh with the building certainly situated, I guess, closer to Hathaway from this view corridor. Uh and then similarly at the very very last positioning on Eisenhower Street as we look to the development before excuse me before and after by and large the same in that the trees at that back corner are really going to remain in place and the development is tucked

as far away for as far forward as we can uh as we can put forth. So um that very quickly for the board in 7 minutes um is the information that the board had asked us to prepare the ongoing progress that we are making with your civil engineering consultant. We can talk about any issues raised here tonight or any questions this board has for our next I just want to make sure this will be on

the portal so if anyone wants to view it from home it'll be on the portal.

These pictures does that include those 44 parking spaces used up or not?

Okay. Well, I guess the situation is she might be a little bit confused. The parking spaces will be below this area here. So, they're really not going to be viewable from this vantage point.

That that that is that's that's correct.

And we'll talk about this in much greater detail um at the next meeting.

But the important context here is how the site steps down and how these buildings are actually lower in grade than Eisenhower. So to the extent that those spaces, the 44 spaces that I referenced are actually constructed, they will be 10 to 13 ft lower in elevation from the backyards of those homes on Eisenhower. So these renderings, they they don't speak towards it, but they also don't

intentionally exclude it because they would not be visible because it would actually be tucked below below the the line of visibility from Eisenhower.

I can understand I can understand her question. If you just get the aerial view on there and show the location of where those Right. If you could just show the Okay, there we are.

But then, but now you're not going to have space to put those trees and shrubs that you said you would plant.

Okay, you got you got to if you're going to do all that, you got to come up now.

You got to identify yourself. Come on.

No, no, come on up. I want I want to hear this. Come on.

So, my question is just, you know, the parking spaces that you have, it really sounds like these bank spaces are going to have to be included in the project.

That should be the original number.

I'm assuming that already.

We're okay.

I'm presuming that that's going to happen. So, I'm just as a neighbor, if I lived on this street, um are you are do these pictures represent the 44 parking spaces? Cuz now you're taking away space of planting those trees and shrubs that you were talking about that you were showing.

Yes. Okay. So, you're supposed to direct it to me. No problem. Sorry.

Okay. So what what we'll talk about in greater detail is you could see by the shading on here how much of the existing vegetation we do want to keep by not constructing those 44 parking spaces. It has been made clear to us that the board wants to see the accommodations whether or not you de facto want us to construct them. Uh we can talk about that.

Generally speaking, from the back of those 44 spaces where my cursor is now to the property line generally is about 61 ft plus or minus uh excuse me from from the um from the face of the spaces to the property line it's about 61 ft.

If I build those spaces it's about 43 feet. Um we believe that we could accommodate the screening that we're talking about in that same 41 ft. We're going to make it as dense as possible that should we have to construct those spaces, we want to densify that buffer between the two properties.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Great. This is really not supposed to be a question and answer session on this. This will be the next time we're here. That's what we got to discuss now. We have to pick another date that we're going to continue this to. So, what do we have as a potential date, Michelle? I know we discussed it. I don't remember the date.

21st of May. 21st of May.

21st.

Oh. Um, Mr. Calhoun, are you going to come up?

Oh, you're okay.

Are you okay on May 21? See, uh, Susan.

All right. Uh, Attorney Fario, May 21st.

Okay. With you, attorney?

Yes.

Okay.

All right. So, how's May 21st?

If that's the first available, that's we'll have to make a because we've got a couple others that we're actually trying to fit in between then. Excuse me, folks.

Um May 21st. All right. So, everyone in the audience, we're letting you know that the next date that we'll be here in this room will be May 21st. Is that a Thursday?

It's a Thursday. It'll be a Thursday.

May 21st at 6 o'clock pm.

At 6 pm. We start at five, but we do local matters, the typical varants and special permits at 5:00. These we've put on for six. Obviously, they're much more extensive, much more contentious, and they require a lot more dedication to time. Um, is there anything else you wanted to add to that, sir?

Uh, no. I mean, that that's with that gap. We will share the information that that was submitted to the portal um later this week to your peerreview consultants together with process so they can review it. I would hope we'd have vigorous discussion with your traffic consultants so when we come back on the 21st we're down to some fairly um concrete points.

Can we have a gentleman's understanding that that will be on the portal for these residents by Friday?

Absolutely.

I think Mr. Calhoun wants to add something. Yeah, it'll be he's not going to add anything different. It's going to be on by Friday.

No, the getting the information up on the portal will probably happen sometime tomorrow.

Okay, great.

Um the only thing that um we ask and we made this at the very first hearing is that the peerreview consultants do talk openly and share information real time.

Uh I don't in the in the other two matters we've had that's not been a problem. I wouldn't expect that to be a problem on this case, but if it is, just address it with Michelle and we'll do what we need to do.

So, Mr. Chair, just so I can clarify, the peerreview consultants have been communicating with the staff and um to the extent that there were questions, follow up on what was discussed on the hearing, what from the hearing needs to be included, those conversations are happening. Okay. After those conversations just to confirm kind of was has everything been covered that was raised at the hearing etc. then the

information is being transmitted to the applicant. So just as the applicant likely wouldn't want their consultants shooting stuff off to the board that they haven't discussed with them first, the same thing is happening. The board's consultants are making sure that their letters are covering everything that the board wished to have covered before they go to the applicant and they're doing that in due course

in a reasonable amount of time and that's what they'll continue to do.

We don't have an issue with that. So I don't I'm hopeful I would like to think that these professionals they could go back and forth if there's if there's nothing to worry about no issues at all.

Thank you.

All right. Um All right. I guess we'll see each other back in on May.

We need to make a Oh, I'm just letting them know. Just letting them know and then because all of a sudden when we go off that they just Okay. Um so yeah. So at this point, what am I going to need? A motion to adjurnn.

Continue.

Oh, continue. That's right.

We're going to continue. I just figured we we thought of it. It's done. No.

So tell me, I will entertain a motion to continue this matter.

You give me the date.

I make a motion to continue comprehensive permit ZCMP25-3 to May 21st at 6:00.

Second that motion.

All in favor?

I I I the eyes have it. All right. So now I need a motion to adjurnn unless there's any other business to discuss.

Gentlemen, I think we're done. I'll entertain a motion to make a motion to adjurnn.

Second that motion.

All in favor? I The eyes have it. Thank you.

All righty.