Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting - August 13, 2026

and welcome to the zoning board of appeals meeting of Thursday, August 13, 2026. At this time, I'm going to call upon everyone in the audience and my board members to stand so we can pledge allegiance to the flag.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I'd ask that you all remain standing in for a moment of silence in honor of our soldiers past and present and especially those that are in harm's way in the Middle East.

Thank you.

All right, I have a couple announcements that I'm required to make. First is this meeting is being recorded by Dartmouth Community Media and our next scheduled meeting is it's not on the agenda.

Should I announce that?

Um or is it still up in the air?

Well, I'm going to say September 17th.

Okay. September 17th. Was it 13th?

No, we had it on the 14th, but it's a select board meeting that night. So, now we have to go into three.

So, the 17th is a is a Thursday.

Thursday. So, at this point, uh, next regular scheduled meeting is for is on September 17th at 5:00 p.m. here in this building.

That'll be we'll figure that out.

Yes. But as as to exactly what time then the exact time we'll be providing further information. Thank you. Um, the first matter moving on to the public hearing portion of tonight's meeting.

The first matter we have is variance ZAV 26-3 and this was a previously continued case. It's been continued from July 30th, 2026. It's actually been continued a few times prior to that. Gentlemen, I'm not going to read it into the record because I think you know which one this is. This is 367 O Westport Road. We received an email from the petitioner and they're indicating that they're

still having and they're asking for another continuation because they still haven't been able to get a hold of John uh who's the registered land surveyor that they need to engage in order to make some changes that I believe that may have been suggested by this board.

Uh that might make their petition a little bit easier uh for appro for approval or for consideration I should say.

Um so as long as there are no objections to that, Attorney Far, you have any objections?

No, I have none.

I'll entertain a motion, gentlemen.

Oh, excuse me one second before we do that. Did they sign the requisite continuation form to ensure that the shot clock doesn't go? All right.

This is going to the 17th.

September 17th at 5:00.

Uh I make a motion that we continue variance ZAV26-3 to September 17th at 5:00.

Second that motion.

All in favor?

Uh the petitioner in that case is John Williams. The owner is Richard and Jacqueline Crosby. The property is located at 44 Russell Mills Road known as map 125 lot 59. It's located in the single residence B district. We've previously uh waved the reading of the abutters list, but the matter was legally advertised on July 9th and July 15th of this year. I've already read the denial letter from the building

commissioner and to what was required for relief. And just as a refresher for the audience at home and also here, um the petitioner is seeking a variance to subdivide the existing lot into two new non-conforming lots so that there's only one dwelling house on each lot. Once subdivided, neither lot will have sufficient frontage, lot area, or meet the setback required in single residence

B. Um they're seeking relief for and and basically saying that lot one will have 34,51 square ft of uplands. It'll be 90 ft of frontage and 57.27 ft to the street and I guess existing is 6.4. So they're looking for that relief.

Lot two is also the same square footage, but that lot has 100 foot of frontage and it's 64.6 ft6 ft to the street.

There's an 18t sideline setback and there's the statutory or the I should say the bylaws in which they're seeking relief. This is one that came before us.

I think that we had reached some sort of an understanding as to what had transpired here historically what happened. Um clearly it it wasn't a situation where they built something without a permit. They they've got a sewer tie-in for that additional residence that I recall that. Um also it appears to me that there was a building permit that was applied for, but it was very limited as to what may have been

granted. Um but at this point I'm going to call upon the petitioner's representative, Mr. John Williams because I think we we had instructed him to put together a proposed um decision if you will for us to consider with some findings and some analysis.

Now before you go there, Mr. Williams, and I ask you to come forward, but I just want to run something by my board.

I don't know if you've received I received yesterday and via email that there has been a change to 4A and it's pretty substantive and under 4A they have now changed some of the requirements where there had to be a substantial hardship and that's no longer the test. It's now a balancing test. I haven't had enough time to actually review the law on this to see whether or not in my opinion I'm not

convinced whether it just changes one prong of the analysis because I've always sensed that there's a four-prong test in order to satisfy the requirements of a variance. I don't know if there's only a change to one prong or if that's the entire analysis moving forward. So at this point I don't feel comfortable making a decision one way or another. But I do know that when we considered the petition for 484 Russell

Mills Road, we had in mind at the very least we had in mind the analysis that we've known for decades now of 48 which is more stringent which is much more stringent and much more difficult to satisfy and in my opinion I think they've satisfied it but I only speak for myself. So I I think it's always, you know, I think if we're going to er we're ingring on the side of

caution and requiring them to undergo the the greater standard. Now, if we don't vote in the affirmative, then I think we have to reconsider our position as to whether or not we're going to apply the old analysis or we're going to table it and then look at how we apply the new the new standard that's required under the statute.

That make sense, gentlemen?

Does to me?

Yeah.

Attorney Faria, I don't have a problem with that. All right.

Do you have an objection to that, Mr.

Williams?

Uh, no.

Okay.

No. But, um, on the 30th, um, there was a decision, and I have a copy of it. It says it was a unanimous decision of the board of appeals to grant the requested variance to subdivide the existing lot into two new non-conforming lots. So, there's only one dwelling on each lot.

And at that time, you using the most stringent standard. And if the new standard is less stringent, uh, I don't see how I think it's a benefit.

I'm not certain. Did we actually vote on it at the last hearing? I don't think we voted on it.

That's just a draft.

I got it right here. It says decision.

Yeah, that might have been a draft of what might have been put together.

Waiting for waiting waiting for the a set of findings for you to justify it.

That's what I did.

Voted on. Without the findings, we wouldn't have voted on it.

No, we would vote tonight. I don't think we would. I don't think we did, but I could be wrong, but I'll just We never voted. We never voted.

Okay. [clears throat] But I think we could still proceed for forward. If we get to a point where there's going to be any hiccup on this, we can always confront you. You can interject at that point in time. Fair enough.

Fair.

All right. So, we've been put forth with a proposed um with some proposed findings and also some analysis. So, I'm going to read it. Uh I haven't reviewed this as of yet, but it's been it's only proposed. So, we'll review it then we we can always make changes. The subject property is located at 44 Russell Mills Road, Darmmouth, and is also known as map 125, lot 59 on town of Dartmouth

Assesses Map. The property is located in the single residence B district and measures 68,12 ft where 64,000 ft is required for a single family residence. The property is a lot with frontage on Russell Mills Road where 200t of frontage is the is the minimum required in a single residence B district. Now, let's go back to number two. Is the minimum square footage 64,000 or is it 80,000? I Yeah, I was I thought res.

Yeah, I'm not sure on this. I was going to say something about that.

I got to I got it off the uh Dartmouth zoning rug. So, but I've always thought single residence B is 40,000 and single residence No, excuse me. Single residence A is 40,000 with 150 foot of frontage. Single residence B is 200 ft of frontage and 80,000 square ft.

So, not a big deal.

Yeah, it doesn't not a big deal. That's better for us.

The lot the property is a lot with frontage on Russell Mills Road where 200 feet of frontage is the minimum required in the single residence B district.

That's right.

The property has been owned by Richard S. Crosby and Jacqueline T. Crosby since 1996 and has been in their family since 1780. I think that's a long time.

Currently, there are two single family structures on the property. The owner of the property is proposing to subdivide the existing lot into two non-conforming lots so that there's one only one dwelling house on each lot. The petitioner is seeking a variance per article 375-10.4G5 to install a new driveway 52.5 ft from an intersection of streets where 55 ft is required.

Wait a minute. Was that was that something that he saw?

That's from a different case. I thought was that the 525? Was that from uh Bliss?

Is that what that was from? I think so.

I didn't I didn't hear hear that one.

There's no relief here for a driveway, is there?

No.

No. No. They they have they have a common they have a common entrance for both.

Same one that they use for either house.

I understand that. But the thing is you're putting here that there's a variance required for the driveway.

That's not accurate. We're going to change that.

We're going to put here next. The board finds that the requested relief is minor and reasonable and the two dwellings do not deviate from their present location.

Well, I don't like we just I won't put that in there.

Not minor.

Nine there. We never use we don't use the word minor, but there are no changes to the existing two family structures on the property. True. And then it says the board finds that subdividing the existing lot into two lots is not more detrimental to the neighborhood and would be in harmony with the general purpose intent of the zoning bylaw.

That's fine, but that's not the test.

Now 48 [clears throat] section 10 it is a finding and I agree with that.

The two structures already exist.

There are circumstances related to soil shape and topography that especially affect the subject property that do not generally affect the zoning district in which the structural land is located.

The existing two family dwellings will remain as shown on the plan and the footprint of the existing dwellings will remain the same. All right.

Number two. A little enforcement of the provisions of the bylaw would involve substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the petitioner. a little unfortunate the provision of the bylaw would involve substantial financial hardship to the petitioner. Um we got to find something.

We'll just leave that.

Mortgage and all that.

Yeah. And if I can interject, I mean the um the two houses have been on there since the 60s and they would have been uh they would have they would have met the requirements of the SICO case. It was just a couple of years difference.

They um I get that zoning was only implemented sometime I think it's 1953 in the town of Diff was sometime in the summer of 53. The the I believe if I don't if I remember correctly the the permit or the other home was built in ' 66 if I remember correctly.

I think it was a little earlier than that but it was close but it was it was close but you know what so Mr. Crosby who's sitting seated here his father was the one that took out the permit.

There's a set of building plans the building department has in the file.

Obviously, it's a house right on Russell Mills Road. If you're constructing a new house, I would assume that at some point in time, the build inspector drove by and said, "Is this guy legal putting up a house?" And no one stopped them and they built a house back then. And um it it's, you know, they've been there for a long period of time. So, when it says a literal enforcement of the of the bylaw

would cause substantial financial hardship, it it definitely would. I mean, they uh they're there two actually two two dwellings been there for a long period of time. So, we're just trying to make we're just trying to make it legal.

So, but I I also have to make it uh meet the standards under the statute. I understand.

Um and we try not to just recite what the what the element is. So, I I'm going to try this just for now, and I obviously I defer to my members. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the bylaw would impede the owner's ability to convey or finance the dwelling separately. Does that make sense gentlemen?

Mhm.

There's anything else you'd like to add to, we can always do so.

Two, three, excuse me, describe again. Excuse me again. Desirable relief may be granted without detriment to the public good. The requested relief is reasonable as the property presently has two dwellings on it. Both are legal pre-existing non-conforming structures and have existed for over 10 years under chapter 48 Mass General Law Chapter 48 section 7. All right.

So, Mr. chairman if uh the building department said they will give a building permit to finish it but that doesn't solve the the the problem.

So like I said they're they're they're um pre-existing uses that have been basically grandfathered in. They can't force them to take a structure down.

We I have a pretty good understanding of this case because we don't typically I have a very good understanding of this case because this is very unique.

It is unique. This is the I don't I don't think I don't think we've done one just like we've not done one like this at least my tenure here for about 12 12 years but it wasn't like [clears throat] this where the structure was in existence.

There was two houses on cottage on which one was it?

Uh Noachchoke Lake Nokachoke up there.

Yeah, we brought that off of off of Reed Road.

Right. Right. Okay.

I I think yeah desiraal relief may be granted. There's no change to the to the density or you know there's two houses remain two houses. So this, you know, we can say that there'll be no changes to the uh and and the town allowed them to construct that dwelling and and you know to try to make them take it down now is not right.

We're not taking we're not asking for that. No would involve substantial change to the existing structures with potential.

All right. Then it says here the variance will not nullify or substantially dergate from the intent or purpose of the bylaw. The property is located in a single residence B district and the proposed approval of a subdivision plan will not derate from the intent of the current bylaw. The requested relief is reasonable and addresses sight specific constraints.

Granting of the requested variance will not nullify a substantiate from the intent or purpose of the bylaw. All right. Tell is there anything else that you'd like to add?

No, just the first one. I'm not sure. I need to look at something in in number two. Number two, not the uh literal enforcement.

Yeah.

I'm suggesting you put something in here that says uh that there's potential for the for inability to use the dwelling house.

Okay.

What this is not allowed.

Say that again. that uh there's the hardship to the owner is the potential for his inability to use the dwelling house uh for family for the family. Um that would be a hardship ability to utilize.

What's that address on that other one that's not constructed? What's the address on that one?

Say that again.

What's the address on the one that's not been fully constructed?

Um that 484 486.

Yeah.

Or [clears throat] the first one is 48 484 is the old 488. 48. 48. Yeah, 88.

All right.

Anything else, gentlemen?

I have none.

No, nothing additional.

Um, we have the usual requirements. You got to get all necessary building permits from all of the town boards and all of that. and and uh one of the requirements from the board of health was that um one of the the old house is on a septic was to connect up the town sewer. Okay.

And and uh um and and the the Mr. Crosby has already got a permit. It's in the window and he's contracted to have that put in, you know, immediately.

And that's for 488, right? 488 is on septic 484. 484.

Yeah. And I would think if that house was built in uh 1780, it probably needs a new septic.

It already has town water, right?

Right. And both have time. Town water.

Yep.

Yeah.

All right. That's we make that a condition.

All right. There's nothing else, gentlemen.

Oh, the public hearing still. We didn't close the public hearing. We didn't close the public hearing. So, is there anyone in the audience that would like to come forward and speak either in favor or in opposition to this request?

This is for 484 and 488 Russell Mills Road.

All right. I can report to the viewers at home. There are probably about 20 people in the audience and no one has come forward either in support or in opposition. So, knowing that, gentlemen, uh, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

I make a motion that we close the public hearing for variance ZAV26-5.

Second that motion.

All in favor?

I I the eyes have it.

What's your pleasure, gentlemen?

You look good to me, sir.

I make a motion that we approve variant ZAV-26-5 with the stated findings and conditions previously read.

Second.

All in favor? I I the eyes have it.

Good luck.

Thank you.

All right, moving on. Next is special permit ZSP26-3.

Oh, yeah.

The petitioner in this case is Eli Powell. The owner is Pamela Spatz. The subject property is located at 54 Bonnie's Joy Road. Is also known as map 77 lot 69. Property is located in the single residence B district and it was legally advertised in July 23rd and July 30th of this year. I make a motion that we wave the reading of the butters list.

Second that motion.

All in favor? I I the eyes have it. For our viewers at home or anyone in the audience, if you'd like to see the abutters list, it'll be it's actually uh with the secretary of our office, Miss Michelle Vieira, if you'd like to view it. In this particular case, a special permit is required because the petitioner is seeking to demolish an existing garage with an office on the second floor and rebuilding in a similar

footprint, a new garage with a bathroom and sauna. A special permit's required to bring water to an accessory structure under section 375-8.31-2.

And we know that the property is located in the single residence B district. All right. So, having read that into the record, I need to now read the letter denial from denial letter from our building inspector.

This is a letter dated July 7th to Eli Powell and it's regarding 54 Bonnie's Joy Road and it says, "I've reviewed your application and at this time your proposal cannot be approved due to non-compliance with current zoning regulations. Applicant proposing demolition of existing garage with office on second floor and rebuilding in a similar footprint a new garage with a bathroom and sauna. Special permit is

required to bring water to an accessory structure. Your application is being denied under the following section of the zoning bylaw and that's 375-8.3b and basically holds that an accessory building or structure within which a kitchen, wet bob, bathroom or any plumbing is installed such as but not limited to cabanas, garages or studios.

Such an accessory use is allowed by special permit granted by the board of appeals if the following requirements are met. And the board of appeals must determine that the accessory building or structure will not be used as an additional residential unit on the property. And the board of appeals shall determine through a review of submitted building plans that the nature of the proposed plumbing, wiring, or other

utilities is not proposed in such a manner so that the accessory building or structure could be used or converted into an additional residential unit.

We've done these before.

Mhm.

All right, gentlemen.

So, at this time, I'm going to call upon the petitioner or their representative to come forward and state your case. Mr.

Chairman, yes, there's more to read.

Oh, there is more to read. Okay.

So, we've got a comment from the board of health. It says here, as our office has commented, we are just waiting on the recorded grant of restrictive covenant and that states that the facility is a fourbedroom per the approved septic design from 1995. Once we have this recorded document, all requirements will be satisfied and our office will be able to release our hold.

Thank you. Conservation in accordance with a wetland site inspection A1 performed in March of 2026. The proposed work in is or in it says work in within the 100 foot buffer zone to a wetland resource area and the applicant's contract has filed. Okay. So, it must mean the work is in with is within the 100 foot buffer zone to a wetland resource area and the applicant's contract has filed a RDA permit

application with conservation which is slated to be heard on August 4th concom hearing. All right. Then we got Jennifer Miller. That was from Jennifer Miller.

Then we've got DPW. DPW has the usual restrictions. Nothing. They're usual conditions that they impose. All right.

Um, pretty much it. So, I guess at this at this time I'll call upon the petitioner or their representative to come forward and say the case.

Sure. Uh, good evening. Um, the homeowners uh would like to that the garage is uh old and I'm sorry, just before we start, just it's a matter of procedure for us. I need your name and your address.

Yes. Uh, my name is Eli Powell and my address is 8 Riverview Avenue, Dartmouth.

And you're here on behalf of the petitioner?

I am the Yes, I'm here on behalf of the petitioner. I am their general contractor for the project.

So, continue.

Um, the existing building is in a state of disrepair. Um, and we have proposed to take the existing building down. um put up a very similar structure with a just an additional uh a small addition on the back of it.

Um on a similar footprint, just a little bit larger and um add a bathroom to the second floor of it. um the according to the plans and I've reiterated to the building department and the uh health department that the intended use for the building is just a workout area, workshop and office space.

All right. Is there anyone any of the board members have any questions?

Uh not at this time, Mr. Chair. I haven't looked at the plans yet.

Attorney.

Um, as I look at the plans, it's going to be two levels.

Yes, sir. There's a a garage space to be utilized as a garage and a sauna on the first floor. Uh, as well as an workout space and office space with the bathroom on the second floor.

All right.

The existing garage is also two floors with an office space above it.

So on the first level behind the garage, there'll be a sauna and another bathroom.

It's just a essentially a wet room to shower once you've left the sauna.

And then on the second floor, there will be looks like a full kitchen.

Uh the kitchen was nixed from the plans.

Um and it's not a full kitchen. And that just shows a basically a slap sink to fill a water bottle or something like that. Um [clears throat] and a bathroom behind it.

Okay.

All right. So just for clarification, you do understand that one of the requirements that we are um you know we are forced to find is that we have to look at the plan and we have to ensure that the that the proposed structure cannot be easily or readily converted into a residential apartment.

Um and my brother here um quickly and and astutely pointed out that it looks like you know that's the beginnings of a kitchen. So, we're always concerned that we're creating apartments, but what's with the ADUs? I mean, don't they have like that's not what they're coming to. They didn't they didn't propose this as [clears throat] ADU. So, we have to apply for now. And I understand that since the change with the ADUs,

um, there's a lot of overlap that goes on with these. Some of them, I don't even know whether or not they would even have to come before us. But given given the request that's being made and what we're charged with in imposing the bylaw, we have to make that determination.

Is there anything else that you folks want to ask or explore on that issue or the fact that you know it clearly says that it's a sink, but a sink in and of itself doesn't necessarily create a kitchen. But we've got a bathroom sink, we've got a toilet, and we've got a shower on the second floor. And then we've got another shower on the first floor, but that shower has no accompanying sinks. It's just a shower.

That seems like it's pretty incidental to the sauna, which I don't I don't find that to be suspect at all. And just the bathroom being there, that doesn't. But the sink, it says a counter with a 15 by 15 bar sink.

There are conditions that we can put on this.

Absolutely. But uh just a quick question for the petitioner. I thought um did you say you are reconstructing uh the new structure within the same footprint. I thought you I thought you I heard you the little addition in the front or something like that.

Yeah. So the [clears throat] the width is the same. There's and the the we will use the footprint of the old structure with a small extension off the back which is outlined in the the site plan.

So it's not within the same footprint.

Well, the petition [clears throat] the petition said similar, right? Which I don't like. It's either it is or it isn't. Um, now what what did what did the building expect when his uh he didn't he didn't reference I don't think Well, I I I think I said the footprint with a small extension off the back is is what?

No, that's what I thought. But I So, you're expanding on it somewhat.

What's the expansion?

It's about 12 ft, I think.

12 ft by what?

By the width of the building, which is uh I believe it's 26. I can't There's an expansion and that doesn't require any type of side to rear. RIA yard setback relief.

Uh, no. No, it doesn't.

And the building inspector did look at the site plans that you submitted and the plans that or he had Yeah, the building inspector, the building commissioner and uh have both verbally approved the project as well as the conservation commission.

That was my other question.

Did you Did you appear before the conservation committee or last week? Yeah, it's over. And the result, it's over 900. I don't know. The math.

Uh, so if it is, so what's the square footage? Any uh do you know what the square footage of the uh of the foot? It's 24 by 32, but you got to jog somewhere, right?

24. Yeah, I think it's No, doesn't count. I understand. And the I mean, I'm not sure if the sauna counts.

Can I read the letter from the building inspector again, please? I gave it to you.

Oh, here it is.

Because if they applied for an ADU, this would be over 900 ft, right?

I'm sorry. If you would applied under the ADU, this structure would be over you'll have over 900 square feet of living space, I believe.

Uh I it's been a minute since I've done the math on the exact condition space.

Um of the structure in his letter, he put in a similar footprint. I didn't get the specifics.

All right. So, I'm going to ask you just just in case. Is there anyone in the U in the audience um who would like to speak either in favor and opposition to this petition? This is for the property of 54 Barney's Joy Road. It's certainly not a densely populated populated area.

Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak either in favor or in opposition?

I'm getting nods of no.

Right. So, no one's here, but So, no one's here. One way or the other.

Uh garage. Wow.

So, usually on these plans, it'll tell you what the square footage is on this, right? Of living space and whatever else, but these don't have it.

Is that what you're looking for, Helen?

Well, I mean, yeah, you're close to 800 square ft. So, with with one footprint, so uh it's 25 floors. So, I I don't This is the petition. We're not going to go outside of it. This is what he's asking for. Whatever restrictions you guys want to put or conditions, we can do that if you feel comfortable. And then that's what they're asking for.

That's what we're going to grant.

I know you're trying to help them out and see if you can find a way to say, "Hey, you don't even have to come before us."

But I' I'd like to think that the building department might have brought that to their attention. I was going to say if they want to, but they don't have an obligation to. It's not like they represent them, right?

200. Oh, I think I see. What is that?

2011. No, that's not okay.

I don't know if you understand where we're going with this. Okay. If this were 900 ft of living space, you wouldn't even have to come before us, right?

If it ex because there's there's a new statute, there's a mandate that came down from the governor that says that you can build an ADU up to 900 ft on your property exclusive of the garage.

for many people. I don't know if you've seen them around, there's a garage on the first level, big building garage, and on the second floor there's living space.

It's certainly over 900 ft for condition space. And if it is, I don't know. I didn't do the math.

It is.

But if if it were 900 or less, then you wouldn't have to come before us. You're coming before us. So now we have to treat it as an accessory structure, right?

And now we have to make a determination as to whether or not it is right. is easily transferable into a residential unit.

Yeah.

And if it is, we will not grant it.

Understood.

So the the thing that's that's a little bit concerning and my brother to the far right is that sink. So we're going to cor we're going to make sure that there isn't a sink.

That's fine.

Okay.

That okay, Mr. Human.

Yes.

That address your concern.

It does.

Addresses mine, too, Farrier. Great.

All right. Okay.

All right. So, there not being anyone in the audience either in favor or in opposition, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

Did you want to keep it open just so it's not Yeah, I guess we typically Yeah. You know, something we might want to do that. I don't I do not Well, I do I do have a proposed uh some proposed findings for this. However, I left them at the office.

So, they do us a lot of good here. But I can paraphrase what I had written uh which is very standardized. It's only about six six sentences. One of the things I needed to know from you is how long we typically get that in the packet. It didn't have that which is the assess field card. How long is Mrs.

Spats owned this property?

She can look it up. I mean it's okay.

Yeah. I wanted to add mine was silent. I left a blank line for that.

It's the yellow.

Yeah. See, it wasn't on the It wasn't on the website.

At least I start.

So, according to this, she's owned it since Oh, Michael. Oh, you got it?

Yeah, I got it now. Well, actually, she owns it as trustee. She doesn't even own it individually.

So, we'll change that. And they've own it since 2019.

So, since December of 2019, I think that's a they've owned and lived there for I think 30 years, but I think it's changed from ownership to a trusty year or something like that.

Into a trust in 2019.

Yeah.

Oh, I see. It's David Boen.

That's her husband. They don't share a last name.

All right. So, it's been it's been held by a trust since 1991. [clears throat] Says he had July 2nd. Let me circle that.

Individually, it looks like I don't know. Well, I would say then then we go back to 2019 as trustee, right? That's how that's how they file.

So, they've only by the with the trust.

But the thing is is this there at the bottom it only shows one trustee and at the top it shows that there's two trustees.

All right, we'll put it here that they've owned it as trustees or they've held title as trustees since December 23rd, 2019. Fair enough.

Yes.

All right.

All right. So, gentlemen, I'm going to paraphrase and [cough] the [clears throat] decision um basically holds that the property is located within the single residence B district.

um that the properties held been held by Pamela Espatz as trustee since December 23rd of 2019 that they're proposing there's a single residence there's a single family residence on the premises existing garage with an existing okay um that they're proposing to demolish that structure and construct a new one and in my decision I put on a similar footprint but I guess I'm going to be more specific on the

decision and say on a footprint measuring and I'll go off of the plan.

Okay. going to state the footprint measuring um that they're seeking relief under article and section it's let's see it's section 3758.3 one and two and that there under that it requires that any type of wet bar or kitchen requires a special permit for a water connection and that we've made a determination reviewing the plans that it's not readily converted. It's not to be readily converted into a residential

unit and that there's two conditions that come along with this. One is that it's not to be used as a residential unit and two that it's subject to inspections yearly yearly inspections by the um building department to determine whether or not the property is being utilized as a residential structure by the the building department. by the building department.

Okay.

Yeah. Upon notification.

Yes. There's notification. They don't just come.

They're not just gonna pop in to my knowledge ever. Um and the other one is that we find that it's not more detrimental, right, to the neighborhood, the typical standard for the special permit.

Yes, that's in the finding. Yeah, that's in the findings.

The curb appeal will remain exactly the same as it is now.

Well, I'm hoping it's going to look better. You're telling me the other one's an old dilapidated.

It'll look better. Yeah.

All right. It's going to look better.

I'm not saying much about it. The contract that's not going to look the same, right? All right.

Um, anything else, gentlemen?

No.

Oh, the other thing is, is there something about the What was the other condition?

Yeah, we're going to have the we're going to have a condition with regard to the conservation that there's not to be a kitchen.

There's not to be a sink or a kitchen on the premises.

I don't care about a sink, but anything.

He's got a 15. It says 15 foot counter.

What do you need a 15 foot counter for?

Usually it's the stove that we're concerned about most, but the uh but I mean, how do we It's just on the planes. It's already the beginnings of something, right?

All right. Um, we got the board of health with the septic system. So, there's also a condition in there that you got to seek all approvals from all town boards and agencies. And he did ask the question, but I wasn't paying attention. You went before [clears throat] the Concom on August 4th. How did that meeting go?

Great. Positive result.

Right.

Did they approve it?

Yes.

So, you're in the appeal period at this point?

Yes.

All right.

Brian, attorney Farah, I have no questions.

All right. I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

I make a motion that we close the public hearing.

I don't have the I can where is it?

On case number on special permit ZP-26-3 for 54 Bonnie's Joy Road.

Second.

All in favor?

I The eyes have it. All right. Now, what's your pleasure, gentlemen?

Me. I make a motion that we approve special permit ZSP-26-3 with the facts and conditions stated previously uh on this matter.

Second a motion.

All in favor?

I I the eyes have it.

Good luck.

Thanks very much.

You're welcome.

[snorts] All right. So, the next matter is variance case ZAV26-7.

Unfortunately, I have a conflict and I will not be able to stand and preside in a decision on that case. So, we're going to take a short recess so that we can the board can reconvene with an alternate member uh so that we have this sufficient number to to make a determination. So, we're going to convene for a short recess.

The zoning board is back in session.

We're now starting our 6:00 uh segment of tonight's meeting. Uh the 6:00 segment has been dedicated to two comprehensive permits which are the 40B applications. The first one that's on the agenda for this evening is the Sherbrook Farms which is uh comprehensive permit ZCMP25-2.

The petitioner applicants Robert Lincoln, the owner of the property of Sherbrook Farms LLC and the subject properties located at 498 O Westport Road also known as map 48 lot 29 and the property is located in the single residence B district. The matter has been legally advertised on August 7th and August 14th of 2025. We've already waved the reading of the abutters [snorts] list. And just as a short brief

summary, this is the project located at 498 O Westport Road in which the developers seeking to um [clears throat] seek approval for 156 units of rental housing, including 39 affordable units.

and there's a litany of uh waiverss that they're requesting which we've already read into the record once before. So, I don't know who's here tonight on behalf of the petitioner, but I know that there's been excuse me, I'm just going to segue into you at some point. I know that there's been extensive communication between other boards of town in [clears throat] town such as DPW and whatnot. And I do know that our

council has had extensive communications with the petitioner as well. So, I'll defer to you to bring us up to speed.

Um, and I just keep in mind that we've already closed the public hearing portion of this application.

Right. So, the hearing closed on July 9th. Um, so at the after July 9th, no additional testimony of any kind could come in. So at that point and on as of July 9th the board had reviewed an initial draft of conditions as had the applicant and had uh reviewed all of the proposed waiverss. So as of the time it closed that had happened. There were um when it was closed, there were a few

just um drafting issues primarily related to kind of the formula for future uh contribution to the um sewer pump station upgrades. um the applicant um kind of elected to work with the uh DPW going forward after they have a full design and kind of sort out what the impacts are going to be. Um and then agree to what their share of that will be at a future date as opposed to

committing to an amount upfront. So, um you have a draft in front of you. Um you should have two documents actually the board one of them is a red line um which says draft conditions at the top with the date August 6th and I'll just briefly some of it was you know I just read it from front to back again and caught some you know drafting errors and that type of thing. filled in the blanks

on the number of units and bedrooms etc.

Um so that most of it was not substantive. Um there was a request that had been made for example on the on the uh July 9th meeting before it closed. So on page seven about um the planning director had raised that there was some insufficient landscaping on some of the landscape islands for etc. So that was inserted on page seven based on the discussion on July 9th. Um other the

other most of the other changes that you will see were all based on conversations that happened on July 9th and the most substantive changes on page 10. And this is where the discussion of the flow to the north pump station came in and kind of the the process that the applicant agrees to undertake with DPW to determine what their contribution will be. So, um, that had been reviewed by, um, Tim Barber, the DPW

director. He couldn't be here tonight, but he confirmed for me that he is comfortable with this language. It's just a modified. It's the same concept as the board reviewed on July 9th, just tweaked to kind of fit with the process that will work for DPW and the applicant. But conceptually, it's the same. There's no no new information or testimony that is included in that condition. And then um some of the other

changes that you're seeing is really more rearranging. It looks like there's a lot of changes say on page 15 161 17 but we just reordered some of the conditions um is primarily what happened there. Updated the plan references on schedule A and then the um the waiverss. Originally the what [clears throat] what now is reading and you'll see in the track changes as whether granted or granted with kind of

a caveat. Those were all discussed with the board on July 9th. They're now just we've now just filled in that column to uh state what the board's actions is.

There's a couple of um gray highlighting on say B3. You'll see it. These were just there were some dimensions that had been in the original waiver list that were off. They were like they hadn't input the you know they had the wrong it was 17.5 ft. They had 21 ft. It was a wrong. They just corrected those. So those are just factual corrections that happened but I'm just they've just been

highlighted so the board would see what had changed since the July 9th version.

Um and the [clears throat] only one again but it it was discussed on July 9th was that they had asked for um a they had asked for a waiver on the height of some of the um trees that were going to be planted as part of the landscaping. I will tell you though I am seeing something. If you look on page B6 I am going to suggest an an edit. Um which which page again?

B6. So, you're at the second to last page.

This the board action on those actually should be reversed.

This um this waiver on the height of the trees that one is the one that's um I'm trying to it might be both. It might be both.

So, there's a condition that the plantings are [clears throat] maintained and replaced if necessary. So the waiver is granted but subject to a condition that the plantings are maintained and replaced if necessary for a period of two years. Um and I believe that that would apply to both 26 and 27.

Um so that that's the only change that I would suggest on those.

I think the major the bigger concern was if you had smaller caliber trees um you know making sure that they survived. Um so that's that's what's changed since the July 9th. I didn't know if the board had any questions about any of the changes the proposed conditions. Well, [clears throat] one of them that I noticed was that there was I don't know if had maybe I had missed it that there was a clear designation as to

how many bedroom units there would be.

And according to this, it says it's 64 one-bedroom units, 72 two-bedroom units, and 16 three-bedroom units for a total of 252 bedrooms.

Yep.

So, that was clarified. And I I didn't know whether or not that had ever really been put forth. And if it had, I hadn't was I wasn't clear on it.

Yeah. I think ear the earlier hearings kind of focused more on that and then as the board got into traffic and storm water and other issues than the unit mix hadn't been discussed as much at the back end of the hearings but had been focused on more at the beginning of the hearing. So am I to understand and I think you made it clear but I just want to make sure that the any fees for

contributions for INI and all of that has been that's all been reached in agreement between TBW and the petition that well the applicant's paying 100% of all water and sewer fees and they are going there's there's no in infrastructure that needs to be upgraded in order to to in the street to take their flow but they're going to make a contra contribution um into a fund for the um north pump station.

Yeah. And the formula that was put together is to the satisfaction of Tim Barber.

Yeah.

Yep.

That's always nice.

Anything else we should be concerned with?

No. the um the one of I think the significant um mitigation on traffic was putting in the all new um crosswalks and handicap the ramp making them all ADA access accessible because they have sidewalks that lead to UMass Dartmouth right near their site and they're putting in all new crosswalks, handicap ramps, all of that to make it more safe and handicap accessible. calm.

Yeah. Gentlemen, any questions of councel? Just in case there were some concerns that you may have had because I I think we're probably in a posture of voting on this. [snorts] The the actual construction plans are dated June 25th, 2026.

So, the project plan, they're not the construction plans.

Project the project plans are dated.

Yep. Let me just schedule a that is the most Hold on. Let me look at my schedule A.

Um, yes, the plans revised through June 25th, 2026 are the project plans. And then there's postpermit plan modifications that are conditions.

They had made a lot of the a lot of the plan modifications in this that had come in from peer review and DPW.

um they had made most of them in the June 25th [clears throat] but not all of them. So there is a few pages of post-p permit plan updates that are required and those are all start on page five.

All of it's all section C of the decision [clears throat] starts on page five at the bottom of page five. So, it's really one two three four.

Okay.

I guess y one of my concerns was there was a neighbor that came in and said that they lived I guess the southwest corner of the property.

He's directly across.

He's somewhere over here.

Oh, you were talking about him. I thought you meant the woman who meant No, there was a He was an apple apple farmer. Yeah. And he he said that they previously raised this area up so he couldn't see all the work that was being done there. That this area is going to remain the same in terms of height. They're not going to cut it back.

We don't know that.

I'm not an engineer, but I believe I believe that that had been respon discussed and responded to at that hearing.

I think so. All right. I'm just All right. Just as an update, unfortunately, that gentleman is no longer with us.

Oh, he passed away. He's a very nice gentleman.

Oh, that's in the last couple of months.

Yes.

Yeah. [snorts] He actually own the orchard.

Yep.

Um any attorney? Any questions?

All right. Um so if if so what what's your suggestion to us at this point in time? Well, it the board needs to act because the deliberation period is going to end prior to your next scheduled meeting. Um, because we have 40 days from when we close the public hearing to actually put together a draft decision and and take action and actually either vote or deny.

Right.

Okay.

Um the there is a um full uh draft of the decision here with findings etc. um which you had been provided um prior to this meeting. Um and [clears throat] there's proposed vote language if the board were going were elected to act favorably.

Now if we were to move forward on this, we do it collectively as one vote for the comprehensive permit with the conditions that are uh provided as Yeah. the conditions and the waiverss.

So there the the Yeah, there's language the language in the vote. The vote was in an email. I know. Does that have email there?

I've got it. I got it.

There you go.

If you want to Oh, you want to make the motion?

All right. So before we do that, let's talk.

Is there exactly that's I just want to make sure you all have an opportunity to express what your concerns may be on this project if you'd like to. Not saying that you need to.

Um, and because obviously we can't take any further public comment on it. No.

And it's not like we don't want to. It's just there's a statute that says that once we vote to close the public hearing, that portion of the entire process is basically at its end.

[clears throat] So now we have basically these two documents that we've reviewed.

There's been some changes made to it which every time we try to make a change it only we try to make it better right try to make it clearer remove ambiguities from it and not only that we've also made some changes that were to benefit you know the residents or the town at large just to ensure that we try to minimize the impact of this um I don't think short of you know denying it

that anyone in the area is going to be happy right quite frankly but our job is to to weigh the balance it out so and I don't want to beat a dead horse so if there's anything you guys would like to say before we move forward board and I don't think it's beneficial to the residents really if we deny it in a way because because of what because of the conditions that we've placed on this

project you know and only that I would have to say this and I'm not trying to cast anything on anyone but this petitioner um has been very very amenable throughout this process to work with us so that if there's something that we had a concern with most of the time they would just say well we got to we'll get back to you we got to check with the applicant we'll

get back to you and the last big one that we had were we had concerns about some of the improvements to the crosswalks and from what I understand through you, they've agreed to to make all those changes to u meet what what our expectation was.

That's correct.

Plus, they negotiated all the additional improvements. [cough] They [clears throat] negotiated that to the extent that there was discussions between them and DPW. I don't know if you remember the last one we're dealing with. We're at the 11th hour trying to determine, you know, what's going to happen with, you know, sewer lines, what's going to happen with water lines.

It's kind of like let's make a deal which it's just it's just it's dirty.

It's ugly. I don't like it.

Um here we've been avoid we've had we've had the the ability to avoid all that.

The other significant change they made was um as on the you were concerned about the landscaping and the parking layout and they made the revision. They came back with more landscape and yeah they reworked the parking lot buffers and Yeah. No, I mean I think we've worked with them for Plus, as I see it, they're going to clean up that area.

Well, it's been contaminated for some time and I they've already spent some money from what I understand to try to address some of that, but they're going to have to do that before they they get to the point of completion.

I think they're going to have to do it much earlier than later in the course of the project.

Yep. No question.

Which is a similar situation to what we had at Joe's You Cycle over there, which is the preserve. that was a a contaminated area that we've had to sort of um you know as a hot potato so to speak. The town's been always reluctant to get I drive by the buildings up some of the buildings are beautiful. I mean I don't know those the uh the u clubhouse or whatever I don't drive in.

Yeah.

But you know it's coming along you know.

Anything you like to add attorney Faria?

No. All right. It's unlike you not to have some sort of a comment.

All right.

All right. Don't we all? [clears throat] All right. So, gentlemen, what's your pleasure?

I I I'm I'm willing to approve it.

Okay.

Well, you need to put a motion.

You need to put a motion.

All right. I'll put a motion.

Okay. I make a motion uh that we approve comprehensive permit ZCMP-25-2 that the zoning board of appeals make the findings set forth in section I or one of the draft decision reviewed by the board at this hearing and grant the comprehensive permit for the project shown on the project plans described in schedule A attached here there too subject to the conditions set forth in section two thereof and to take action

on the waiverss as indicated in schedule B thereto. Such findings, conditions, and schedules are expressly incorporated into this vote by reference and are each deemed by the board to be an integral part of the comprehensive permit.

Second.

All [clears throat] in favor?

I I I have it.

That one's over. Unfortunately.

Oh, fortunately.

So, now moving on.

Oh, hang on this sh. Oh, that's good.

Next is comprehensive permit ZCMP25-3, which was continued from July 30th of 2026. The petitioner is Philip Cado. on behalf of the Hathaway Dartmouth LLC, which is the applicant via PNS agreement. Subject property is zero Haway Road, also known as map 57, lot 1.

It's a single residence A. It's located within the single residence A district.

It was legally advertised on December 18th and December 25th of 2025. We've previously waved the reading of the abuters list. The petitioner is Haway Dartmouth LLC and is seeking to develop and h build a structure several structures which have 300 residential units and it's located on a parcel that is 113 acres.

All right, gentlemen. Um, so I can say that a couple weeks back, I think a few weeks, more than a couple weeks, we had a workout session in which I met with the applicant, their council, I think their architect, we had Mr.

Giosa there, who is our town planner, and we also had our council and Mr. Barber and Tim Barber from DPW. And there was extensive negot extensive discussions that we had uh with regard to some of the concerns that the neighbors had, concerns that board members had um with different uh aspects and facets of the project. And I believe that you know they heard us um and I well us they heard when I say us

the DPW they heard council they heard myself. Uh I don't represent anyone on this board, but I think I've got a a familiar uh understanding as to what the some of the concerns were based on the comments that were being made, not only by the public at large. So, at this point, I'm going to call upon the petitioner to see um whether or not they've decided to put forth a proposal to us that's um that addresses

some of those concerns. If I will.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, Mark Donahghue from Fletcher Tilton on behalf of the applicant. Um, this entire process comes under a fair amount of criticism with a statutory obligation, forced on a town to promote affordable housing and then push back to you to try to figure out how to do that without, many say, without a whole lot of uh bullets in the

gun, so to speak. And some of that criticism is fair, but I think that the Hathaway discussion is an example of when the process works. And by that I mean that the applicant comes forward with a wellthoughtout plan, talks with the town in advance, hears concerns, incorporates those into the design, and then enters into the public hearing process in which not only board members but the public have a chance to see what

the proposal is and to be able to comment on it. [clears throat] Based upon that, the applicant's then able to distill that, go back at the plan, see how it can be responded to in that fashion. When we last met, you saw some of those ideas that we had, such as reducing a portion of the buildings on the most northerly part of the site by uh a floor, a portion of the the top

floor. Uh and some other concessions that we had. Um there was some concern or criticism that that wasn't going far enough. and we had the working session that Sher referred to. What we have this evening to refer you to is we've basically taken each area of concern that's been expressed over the last seven months and have come up with a a series of concessions on each of those that we're prepared to make if the

board's prepared to move toward an approval on those grounds and conditions.

So uh to start with uh the concern has been expressed with regard to the buildings on the northerly side.

Northerly being the most proximate to Eisenhower Street uh and the size of those buildings and the visual impact that they may have upon the neighbors.

Um what we have done is reduce the site the height of all of those buildings by essentially a floor. And with your permission uh Mr. Chairman I'd like Mr.

Clay Smoo, the architect, to review with you in detail what that looks like and some pictures so the board and the public can understand the impact of this concession.

My god, look at all the trees.

Excuse me. Can you just make sure that electronic copies get submitted as well after tonight? After tonight? Yeah.

Yeah. Through the portal will be great.

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.

[clears throat] Um, for the record, Clay Smoo with Smoo Architecture. On behalf of the applicant, um, as you mentioned, we had a working session. a lot of a lot of the key issues were discussed and we went back and rethought about how to best address those issues and I believe that we've come up with a plan that addresses comprehensively [clears throat] all those issues. So again, as we know

where the site is you go through bring us zooming in finally to the site [clears throat] plan.

So as you know we're I'm just trying to make sure this there we go. As you know, there are um six buildings. What we have we what we are currently proposing is to remove the upper levels of these three most northerly buildings known as B, D, and F. These buildings will now be the one in the front, which is building B.

It's most approximate to Hathaway, is going to be three stories tall or 33 feet tall from the grade to the top of the building.

These other buildings based on the topography are going to be three-story buildings that that will also have a walk out lower level that will access other units and the parking there. that these three by lowering the density of these units we've brought the unit count down to 280 apartments again with the closest buildings closest to Eisenhower now at the 33 ft from the low side from the midside here it's about 37 ft

the buildings over here building A remains a fourstory building which is 4 44t Tall buildings C and E are four-story buildings again with a walk out lower level. [snorts] We're still proposing the entrance on the south and we're actually going to show you some signage opportunities that we've that we've identified in terms of a low stone wall. Next slide.

So this is a crosssection. The red line shows where we are from Hathaway through those threetory and threetory walkouts.

Looking south, you can see the scale has come down significantly being three stories. It's more in keeping with the character of the adjacent buildings on Eisenhower. We'll show you some cross-sections. And the red dotted line because of the way the grade drops, that red dotted line is at 33 and the datam at the next building is similar to the front building on Hathaway. And then of

course this building drops down because of the grade. Next slide.

[clears throat] This is a visual uh of what the building facing the the sort of the northern facade of the building facing Eisenhower will look like as well as the lower buildings again three stories with the walk out where you can see the grade just naturally dropping. We're taking advantage of that grade. Um we also brought this exhibit which we've shown before. This is um Sherborn development

uh which is three stories. You can see our building the cornis line matches their building. In fact, their building then has a uh pitch roof on top of it that that I believe is a dark color. So, it actually appears a much bigger mass.

Next slide.

This sections taken further south southerntherly. These are the buildings that are adjacent to the church again through Hathaway building A, C, and E. Again, these are the four-story buildings, the furthest most buildings from Eisenhower. Again, 44 ft. The grade dropping down. Next slide.

[clears throat] [snorts] So, here we start to see, you know, in exhibits that you've seen before, but now instead of just taking a small chunk out of that upper level, we've removed the entire fourth floor.

Again, our building is 33 feet, very much in keeping with the scale. This is the building that's very the the home that's on the very uh corner uh of Eisenhower and Hathaway. You can see the roof of this building is actually almost higher than that. And of course uh Phil will talk about the screening uh that's going to be uh both maintained and augmented. Next slide.

Moving down. These are all slides we've seen before, but you're just starting to see the effects of losing that that story uh here, which we believe is really significant and and actually improves the overall urban design of the project. Next, finally, working further down again the house and and Phil can go again if people are interested in knowing exactly what these dimensions are, he we have

them noted here. Uh again, three stories. Next slide. So, this is the building. This is building A. This is the the building that is sort of greets you at the entry, the southernmost entry. We're proposing a low stone wall with some pin-mounted letters that would probably be halo lit from behind um to announce uh the development as you come in. Again, building uh building A has here is the entry and at the lowest

level significant portion of this level is the fitness clubhouse and leasing center.

And what we what the other part of it that's kind of interesting is to get that 280 units, we obviously rejiggered some of the mix. It's important to note that 68% of the units, the apartments in this complex are either studio or onebedroom.

So we felt that was significant to uh to point out. And with that, I think I'll turn it to you, Phil. We're back to attorney. Back to the attorney. Thank you. Thank you. I'm willing to take any questions now or later.

I don't know. Let's see if any members of the board. Uh any any questions of uh Mr. Smooth?

Uh not at this time, Mr.

No, I I have no questions.

Thank you.

[clears throat and cough] So, the import of those changes um to the development reduced the unit count from 300 originally filed to a total of 280. And as Mr. Spook uh pointed out the majority of those are studio and one-bedroom units.

The second issue that we've talked about over the last seven months with some extensive discussion relates to parking and the parking discussion has dealt with a few different components. a concern of the Eisenhower Street neighbors that future parking because we were showing it as reserve would be uh a limit would limit the amount of visual buffer they would have vegetated buffer

because it would be parking along the norly side of the development and therefore getting close to them. a concern expressed on our request for a waiver to build out all of the parking that there wasn't adequate parking to be able to support the development. Uh and otherwise the location of the parking as it related to the utilization for the residents and to make sure that it served the development in toll. All of

those have been mixed together for a fairly comprehensive change to the parking. Um and I'm going to ask um Mr.

Cado to try to review it with you in detail as to how it affects um three different sides of the development.

Uh good evening. Thank you for the record. Phil Cordiero from Allen and Major Associates just to walk through the relationship of the change of the buildings to how it affects the [clears throat] site. Um I think you can go to the end of the architectural sides. Please check. Uh right there. So this plan that's on the screen is what the board and the public have seen in the past. The markings along the right

side indicate the separation of the buildings to the property line shown in red and then from the property line shown to the nearest house approximate shown in those green lines. So this is the familiarity. This is the baseline.

Uh if I could advance to the next slide.

The plan generally as Mr. Smoo pointed out the buildings follow the same general footprint but the scale of the buildings have been reduced in terms of height. And what we've been able to do in the reduction of the units is then make accommodations and changes to the parking specifically around the north property line here, the south property line, uh, excuse me, the the north, the

west, and the south property line. So, most noticeably, you'll observe parking located along the south property line.

And as I get into greater detail, no parking along the west and the north property line. And I can certainly walk through the individual dimensions as we walk through the rest of the slides. If you could advance one, please.

Uh Mr. Smoo already went over this. Um this is the change in the elevations of the buildings. The slide is here just for duplication to again refocus the board and the public as to where we've made the changes to the site. This is the um inciting changes to how we can manipulate the site to accommodate and address and react to the reduction in the building height and then visav the

reduction of the units um as shown along the bottom. If you could advance one please. So along that northerly parking line the slide to the left frame of reference the sh the black and white shaded portion is Eisenhower. Here's our development plan. There's a reminder of those blue and green lines that you've seen several times throughout the process. And what I've given you on the

left is the approximate dimensions for the buffer zone that would be left were we to build out the reserve banked parking the 42 spaces along that north property line. So walking through uh from west east 34.6 41.8 46.4 Four, in the change, we are removing those banked parking spaces from the board's consideration.

The intent when you move over to the right side of the plan, which is the current iteration of it, we would maintain the same curb line that provides vehicular access for not only the residents but emergency apparatus personnel. We would maintain that curb line and then the remainder of that land area would no longer be viable for parking. It would remain in either a a its naturalized state which is generally

shown in the shaded area here or an augmented state of seed mix and lawn mixture or in the case as you approach halfway where there are no trees present the augmented landscaping plan that we had presented to the board early on with some high rapid growth uh emerald green arborites green giant arborites things that provide effective thick screen barriers between properties for visual uh uh visual obscurity. And what

happens is we then commit that same buffer zone here [snorts] which averaged about 40.9 ft would now average 60 ft in total. And you can see in this area here this shaded highlighted zone is 55.6 6 and down here is approximately 65.1.

The drive aisle is not exactly parallel to the property line which is which is what explains that difference in numbers but everything beyond the curb line would be in some fully stabilized vegetative state vegetated state with increased landscaping and screening um throughout. As a general reminder uh because as Mr. Spook Smoo pointed out in terms of the elevations of the building,

these continue to walk down the slope.

So I remind the public, I remind the board that our driveway through here is at least 10 ft lower in elevation than the backyards of the homes uh along Eisenhower. And obviously we will have a fully stabilized slope. Uh no need for retaining walls because we can do it with earth and stabilization but we'll make sure that that wall that slope stays fully in place. U if you could advance one. Now if I move towards the

westerly property line the upper left corner is the older plan. These spaces are a little hard to see but you can see the dash lines through here focused on this area within the blue box. We had again proposed to the board the notion of having banked parking spaces that we would build if we needed to. Um we would remove those spaces from the application, remove them from a request of consideration of the board and in

doing so we can remove approximately 700 7,500 square feet of impervious surface area and that is directly adjacent to wetland resource areas under the jurisdiction of the conservation commission. So we perceive that as an improvement to the environmental benefit of the property. In [snorts] reducing that impervious, we are not suggesting reduction of the storm water systems. So as a reminder to the board,

all of our storm water systems were designed as if we built out all of those parking spaces. the two areas that I've now shown you that we're removing, we're not seeking that equivalent deduct credit in the storm water system, which means we have additional capacity in our systems to handle some additional runoff from the site. It increases our native factor of safety and just further

reinforces our compliance with the Dartmouth storm water regulations and the mass D storm water regulations.

the entirety of that area along the west side that will be slope. It will be stabilized. We will seed that with a mixture compatible with the wetland resource area. So those familiar with work adjacent to wetlands, it's called an erosion seed mix. It introduces wetland species plants that grow up to be a wild flower mix along that rear slope and they ultimately integrate into the wetlands and the buffer zone through

there. And it'll ultimately once constructed and allowed to grow in start to read as if it's one continuous existing wetland resource area or buffered to the wetland resource area.

Next slide please.

Along the south property line uh is where we have manufactured some additional changes. First and foremost, we have introduced to the board in the south uh west corner the notion of the recreational shared sports court for our residents and potentially the church to the south of us. Um we are removing that from the application. It obviously drew into question some considerations of

sloping easement variances or excuse me waiverss for the retaining wall in that location. um the coordination of work with the church to provide access through there and it obviously created an opportunity for a more complex discussion that then the sports [clears throat] court ultimately became.

So this sports court is obviously coming out of contention. In doing so, we've reduced the impervious area generated by that by about 5,000 square feet. Um, same argument, no deduct credit in terms of storm water. So, we'll leave the additional capacity in the system and then therefore eliminate the offsite grading through here in this shaded area on the plan on the left to become the

plan that's shown on the right. Next slide, please. In the same area where we did formally have the banked parking spaces shown on the left side of the plan, they're dashed through here. We would now agree under the plan to construct day one, meaning a singlephase project constructed with the project the 53 parking spaces along the south property line as shown here. Those would now be built into the project to deepen

our parking ratio count per unit per bedroom. and in making some accommodations to the building positioning of uh AC and F, excuse me, AC and E with a shift closer to the buildings adjacent to it. We're actually able to get some additional parking spaces along the side of each building uh to net an additional 28 spaces to again help with that parking demand to really ensure and reinforce what we're

suggesting to the board and to the public of adequacy of parking here without the the threat that our residents will move off site and utilize um off-propy parking. We don't want that. The town certainly does not want that. With those parking spaces in place, we will provide to the church uh an average landscaped buffer depth of 32 feet. Generally, it's 38 30.8 ft here, 33.6 ft here. Again, that same spllay of

the property line exists, not exactly parallel. Uh but that area will remain sloped and vegetated with the seed mix.

um through conversation with the town planner in reviewing the plans. Uh he would like to see us do some landscaping along that slope. So that is something we're looking into as well. It's not suggested by this plan, but we're looking into that notion. Next slide, please.

Um so what does that uh net out to in terms of total? Uh if the board and the public recall in the prior iteration of the plan, we had a parking ratio of 1.14 spaces per unit based on 300 units with the initial construction being 341 with deferred spaces of 132.

Uh now we would bring forth the notion of 425 constructed parking spaces in support of the 280 units which provides a ratio of 1.52 uh which we have provided uh support for as adequate parking in terms of parking standards and the IT parking demand management uh programs and uh published guidance and Vaness had pointed that out during our initial discussion. s and that same 425 parking spaces uh nets out

as a ratio of 1.07 space based on the bedroom count provided. If we could advance one further slide. Uh so we want to put this in the context of the other projects that the board has been reviewing uh within the town of Dartmouth. So, Sherbrook Farms which has 152 units, 256 bedrooms, they are provided a count of 267 parking spaces which is 176 per unit, 1.04 per bedroom.

Similarly, the residences at Hawthorne with 138 units, 425 bedrooms, 345 spaces is two and a half spaces per unit but only 0.81 81 per bedroom. With our revised tabulation at 280 units, 398 bedrooms, and the 425 parking uh illustrated, we're now at a 1.52 ratio and a 1.07 space per bedroom. So, as the board and can see, we're actually providing the highest ratio of parking on a perbedroom basis than the other two

projects that are currently under discussion uh here within the town. I think that's our last slide. So, uh again for the board, I'm happy to field questions on the site planning materials from the board and the public. Uh and certainly turn over Mark back to you if you'd like to make any additional comments. Right gentlemen, any questions of this portion of the uh presentation?

I have none, Mr. Schuber.

Uh just a quick question on I think this is certainly improved plan over what you submitted before. Uh my question on the west side and why did you decide to to remove the 43 bank spaces? You don't think you need them? I mean, you had them before. It wasn't an issue with permitting with with the with the wetlands, right?

Well, we we haven't gone to Could you advance to the slide just so we all looking at the same reference area, please Jack?

One second, sir. Keep going. Keep going.

the back one please.

There we go. So the area that we're talking about um we we felt it is a betterment to remove the potential impervious area close to the wetlands.

It it has not been raised as an issue with the conservation commission. They have not seen an application from us. So we're not indicating that they denied it or suggested otherwise. uh we made the internal discussion that providing sloped area adjacent to the wetland resources in the buffer was better than providing the parking area. That's why we removed it. And in doing so and in

our ability to provide the minimum 1.5 parking ratio and putting them elsewhere on site was sufficient for our needs.

Attorney Fario.

All righty.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

The third area that has been the subject of discussion with the board and with the DPW relates to water and sewer. Um, it has been determined by Stantech, your peer reviewer, that there is adequate water and sewer capacity. They have recommended uh in their most recent report and referred to a previous report that they issued I think in 2024 the um replacement of an of a section of the

sewer line in Hathaway in order to accommodate the development when it's fully constructed. Um uh we have been requested to uh do that work and we are prepared to accept a condition requiring that work to be done during the course of the construction of the development.

Part of our discussion had been a potential uh offset of water and sewer fees essentially treating that as an inind payment instead. Um that has reached some resistance uh through the DPW. We are dropping that request. Our waiver request includes a request for a waiver for the water and sewer fees in their entirety as it relates to the affordable units. We're prepared to withdraw that request for the waiver.

[cough and clears throat] And then finally, there is been identified, it's referred to in the Stantech report and elsewhere that the north pump station needs to be replaced at some point. We've been asked to make a fair share contribution to that and we will contribute $40,000 of that cost which based upon the most recent estimate is about 25% of the material cost of the uh development. [snorts] Um

with regard to water and sewer, we have previously discussed with you traffic and the concept of fair share and increasing our fair share contribution to $30,000. We stand by that and are prepared to make that to a traffic improvement fund uh utilized by the town as it as it deems fit. We have previously made a commitment to the six butters on Eisenhower Street most proximate to the site to fund

improvements on their own property up to $5,000 if they were to do that. And assuming that there's no appeal of the development by those developers where by those butters, we're prepared to do that. And then I think finally there had been some discussion although albeit not a lot of concern the board had about our request for a waiver to allow a billboard out by the highway and we will

withdraw that uh request. Um what we have tried to do as I said is listen through this process what's been raised as a concern and make essentially our last our best case that we can to try to address those concerns. And we would hope that the board would take those into consideration. Uh the entire team's glad to answer any questions about it.

Um but if the board is uh open to that, we're prepared to move forward toward um uh working with council toward a decision in that regard. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

All right. Um that's a lot to digest.

So obviously there have been some concessions.

Do you wanted to say something, Susan?

No.

They wanted to say something to me.

That's all. I'm all ears.

No, I'm just turned to look to the board to listen because everyone's just hearing everyone's just hearing this laid out and so I'm deferring to you all.

Well, I didn't know what the proposal would be until this very moment. Um, we had sense of, you know, what they were considering, but I don't know what the, you know, what the formal presentation would be.

So I would say this, having been present during that workout session, uh we had sort of a list of items that we were concerned with and they pretty much addressed uh all of them. Some of them they weren't necessarily at the forefront for me. I figured that let them battle that out with DPW, so to speak, lack of a better term. But it seems to me that they were able to work out those

concerns because I know that this I know that the sewer line in front of this project was [clears throat] of significant concern to uh Mr. Barber and that the town would have a significant cost in that. I know that 150,000 was thrown out there. I know that as much as 300,000 was thrown out there at one time. But uh assuming that they've reached those terms as to the extent of that improvement, the size

of that improvement, that's certainly something that is a concession. I just want to express to you how it is that I think we got to this. [clears throat] So this is a public meeting.

We the public meeting is public portion of the meeting is still open. So I will provide an opportunity if someone wants to come forward. Um obviously new there's a new proposal. It's different, right? Certainly different. Um, I'm sure that it doesn't make everyone happy. I know that I'm not completely happy with it for sure, but I think what would make me happy is an impossibility.

So, at this point, there's anyone that wants to come forward and would like to speak either in favor or in opposition.

I think they're going to be probably people that want to speak in opposition, come on forward and explain to us what your concerns are.

Ron Doolong, 24 Dean Street.

It's nice that they uh cut that down to three stories. Those three buildings. I I I think that's good. I think they should cut the other three buildings down to three stories. Also, they only lost 20 apartments, right? So, what's 20 more? I mean, they're going to be making $7.2 million a year in rent at based on a $2,000 uh per unit.

I mean I don't know I don't know how much affordable housing is compared to nonaffordable housing unaffordable housing but still at the same time is uh the parking is still not enough parking they're saying 1.5 per unit and they're going by bedrooms.

I mean, they're not thinking that maybe two teenagers that just got their license live in one bedroom. Could be three three cars for a a one-bedroom apartment, right?

Frankly, that's going to be their problem. That's going to be an administrative problem that they're going to have to deal with with their own tenants. So, at some point, if a tenant doesn't have a place to park, then they're going to want to not pay their rent or they're going to consider moving elsewhere. Um, if you're really concerned about anything as far as on on Hathaway Road,

we could put a condition that they're going to put no parking signs on.

All right. I like that. I like that. I would like that. No parking. But now, what are they going to go to?

Well, then the thing is they're going to have to deal with that. Either they're going to have to come back and they're going to have to create that area that was designated previously as banking bank parking. They might have to reexplore it. And I saw a dog I saw a dog park on one of those pictures, too. They could take that dog park out and probably put another 20. Yeah.

Well, they could do a lot of different things right?

All right. Well, anyway, the other thing is is just we just can't there's there's only so much push back that we can create before they decide to take their marbles and go elsewhere.

And if they go to the housing committee and we just recently our our attorney presented us with a case with the town that shot something down and then what came back was much worse than what they were discussing.

I see.

So, and it wasn't sent to us in a threatening manner. just sent to us more information, more knowledge as to what the expectation could be if we keep pushing and pushing and pushing.

Well, my suggestion is just to cut the to go three stories on all the buildings and uh lose 20 more. So, they have what?

They'll have uh 240 apartments. 200 would be better.

Hey, thank you.

Is there anyone else?

Good evening. My name is Dan Goodrich.

I'm an attorney at Murphy and King in Boston. Um I'm here representing as of two days ago I was retained by uh Mr.

Rodriguez who's on Eisenhower Street. So obviously uh I didn't have the ability to review the plans that were submitted as as you guys clearly didn't have the ability to review uh these new plans. So at the outset I'd hope that we'd have at least uh a continuence until the next hearing before a vote would be my request. Um, my client has engaged in several has engaged several engineers to

do peerreview studies. It seems like the sewer issue has been discussed this evening, but we've already engaged an engineering firm to do an additional peerreview study at at my client's cost um that we'd like to be submitted for consideration at the board level. I think that would be grounds for an additional continuence just to have that additional data to review. I also I understand there are some concessions

regarding the wetlands. I I've litigated many wetlands cases in my life and that was the initial thing that kind of jumped out at me when reviewing these plans um that the delineation data was stale and old and I've thought about engaging uh separately. I haven't formalized an engagement with a wetlands expert to come in and do it a new delineation, but it seems like some of the uh concerns were addressed uh this

evening. But I still would like to look into that and potentially submit a peer review on that angle as well. So uh again I think u because things are recently been brought to light this evening. I think it'd be appropriate to to push this out another 30 days or for your September hearing. Give me and my client enough time to put some peer reviewview materials together. Just an abundance of

information is always good for you folks to consider. again, uh, Dan Goodrich, and, um, I'd look forward to working with you guys on this. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, I appreciate the position you're in, quite frankly, and I understand that you're representing one of the abutters, but it's just that we're getting close to the end here.

We're almost at the 11th hour. Um, and obviously we can ask for a lot of different things, and I think that the petition has been cooperative in a lot of what we've requested. I don't know. I I got to we're going to have to check with council to see what we can do. I don't know what the the time frame is with with this.

Right now, the the board's obligated without any further extension from the applicant, the board has to close a hearing tonight.

Okay. So, just so everyone viewers at home, everyone here that's that's present. If they don't agree, I haven't asked, they may agree. If they don't agree to to a continuence of this, then we are at a phase in which we have to close the public hearing. And once we close the public hearing, we are then we're no longer able to take any comment from the public. And then we are uh we

have 40 days. We're charged with within 40 days of drafting a decision uh with appropriate conditions and waiverss and then it'll be voted upon just like we did for Burke. Just like we did for Sherbrook. We did it for Sherbrook tonight and we had already closed the public hearing at the last meeting. Um and and I appreciate your your decision and and I respect the request. It's just

that you know we we're seven months into this and we've had peer reviewer we've had peer reviewer after peer reviewer uh look at this. We've also at a point where the DPW um has made their own assessment. They hired Stantech which was one of the foremost authorities I think in that area. uh and they've already provided their opinion to us uh and they've already you know they they

they've made and addressed some of the concerns about the impacts on on this on the dock. I I certainly understand the constraints that the board has. I would just ask you to consider the fact that so much more information was brought before you tonight that it might be appropriate for more information than not. I really really do. Um so I [clears throat] will you know I will strenuously ask but we'll see.

Thank you sir.

Is there anyone else in the uh audience?

Come on forward, ma'am.

No, no, you got to come up.

I It's all right. Bring it down. Look, you got I'm about 10 ft tall, so there you go.

Thank you.

State your name and address.

Yep. Geraldine Lopes, 19 Eisenhower Street, Dartmouth. And I'm at the bottom of Eisenhower Street and I'll be facing the property. Um, I have read in the local papers about concerns about the sewage and that Dartmouth is very um I don't know how to put it but low on spare sewage.

Capacity. We're at a we're almost getting close to full capacity. You probably heard that, right?

Yeah. So I has that been discussed with these people in terms of what they will do to um ma'am that issue has been discussed with the Hawthon project that issue has been discussed with the Sherbrook project and that issue has been discussed with this project and what was the result of the discussion because I didn't hear it my understanding and I think our council will be able to provide an explanation.

Yeah and Mr. chair. I believe it's been discussed with every non40B project that's been coming before your board and the planning boards because they're [clears throat] bigger in numbers. So, they seem to have more of a significant impact on the system, right? But they all cumulatively will affect it the station. So, I am not an engineer or DPW director, but Mr. Barber could not be here tonight, so I will do

my best to summarize my understanding.

Okay, with that asterisk, um the the plant is at, you know, a stressed state.

The the capac does not have a lot of capacity left. Um the town is doing has been doing all sorts of studies through the the um board of public works with Stantech about the future need to upgrade, replace whatever that might be, the treatment plant. So, I think a lot of people like yourself who's following it in the news is aware of that.

Currently, there is still capacity.

There's not a lot, but it's there. And the the law as a general rule is as long as there is um capacity, anyone who asks for it is entitled to it. Now, it doesn't mean that at some point DP the the issue is not the the town really saying we can't handle anymore, but the state DP only allows the treatment plant to get to a certain point at which point the

state could tell the town no more connections until you do ABC XYZ, whatever that might be. It's not there yet. Um and so you know under law whether this was the 40B or it was any other project that the zoning board or the planning board is seeing as long as there is capacity there then capacity cannot be denied. You can't pick and choose we like this project we don't like that project. As long as there's

capacity the capacity has to be made available kind of on a first come first serve type of basis. So that's kind of the status of it right now.

Last question, I promise. Um, so what happens if these people as they're doing their construction work turn up water they didn't anticipate because there is a lot of water around there.

Um, do they have to uh straighten this out or is will the obligation become the town's obligation or the the property owner's obligation?

Say water came down in my property and that sort of thing from all their Mr. Mr. and all those uh Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you.

I think Oh, Haleem, would you want to answer or Mr. Cordiero can answer? the cadero or Mr. Schubo.

Well, I mean the the policy is you can't create more runoff than what's there now. So what they do they provided a study and I think uh the the applicant engineers also indicated that his design is overdesigned because they designed for larger impervious areas and they have to keep the deer uh runoff from the property at minimum to existing conditions or less and I think they improved it if I'm not mistaken. So

there'll be the result of the the of the uh uh development will not increase any runoff or will not cause any flooding to adjacent properties or to the wetlands.

So you're not you're not going to have any issues.

No.

And also this was this was designed by professional engineers.

Yeah. Yeah. And also it was reviewed by the town peer review who is an independent engineer also a professional engineer that looked at the uh uh design and they both agreed on yes this is what's there so and this is the normal practice with every everything you know whether it's a 40B or private development or so if they run into surprises what do you mean surprises water coming up. I mean, construction is

construction. They plan and they do the best they can, but there are surprises.

They do testing before. So, I'm sure they have all the tests. They test for groundwater elevation. They test for for uh uh infiltration rates and all required by the state before they do any design. But uh do they cover like all this is a big piece of property and there are a lot of places that are dry on it but there are a lot that aren't dry on it. So when they do their study

does that cover all the bases there they do it does.

Yes.

Well that they're only utilizing the area of it that's the least wet portion of it. It's the portion up front. All of the part, all of it towards the back, it's being in it's going to be intact.

At one point, they were going to build a roadway to go access along the southern portion of the property. They were going to build a roadway to access a billboard. They're taking the billboard off the table.

So, they don't need to build that roadway any further or any longer.

There's no need for it.

In addition, they will be going to the conservation commission.

Yes, that's true. So there's another town agency that they need to go to before not allow us to make that determination. They got to go before the conservation commission.

Yeah. Under the under the state wetlands.

Has this project been reviewed by the conservation commission?

I don't believe so.

No, that would be that would come after.

Oh, okay. All right. Well, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Anyone else want to come up?

Good evening. Daniel Rodri, 17 Eisenhower Street. Um, ju just to follow up on Mrs. Lopes was uh was talking about, right? I know you said they've done studies to see how much water was there and to figure out their design, but my understanding is the delineation that they use was like 12 years old. So, can you explain to me how a study from 12 years would be relevant now?

Well, let me just say this. First of all, if they encounter a problem, there's going to be supervision over this. Most of this stuff is reviewed by an engineer that's controlled construction, is it not? So, if there's a concern that comes up, that's going to have to be addressed and there's going to be an engineer that's going to be watching the project.

Mr. Chair, I think he's referring to the wetland delineation. I think they red delineated the wetlands recently and that's to their detriment. If they did it and they relied on it and it's less, if it's a lot smaller, then they may not be they they might have to come back before us and maybe they're going to be fewer units. I don't know. But if they did that and they relied on it, that's to their detriment.

So is that the path if if uh you approve if the if the board approves to address with conservation when next time they have a hearing before concom to when's the last time the delineation was done and if it's an accurate delineation.

So if it if it wasn't accurate and it had to change the scope of the design, that would have to come back to the ZBA for approval to change scope.

It depends if it's there's there's there's a test to that. Right. Right.

Substantial what's it called? whether it's an insubstantial change or not or not, but any of the a change like that that might say, "Oh, we have to shift the building over or we need anything that's going to change what is shown on the plans as might be approved by the board may be approved by the board comes back. Now they can come and say we think this is unsubstantial."

They come to the board. The board decides is it substantial? If it's insubstantial, then the board can let them just proceed. If the board deems it to be substantial, maybe you say, "Oh, no. Now we need our peer reviewer to look at the storm water or whatever else, then you there would be a public hearing, okay, an advertised public hearing." And that those would be discussed. So they can't

just because the if you know with a so I'll just use Sherbet because the board just approved it. If Sherbet gets out there and finds big issues and they have to start moving buildings and parking around, they can't just do it because they have an approval. They would have to come back to the board and say, "This is what we found. These are the issues.

This is how we want to move it around.

We think it's insubstantial. We think it's substantial." Whatever it is, but that's changes to these types of projects, to the site plan, layout, those types of things are going to end up coming back to the board um in some form or another.

Okay.

Would the public be involved in those board hearings? if the insubstantial change is not a public hearing. It's just a public meeting to make the determination if it's a substantial or not. Um so that one is obviously all has to be open meeting law posted on an agenda. It there's not a notification to a butter iss required under the law unless it's deemed a substantial change and then a public hearing and you would

all get notice as you did for this original hearing.

And we had one not too long ago for the preserve for the preserve. But that one dealt with uh a disagreement or a misunderstanding or inability to coincide some fee allocations and whether or not we used approve whatever the fees were at the time of the granting of the permit or the current fee rates at the time.

Right. That was Yeah. We're just trying to sort out which fee schedule found they sorted it out and eventually we didn't even have to decide on it, did we?

No, because the town and the applicant sorted it out. So good. Mr. Uh also they have to file with conservation and this is they have to file a notice of intent which the butters will would be uh notified by certified mail. So you'll you'll be notified for the conservation hearing and then you have your an opportunity to go to that hearing and whatever concern you had about the wetland delineation

that would be taken care of. So, um I guess other questions I have is based on the changes they proposed tonight if any changes are being made to the retention pond that sits directly by my house. Uh and I'm concerned um and and I'd like to ask the board to put conditions in for that pond.

We're going to ask [cough] engineer right now.

Okay. Um but and I guess it's my last statement I just want to make is is when when we started these hearings back in January, uh Mr. year you gave um a statement uh described the 40B process and you guys decide defined how you had a very hard job to do. Uh you had to apply a strict balancing test right to weigh the need for regional housing um against the uh public safety

and health risks. Um, so back then when we started this progress rate, uh, Dart was already at 8% on the SHI list, right? They've added 256 units worth of preserve. They've added 37 units.

They'll account for the Hawthorne, 156 units for Sherbrook. Um, I just asked the board to really check the calibration of the scale that they use when they weigh the need for housing and the risk to public safety. Um, Dartmouth's in a drought right now, right? We don't have enough water. whe there are wells that are offline or buying water from New Bedford. What happens if New Bedford faces a drought

and they can't provide Darmouth any water? Uh I think kind of just throwing more gas on the fire. We we already have a problem and I think adding more units to the town um isn't going to fix that.

Um so I just really ask the board to hold the line for Dartmouth and for the Eisenhower Street neighborhoods. Thank you.

Um, did you want to add something?

Yeah. I ju I just want to note under the under the statute and the regulations for 40B and particularly if anything ended up on appeal, this the standard is the the clock freezes on the day they filed the application. So, the town could have added 600 units in the last seven months. It doesn't matter. They look it's it's what the state of the town's housing inventory was on the date

that application got stamped and filed at town hall we were there at 7.1 or 7.8%.

So it protected in that they are pro protected. So um you know it's it's it's um I I understand um you know what Mr.

is the logic to it, but it's been made in other communities and the law is pretty settled on that point.

Anyone else like to come on up?

Good evening. My name is Edward Pico, 188 Hicksville Road. I wanted to start out by uh first acknowledging appreciation for the work that the parties have tried to do uh since the last session.

Um and I would acknowledge the cosmetic changes that have been proposed. There was a lot of them to digest tonight and I think a lot of people here are still kind of wrapped their trying to wrap their heads around what it actually means in terms of impact to themselves or uh the development itself.

Uh I have a I do have a couple of questions though and I I'll kind of roll them out and you can either answer them as you go or lump them together whatever the pleasure of the board is. So my first question is this may be something that was covered in a previous session.

Was there any protections offered to the residents regarding the foundations on their property? Meaning, will there be a uh prior to or post construction inspection offered so that if any damage to the foundations occurs during the construction of these buildings, um would the developer cover those costs?

Um are there any petitions requesting any type of lawn sprinkler systems in this project? As uh the previous speaker indicated, we are in a significant drought. Uh we have been for several years. We spent $2 million on water from the town of Bedford last year. This year, we're set to purchase $3 million worth of water. And I think that uh worrying about if your grass is pretty is the least of our worries as a

community, particularly since our water rates have gone up twice uh in the past year. So, um that is something I would oppose vehemently if that was something that was on the block. Um to council's perspective earlier, uh regarding the sewer system condition discussions, so I also have had conversations with Mr.

Barber regarding capacity of the U sewer system as it is and the magic number that we're looking at is about 80%.

Once you hit 80% the state can come in and offer a moratorum on your wastewater system. And what the moratorum says is that without additional conditions, repairs, upgrades, which can run into the millions of dollars, uh there is no additional tie-ins to that wastewater system. That includes existing properties that are in the town of Dartmouth now that have paid betterment fees, but just have not been

able to tie in to the existing wastewater system. So even though they may already have been constructed and maybe they were on wells, they would be precluded from being able to tie into the wastewater system if the capacity is reached once all of these advanced projects are done. So, my caution to everyone here, if you're on a well system and you're thinking about getting tied into the system, uh, or if you

happen to be watching at home, um, is it's probably something you should do sooner than later if your finances allow for it because we are extremely close and I don't think Mr. Barber takes that term lightly. uh we are very close once these projects settle to being at or over capacity and then um you know short of that I I think 20 units coming off the top is a great step forward

[cough and clears throat] like many people sitting in this room today particularly the abutters they were hoping for something a little bit more and um again I appreciate the work that's been done by both sides of the party. Um it's it's certainly not as glib as it was the last meeting. U obviously traffic is still a significant concern.

I'm not sure a $30,000 assessment to help with quote traffic is going to do much of anything for that area. But I suppose it's a step in the right direction and ultimately at the end of the day it falls on you to make sure that if this is getting approved that we are conditioned to the max on what's reasonable to ultimately protect the people that are in this room, the abutters and then the overall residents

of Dartmouth. So thank you for your time.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I guess the question um most of this has already been addressed.

We've addressed this at numerous meetings. The foundation issue are there is there any blasting that's contemplated in con in conjun so so typically the surveys of foundations would be required if blasting was part of the project and that's a state law but there's no there indicating no blasting. Um I I am again going to play Mr. Barber for tonight. Um, and just for a minute that my understanding on this

the sprinkler systems is is water how much water is going to be used on the site. That's all going into kind of the calculations as part of Stantex review is that they have to indicate how much water they're going to use on the site.

Not just for the residents living in the units, but in the if they have a When we say sprinkles, you mean an irrigation system.

I irrigation system I think is what Mr.

Pico want to have an irrigation system. We did that. Did we not do that in on uh Hawthorne?

The um the the the language that ended up in Hawthorne was that the the issue at H the issue in Hawthorne was different. They have a they had a water pressure issue. And so the more water they used for other things other than the homes was going to potentially adversely affect the ability to fight firefighting and water pressure both in the homes and for hydrants etc. So um the the issue on the sprinkler system it

go does go into the calculations. So I don't know if the there's any of the numbers or the figures the preliminary figures that have been provided included you know water for the amenities in the in the building um you know kind of they have the the amenities face yeah thank you Mr. Calhoun um etc. But it does go all go into the re the analysis that Stantech does.

Uh Mr. chair. Um, if you recall, the question was raised uh probably almost four or five months ago and we advised the board that we were going to be doing an irrigation well on the site for our landscaping and that would be a condition that would go into our permit.

Okay. I'll just note for the applicants because this came up in um Sherbrook as well. They also are going to do irrigation well. And so there are um there are some uh board of health regulations with regard to wells that apply if they're irrigation wells or votable wells and um those those are addressed in the Sherbrook decision which will be public and we can provide you with a copy but you'll see there's

some conditions and waiverss that address the irrigation well for the Sherbrook that would likely be the name um for any project in including this one if it moves forward. So, okay.

Is there anyone else I'd like to come forward and speak either in opposition?

Come on up.

I just wanted to this is what the gentleman from Hexville Road was referring to um about the uh wastewater treatment.

Okay.

Please state your name.

Jean Jean Ricardi, 901 Hathaway Road, uh New Bedford. Um I haven't been to many of these meetings, but I'm just wondering if a traffic study has been done and what the results of that were.

And I'm sorry if I'm late to the party.

Yeah, we've had a lot of traffic. We've been we're months beyond traffic, but it's [clears throat] just that there is going to be there's already a problem that exists. And maybe someone else can explain this better than me, but we have a problem. We've it's abundantly clear that Route 6 and Haway Road has an issue that Sloum Road and Route Six has an issue. Um, also on the New Bedford side

of things, 140 and Haway Road, there's issues there as well. And we all know that this is going to contribute some level of additional traffic to these sensitive points, sensitive intersections.

The thing is is it's not a basis for us to deny the project. We can't just outright deny the project because they're increasing traffic. We can ask for concessions. Um, however, the problems that are there are quite significant.

There's been a plan to redo the intersection [clears throat] of Route Six and Haway Road for quite some time.

And I don't know, I've been on this for 12 years and I was told that something was supposed to happen in 2025.

Yeah, I heard that too.

2026. And now I'm told it's going to be 2027 to cut behind like Burger King and eliminate that corner at Tucker.

That's not even the improvement that's coming in 2027. It's much it's a much less significant improvement from what I understand. Um, so We've weighed all of this out uh and and there's a balancing test unfortunately that we need to make here. It's not perfect. I'm not saying that our application to this is perfect.

We're just trying to do the best we can with the knowledge that we have. Um the only thing that looms over us is that and I hate to have this conversation in front of the petitioners because they already know they know what cards they can play, right? They know what cards they can play. And if you're really following what's going on, um, at state level government, the granting of a variance has changed.

Effective July 9th of this year, this the governor signed into law that we now have a lesser standard to grant a variance. I'm not certain exactly what that standard is. I still have to learn it, but we have a lesser standard than we've had, I don't know, for decades now.

1970. since 1970, right?

Meaning that more variances would be granted because the the bar is lowered.

Perfect. Exactly.

Perfectly stated.

And why is that?

Why is that? Because because we need housing because they can't the powers that be at the state level believe and I think the mandate was the governor wants to see 222,000 additional units created by 2035.

So, our bylaws, our bylaws as a town to protect the [clears throat] community that we have, the community that I was born in, raised in, and raising children in, and hopefully grandchildren someday is changing. And the bylaws that we have are being in essence emasculated.

And these gentlemen here, right, these gentlemen here, they know what the rules are. And they're playing with the rules.

they're playing within the rules.

So basically, um the fact that the town infrastructure, traffic schools um sewer and water can't really support this project doesn't matter because it's coming down from the state. And the more that they lower the bar on what you can build on in town and I am also born and raised in Dartmouth and I remember when you couldn't build on anything smaller than an acre. So the more um they

changed those now you can build on you know 5,000 square ft. And so the more residents they pack into the town, the more we can't meet the 10% of affordable housing because they keep increasing the population. So are we ever going to get there?

You ought to be the spokesperson.

You want to run for office.

Anyway, thank you for the work that you're doing as a board and um I appreciate everything and and the and the uh the opportunity to speak.

No, but you understand it very well.

You understand it very well.

Unfortunately, all too well.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

All right. So um so where so where we are um where we are is there's a you know some some modification but before we do that I just want to get sense from these gentlemen. So they presented this. Do you think you need more time to review it? Is it something that we want to hash out or do we think it's pretty clear as to, you know, the impacts are going to be slightly less?

You know, would I have liked a better number than 280? Absolutely. Did I fail us as a negotiator? Maybe. Okay, maybe I did. Maybe that's on me. I tried. You know, my number wasn't definitely 280.

It was a lot less, right? that I had in mind that I wanted to sort of, you know, instill upon the Joan.

This is what they came back with. Um, I'm not happy, but I don't think anything that they're going to do is going to make me happy. Short of them, you know, taking their their marbles and going home back north of Boston [snorts] and go do this somewhere else. That would make me happy.

That would make me very happy. But it's not realistic.

So, um I I want to listen to you guys.

In terms of the plans, I don't think you you said it. I mean, this is a scaled down from what they submitted before.

So, we know it's a better plan than what they submitted. It's not the ultimate that we were looking for. I don't need time to digest this. You know, we we already know it's got it's improved over what they showed before. you know, it's lesser units, more parking in less impervious areas and more buffer for the neighbors. And you know, this is those are the things that we discussed before unfortunately.

Yeah, I would love to see those uh B uh D and F gone, but I mean, this is not going to happen, you know, with uh I don't think we need and I don't think we need more time. It's Attorney Faria. Okay, Susan, you were gonna say something. Oh, I've already heard from you, right?

Whether you do want to say You haven't heard from me.

I know.

Sorry. I apologize.

But I'm familiar with the case law and the situation that every town finds itself in. And um I think they have made I think you made had them make uh substantial concessions that weren't before us until today. So uh I don't think any more time is really necessary.

Okay.

So So I let me let's just talk about then logistically where we are. um is the this there's a there's a what goes along with this as you know is the waiver list. Um, you know, there were some discussions like for example, they're removing a request for a couple of waivers as um, attorney Donnie cited in his list, but the the waiver the waiver list needs to be updated now because the waiver

list in some respects, not all the waivers, but in some respects was specific to the prior site plan. And so the way the waiverss are requested in that plan, they need to be kind of up re-reviewed or kind of updated and revised to reflect this plan. Um, I'm assuming that that the applicant was waiting for feedback from the board before kind of a lot of all of that additional work that would be required

to kind of get this to that position, you know, because so they haven't been submitted the updated waiverss yet. Um, at least on the portal. Um, none of this has been formed. Well, this all of this is submitted as of tonight when they handed it to you. Um but um in order for them to submit a request for waiverss, does the public hearings or should the meeting need to remain open?

The the waivers should come in before if you close them. I don't know if you have the proposed revised waiverss to hand into to submit. So that if they close the hearing, then you can't submit a new waiver list. So the question is if they have the new waiver list ready to submit to you tonight then it's on the record then it's going to be a matter of then all the information is in the record

that the board has to review. When you have another session that's just deliberation then there can be conversation about what's already been submitted but not about anything new. They wouldn't be able to add any new waivers after that.

the we actually had council come forward just clarification purposes and drafting the language to ensure that there were no ambiguities. We we we did have interaction, but there was no new testimony. There was no new testimony.

No new evidence that was submitted.

Oh, come on up.

I know. Were you done? I'm sorry.

Um with regard to the waiverss and you caution us. You were cautioning us about not asking for an additional additional time.

No, I'm not cautioning to ask or not ask. I'm saying if the board closes tonight, it's both for the board and the applicant obviously. Now, I don't represent them, but just and for the public as well. Once the hearing closes, nothing new is coming in from the applicant. Nothing's new is coming in from abuters, nothing new is coming in from town staff. It's whatever we have, we have. Um so so that's

no but historically we have gone over every line of waiver with the members of the town the board members of the the we review each one of them we have so we the board has not done this on this application because at a prior hearing so the last meeting was just a continuence which I appreciated um but the prior hearing it It was kind of on the list to try to get to, but I

think a lot of focus ended up being on where are we? Is this enough? Setting up the and the board never actually got to the step of walking through the waiverss. Um you're right. We were scheduled to do that.

Yeah, you were scheduled to do that. Um now you know I the the prior list so the prior waiver list prior to that meeting so that was early June I had had a um meeting with Mr. Barber and Mr. Giosa and walked through all the waiverss to understand what they were. Um I think we had mentioned briefly at the that prior hearing so this is two ago in June that for example there's a waiver there's the

official waiver list and then there's a list of waivers that are listed on the landscape plan that are it different than in some ways some are the same some are different some there's some on the landscape plan that aren't on the on the official list and that so that was something that was going to have to get reconciled and it would be better to have none of the waiverss listed on the landscape plan

and have them all in the chart. But so there there was a little touching on things that needed to be cleaned up and I do have I do have notes from all the staff but I haven't they haven't been submitted to the board yet because we were going to do that at a hearing. Um I have it with me but it's a little rough.

But if we have to get them on the record tonight then I would give them to to Michelle and we'd get them on the record tonight. They're just kind of little they're notes that I kind of typed in PDF on the side and I don't think there's a reason to rush it and then the quality of what we're putting forth is just going to be compromised just because of a meeting.

But anyway, I think he wanted to say something. So maybe he can give us something that's going to cut to the chase. The the one other thing uh attorney Donnage, you know what I just from a scheduling standpoint, I understand because I tried to pre schedule and understand the schedule with Michelle is my understanding is the board's availability is that there is a hearing date available in two weeks on

August 27th and then the next one would be September 17th. So those are the two upcoming dates that are available whether they are an extension or they're just deliberation. Those would be the available dates. So I just wanted the timing to be available for you and the applicant to be aware as well. Okay.

Sorry.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I just wanted to put in context the kind of the issue and then whatever the will of the board is we're fine with. The original waiver list was 22 separate waivers. Uh with regard to the bylaw based upon what we've submitted this evening, there's language changes and I have drafted language for that purpose as to three of them. One is the height because before

it was obviously a bigger building. So now the request is less but it's still a 35 it's greater than 35 ft on the on the rear platform. Um the second is with regard to parking to incorporate the numbers you heard from Mr. Cadero and eliminate the reserve parking. The the third is as to signage to eliminate the billboard but make it clear that the monument sign you saw in Mr. Spook's

presentation up front is part of the waiver. Uh, and then the last one is to strike the request for the waiver of the sew and water fees, but it's just it's deleted its entirety. It's not hard to figure that out. So, I have that language redlinined against the set that we had submitted before that I can offer to the board if it's helpful. Um, you know, I I think we agree that it's

better to get it right than get it fast.

Um, because we're going to have to live with this permit for years. Um, and what we don't want to do is have to keep on coming back to the board because wasn't clear when we did it in August of 2026.

My my preference would be that we get copies of the proposed waiverss and that we have the department heads here to discuss those waivers to make sure that everybody's in agreement with how those waivers are set out, especially Steve. And then at that point we could close the hearing.

Get public here.

You say Steve.

You said Steve, but you meant Dan.

Steve the father.

What's this? What's the Dan? I knew that. Dan.

Um, I agree with that.

I agree. So, so I mean then then that then that's the question of you would need an a two week that would be a two week extension to the 27th August 27th.

So Donnie, is that something that your client's amendable to?

Could we have just a moment?

Absolutely. You could step outside if you'd like.

Thank you.

with the understanding that we're going to be going over waiverss.

[clears throat] I wanted to go tomorrow morning. It's 5:00, 6 o' That's right. I want to get it. He wants to be up at seven.

Lucky me. It's my project and he tells me what to do.

Mr. Donahue, um the the the request to be able to submit the revised waiverss and to have the board have an opportunity to get feedback from town staff and make sure that they're comprehensive and right.

We're willing to do that and we're willing to continue for two weeks. We're a couple of things with embedded in that. Um, one is that we would hope that we would see at least a draft decision to kind of move the process along. So, we're not looking at 40 days after that in some fashion.

Yeah. The draft conditions would be made available prior to that and not the day before. I would get But it's only two weeks.

That's only two week. Well, it's I they've been in pro they've been in process, but since there was kind of this up in the air ever since the working session, I couldn't really kind of nail it down. So, you know, it's hard to draft when you don't know what the project is and what the board's attitudes. I I understand it and and and the commitment by attorney Murphy is more than enough. Um, the

second is, uh, and I'm just going to be candid, the two weeks is not going to be reopener for my brother to show up now with a whole bunch of new consultants and take four hours throwing mud against the wall. Um, so if that's what the the if the board the board has the ability in a public hearing, everyone's not entitled to speak. If as long as we understand that, we're not going to go

back and revisit things we talked about in January, February, March, April over and over again. We're willing to give you the time to get it right and work with you.

Thank you.

Do you understand that, gentlemen? Yes.

What's your feeling on that?

Yeah. No, that's fine.

I I have no problem with what attorney Dunah just said.

Basically, we're going to be limiting what we're going to be taking in.

Yes. As far as I'm concerned, we can limit it to the waiverss.

The discussion as long So, just for clarification, I and I think attorney will will agree with me on this piece of it. As long as the hearing is open, anyone can submit anything they want. It would all come into the record.

Yeah.

The board has sets the agenda as to what you will discuss.

I understand and I understand his concern. I have the same concern. We we've been listening to this for a long time. All right. A lot of it. And a lot of this has already come before us. Now, if any petitioner, if any neighbor here wants to at their own peril decide that they want to go spend money and hire an expert or whatever it is, they want to submit it, we'll submit it. But I'm not

going to be rehashing, and I agree.

We're not going to rehash all of that.

We've listened to this for quite some time. I and and I'll note just so the board's aware of it, there is 40B case law that the board cannot use the applicants peerreview dollars to have your peer reviewer review and a butters experts. The the peer reviewer is can only be paid with the applicant's money to review the applicant submissions, not third party submissions. So anything the board comes

in, of course you read everything that comes in because I've been with you for a year now and I've seen you do that. So anything that comes in, you'll read, but you won't have the benefit of a third party reviewer to be able to read whatever comes in.

I don't want to go down that path.

Mr. Chair, if I may, I'm not I resent the the notion that I'm a mudslinger, but I understand what my brother's trying to do here. Uh I also have to build a record for my for the subsequent appeal as well. So, if I have to put put things in and then I go to superior court to get this sorted out, I have the the right to build that record. And if

the board wants to limit public comment, and I completely understand, but I think town council is is being very wise here because there's an immediate injunction tomorrow if we close things and and and allow uh these uh stipulations to go forth without further public comment.

So, yeah, I I don't think that the board was intending to say that people couldn't submit things. I think we were just cl I was just clarifying so that everybody understood. So like there might have been a misunderstanding like you said by what was said that nothing's being closed tonight. Submissions can come in.

They're going to submit their updated waiver list. Submissions can come in.

The board [clears throat] gets to choose what they wish to talk about at the next meeting.

That's the That's the board's choice and the board can choose to have public comment or not have public comment.

That's also the board's choice which I will defer and allow the board to make that decision at that time.

Give them an hour or something.

We uh we we're understanding of what they're so they just wanted to set out not necessarily ground rules but to be an understanding that they would agree to continue it for two weeks but with you know we're not going to be rehashing and opening up all of these topics that we've been discussing. Um, and I'll be quite frank with you, I feel comfortable that we've already received a lot of information from all these

experts and and in the end, I think the end result is, you know, the town is not going to be any better off with any part of this. It's not going to be better off with the water consumption. It's not going to be better off with the sewer impacts. It's not going to be better off with the traffic impacts. None of this.

I don't care who we get to tell us what the impacts are. None of this improves any of the conditions or situations that that exist now. If anything, it only makes it worse. And I and I know that we don't have anyone specifically to tell us it's exactly to this degree. It's exactly this number of vehicles. I don't think the science is that exact, but certainly, you know, I I think you just

take a lay person's approach to understanding of these sciences. That's the outcome.

Anyway, enough on that. So, I believe that Michelle has an extension.

This will be the only case on for the 27th at 6 o'clock. Correct.

All right, that's good.

This This will be the only case.

The only case unless you want to go earlier, unless you guys want to put it to five.

You guys want to do five?

I think Susan Let me just let me just let me just make sure I don't have anything beforehand.

Um, and I don't know if five works cuz they obviously are drive driving as I am also on the 27th.

I I mean I can I can do five if the applicant can make five and is willing, but it's up to them. I mean, we don't plan on bringing any professionals other than

I'm not sure what that all means, but anyway, other than Yeah, exactly.

Doesn't count, of course. Right.

No professionals except All right.

Um, 9:00 would be great, but it works for you. Five o'clock.

Okay. Five o'clock.

So there um there's a uh Michelle has an extension form there that she's filling in the Obviously a motion is conditioned on signing executing the extent. Are you going to sign it right now?

5:00 voting board.

I can't make a motion.

No, I mean he's already some Okay. Uh, I make a motion that we continue comprehensive permit ZCMP25-3 to August 27th at 5:00 pm.

Second that motion.

All in favor?

I I The eyes have it.

All right, gentlemen. We have some other matters, some other administrative matters, but we're just going to table those for another meeting. Sure.

Um, okay.

Something else we have to do?

No, I just need a signature.

Uh Michelle, can you give Mike the other form he has to sign?

Holy mackerel.

The signature the decision signature page here.

This boom.

[snorts] This This right here is essentially the finalized petition.

That's the disabled.

Gentlemen, we're still in session. Um is there any business?

No, I got to go to Excuse me, folks. We're still in session. All right. All right. Is there any other business? Any old business?

Any new business to discuss?

No.

Attorney Farrier.

All right. I'll motion to adjurnn.

Second.

All in favor? I. The eyes have it.