Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting - August 27, 2026

Good evening and welcome to the zoning board of appeals meeting of Thursday, August 27th, 2026.

At this time, I'd like to call upon everyone so we could stand and 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 a moment of silence of our soldiers past and present, especially those soldiers that are in harm's way in the Middle East.

Thank you.

I'd like to announce that this meeting is being recorded by Dartmouth Community Media and I usually announce when our next scheduled meeting will be, but at this point I think we're not certain as to the exact date and our secretary is not here today.

September 17th.

September 17th. Was that the one that we had put together last time?

Yes.

All right.

Yeah.

So, I guess we can announce that our next scheduled meeting will be September 17th of 2026 here in this room. Uh moving on to the public hearings portion of tonight's meeting. It's comprehensive permit ZCMP-25-3 which was continued from August 13th.

The petitioner is Mr. Philip Cado on behalf of the Hathaway Dartmouth LLC. Um the property is located at Zero Hathaway Road, also known as Map 57 Lot One, and it's located in the single residence a district. It's already previously been legally advertised and we've previously waved the uh the reading of the abutters list. And the petitioner in this case, the Hathaway Damoth LLC is seeking a

comprehensive permit pursuant to Mass General Law 40B section 2020 20-23, the comprehensive permit guidelines in which they're uh seeking to develop 300 units. That was the original application. There have been some modifications to that for the viewers at home and the people here in the audience if you weren't here last the last meeting. Um the development is for a property measuring approximately 113

acres to be known as the Hathaway and it's located within the single residence a zoning district. So at this time I'm going to call upon uh actually we don't really need to hear from the petition. I think I need to hear from my council as to what may have transpired since the last time we were were all uh in session.

Okay. So uh thank you Mr. Chair. So, since the last hearing, um, there hasn't been there hasn't been a lot of new submissions because it was it was mostly I was charged with starting to work on some draft conditions for the board to consider.

I worked with that. I had some communications with the applicants council regarding those as well as um the draft waivers. the draft waivers were um updated by the applicant um since the last hearing. Um so those are in front of you as well. And so in connection with those updated waiverss, I did have the opportunity to speak with the DPW director and the planning director so that um the board could be

provided with some staff slashcounsel recommendations or thoughts regarding the waiverss. Um there was also the the um the revised site plan that was discussed at the prior hearing that reduced the number of units, relocated the buildings on the north on the south side a little bit um to to accommodate some more parking all of that. Um I haven't seen that yet.

Did Michelle not forward that to you? I think you I think it's in your packet there because uh Mr. Human has it.

That's uh sheet part of this package sheet C 103. Yep, that's it.

Yeah, it's but it's the same thing that was presented on screen.

Well, I've seen this, but I haven't you've seen it. It's just they've submitted it online. They submitted into the portal. So, yeah, but I'm talking about the bigger plan that shows A, B, and C breaking out.

I haven't seen that. But what what do you mean breaking out like section?

Yeah, there was some little part portion in the corner here near the roadway that was going to be Oh, you're talking about the ANR plan that's in your pile as well.

Which one were you referring to?

I was referring to this the site plan.

Okay.

Okay. The the the conceptual ANR plan had been submitted um a month or two ago originally um in a prior hearing. Um, also some more detail on the proposed monument sign that they mentioned at the last hearing that's sitting on your table in front of you that came in. Um, and then uh there was some followup with the both peer reviewers both traffic and um civil on a couple of the

conditions and that I know it I don't know why but it printed very small type there but if we need to I can tell you with those very small type emails. um say about a couple of the conditions. So those are those are the documents that have come in since the last hearing and um my suggestion to the board but is that uh you may want to start with the waiverss.

I think that would make sense.

Okay. Um you have one in front of you that says uh August 26 revision five on it. Um, uh, Mr. Giozo went home sick today and, um, but Mr. Barber is here and so between he and I, I think we can walk you through and answer any questions hopefully that you may have. Also, the applicant um, is here with counsel if as needed.

So, um, would you like to proceed with that?

Absolutely.

Did you say five or 45? Well, it says 45, but the four is crossed out. It's just track changes if you can't see the line.

We don't have 45 revisions.

Whoa.

Okay. Um, so we'll just I'll just go through. There are there are uh uh 25 requested waiverss. I'll note that what you will not see on here because the applicant has removed them based on the conversation they had with the board at the last hearing is they have removed the the request for a waiver for the billboard and they have removed the request for a waiver of um water and sewer fees related to the affordable

units. So those those are no longer appear on this chart. Um okay. So um number one is just a waiver to because it's in residence A typically you have one dwelling unit uh is to allow the 280. They have this is obviously revision five. They've updated that from the 300.

Um the next I'll say two three four. So these these I believe they inserted them because they wanted to um be you know kind of air on the side of caution of making sure they were asking for waiverss. Um but they because they are having different uses like they have a leasing office, they have an amenities um you know parking etc and they ask for waiverss for these uses in two three and

four. However, the this the um um the recommended response here is that it's they're not applicable because these are commercial uses that are not applicable to the project. So, um I did review that with the planning director and also it's been reviewed by applicants council. Um so, that's the suggested response on those.

So, hold on. Are are they going to require them to get further approval for these?

No. No, because those these are commercial uses. They are not proposing commercial uses. They're only proposing it's it's with the other to use. They're incidental to the resial use.

They're incidental and they're accessory uses. They're accessory residential uses. They're not commercial uses.

They're not going to be open to the public.

Okay?

Like their swimming pool is not open to the public to come use. So, it's not a public facility. It's still a private residential facility. in the conference room and and the other 40bs that the board has approved have been treated the same way that waiverss were not required.

That a waiver on that as well.

Yeah. And in addition, two of these uses three and four uh are special permit requirements and under chapter 40b they're not required to request waiverss from special permit requirements. So um you'll take them out. Is that what Well, no, I think we'll we'll we'll leave them in, but so that it's for the record. So, if there's ever a question in the future, you know, someone says, "Hey, why didn't

you get a waiver for this?" It can be in here that the board acknowledged that it wasn't necessary.

Okay. All right. So, now, um, you'll see I there's little shading that I put in here just to kind of help be, you know, group these together. So the next group of waiverss is for specifically for single residence A requirements. Um again this is you know not more than one uh dwelling on a lot.

So um that that would need to be waved. Um the second one has to do with um setbacks of the parking facilities um and fences, stoning, retaining walls, those types of things. Um the there is a a condition um that's proposed which we we'll talk about later about um kind of requiring you know the necessary the plans be updated to reflect the retaining walls other types of things. So subject to

this condition which the board will review subsequently um the staff recommendation was okay on this. I mean the the further condition on the on the waiver is just that if the retaining wall is going to be close to the public way that it not um kind of an what's the word I'm looking for?

encroach on the on the public way either above ground or in the underpinnings.

They have to just make sure it's entirely on the parcel.

Um so that's number six. Um number seven is is the height um and for the the the buildings as modified as proposed at the last meeting. So the three buildings will have one less story. Um, the recommendation on this is tying the the peak height to what was presented in the August 13th presentation. That's this presentation that the applicant made. I have a copy of my copy with me here and

it does indicate peak heights etc. So that is the recommendation there. Um number eight is the reduction in the number of parking spaces. Well, the reduction and the increase, right? It's a reduction in number of parking spaces to um but it's increasing it to the 1.52 spaces per unit. Um so this is a waiver consistent with that pres the presentation as well of that new seat sheet C 103.

All right. Um the next one has to do with the size of the dimensions to allow for 9 by8. The the zoning bylaws um requires 10 by 20 in residential but doesn't require like in the site plan review. There's different there's different criteria in the bylaw. So this one is specifically for residents A to allow the 9 by8. And I think the board's discussed the size of the parking spaces at previous hearings.

We recommended actually to vote by Yeah. Yeah. So, okay. Um, so number number 10, again, this is a residence district a waiver. Um, the the the lighting the lighting for the project is proposed at 25 ft mounting height.

that complies with the site plan review criteria but not with the residence A criteria. So it's just a waiver under residence A but not under site plan review. Again, there's some disconnect between the sections of the bylaw and this just makes them consistent.

Um the next one, now we're in the specific site plan review requirements which is subsection 24 of the zoning bylaw. Um this had requested a you know a waiver from um a a special permit to to decrease the amount of required parking spaces. Um a waiver is not requested required from special permit requirements pursuant to the 40B regulations. Um so this has been noted as they are not they don't need this waiver. Um,

as we discussed with the uses board before, because anything that requires a special permit, the the 40B regulations are explicit that no waiver is requ is is required.

Um, okay.

Now, we're on off streetet parking requirements. Um, there you'll see some red lining in there. There were some changes that um myself and the staff had called out of updating that needed to be done in their request. So, they've made that change.

As you'll see highlighted, it was referencing um it was referencing a section it was referencing evergreen buffer, which is not part of these two sections of the zoning bylaw. So, it wasn't it it didn't make sense to reference it in this waiver. So, that's why that's deleted.

Um these are setbacks from of the parking facilities from the street. The requirement is 40 ft. They've requested a 20ft setback from the street and also again um to allow 9 by8 spaces to be 10 ft from the buildings as opposed to the 10 10 x 20 spaces.

So that's those two are in number 12. Um when the final result, the yellow that you have, that won't show up in the final. Yeah, that's going to come out. Any of these notes, anything that shows notes or red lining, whatever, those won't appear in the clean version.

That's what I thought.

Yeah, this is just so that you know the board can kind of we can I can kind of walk the board through what's happening in number 13. Um, again, this is another waiver to allow 9 foot stall widths where 10 feet is required. So, the bylaw's a little bit redundant on some of these provisions, so just covering them in each instance.

Um, all right. So, number 14. Um, and this is one of those email the email from Steve Finland at Howard Stein Hudson, which I know is a little I don't know why it printed and with such tiny looking font. Um, but he raised a concern about um the need to have uh traffic or v speed calming, traffic calming, more trafficcoming design in the sites. Um so there had been inserted into the conditions and we'll talk about

the condition later that they add more and that's a a generic one that may need to be further refined. We may need to further refine the condition but at the same time the applicant had asked for for a waiver on these. Now, um I I don't know if there's any thing that the applicant would like to speak to, but I'll on the email from and I just got to find it because I've got a pile here

from Steve Finland.

Sorry, it's in this pile somewhere.

U I'm sorry. Was it was there any discussion on this with the uh with the peer review?

Yes. So that's Steve Finland. So this is the very tiny email that's hard to read.

All right.

So um what Steve is saying here and I should brought my glasses is the perimeter roadways specifically the two that are perpendicular. So that's that's the east west internal roadways um are of a concern. It's it's showing that the grade change from from halfway to the back of the site is a 20 to 25 foot elevation change. And he's concerned about the speed of people coming in and maybe

moving a little bit too fast down those east west towards the back of the site.

Um so you know at you know what they had requested here. So this this provision of the site plan review talks about design techniques to reduce vehicular speeds and gives examples such as speed tables or curving roads. Those aren't necessarily the only possible uh vehic uh you know techniques that can be used. um their their waiver request said speed tables are provided only in the

cross aisles not north south and I and I don't think that that's the concern. It sounds like it's the east west that's the concern from the peer reviewer. Um there is a condition I I think that I think that um but again I have to ask the I mean this is not the recommendation is not to wave this in its entirety but to refer back to the the proposed condition which will be discussed when

you get in the conditions but I don't know if the applicant wants to speak to this at all or we can talk about it during the conditions, whatever you prefer.

Keep going.

Okay, we can keep going. Yeah, we'll just talk about the same time unless the you know, we'll just hold on that one for a second. Um the in 15 um it talks about sidewalks along the frontage. As I know, there's no sidewalks on halfway. So, this one's uh this this waiver is appropriate because it's not applicable. Um, and the same the same is true for number 16.

All right, I'm just going to keep going unless the board stops me. So, the next section you'll see, and this is at the top I have the page numbers um for reference. So, this is page six of nine.

Um, this was just the reason why there's a number sign there. These are going to have to get reumbered to incorporate this. Um this was just recently added.

Um the the site plan review requires 4 inches of mulch. The applicants requesting three inches of mulch. This is a waiver the board has granted before. So the board the staff was not concerned with it. Um how do we control that?

Who's going to who's taking the ruler out there?

But the plans do reference three inches of mulch on the landscape plans. Okay.

Um, number 17. So, um, number 17 and number 18 are redundant. I'm going I'm going to ask applicants council if I may. Since number 18 is going to cover B 1 2 3 and four, is it okay to delete number 17?

Then the one above it can become number 17 and we don't end up with a whole reumbering. Is that okay? Yeah. Is that right? Okay. So, this number 17's going to go out. The one above that doesn't have a number is going to become 17.

Okay. So, now we're in 18. Um, I added these highlighted notes just this cheat sheets just to help um rather so we don't have to be flipping through the zoning bylaw. So, this is section 24.4B 1 through4. Um and and there was a waiver as no internal landscapes are landscape islands are provided. Um that is true. The landscaped islands are if they're in kind of the middle of a parking lot, but this provision also

relates to other landscaped islands. And I have a plan set here. I think because Michelle had to leave, you know, unexpectedly today, we didn't have a chance for the board. But I do have the landscape plan here if anyone on the board would like to look at it.

Oh, you know what? You can actually look at it on that sea. Do you have that C 103? That actually is. It's not the landscape plan, but at least it shows you what the where the islands are. Um and so um with respect to B1 that is landscape islands that don't that are not being um that are not there aren't going to be any of them. So that one that one and number five also

relates to landscaped islands. So one and five the recommendation is okay. Um, on number on number two, there are islands at the ends of each of the rows, as you can see. Now, you don't see them. You're not going to see them on C103. On the landscape plan, these end caps, these end islands do show a tree on each of them.

Um the bylaw also says a tree and 10 shrubs or oh you know something like that. Trees and shrubs. So the requested waiver is to just have trees there and not add shrubs. I don't know if that's anything the board has a concern of if you're okay with that with a tree on. So that would be a a waiver.

That would be okay. Read the shrubs.

Okay. All right. The next one is B3 and four. So this three and four are related because it requires a island every 10 spaces and then it and then four gives the dimensions for these islands. Um and you again you don't see the plantings because this is not the landscape plan but those areas in between the build where there's parking spaces then you see handicap spaces and there's islands in between

all of those are shown as as landscaped okay but it's not one every 10 spaces and I think that's in order to try to have the maximum number of parking spaces as the board requested.

But I just wanted to note the request there. And what do you think of that, Helen?

Yeah, that's fine.

Okay. All right.

I can't really see it here.

Well, the they're not they're not shown there. They're on Okay. I see. I see the if they're plotted out, but they're not designated as landscape areas.

No, it's an is not a landscape plan. the landscape plan which I'm I can pass this down and this of course is going to be modified because of the new parking layout etc. But you can see if you want to pass it down.

Oh, you can't see it on Yeah, cuz that's not a landscape plan.

Oh, okay.

That's definitely not one every 10.

No, but normally if it's one every 10, I think the width is seven or eight feet or 10 feet. So now if you take the that landscape island is large, it's probably like four parking spaces. So doubling it up or triple or four.

I think it's probably easier for plowing or something. I can't remember.

Okay, those are okay.

All right, now we're on number 19.

Um, I might I might ask uh Mr. Barber if he could come forward on number 19. Um, so number 19 is a requirement in site plan review that a certain number of trees be planted between the property line and the paved street.

So, these are new street trees that would be planted in the town's right ofway kind of in the shoulder area.

Um the the waiver so right the based on the frontage 18 street trees would be required. They're requesting not more than seven if appropriate for the site as determined by the revised landscape plan.

Currently, the landscape plan actually doesn't show any trees to be planted as street trees. They're they're they're doing um a lot of plantings inside their property line along this line, which I can pass this down again if you'd like to see it. Um there is, and you'll see when we get to the conditions, so it's a little hard doing them kind of separate from each other, but it's easier than going back and forth.

There are conditions relating to updating the landscape plan because a number of updates are needed particularly with the reconfiguration.

Um but um you know this question of allowing so what's what's proposed in the conditions is that there will be an revised updated landscape plan um and that they're going to work with the zoning bylaw to the extent they can but are seeking some waiverss in advance as such as this one and They're also asking in particular here that they not be required to do any of the street trees if it doesn't

if it's not like appropriate for for that site for kind of the shoulder there. And I don't know I'll let Mr.

Barber speak about the shoulder.

Good evening. Tim Barber, director of public works.

So, um I know the the requirement requires uh street trees planted every 30 ft uh which was estimated at about approximately 18 trees. Uh the waiver is requested to allow for seven trees. Um I haven't seen anything submitted uh any drawings to to review to see what that's going to look like. Um it may be uh less than 18, but it may possibly be much more than seven. Uh so I and until we we

get a chance to review the site with the proposal, I I think it needs to be clarified. Um I we we also want to work with with the developer and and make sure that it is functional and aesthetic. Um we wouldn't want to, you know, do anything that didn't work for the site in the shoulder area. So So we're we're willing to work with with the number of trees. We just would need

a proposal to review and probably meet at the site as well.

I think uh you know a property survey line would would be good to have at that point um to see where the where the uh right ofway property line is versus the the paved roadway.

So am I to understand this correctly?

They're proposing to put in seven trees and based on our town requirements that length of area would have required 18 trees in accordance with our bylaws.

Yes.

All right. How do you think about the number of seven in relation to and I know you haven't seen it yet. You haven't seen any plans. Just on taking a rough analysis of it of what you know the property to be.

I think seven might be a little low. Um but 18 might be a little high. So I think you know looking at the site and once it's surveyed and and and meeting at the site and showing some some proposals on a plan too, right? But so that their requirements for size that limit at the very least that the smallest that they could be.

Yes. Yeah. Typically they the caliber is a 2 and 12 inch diameter.

Alen, what are you thinking?

Um I'm not sure. Did I hear that the 18 trees is based on a 30 foot spacing?

Believe it was 30 feet.

That's probably like 30 feet. That's that's excessive I think. Right. 30 feet every 30 ft. A large tree. Those are shade trees.

They are.

Yeah. So I mean if they do probably like double that it'd be nine trees at 60 feet or less or 50 something like that.

Yeah. A lot of times we see 50 feet as well.

Yeah.

That's more reasonable I think. And I I I think uh you know establishing a tree canopy in that area for environmental also traffic calming um along the the roadway would go a long way.

It has to be all right. I just wanted to get a sense of how far apart we might be on this.

That's all. I'm not here to defending really about trees but no but necessary, right? They're part of what we need to enforce.

Our request 10.

Yeah, we'll talk. We'll address that. I don't want to belabor it either. We can move on.

9 or 10 is fine.

We'll make Yeah, that would be like double the the spacing that they require.

The goal is just not to have something be discretionary later. People we'll discuss it.

Yeah. When when and when we get to the conditions about the landscape planning, then there'll be more context around this as well. Um All right. N I need a number. Nine or 10.

He said nine or 10.

10. It's fine.

You said 10. You knew they were going to ask for 10.

10 gives you that 50 foot spacing which is more in line. But okay.

I rely on your opinion because I don't really know until it's built. I'll say if it's a big tree. I mean if 30 foot you get the the you got to think about it future growth too. Right.

If you feel comfortable with that then I'm comfortable.

That's every 50 ft. That's reasonable.

Okay. So the next one number 20 has to do with the number of trees that are within the parking facility. Um based on the parking facil the size of the parking facility 52 trees would be required. They're proposing 30. Also this number that number might actually change. It may be a little it may be a little less than 52 because the the parking is is ch like that number might not even be accurate because the parking

configurations changed based on that new layout plan. So, um, what the suggestion here is, and again, I I know I'm talking to you a little bit in a vacuum because you haven't seen the condition yet, would be to tie tie this again to the the review, submittal and review of the new landscape plan, which would happen by the the would be reviewed by the planning director. Um, so I just

have to um propose and prepare for you for when you deliberate how to word that waiver.

And we got 40 we got 40 days, right, in order to do that.

Yeah. I I and I I think that the the plan would be to do it on the 17th would have seep of September.

Okay. So, um, but conceptually for the board, I mean, they're they're seeking a reduction in the number of overall trees and just if the board can provide some feedback on that, that would be helpful.

Yeah, I think it's appropriate. I mean, they have a reduction in the landscape island anyway, so that goes along with the trees, too.

Yeah.

I I obviously I want more trees, right?

But the thing is is you don't want them to be to a point where they look clustered and you can only put the trees on the island. You don't have to look appropriate.

And at this point we're only talking about trees related to the parking area.

There's a whole there's other condition all the conditions related to parking are going I mean to landscaping are going to talk in more detail about the landscaping along the northerly and the southerntherly boundaries. So we haven't had that conversation yet. Right now we're just talking about the parking lot.

Okay.

All right. Um, okay.

All right, we're almost done. 21 is um oh so this is foundation plantings around the buildings and um you know the the planning director has said and it's been the same in the other 40bs that the board has approved that trying to put a tree next to a foundation not necessarily putting the shrubs etc is appropriate. Um, so this is a waiver to not require trees, but they would have other plantings around the

foundations. And so this is this was recommended by staff to Okay, this waiver.

Um, almost there. All right. Um, number 22.

Um, this so this requires that this section of the bylaw requires that there be enough shading of approximately 30% of the parking spaces have some sort of shading or tree canopy. Um, originally, but again, the plans just changed. They were proposing 18%.

Um, at this point they would like to, you know, and again we have to talk about that landscaping plan condition, but they'd like to propose it um it to be based on whatever the final approved landscaping plan will be. Um, I guess the only question is does the board want to set at least a minimum for this purpose or if you want to just I mean they'll work with the town staff to kind of come up

with a a plan a planting plan that works.

I mean, if they were at 18% before and they reduced the this the coverage on the parking, they're probably close to 20% now, I would assume or something.

So, but that they can work out with the planning. Yeah.

Okay. So, so waiver is okay based on the final landscaping plan. Okay.

All right. Um number 23, you can ignore that highlighting. They did fix there was a typo on there, but they fixed it in the um section reference. So that's been fixed. Um this has to do with um signs. Um and so you did just you got there was a there was a a slide that showed it kind of briefly, but there was submitted.

There you go.

That is the proposed monument sign. six.

Um I think um we could see at the time that I this um suggestion or recommendation was drafted, we hadn't seen that yet. Um so that's why the height is blank. And I, you know, the only other thing is you just want to make sure you don't have a sign blocking any site distances.

Presumably, they'll set it back far enough that won't happen, but that would just be a condition of the waiver.

Where does this sign on the site? I don't It's on the front. The entrance is on the front left of the site, right? Um on the southern on the southerntherly side and it's to the right of the entrance.

Nope, that's the It's on the far left.

Oh, okay. I see. It's a curve. Yeah.

Yeah, I see it. Yeah. Yeah. All right.

As long as there's no issue with sight distance or anything, you know.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Looks good.

Okay.

All right. Um All right. Number 24. Now, these are just these are the um rules and rags that the zoning board adopted um in 2025 for to govern comprehensive permits. Um so the those regulations require that the existing condition plan show every single tree. Obviously this is 110 plus acres, right? Um and at this point the development is proposed on the front portion.

Um what a condition they are.

Um so Mhm.

the um they're saying that it's not practical, right, to show that level of detail.

I think that's right. M so what was proposed was to show in the individual trees along the boundary with Eisenhower street and that was going to be that was the recommendation is to show the what's to remain on that plan to show what's to remain and what's to what also what the ones that are going to get removed. They're asking that it only show those that are intended to remain. Now the issue this

is but this is we're just talking about the existing condition plan. This is going to come up again when we're talking about the new landscape plan because the proposed condition is you need to show what's stay what's there what's coming down what's staying and what's getting added on the new landscape plan. So, I I I guess for existing conditions purposes, this may be okay, but we're going to have another

conversation different about the landscape plan. Does that does that make sense?

I think I think because the buffer was so crucial and for the neighbors and I think it makes sense to identify those trees that are to remain, you know, like the large trees. Yeah, I think so.

Okay. All right.

Um and you know like I said there'll be more landscaping discussion in a few minutes. The next one is just the scale of the plans. Um because of the s size of the site that the scale of the plans are they're not all one inch to four one inch equals 40 ft but for example this one is so I think that it's just um it will depend on the area being shown. All right. And then um

that's it.

That's page 99. So does the board have any questions regarding any of those items that we went over?

Any questions, Sean?

All right. Would you like to move on to the conditions?

Absolutely.

So, you should have in front of you a document that says draft conditions 826 2026 at the top of it.

Okay.

So, I I'm not going to read every single one of these conditions.

No, some of them um I'm going to get more to the sight specific one. Um but and I'm also so just for context and I did put notes for the board um at the top there are some track changes in here.

The track changes are changes that the applicant is requesting um that I I wanted to just go over with the board. There's also some conditions that have been added now prior to after I'm sorry after the applicant kind of sent me comments on the first draft.

So they've now seen them but they haven't formally commented on them. So that's why they're shaded gray and I'll talk about I'll call those out specifically. And then you're going to see there's some conditions that are actually like in purple font. I'm calling them out because these are mitigation related or provisions that the applicant has specifically asked for. So um hopefully the colors will are

there. It's in color. Yes, I see.

We're only going to go over the is uh shaded and colored ones. Right.

Well, and some track changes.

Okay.

So, and then I'll sum otherwise summarize the other ones. Okay. So what I want to generally I'm not talking about the general conditions because these are the same for every 40V but we got some track changes on them. So and I did mention this to attorney Donnie Donnahu and um I I think we still need to talk through how to do it. Um the the language in here right that it

has to be constructed in accordance with the approved plan. So these are the project plans. this is what they've submitted. The approved plans are defined as the final plans after they've revised them to meet all the conditions.

Okay, so those will be the approved plans. So it says that it has to be built in substantial conformity with the approved plans and that there's not going to be other things happening including changes in building topology that kind right and and so the word and you'll see it here in a few other places that attorney use inserted the word material.

So, but building typology is this is right whatever 3, four, fivetory multif family building. I in my and I'll ask his council also my understanding of building typology is like oh no if we going to we were going to switch this to duplexes or single or like as long as it's all still multif family building.

So, what makes me um as council to the board uncomfortable with the word material is who gets to define what's material. So, I I think that that's just a recipe for things landing back on your in front of you. Um and so I I think that I think the thought process behind it is any change could could then require them to have to come back before us, right? Well, I mean, I guess what it's

going to end up is is they're going to submit plans, updated plans or proposed final plans to, you know, it's going to go to planning director, maybe DPW director, some may have to be peer reviewed. I think the answer is going to be if they believe that it's going to have to be their determination. If they think it's material, they're gonna they're going to reject them. They're going to end up back here with the

board. So if the board's comfortable with material here, then we'll leave it.

Well, there's usually a legal standard.

I know that I deal with it in court and it's a substantial and material change.

So it's two parts and that's what would require you to come forward and make a change to an agreement because there's a substantial material change in some fact.

Um I don't have a problem with material.

Okay. So we'll leave material here. All right. Um then we get over to the bottom of page two in condition 10. So this talks about any outstanding peer review fees um being within 30 days of issuing this. They've asked to not have to pay those until expiration of all appeal periods and all those other the concern I have with this is this is peerreview fees that have already been um incurred incurred. So for example,

Miss Keller and Mr. Finland have done a little bit of work. Not a ton, but a little bit of work in the last two weeks. To tell them, "Oh, we can't pay you for two years because they have an appeal going on," I don't think is reasonable.

I don't feel comfortable with that.

Nor do I.

We've already incurred it.

Yeah, exactly.

Incurred it as a result of their request.

So, so I think that most of the bills have already been submitted. The only additional work that's happened is that um the civil engineer and the traffic engineer were just asked to look which they didn't spend a lot of time. I think they an hour or two at the most each looking at the new C103 and just saying does that alter our conditions at all? You saw their letters that they issued for

that. And then they were each asked about potential changes to some of the draft conditions. I I think we can let that go provided that their bills that have been approved as of when we get our permit. So if you issue your permit just for talking purposes today.

If bills come forward after today, they wouldn't be the ZBA reviews anymore. So it would be new account.

No, if they did work after today, they we wouldn't be liable for Right. Yes, that's fine. So it's work done as of today or right or as of when they vote. Right. So so right. So if there's another question like we'll talk about traffic calming. If if in the back and forth Steve Finland's asked to weigh in like hey do you think this traffic calming works before they vote then that's all that's all part of the

pre-ermit review. We're not anticipating any really any more work and they've done very little since the last bills were paid.

Okay. All right. So, we're going to strike this. All right.

Okay. Um, now we can keep going. So again, this section a general conditions are really just the um they're in every comprehensive permit the board's issued and they're really just um as it says general conditions about they have to record the permit, they have to comply with the permit, etc. Those types of provisions. The next one is a set of regulatory conditions. Um the applicant

didn't have any comment. Well, there's one at the very end on page five, but these are the ones talking about complying with the affordability aspects of the project. So, that's what section B covers. Um, and then when you get to number 18, which is on page five, um, the I I guess I I I need some clarification on number 18 because it says the town through the building con commissioner shall have jurisdiction over the

conditions and approved project plans.

the the building commissioner is not a designated party to review the final plans. It's the planning director, DP director as a as appropriate or the peer reviewers. So I I think that that would create an inconsistency in the document to say that the building commissioner is approving the plans. I think it's going to be other staff designated in this permit.

You'd like to strike building commissioner.

I'd like to strike the insert.

So the the building commissioner is going to have jurisdiction for compliance.

The approval of the final plans or the review of the final plans for consistency is going to be done by others, not by the building commissioner.

I think that was initially inserted to address the material issue.

Oh, okay. But I think I think it's covered by the other It's kind of conflicting now.

Yeah. And I think it's going to be covered by the fact that there's other design already for plan compliance review that it covers it. I don't think you're being exposed by taking this out.

Okay.

Thank you. All right. Um Oh, shoot.

Because I put this green highlighting, I can't read the writing. All right. Um great. All right. So, on page six, it you can see it on my screen, but you can't see it when you print it. Um, on page six, top of page six, hold on a second, just this is post approval submissions and review. So, this is exactly what we were talking about, who's going to be reviewing it. Um, and so it says the

revised plan shall be reviewed for consistency and applicable as ultimately determined by the planning director. the the um the thing here is the planning director is going to be it may be the planning director but if it's it's the sewer plans on the on-site sewer it's going to be the DPW director. So I think though that if you look at the the beginning of that sentence on it says which shall as

other unless otherwise provided shall be the planning director and as deemed necessary the planning director other qualified staff such as DPW conservation agent or peer review. So I I think that you know the again I think this is already covered in the language and we don't need to the planning director is not going to look to say whether or not the the on-site sewer pipes meet the sewer

construction specifications. Right.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. Um this this language in gray. So I just want to touch on that briefly. I did mention it to attorney Donnie and I think attorney Eckle you may have been on that call as well, but this came in after the a draft that they originally saw. There's some there are some notes particularly on the landscape plans, but again they're going to be updated that

aren't consistent with the conditions and I just don't want to create a situation as to well the plan says X and you approve the plans but then there's a condition that says something a little different. So I did insert this language that said if there's a conflict between the notes and the conditions the conditions are going to govern. I did mention it to attorney D. I know he hadn't actually read it yet. I don't

know whether he it this there's any further comment on here.

I think we're okay. That makes sense to clarify.

Okay.

Thanks. Um and now I am a little I apologize because I'm a little frustrated with myself right now because my draft has green highlighting which has blue underneath it. Um Oh, it's 30 days. That's what it is. Okay. I I reviewed this with um with Mr. Barber earlier. That's why I made it green to say so I could tell you I had reviewed it with staff. Once it go if it has if

any of this has to go to peer review, they're requesting that it be done within 30 days. Um and and the peer review funds will have have to been put in place prior to that 30 days running.

And Mr. Barber felt the 30 days was okay. So I'm going to supported. Okay. Um this is so number four is where we get the material again. Um in the event the revised project plan show any material changes that are inconsistent with the permit or the order of conditions requires material modifications then they have to come back to the board right for that determination whether it's substantial or insubstantial change.

Again, the question becomes who's deciding whether or not it's material, the enforcement individual, if it's DPW, if it's uh if it's I think that's ultimately what it's it's going to end up being. So, I don't know if if you're comfortable with material again material in there as well, but that's just me. There's another attorney on the board and we haven't fine with material as well.

Okay, great. All right. So, now we are in section uh D. Section D talks about the updates they need to make to the the the project specific plans and what they have to incorporate. So really that it starts on um the top of page seven um in particular if you look at section three most of these in section three have to do with updating the plans to reflect the presentation they did two two weeks

ago. Okay. Um some of these on after talking to staff um and after I had gotten that initial draft up kind of came up because um the planning director was on vacation last week and I hadn't been able to talk to him before the first draft went out.

There is proposed ANR lots. They're not shown on the on the plan. So, for example, if you look at C3, C C103, the site plan that you have in the bottom left corner, the southerntherly corner near the church, there's a little triangle that's going to be carved.

There you go. There's a little triangle that's going to be carved out and and the applicant had discussed this at a previous meeting or two. um that the church already parked portion of their parking lot kind of encroaches and they'd been given a temporary parking license by the existing owner. And so the intent of the applicant is to carve off that little triangle and give it and deed it to the church.

So um that's what so but that's not shown there. So I had had the question that I ran by your civil peer reviewer.

Hey, if they carve out this triangle, will it affect the new parking layout or anything? She took a quick look at it, kind of overlaid it, said, "No, you're all clear." Steve Finland agreed. So, this is just though to make sure that any proposed ANR lot boundaries are put on the final project plans so that it's clear. I mean, the one for the church in particular affects kind of that entrance area. So that's

what E is um the the table um that's on the bottom right of that plan or it's somewhere on there the land use table that talks about lot coverage and that type of thing is based on 110 acres.

They have said that they may submit an ANR plan that would carve off approximately 16 acres just for this project, but then that change now changes for example the lot coverage calculation. So if they're going to do an ANR plan and carve this off from the rest of the land, they're going to need to update those. So that's just a requirement that they do that. Um, the snow storage. This is an This I was I

was told today by attorney Donnu. There was an old note on the plan that carried over talking about using parking space areas for snow storage, but apparently that that referred back to when they were going to have banked parking, which they're not. So, there's a requirement to you can't put snow on the 425 required parking spaces. Um, and then just requesting a little more detail

regarding the monument sign. They did submit some today, but it there's no it's not showing like the setbacks.

There's not enough detail about the setback from the street, etc. to for the site distance issues and that kind of thing. So, that's that's what three is.

Um, you know, the others, the retaining walls have to be where appropriate have to be by a structural engineer.

um kind of spot grades for accessibility. And now we get to six. So six is landscaping. This is this is the one that I wanted to discuss in more detail with the board. Um the the landscape plans need to be updated for a number of reasons. One of them has to be because of the reconfiguration that we talked about on this new C103 that you have in front of you. The other

reason was the other some of the other sheets for example L502 had charts on it. The charts were inconsistent with each other. They were inconsistent with the waiverss list. There there was just some there was just you know what as things evolved there was just like going back and catching all these things and updating it. They just it just got um missed. So and then there was discussion about the

northerly and the southerntherly property lines. So, we can talk about those in more detail in a second, but conceptually what is proposed, and that's in 6A, is they're going to submit an fully updated landscape sheet. All of these landscape sheets are going to be fully updated and they're going to contain hopefully all you know except to the extent you've granted waiverss that we tal about earlier tonight.

It's going to comply to the greatest extent possible with the zone the zoning bylaw requirements.

Now there may be instances where okay instead of like we were talking about is it nine trees is it 10 trees maybe it's eight trees right where they're going to work with the planning director in this case if it has to do with street trees Mr. Barber would be involved in come up with a plan walk through with the staff.

You know, what do we need to do to comply? Okay, we can comply with all this, but we may not comply here or there. That is the idea is for them to work cooperatively with the staff, come up with this landscaping plan.

Once it's to the point hopefully where the staff is comfortable with it, and if it needed additional waiverss, then it would come back to the board for a blessing. There's also the possibility that what they think they're proposing is reasonable and the staff says it's not and it may have to come in back for the determination if it's substantial or insubstantial change. So, but hopefully

it's they're going to just work cooperatively co, you know, collaboratively with the staff, come up with nice landscaping plan, and if it does need any additional waiverss, it should be an insubstantial change, and the and the staff would make a recommendation to the board. So, that's that's that kind. We'll talk about the two boundaries in a minute, but conceptually, is the board comfortable with that?

I don't like it, but given the time constraints we're going to be faced with at this point.

I mean, you got to close the hearing tonight. So, they can't they can't That's what I'm trying to say. We got 40 days for them to basically hash all that out and No, no, no. So, they're not going to do that during the This would all happen post permit.

Post permit.

This would all happen post permit because nothing can be submitted after tonight.

Then it's going to be on them to come before us to make the determination like you said, substantial or non or insubstantial. either either it'll either it'll fully comply with the bylaw and the waiverss that you've granted or and if it doesn't then they'll have to come to you and the staff will make a recommendation as to and then you know you'll do so it it doesn't seem like I don't know

I mean it seems like the most reasonable way to do it because it has them working with the staff as opposed to just revising it and sticking it in front of you they're going to work with the staff first and hopefully when it gets to you if it needs to come to you there's a consensus if it's going to come before it's going to come before us what do you think Alvin what do you think

I'm fine with that as well okay so that's the concept so that's a um so then we talk about B is Eisenhower Eisenhower our street. So boundary.

So this is where we talk about, you know, there were questions because the original um landscape plan was a little bit unclear. It it kind of shows conceptual and there's even notes on there that on the plans, oh well, the locations of the trees are all conceptual. We'll decide when we get there where we're going to stick them, all that kind of stuff. So, it was a little bit too vague.

Vague. Thank you. That's a good word.

Um, and so I talked to attorney Dou about this. I think this is probably the longest topic we conversation we had because landscaping is so important to the board. Um, and there are bylaw provisions about having sufficient shading. So what B proposes is that the revised landscape plan to be submitted in accordance with A which we just discussed will indicate the limit of work between the roadway work that

they're doing there and the boundary right so that's our that's our boundary buffer area right um and that they're going to show the existing trees which ones are staying which ones are coming down and what's going to get added there Um there's there had been discussion um at the meetings because right now their table their planting table just includes kind of standard arborites there had

been mention of these green giants um that maybe grow faster etc. So there's a reference like such as green giant like to to place trees that when combined with the existing vegetation will provide reasonable screening um and that the revised plans will have to include the species and the height of the proposed trees. And so this was language um that I discussed with um attorney Donnu and again it allows this

your the staff here to work with the applicant talk about the species and try to say what and you know maybe even go out on the site and say where's the spots that maybe can get filled in and be the most beneficial etc. So I I that's kind of proposed again, you know, it's it means the parties working I mean the town and the applicant working together in the future, but it seemed to

be the best way to have a a reasonable outcome. And I don't know if the applicant wants to add anything or if I summarized it fairly. Is that fair? I don't know how you feel about that, but that's that's the goal.

Yeah, I mean the goal is to provide a buffer from the exist from the neighbors or whatever. I mean we understand things are going to change in construction especially after they do the grading.

I'm not sure. I think there's a retaining wall there and the grades maybe 10 ft lower than than that side.

So if they lose a tree and they think they can replace it, they can do that, you know, and and stuff, you know, even on the plans you can say, you know, I mean, put the tree here, it might change because of the grade or because there's a structure or something, you know. So right but if they're working with the staff the goal is to provide that buffer from for the neighbors you know keep the

existing buffer as to the extent practical whatever we can and then add whatever they show on the landscape on the final landscape and try to keep it that way you know I mean I that's why we just wanted to yeah I mean talk it through out loud and see I mean they know what the concerns are. I mean, you know, with the they they know with the neighbors and the buffer. I mean,

that's mainly what we need to provide.

We need to provide a good buffer or maintain a buffer if we can to the extent practical, you know.

Well, there's definitely going to be a buffer.

Oh, yeah. But I'm saying like definitely they're not cutting a trees on on other properties. But if it's so close and they can save a tree and within couple feet of a wall or grade change or something, you know, they'll probably do that.

Wasn't there always wasn't there also an offer on the table that they were going to supply up to? And yeah, so we'll get to that. That's it's in it's in here.

It's in there. We'll get to we'll get there.

Um this is just revisions to the plan set. So that's a that goes under a different category of conditions. This the C has to do with the boundary along um the church on the southerntherly side. The um that plan that you had and even the the original landscape plan really didn't show anything there. But again, they had originally showed it at bank spaces. Now it's going to be fully built out. Um, so there was language

that was proposed by attorney Donnie and we, you know, I tweaked it a little bit just to tie it back again to 6A and it would be um it would be similar that, you know, to the extent there's going to be all that parking over there now, but to the extent some landscaping because the bylaw does require some boundary plantings um and they weren't really adding anything there. So that's going

to get worked out as part of this overall landscape plan. Um there is um you'll just see and see clarity there is um you know because the initial applications for the the uh or the application I submitted to the board was for the entire land and they they do have a boundary with the state highway in the back. They did ask for clarification in here that, you know, obviously these plantings and all these

things don't apply to the inner state. And so that's I I think that that that goes was without saying, but we put it in there for clarity that their request.

Um, so the the rest the rest of these DE and F are just one's a fire department requirement. Um the next is like I said that chart is going to get removed off that plan so we don't have conflicts with the waiver list and then we just need you know snow storage to be also shown on the landscape plan um just to that's what they asked for. So um finally utilities may need like may

need to be updated the phototric plan particularly with some shifting around um you know the buildings get becoming shorter the other buildings shifting a little bit just needs to be updated. Um all right where are we? We're on page nine.

Um storm water. These conditions came from um your civil peer review. Uh Deb uh Keller, there was a question um that came up on C. I think attorney D wasn't was unclear what that was. We did get it and it is in your packet, but again, it's in this it's in this tiny font that's very hard to read. I don't know why, but basically a clarification from um Deb Keller that there's a

disconnect between the the um sto the plan this the grading or the storm I don't know which plan it grading and drainage plan and what was written in the written storm water report. So this was to say that the plan needs to match what's in the report. Um this this is going to stay in. It's not going to get deleted, but it has it's going to be clarified just so that it's um so that it's referencing

what note she's she was talking to here.

All right. Um the rest of these conditions are kind of standard you've done before. They have to do SWIP. Um, and then they're going to provide kind of the updated architectural plans based on based on the uh presentation they made a couple of weeks ago.

All right, we're going to page 10. Um, so now we're on the traffic calming measures on page 10, top of page 10. So, the language that is in here is the language I took directly from Steve Finland, which just said that there should be traffic coming along the interior parking aisles. As you saw, they wanted a waiver because they're saying the ones that are going north south really don't need it.

Sure.

It should only be um I I think based on Steve's response, which we talked about earlier, that some form of this should stay in. However, it should be clear that it's referring to the east west as opposed to his concern in particular was now that you have kind of a double barrel on the parking on the southerntherly side, you're going to have and because that was going to be bank parking originally,

you're going to have people crossing that drive aisle to get to those parking spaces on the church side. and if people are kind of barreling downhill, it could be dangerous. So, that was his concern.

So, I mean, I think I'll I'll look at this um before the board meets on the deliberation and um and probably talk to attorney down again and and talk about how to address Steve's concern about the uh downhill there.

Um 5.4 for I the reason why I left the track changes in there is just because I wanted to discuss it with uh Mr. Barber.

This is on crosswalks and ADA compliance. He was comfortable with the wording of it. So um so the recommendation is to accept those changes. Um number the the next one five but it will be six is just coordinating confirming that the bus stop area works for the for the town.

All right. sewer is section F. Um all the plans will get submitted DPW director using the Dartmouth sewer um plan requirements. So number what number two is and this is the one that is in color. This is uh as the applicant stated at the hearing two weeks ago, they are willing to replace the sewer main um pursuant to um the analysis that had been previously done by Stantech in September of 2024.

Um the um the change the reason so this is the language that had been reviewed by Mr. Barber. They did make this change about the timing of submitting the plans. Um after reviewing that with him today, he was comfortable with that. So that is their condition to replace the sewer main.

Um page 11, this is the water infrastructure. The applicant didn't have any comments on this. It was basically the these some of them are the conditions. Condition due came from the f fire district 3 fire chief just talking about fire flow information keeping hydrants clear of obstructions and number three is additional information and plan revisions um that were recommended by Stantech um and the

applicant didn't have any comments on those. Um, all right. Section five just refers to the fact that they're going to use a well for irrigation.

And so this condition just refers to um Yeah, there is.

You know what it says except wave in schedule B and I can we can we go back to page 10 for a sec? Paragraph two.

Is there a specific time frame as to when that's going to be done?

Unless it says it.

No, it says it later. So this is plan revisions. Okay. Okay.

And then later there's the uh construction requirements.

All right. Thank you.

I know like sometimes I struggle between should I put it all together, but I just think particularly for anyone doing enforcement like the building commissioner, if you can go to one section and say this is everything they have to do before they get start work.

This is everything before building permit. It's just rather than sprinkle it through, I like to consolidate them.

Okay. Um, I I do think that there's an oversight and so I think it should get raised now before we close the hearing.

The top of page 12, it talks about waiverss related to the the board of health um well regulations.

There was so they're doing an irrigation well. This is similar to Sherbrook.

There's a couple of provisions in the U board of health well regulations where that treat the irrigation wells as if they're portable oil wells and there was a waiver for that except for um testing. There's a testing requirement and so I don't know did the applicant intend to include those same waiverss?

We did.

You did. Okay. So, I just wanted to get it on the record. There was there were similar waiverss. They they still would will require testing of the well to make sure they're not contaminated. Um, but it won't otherwise treat the irrigation well as a portable well. Does that make sense? It's the same one for sure, Brooke. Okay. Let me just make a note back on the Sorry, I'm going to forget if I don't write it down.

Was that a listed waiver? I don't remember that it was. No. So the thing is once they added in the irrigation well which just came up at the last hearing it was intended when I spoke to Mr. D attorney Donnu it was intended but I think within all the back and forth it was forgotten so add word of health waiverss. Okay. All right. Um okay. So we're in H. H is all purple as you will see.

So this is the ANR plan. You have that conceptual ANR plan in front of you. It it's called the conceptual ANR plan. It would divide the parcel into three lots.

Lot A would be the development parcel. I think you all should have a copy.

Oh, maybe I do.

It's got to be in one of those right here, right?

Yes, that's it.

Oh, yeah, I do.

You got it. Okay.

Yeah.

Oh, this is Was there a different Yeah.

Is that the same?

Yeah.

Oh, okay. Yeah.

Okay. Lot A is approximately I think 16.7 acres would be the development parcel.

Lot B is everything in the back and lot C is a little sliver for the church.

Um, attorney Donnie had prepared language for this.

I took his language but then I revised it before I sent it to the board and he subsequently sent me revisions a couple of days ago which are reflected here which I have not you'll see have I didn't accept because the board for the discuss there was some more discussion about it yesterday but nothing was submitted like as far as a markup so I don't it's up to applicant if they want to bring it up.

So under chapter 40B even though ANR plans just like subdivision plans etc usually go to the planning board when it's a 40B it gives the all the authorities with the zoning board. I've worked on other 40bs where the board endorse will endorse an ANR plan. So this gives the applicant the they that they may come if they choose and submit an ANR plan to the board and you know there was this conceptual plan which is

in the record which you have before you.

So lot a is is is this plan though caveat it's substantially the same as attorney donn you requested it but I did add that it has to make any lot a if they tweak it at all in the future 16 16.17 I'm sorry I said 16.7 would have to make sure it included all of the development areas so you got to make sure all the drainage is on the site all

the snow storage you don't want it getting chopped off and and you got easements going on, whatever. So, that would be lot A. Lot C, I'm going to jump over B for a second. Lot C is for the church, as we talked about. Um, the original language I was provided basically said lot C is not part of this comprehensive permit, but it is. The 110 acres as you read in the legal notice is

all of the land that was applied was submitted for the comprehensive permit.

So the way I've revised lot C is that upon their delivering a copy of a recorded deed to the town evidencing that they've conveyed that sliver to the church then lot C would be deemed released from this permit. Okay.

Okay. So lot B the language was that it is the intention of this is the original language that I was given that it's the intention of the applicant to donate some or all of B to a conservation group nonprofit organization or government entity for open space purposes and that none of B is part of the comprehensive permit but it is the entire 110 acres is part of the comprehensive permit. So I revised it as

you see in purple, but they've crossed some of it out with the track changes to say in no event can any lot be developed in any manner except by modification of the permit in accordance with the 40D regulations, right? Ignore the track changes for now.

And similarly that they would have to submit a deed to the town evidencing that it was conveyed and res to an that entity for that purpose um that's solely for open space purposes and that then lot B or any portion thereof would be released from the comprehensive bourbon because once it's conveyed and restricted for open space purposes. Okay. Um, this language that came back was it could be modified by the 40B

regulation, modified pursuant to the 40B regulations or otherwise as allowed under the zoning bylaw, but it's not. I mean, it's subject to the comprehensive permit. All 110 acres was submitted in this application. They didn't submit 16.17 acres. They submitted 110. Actually, it's 113 or well, I think once it got surveyed, it may have come out to some smaller amount. I don't know. Not exactly 113.

Whatever it is, but maybe it said 110 in the deed and it's 113 when they measured. I don't know. That's there's a margin of error going on there. Okay. A surveying calculation. Whatever that amount is. So, um you know, I this is up to the board. The board can allow them to ANR this parcel any way you want. You can allow them to not have it be subject to the 40B permit. I mean, the board has

the authority under chapter 40B to make all of these decisions.

I drafted it the way I believe the board intended it to be, but the applicant would like it to read differently. and I that is why this is before you and I don't know you could ask me questions you can allow the applicant to speak I don't know how you want to handle it Mr.

Chair well it's always been my understanding based on the representations of Mr.

Calhoun that this was part of the entire project because he's always told us it's 110 or 113,000 um acres um and that he was only putting 300 units on the 110.

I always thought it was collective, but I'm not quite understanding the nuance. They want us to actually parcel it off and not have it. They want they want us to acknowledge that lot B is a separate parcel and not under the 40B or the under the requirements of the comprehensive permit.

That's what they've requested.

It's normal.

But but why?

Well, I I would I would disagree with normal practice given the number of 40Ds that I represented towns on. But well, we'll give an opportunity to be heard on that. Um I just always have concerns because then if it's if it's not part of the comprehensive permit then they don't have to come before us if they want to make any changes to that. Correct.

I thought we were going to put a restriction on this anyway that it was all going to be open space conservation open space.

The other 40bs that the board has approved going back to the preserve sherbrook hawthorne all say the lot shall not be further subdivided.

Right. They all have that condition without coming back to us.

Well, they all just say they shall not be further subdivided. So if they want to, they would have to come back to you.

Okay.

So it is standard practice in Dartmouth to not allow it as it is in other community that I have represented on multiple 40bs.

All right. Well, at this point, let's hear from him. Yeah. Hold on. Is is there any other comments you guys have on this?

No.

um back on June 10th, we submitted this plan to the board and I believe I brought it up early in the process um because we did start the outreach and it was um to open space people back in January uh and our commitment was that we're going to donate substantially that parcel to an open space group. Uh we are not going to donate the whole thing initially. Um but we are committed we're

willing to commit of the 88 acres that is out there uh that we potentially uh that we would we would commit tonight to lock in 80 of it for open space. There is eight uh which we want to reserve.

It's developable land. Uh we still have to go we still have to go to conservation.

conservation could have requests that require us to replicate wetlands or something else. So, we do have some uplands. Um there are potentially potentially four or five form lots uh which from the very beginning have been before the uh mass housing. It was in the original appraisal. It was shown on the original plan. It was shown on the conceptual plan to you guys back in January. Uh, so

it shouldn't be a surprise, but for us to take eight acres of buildable land in the middle of a housing crisis and turn it into open space that can never be used.

It's never been what?

Could never be used. If we if we go by Well, that's not true. You could still come back before us.

We could, but why come back before you in a process when the 40B process is already intended to streamline permitting? I mean, we're good. would be back before a new the notice provision.

There's eight acres which we don't know what we're going to do with it yet till we finish with conservation.

But those eight acres what about all these density requirement and the percentages they provided us.

Did it exclude these eight acres that they're trying to So here's here's the thing.

They provided a conceptual site plan in June and it shows A, B, and C. It doesn't show A, B, C, and D. It doesn't show a I'm not worried about that. It's about what the intent is after. Now I can see what's going on.

But but the thing is there we have we have the recordings of every hearing and it's as you said, how many hearings have there been? And it's always been it's going to open space. There's never been a conversation about and we're reserving eight acres and we're going to see if we can develop them. So, first of all, that has never been stated to this board before tonight and on the night

it's supposed to close. The second thing is this entire parcel was submitted under chapter 40B to this board 300 units and now 280 on this land the entire assessor's lot number this parcel.

If any more housing is being built on this that requ that that is a major modification. It's a different building typology. It's more units. It would have to comply with affordability. They would have to show they had actual rights to use that roadway which has never been accepted by the town and has never been built. It's a paper street. There's so many issues with this that to suggest that

you know you know the the board could do it but does the board has the right to require them to go through the 40B process and comply with the major modification requirements of chapter 40B or even potentially file a whole new 40B application to develop any more units on this land outside of what they have already proposed.

So, it's up to the board.

All right, gentlemen. Um, is there something else you'd like to add, Mr. Calhoun?

Yeah, the the land in question, whether or not it can be developed is something that will be determined in the in the future. It's can't be we're willing to put a restriction that can't be developed in any other format other than the existing zoning which is single family homes. I mean our whole plan is that why would we take you know potentially four house lots and throw them away?

Well, but but hold on. I understand what you're looking to do now. I get it. Um, but when I looked at this project for approval during this entire time, it was that there were and we had difficulty with 200 with 300 units. And we're we're thinking at 280 units that this would basically have impact on the entire track, not minus 8 acres, so that you could preserve it for some future development

for something else. That would be the only development that would happen on lots A, B, and C. That's how I perceived it. Sure.

That's how I perceived it till just moments ago.

Okay. Well, it was it was in the project eligibility letter. It was in the appraisal. It was presented to you guys in January. The form start with attorney. What are your thoughts?

Well, I I have to say that this is the first time I've heard hold back 8 acres for for developing potentially four house lots. That I've never seen that.

You're telling me this is on plans that you submitted to the not to the zoning board?

To the zoning board?

No, not to any plans that came to the zoning board.

Well, actually that does that's still not been presented even at this very moment.

It's not part of the 40b.

That's why we're carving the land.

It's already here in gray. Totally not called out.

It's north of It's north of Eisenhower.

It's so okay. So Eisenhower, so you know how Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Dean are kind of three in a row, kind of those three fingers.

How do you access it? That's Indian Rock.

Well, Indian Rock doesn't actually exist except on paper.

But to suggest that that was presented to the board is very disingenuous. It was never pointed to with a pointer at any hearing actually through Eisenhower.

Hold on.

We're not We're not ask We're not asking for the board to do anything other than to allow us to subdivide the lots.

That's all we're asking. We're not creating four house lots. We're just taking the 88 acres and we're taking that and subdividing that off as a format, excuse me, as an ANR under the 40B permit, which has been presented numerous times, we're just just as we're doing the church piece and if the board feels that they want to write in the condition that it, you know, that the 88 acres cannot be sub, you you can write

in whatever you want and then we then we can deal with it. If you deny it, we can deal with it. It's our just we're being, you know, it's literally sinful to throw away four house lots in this day and age.

So why in the world would you f throw away four house slots? You could make a demand. Excuse me. Let me finish. You could make a demand. You could come back and say, "We'd like to see you donating them to tunnels to towers and see four veteran homes going there."

We have to balance Hold on. Hold on.

Excuse me. We have to balance this out.

And we're balancing the impact that this has on the people on Eisenhower Street and all we've been looking at at this point because of the fact that at least I was under the understanding that this lot the 88 acres would be in perpetuity conservation land in essence rendering it unbuildable. We were limiting any impact just to the south of their property. Now, you're basically asking

us to leave a window open so that you can further potentially impact the people on Eisenhower Street to the to the west of their property in that general neighborhood. We're talking Eisenhower K and Kennedy Street.

That's not something I considered in weighing the analysis that we need to do as board members for a 40B. If you want to write a condition that says we have to make the 88 acres 100% conservation land or open space whatever it's your condition we just have the right to challenge it and we're just saying openly why in the world would you would you throw away four house potential it may not even be household

so Mr. chair. Yes.

I I So, a couple of things. The condition as I originally drafted it said that it says they have the intention to convey some or a portion a portion of all of that lot B. And so, the way I wrote it is that's fine. If they do that, then that portion that they convey that's restricted perpetuity for con for open space can be released from the permit. nothing else gets released from the permit until the board

knows what's happening to it. So it's not it has to the 108 the all 88 acres has to be that's not how it was worded in the draft you have but it is worded that there will be no more development or subdivision without coming back to this board which is what 40B says it it has definitions of substantial modification and I will note yes right now under the for let's presume it may

or may not even be possible to build on the paper street, but let's presume for a second that it is or they are able to make it buildable.

We're talking about potentially four 40,000 foot house lots today under the Dartmouth zoning bylaw. There is a ballot question pending on the November ballot.

You think of that? that would allow if you have water and sewer, which this area does, 5,000 foot lots. So, you're not talking about four 40,000 foot lots.

You're talking about potentially 10 single family home lots. That's the first thing. Or more. I I didn't do the math, right? There's that. Then you combine it with a bill pending at the legislature right now which if it passes would mandate that every town has to allow two families or duplexes on every single family lot. So now you take say it's 10 lots not four on 5,000 square

feet with duplexes and an ADU. So you're potentially having three dwelling units on every single one depending on what the legislature does and what the ballot question does. So it's we're not talking about four 40,000 ft houses lots with one house. We don't know what that is.

And I think the whole point of the chapter 40B major modification provisions of the regulations is that the board gets to evaluate at the time that these requests come in what those impacts are going to be and whether they're going to be substantial or not.

So I just wanted to make sure that the board was right. I know the board had some awareness of the ballot question and what's going on at the legislature, but we're not potentially, depending on what happens, you may not just be talking about four single family homes.

You could be talking about three or four times that a number of dwelling units by law.

Thinking one, right? I'm just saying I'm not thinking any more development beyond 280 units on this entire track of land. That's what I thought I was going to be approving.

That's just me, gentlemen.

No. And I I I agree with you, Mr.

Attorney Madera, that I like this language. I think this language is the way it should the original language, the original language that I mean, the presentation they made to us was the entire parcel was part of the 40B package. And if they then deed it out, then it can be released.

They should have excluded it right at the inception and then we could have asked why.

Correct.

Right. If the application had come in with 20 acres with a conceptual ANR plan showing 20 acres and nothing with the rest of it and that was and that was the application, but that's that wasn't the application. The application was 110 acres. the 110 acres are now subject to this application and the decision that is issued from it except as otherwise allowed by the board. What about what

about all the calculations I indicated earlier, the density calculations based on the square footage that was all done on the 110 or 113 acres, was it not? It didn't exclude out these 8 acres.

I don't know.

I I mean, you can look at their own C103. They're doing the calculations for lot coverage based on 100 the full amount.

All right, that's enough for me. Um, can we move on to the next one?

Leave Leave the language as we're going to leave the language the way it is. the way the way it was proposed the way I thought it should be.

This is not excuse me suggested so no yeah but okay I mean if you it's up to you if you want to have any public comment but if you have one public comment you have to No I I don't want to open it up at this point.

Okay.

You're okay with CO for the church?

Yes.

But it's going to go the same process as Okay.

Yep. Okay. Um, where are we? So, none of their track changes will be incorporated in the next draft that I present to the board at this time. All right. Um, number two on page 13.

This has to do with the stone wall. I understand it may be a very um not very good shaped stone wall.

Maybe piles of rocks at this point, but it was a stone wall at some point. Some of them some of these materials are or may be in the rightway. Um Mr. Barbara's here if you have any questions for him. But at this point the that any of that material that's in the rightway is the town's materials and it can't be disposed of, reused, done anything with the applicant. They don't

own it. So this is going to go ben. It's going to be clarified. Um, but anything that's not on their property is the property of the town and and the DPW director would like the ability to have a say in how it gets utilized. Is that fair, Mr. Barber?

Thank you. Um so you know any work that's proposed within the public rightway uh you know requires permitting through the department of public works and this includes any stone wall removal, tree removal, anything any work. Um so we would you know visit the site uh look at plans and and permanent as permit as necessary. Um again I you know I would ask that we see a property survey out

out in the site on once we meet out there on the site and and make the determination and we'll work with you.

Yeah. And and just to clarify because I did this was a question that I got from attorney Donno and I did um ask Mr.

Barbara about it today is obviously areas where the entrance drives need to go will need to be cleared but to the extent that there's stone wall something in there any if there's things in the right of way that need to be relocated Mr. Barbara just wants them flagged in the field ahead of time. Is that fair?

Fair.

Yeah. Is that correct? Yeah.

So, two's going to go back in. I I may be able to clarify it better. I'll I'll discuss it with Mr. Barber and the applicant, but that one's going to go back in. Um, all right.

the the the remainder of this page 13 are just um kind of standard conditions that have to do with dig safe etc. Um so nothing really to discuss there. Um 14 is a similar on page eight page 14 number eight is a similar um concern that Mr. Barber had where he's asking for they're asking the applicant is just asking for permission to pretty much clear that entire area in the rightway along their frontage and Mr. Barber

again as he just stated is asking that it just be all kind of survey flagged in the field there be a on-site meeting before there's any clearing done in the rightway.

So those changes um again I may be able to revise and clarify it better but the changes um are of concern. Is that fair Mr. Barber?

Yes. That you know at this point I'm not I don't know what there are for trees within the public rightway there. Um so we you know we we comply with chapter 87 MGL chapter 87 with street tree removal or public shade tree removal. So, you know, um I would like to see any any uh any trees that are planned to be removed, we can we can walk the site again once the once the site's surveyed

and uh make a plan for that.

that there is a process uh through mass, you know, MGL chapter 87 that any um any live public shade tree removal would be uh required to have a hearing um with the board of public works or the select board. Um so it's a state statute.

Yeah, it's chapter 87 of Mass General Laws. It's not a local bylaw.

Correct.

Okay. Um, number 10. So, let's get to one that's there's some dreaming on here. Um, this language has to do with a third the $30,000 contribution to a account a dedicated account for um traffic safety enhancements based on the um table that was prepared by the the traffic engineers as to different markings and different other upgrades that can be done on the town roads, the town controlled roads. Um this is language

that was reviewed um by Mr. Barber also by um attorney Donnu and I understand is acceptable to all. That's number 10.

Number 11 is the provision, Mr. Chair, that you asked about earlier about um the direct butters um up to $5,000 each of the directive putters. Um the the uh parameters around this. So this was kind of I discussed with um attorney Donnu as you know he did state at the hearing the last hearing that and and again typically this is something that's done directly with the butters and applicants outside of the

permit process um or the permit um but you know they're in agreement to language going in here but they are setting the terms of it and their term is that it it's not that they have the right to deny this fund to any abutters who participate in any way in appeal of this project. So um that is their condition on being willing to do it. Um there is a time frame within 24 hours of

I mean 24 hours 24 months of them um getting their first building permit. Um but it's also noted that this is a matter between the dires and the applicants and they need to coordinate directly. The board does not negotiate these agreements between the parties.

That's the proposed language subject to the board's review. And okay, hold on. Is it to all of the abuts if one were to to object or file an appeal or is it just to the particular one that were to file the file the appeal?

It says if any such a butter or other party alleging standing um participates in or contributes to an appeal. So if one party appeals but everyone's donating to the cost of appealing it, then anyone who's donating towards it would also not have the benefit of it.

Okay.

That's the terms on which they're willing to do the 5,000 per property.

What do you guys think?

I don't have a problem with it.

Yeah. I don't if it goes to appeal there's more problems than the 5,000.

Yeah.

Okay. Um when hold on a second. It says such requests for contribution must be made in writing by a director butter to the applicant within 24 months of issuance of a building permit.

All right. 24 months.

So it gives them two years from when they come and go vertical.

It's just that sometimes you you get a building permit and nothing happens on the ground and people don't know. But if it's 24 months all right section I construction inspection conditions again are standard kind of on all the on all the comprehensive permits the board has issued there. I do want to discuss the the section five though. So on page 15, um, so the board and the the other 340B

permits, and I don't know because I haven't worked with you on any special permits or with the planning board, um, if you if it's if this is the same across all permits, but it had a restriction to deliveries of construction materials, materials, and equipments to Monday through Friday um, from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. There is the ability to work on the site on Saturdays from 8 to 4. And so the request was if

they can be working from 8 to 4 on a Saturday, can they have deliveries on Saturdays? Um the only thing I'd say is that if the board was amendable to that, it should be the same hours of work as on Saturday, the 8 to 4, not the 7 to 6.

um that could be modified, but I don't know what the board's feelings are about allowing deliveries on Saturdays.

I'm okay with Saturday 8 to 4.

Um okay. Uh section seven below that um allowed and this is also standard allowed.

It's basically a model unit type of provision. So even though they don't have CFOs, so no one could live in the units, there has been allowed for a single unit to be made, you know, prettied up for potential tenants to come look at and then and right they are asking each type of dwelling unit. So they're going to have studio, one bedroom, etc.

You're okay.

Okay. Um the rest again no constru so just so to point this poll this one I think this is important just to note con condition nine on page 16 is no construction worker vehicles or construction equipment can be parked in any public or private way um unless they're doing for example if they're doing work in Haway then they may they'll have construction equipment in Hathaway but um including without

limitation Eisenhower street so there's a specific prohibition on any of the construction vehicles, construction workers, anyone being on um Eisenhower Street.

Um the rest is all, you know, erosion control, stockpiling, etc. Um conditions for occupancy or section J. Um you know, O and M, you know, CFOs, etc. Um the on the top of page 17 there's a condition as I said has been in the other permits that only allows um trash the trash trucks to come in daylight hours between 7 and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays and they've asked to strike that.

So, these are trash trucks coming in and emptying the dumpsters.

And the board has imposed this condition on these hours in all of your other permits.

The question I mean, I don't know. In the summer, if it's light out at 4 a.m., do you want a do you want a dump do you want a trash truck emptying a fullblown dumpster at 4 a.m. kind of thing?

So, that's the question.

Well, I I wouldn't want it.

I even think the tenants I think the tenants that would live on this building wouldn't want it themselves.

So, let's let's put it, you know, 7 to 5 or 8 to put it back. Do you want to put it back?

The the language that's crossed out was the language that I drafted that was in your I want it back in.

It's consistent with the other Yeah, it's in it's in the other 340BS.

That's fine.

Okay. Um Okay. So, just a quick question. The When does the town collect? When can they go out and start collecting?

The Does the town do trash collection?

Not before 7. Great.

We start at 7 a.m. Monday through Thursday. That's what I thought. Monday through Friday. Yeah. Okay.

Thank you.

All right. Number four. So, this is to your question of when is the sewer main getting replaced? Um, the proposed language that I discussed with Mr.

Barber was the first CFO.

Um and I don't know what a building which is a party of the project means uh but anyway um the they had asked for the fourth building the and Mr. Barbara this maybe another you for question get your steps in here the issue is about the reason why the pipe needs to be uh placed is because it's an 8 inch clay old clay pipe and there's a capacity issue so the question is Mr. arbor on

timing as to when it's replaced.

Correct.

Why does it matter?

So, it matters on the the number of connections uh to the sewer system ad that are and and the number of occupancies and which includes the amount of flow that flows into the system which could impact that section of the the sewer system. Right. So, so they it's possible that it the capacity might be to such a point before you get to building four that the pipe should be replaced before building four. Is that

the issue?

Uh it could and uh it wasn't studied as far as each building. It was studied as a as a whole development. Um, so we would have to look at the numbers and and figure out where that trigger would be to to uh decide on a definite building number. So, so the suggestion here is um for the applicant, the suggestion here is that it be kept at the first, but there be a caveat unless otherwise

approved by the DPW director after review of the capacity impact. So, if you're at if you're at building one, building two, and it it's not going to impact the pipe, you don't have to do it right away, but if there's going to be an impact, it might have to have it done before building one. Mhm.

Oh, okay. All right. So, we'll put we'll um we'll go back to the first with a caveat that it could be delayed.

Okay. Um All right. This the next one is the uh Oh, don't go anywhere, Tim. Um the next one is the North Pump North Dartmouth pump station um donation of $40,000. So, basically the language was agreed to by applicants council. The question was a bit about timing, right? So, um it was originally proposed that it be kind of an earlier situation, the earlier of when the town is going to solicit bids

for the construction or when the applicant asks for a certificate of occupancy.

The applicant didn't really have a concern with that except that they do want to know that if they donate the money, it's not going to sit there for, you know, 10 years and nothing ever gets done with the pump station. So, they want to put like a 24 month window on use of the funds. So, I talked to Mr.

barber about it today and um and if it's okay with the board, I could continue to just because it's not going to involve the submission of any new materials.

It's just going to be discussion of the logistics. We can talk to Mr. Barber and the applicant because it may be like, well, we can push back the date for contribution so it would be the earlier of when they award it so we know there's a contractor kind of ready and set to go on it. um or the last building potentially like so the earlier of they've gone out to bid or they're

getting a CBO for the last building and then what was the number of months they had proposed 24 what what were you requesting I requested at least 36 36 so push back when the donation would be made and then add another 12 months so that's what Mr. Barber's asking if those two things let me just as a side note Mr. Why are we not being more proactive in some of these improvements? Right? We have wells

that we don't not utilizing, and I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but I am a little bit. Why are we not utilizing the wells on Old Westport Road? Those things have been down for a long time.

We're buying water from New Bedford.

These infrastructure improvements have been necessary for a while. We've got people, not just them. We've forced others to make these contributions, and I don't know where the money goes.

It's money. So, so, so you got to spend it at some point.

So, well, I'm just saying that. So, they're proposing to to submit a contribution of $40,000. The project was estimated just under $300,000 a couple years ago. Uh so, it's probably north of that. So, we would need the funding approved and appropriated at town meeting to be able to move forward with that project.

So, other contributions for these improvements as well.

Not the North Station.

Not for the North Station. This is the first contribution for the North Station. Correct.

Well, but there's other projects that are going to be contributing. So, Sherbrook will be making contribution.

There's another non40B project.

No, they're making it to another pump station.

No, that it hasn't been determined yet determined yet which pump station it's going to go towards. And then there's some non40B projects that are supposed to be making contributions. There's also the opportunity that um Mr. Barber and I discussed that the town is doing a whole round of um of grants for infrastructure improvements that will assist in the production of housing. So, there's an

opportunity for the town to potentially get a grant, too. And so, Mr. Barber's looking at those grant opportunities.

Oh, we need it.

We do. Uh, as far as the wells, I believe you you're talking about the Penelli wells.

Not sure which ones they are. you know, the fact that we have a well and we're not utilizing any well that's not being utilized unless it's contaminated, there's no reason why we shouldn't have it.

Yeah. So, the wells you you're speaking of uh were contaminated during a storm back in 2020 and D required us uh to install a a fourlock system that got completed in April. Uh and the wells were back on in April.

They out back on.

Correct.

All right. Good. So, why are we still buying water from New Bedford?

There's a lot of peak use. Uh we have other wells that are that are under uh either construction. We had we had damage uh at our F wells um during the blizzard. Uh we're still waiting for a transformer to be delivered. Uh it's it it was it was expected in August. So we have a couple days left. Um we're we're looking at the shipping and and hopefully we can get that in in

installed within the next u three weeks or so.

So, but the blizzard was in February.

Order a transformer that size.

But back in uh back in uh when we had the Violet well construction, um we had a number of uh VFDs, variable frequency drives and and transformers that were estimated at 18 months lead time.

So macro is what it is.

It is I just want to con ask the applicant if I can.

So the the the suggestion or request from Mr. Barber is to push back the time frame for the for the donation in the A and B of section five. So it would be after they've awarded the bid. So you would know that there was a contractor or you're before the CFO for your last building, but then he's requesting 36 months to use the funds after it's donated.

You got to see me.

We'll do it. Looks like things are take a while lead time.

All right. Thank you.

Want to hold their feet to the fire to be honest with you, right? To say you only have, you know, I'd like to say two months so you can fix this thing. So we would we would love to get it done in in in a month, you know, but lead times and and contracts and, you know, procurement and and funding all take time.

Sounds like a lot of red tape to me.

Yes.

Anyway, all right.

Contracts.

Yeah, I know.

There. Okay. So, we're on the page 17.

Um, it it's the timing for installing the landscaping. It's uh what's called the traffic demand management program in which they're uh required to kind of work with their tenants and provide packs of tenants on on uh traffic management. Then we get into K which is the post construction and ongoing conditions. So this is after it's been constructed. It requires them to maintain the 1.52 parking spaces per

unit, not put snow or other use them for any other purpose.

um have some, you know, notify the tenants um posted in conspicuous areas like the amenity areas that they're they can't park on Haway Road or on residential streets such as Eisenhower. Um and then they're responsible for all the on-site maintenance. That's what condition four and all those subsections are. Um when you get to section L on waiverss um what the the language they've inserted

is pretty is basically a plan waiver and as paragraph two says no plan waiverss are granted. So, I don't recommend the language but I didn't re any of their I any of their changes. I didn't reject any of their changes without running them by the board. So, anything you see in track changes, it's things they asked for. I did not unilaterally reject them. I'm putting them before the board, but

they're asking for a plan waiver in section one of L.

Are you look you wait I'm waiting for you I'm waiting for the three of you to give me a response.

I'm sorry I wasn't even listening probably for the last 30 seconds to a minute. I apologize. I was just kind of reflecting back on everything we've covered tonight.

Okay, let me restate section L of the conditions.

It governs waiverss.

Mhm.

And it states that they have to comply with all laws except as specifically waiver waved in schedule B, which is that chart we went through. Section two says there's no plan or blanket waivers.

That's also something that's in the guidelines for comprehensive permits.

That's been issued by the subsidizing agency that boards should not issue PL blanket waivers. So, but their change to section one is in effect a request for a plan waiver. And so, I'm asking the board whether you accept that language or not.

Help me out here.

The language or as otherwise reflected in the final plans.

Yeah, it didn't. So they're basically saying if it's shown on a plan, the final plans that they submit to for review by the staff in the peer review, if it's on that plan, regardless if you've waved it in schedule B, it's deemed waved.

I thought you said that what we were going to put for language was that not the plan would be controlling, but the conditions would be controlling. Yeah.

So let's adhere back to that.

Okay.

All right. And that that's it. I just I'm just have to up schedule one A is the list of project plan. The project plans is defined.

These are the the oper like the the principal operative I'd say most important documents that were submitted on which the conditions are based and the board reviewed. I just need to make sure they're complete. And then schedule B would be the waiverss that we already discussed.

Is there anything related to the conditions or the waiverss that we haven't covered tonight that the board wished to dis cover?

So, we're going to get another version of this with the proposed changes that we've discussed.

Mhm.

And we'll have this to cross reference against. So, with the waiverss attached with the waiver list attached with this version so we could cross reference.

I'll give you a red line.

A red line. Okay.

because I'm not going to remember everything that we discussed other than by reviewing this.

Yeah, I give you a red light.

Is there anything else that the board wanted to cover for the conditions or waiverss?

Gentlemen, attorney.

No, no, no. I'm good.

Nothing with you, Mr. Schuba. No present. It's Rogers. Sorry.

All right.

Um, is there anything else you think we need to cover for tonight?

No, the only there's nothing left on the from legal council side on this.

It's um the board would need to vote to close the public hearing.

Public hearing. Right.

Okay.

Um, I'll entertain a vote, gentlemen. Oh, excuse me. I'll entertain a motion for a vote. The agenda. I think you have the agenda.

Yes, I do have the agenda. It's here.

Hold on. Give me a minute.

I don't have a copy of the agenda.

I don't have it either. That's why you That's a Michelle is here. It is right here.

I make a motion that we close the public hearing on comprehensive permit ZCMP-25-3.

Second.

All in favor?

I I the eyes have it.

Okay. And so now it's not a continuence because the hearing is closed. It's just the scheduling.

Y and we're on for September 17th.

Correct.

Right. And so what time I don't know if there's what time the board if the board has anything else on there on your agenda for the seven. That's the only thing. I'm not in charge of anything that's not a 40B. So I'm not in charge of 40Bs either, but I don't know anything about anything that's not a 40B in Dartmouth.

I think the last email that we got from Michelle said she didn't have anything scheduled for September. We might have nothing on.

Well, we can always put it on for five.

That way we can always, you know, handle it. And if there's something else on as well, we'll just have put on the agenda.

Yeah. So, I think we if we put it on for five, if it turns out you have other things on at 5, we can let the applicant know that you might be starting this a little later. A little bit later. We'll give them that courtesy.

Sure.

But do we expect the uh something like uh maybe a few days before?

Oh, yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Absolutely.

If I can. So, wait. today's I'll I'll work with um I'll I'll work with the staff. Um there might be some language cleanup things to run by the applicant.

So ideally we'd be getting you something that's a Thursday, right? Ideally we'd be getting it to something to back to the board by the end of next week if we can.

Great.

Depending on everybody's schedules time.

All right. So to everyone here in the audience, the matter it's not continued.

It's just it's going to be the date in which we will finally review all of the revisions and vote formally on the allowance or disallowance of the uh of the petition for comprehensive permit.

Okay. Um we have a bunch of other matters that we have to cover this evening which are approvals of administrative different administrative minutes and whatnot. Are you gentlemen you gentlemen want to do that today or we've already tabled a lot of these?

I I know we have but shouldn't we have Michelle here?

Yeah, I think she generally keeps track of everything that we do.

So given that we'll just table those.

There going to be a lot of we almost need to have one session just to deal with all the minutes and approval of uh minutes and meeting minutes that we've basically uh conducted over the last several months that we've not gone over. So I don't think we can table it much beyond the next meeting but we'll keep that in mind.

Um so knowing that I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn.

Make a motion to adjurnn. Second that motion.

All in favor?

I I The eyes have it.