Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting - December 4, 2025

Welcome to the zoning board of appeals meeting of December 4th, 2025. At this time, I'm going to call upon everyone to stand so we can pledge allegiance to the flag.

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

Thank you.

All right.

As a housekeeping matter, I need to announce that this this meeting is being recorded by Dartmouth Community Media.

And moving on to to tonight's public hearings portion of the meeting. The first case that we have on is a continued case. It's a use variance.

Excuse me.

The next meeting is Well, yes. Um I just been reminded I'm supposed to announce that our next meeting uh will be Thursday, December 11th here uh in this room at 5:00 p.m.

Now, moving on to the public's hearings portion of tonight's meeting. The first matter we have is a continued case. It's a use variance. It's ZAV2-11.

It was continued from November 13th. The petitioner in that case is Anthony Malikica. The owner is 411 FSC Connor Road LLC and the subject property is located at 411 FSC Connor Road, also known as map 63, lot 12. We've previously waved the reading of the abuters list. And in this case, for the people here that are in the audience and also our viewers at home, uh I will repeat that the

petitioner in this case is seeking a use variance to construct a fueling station with a convenience store and food service drive-thru in an office industrial zone. The proposed fuel station with convenience store is not an allowed use per article 22 section 375-22-2 allowed uses and will require a use variance per article 43 sections 37543.3 and also uh use variance as amended by

six that oh it's also amended by article 40 approved 910 2014.

Okay. Um, so I believe we have the petitioner's representative here tonight. Um, I'm going to ask you to come forward if there's anything new that you'd like to state uh with [clears throat] regard to this request.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, for the record, I'm attorney Anthony Malikica um on behalf of the applicant from Blatman HD and Silverstein.

Um my understanding is that um you've given some consideration to this project at the last meeting. Um and that there's a draft decision that's been circulating. Um so I guess at this time I would just ask if you have any further questions about the project or if there's anything else you um see fit to discuss.

Thank you. Um are any board members have any questions about this petition?

I have none.

I have none. So, um I'm not sure if you're aware, but we we did not close the public hearing of this uh particular application. So, yes, we do have an audience here tonight. It is a public meeting. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak either in favor or in opposition to this petition? This is one for 411 FS Corner Road. Um it's for the construction of a New England Farms type convenience store.

So if there's anyone that would like to speak either in favor or in opposition to it, we will be closing the public me meeting shortly.

All right. So it doesn't appear to be anyone who wants to speak either in favor or opposition. Uh it's a matter of practice of this board to leave the uh the public hearing open while we read certain findings into the record in case we need some information from you or we need any additional um information from anyone else who who has a concern, but it doesn't appear to be one. Uh I do

have what's been presented as a proposed decision that we could look at and utilize sort of as a uh a template.

All right. So gentlemen, do we you have a copy?

I do. I do.

Attorney Faria, doctor, you have one.

Yeah.

Okay, great.

And uh interrupt me, gentlemen, at any point in time for anything that needs to be corrected. Okay. The subject property is located at 411 FS corner road and is further identified as assesses map 63, lot 12. The subject property is located within the office industrial district and contains approximately 18.91 acres.

411 Fonts Connor Road LLC has owned the property since November 3rd, 2025.

The subject property is served by Town Water and Town Sewer. The petitioner, South County Development LLC, is proposing to construct a combination fueling station, convenience store, and food service drive-thru. A combination fueling station. Well, I guess that says it twice.

Drive-thru.

There's a period.

petitioner South County Development LLC will transfer the variance to its nominee 411 Fonconor Road LLC owner of the subject property and for 411 Fon Corner Road LLC will be the owner/ less or of all aspects of the combination of uses number seven wetlands exist along the northeast portion of the subject property however the plan shows no land disturbance or structures to be located within the 100t buffer area. The

petitioner is seeking a use variance pursuant to section 375-43.3 and section 375.2.2.2 for a proposed combination fueling station, convenience store, and food service drive-thru. The building department determined on September 4, 2025 that such combination of uses is not allowed and will require a use variance.

A traffic statement prepared by GPI Inc.

dated November 12, 2025, concluded that most of the traffic entering and leaving the subject property would be from pass by traffic and the project is not expected to result in a significant impact on the overall traffic operations of the study area and roadways. Mhm.

The proposed project will comply with all setbacks, building height, lot [clears throat] coverage, and parking requirements as required in the office industrial district.

and the board after hearing all parties and the public finds that the proposed combination of convenience store, fuel service station and food service drive-thru is a needed combination in the office industrial district and that other uses in the district will benefit from the provision of these combined uses. Mhm.

Now the criteria gentlemen that must be satisfied the general law 48 section 10. There are circumstances related to soils, shape and topography that especially affect the subject property that do not generally affect the zoning district in which the structural land is located. Uh we formulated this uh as an attempt but again I'm open to any interpretation.

The subject parcel has an irregular shape. It is very long and narrow with an average width of 252 feet creating significant restrictions for commercial use. There exists a significant slope and change in topography on the easterly side of the property. The property is divided by areas of wetlands and poorly draining soils. The soil conditions on the property restrict the areas in which the property can be developed.

We okay with that?

Yes.

Moving on to subp part two. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the bylaw would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner. The circumstances cited above significantly limit the types the type of uses which can be supported in the office industrial district. The board finds that a literal enforcement of provisions of the bylaw would involve substantial hardship financial otherwise

to the petitioner. [clears throat] Denial of the proposed use and trying to accommodate an office industrial use would involve a substantial hardship to the petitioner due to the soil types, the wetlands and topography on site.

Sub part three, desirable relief may be granted without detriment to the public.

The GPI traffic assessment concludes that a substantial portion of the site generated vehicle trips are already present in the adjacent passing stream of traffic and that the new traffic will equate to less than one new vehicle per trip per minute.

Excuse me.

One new vehicle trip per minute along Font Corner Road during the peak hours.

There will all there will not be any harm to the neighbors from noise or lights as these matters will be addressed in the planning board site plan review of the proposed uses. The development of the combination of uses will benefit the district by shortening the vehicular trips for food and gas, promote a greater variety of services in an underserviced area and do so without detriment or harm.

Just check something out here.

Okay.

And subp part four, the variance will not nullify or substantially dergate from the intent or purpose of the bylaw.

I indicated that the proposed use as a fuel station convenience stores in keeping with the intent or purpose of the office industrial use zoning [clears throat] district's bylaws.

Um and we have the usual conditions where the petition or any subsequent owners will secure all necessary permits and the plans that are on record are the plans that need to be complied with.

It's the usual uh conditions that we impose. Do we have any questions gentlemen or any proposals that need suggestions?

I have none, Mr. Chair. I think I have none, Mr. Chair.

I don't have any.

Right. [clears throat and snorts] So, as a matter of practice, we usually move to for a motion to close the public hearing at this point in time.

I make a motion that we close the public hearing for ZAV.

Oh, you want me to say that too? On ZAV-25-11.

Second.

All in favor?

I I I The eyes have it. So, public hearing is closed. What's your pleasure, gentlemen? I make a motion that we approve uh the request for use variance on ZAV-25-11 uh using the facts as stated uh previously and the conditions.

Oh, and the conditions as well.

Second.

All in favor?

I I the eyes have it.

All right.

Good luck.

Good luck.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. I appreciate it.

You're very welcome.

All right, moving on.

Well, the next two matters that are on, I actually have to recuse myself because I do have a conflict of the three matters. So, it's ZAV2-5, 25-8, and 25-9. So, I will be stepping down.

We will be taking a fivem minute recess.

Okay.

Uh the ZBA is back in session and um just for the people who are watching on television, this is the next uh for the next three cases. Uh chairman Medeiros has a conflict. Uh so as the clerk or vice chair, I'll be chairing the next three uh cases. And the next three cases are for the same property. It's one uh variance and two spear variances and one special permit. And uh just to refresh

your memory, these three were continued from October 23rd, 2025.

The special permit, the first special permit is u uh the applicant is Kevin Medeiros and the owner is uh Louise Properties LLC. The subject property is located at Zero State Road, map 163, lot 3132 and 35 in the general business district. And u the uh all three cases were advertised in the chronicle. We opened last uh at the last hearing we opened at the three cases and there was

discussions from the applicant and and the neighbors. Uh the first uh special permit is uh uh to for lot coverage uh the lot coverage of 91,167 square ft which is ex which exceeds the 2500 ft allowed in the Aquafer 3 district and that requires a special permit per article 28 section 375-28.58 prohibited uses. Uh the the the use variance is for uh to construct 56 uh residential units highquality

residential apartments building on the 270,153 ft lot. And this is per article 18 section 375-18.2 allowed uses. Uh and the second uh variance is uh is the variance for height uh on the building per article 18 section 375-18.4 four ST development standards and lot size article 30 section 37530.3 um limited business and general business district uh at the last just at the last meeting

the the applicant uh presented the project and there's there was various uh residents here I see the faces from last week and you had some concerns and mainly the concerns were to do with with the blasting, the storm water and the flooding and the traffic. So, we asked the applicant to address those issues and I believe at this time they submitted documents that showed that they they will be in compliance with

with zoning and to address those issues.

I believe the applicants attorneys here tonight. Uh, attorney Marky, if you can just walk us through the the traffic the the traffic report that you have from the uh from the traffic expert and also I have from the professional engineer. I do have a storm water statement and also I at the last time I believe I asked for a map an aerial map showing the the proposed building with the adjacent

uh uh abuting properties with some distances to the property line or to the to the residents and I believe they did provide that map and I probably most likely attorney Marky will will address that too. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Um, and thank you for setting the table as well.

And I think your recollection of what the concerns were, the neighbors are our recollection. We've tried to address them. Um, and just again to put the put the uh let's see if this went blank on me here.

The best the best intentions here.

See if we're doing a little better. You saw the blue screen the whole last time.

So there it is. There we go.

Um, so just again to place you in contact the Wizard of Oz behind me is making things more difficult.

Okay. So the concept here is ultimately although it's called zero state road it is 802 to 808 state road would be the location of it and you see that it's on route six and just to quickly walk through it. This is where it would be based on a Google Earth image and we walked you through the way that it would look. The chairman accurately talked about the zoning relief we were looking

for. Um now hold on one second here. Let me the uh [clears throat and cough]

sorry about that. Okay.

So the first piece is that for the board to know after the last meeting we were able to get the phone numbers and email addresses of anybody who expressed concern. Kevin Medeiros, my client, sent out several emails to uh neighbors who had expressed concern. One of them was good enough. We only did receive one email question back was exactly where would the blasting occur and would it

occur in this uh outcrop of ledge which which is towards the front. You can see this is visible from Route Six. And I'd say two things. We answered the the uh the concerned neighbor directly. This is one of the areas where blasting would occur. The exact nature of whether it was, you know, a circle of 50 feet around this, 20 ft around this would need to be developed further. And as I

explained to them, we're going to go to the planning board if we are successful with this board. And a lot of those things would have to be laid out in more detail. Um, but this is the location and I draw your attention to it because you heard in the last decision, one of the things that is often a challenge for applicants is is there a uniqueness to this lot? And here, if you drive down

Route Six in that area, certainly there are some rock outcroppings that are down near the restaurant, but this is one of the few that comes up above the ground and causes this unique hardship here. So that's the area of the ledge outcrop and I wanted the board to know and the rest of the neighbors to know that we did hear from one neighbor and we did try to directly address their concern and as

the chairman said these were basically the four concerns that we had. What would be There we go. What would be the concern about blasting?

What would be the concern about drainage? And what would be the concerning about um traffic impact?

[clears throat] Man, it was easier when I was a high school teacher in the 1980s when you had chalk because it didn't turn on and off like this does. So, blasting plans, drainage plans, traffic impact, and a request from the chairman to show our project and how close it is to the neighboring projects. So, we'll deal with each of them in turn. As far as the blasting plans, one of the things that

became clear to us, we spoke with the blasting company and my client and his engineer did research and it is clear for everybody to know and I want to give you the citation. Um, the state code 527 CMR has very extensive state regulations if you are going to do any blasting anywhere in the state. They fall underneath the jurisdiction of the fire department of any local community. In

this case, that is fire district number three, Chief Richard Aruda, who has done this numerous times during his 20 years as the police chief and is very comfortable with the fact that he was worked well with a variety of blasting companies over the year and it is very very heavily regulated. he is going to oversee it and he would be able to answer questions from people in the community who have them about it. Um,

and he's someone who is not new to this game. He he has been doing this for some time. Um, let's see if I The next question was what would uh see how this works here.

what who would be notified and what is the process? So the process one of the regulations is that everybody within 250 ft of the blasting area who has a home is entitled to receive notice and to be offered the opportunity to have your house videotaped and photographed to see what the condition was before anything was done to make sure that there is no damage to your house. I can tell you

that my law office is on the docks in New Bedford and when they were putting in the new peers behind my office, they came through and videotaped all of the pictures hanging on the wall and all of the joist so that if there was damage, we would be able to have a baseline.

Even though the state requirement was that it's only 250 ft, my client has said there are a number of neighbors who are just outside of that. We are going to voluntarily offer anybody within 500 ft the chance to have that. Some people may say, "I don't want you in my house."

So, we're not saying we're going to go into your house if you don't want us.

But, we're going to offer that voluntarily, and we think that's a sign of good faith because this has to be a two-way street that that we don't want to just do the minimum. We want to do what is going to make people feel more comfortable. So, the prop the process would be once we commit if if we are able, we have a number of steps, as I explained last time, to get through.

This just says, can you potentially do the project? We're hoping to get a last year. We would then have to go to the conservation commission. We would then have to go to the planning board and there would be much more detail on all of those and an opportunity for the public to participate in all of those.

But if we would get to the end, the commitment we're making today that we would willing to put as a condition is even though the minimum is 250, we'd be willing to do this process or offer it to anybody within 500 ft. And you see the two circles uh of what homes would be uh impacted by it. The second question that we had was what would happen with drainage. So the engineer

Kevin Silva who is from SNK engineering out of Westport basically explained in this language a representative from SK Engineering which is him. He did a he walked the site and observed SE and to observe several deep holes as exposed by a developer. The holes were open randomly to make sure that you had a sampling to explore both the map of the limits of the ledge and areas where drainage and infiltration could occur.

The holes were excavated and viewed by SK and had suitable soil and a water table. Basically meaning at this stage he has not done a full drainage calculation which planning will require but at this stage the concern you stated about potentially what is going to happen with drainage. Initial testing has been done both to check where the ledge was and to check the quality of the soil to know whether things

infiltrate or whether there would be a surface. Again, if you have all ledge and the water all flows downstream instead of soaking into the ground, that could be a problem. And it was an initial finding that this was acceptable. And as he notes in the regulatory references, both site plan review and aquaer protection, key Kevin Silva will will need to do more detailed testing at which time he

will have to confirm and it will not just be Kevin Silva testing as he references here. Um official testing will be done in the presence of the building and conservation commission and the planner at that time. So, the town will be overseeing the testing that is done to ensure that the initial drainage calculations are available. And just so that you don't feel I'm throwing some things on the screen, these were

submitted to the ZBA board last week and they are they have been available for public review and they will continue to be available for public review. So, as far as the drainage questions that you raised, we went back to our engineer and said, "Can you please write up a report about storm water management and about what your initial findings are that will be further developed at the planning board?"

The third question that you that that neighbors had raised was what's the impact on traffic? And we have a 31page traffic report that is also down at the zoning board of appeals for you to review. seven or eight pages of narrative and the rest is statistics and maps and images. Um but basically the overall picture is that at maximum this would be a 2% increase in traffic and when you look at the traffic that's on

state road those who would turn right to go on to Reed Road to leave town or those who would be coming in it's a minimal change. And I also make the point that this is property that the current owners could develop into a Dunkin Donuts.

They could develop into a fast food place. Those things would be much more intense in the traffic that they drew in and pushed out rather than people who come in, go to sleep, get up in the morning and leave. This is not a use that is going to be something that is as intense as what might be permitted under the rules. So clearly, you know, we've talked, you've seen the people who

live in far north Dartmouth, the people live in far south Dartmouth that have no traffic and they live on two acre lots.

That's different than living on Route 6 and living in in a very busy section.

that was designed by the town's planning purposes to be for business and for be high traffic. Adding 50 units of residential is not according to the traffic study and again this will be more fully developed at planning to to cause anything that would be a significant change that would impact people. I'm empathetic to the people who if you live on Reed Road and it's rush hour and people are coming in or going

out. It's it's not fun. I live near the hospital in New Bedford. I don't like getting woken up with the ambulances, but that's a cost. I chose to live in New Bedford. I chose to live near the hospital because I like the neighborhood and you have to take the good with the bad. And I don't want to sugarcoat it.

You live on Reed Road or you live on State Road. That's that's part of the deal. And the alternative for these owners is if they want to develop the property for which they paid good money, their other choice is to go in with something that's commercial that would bring even more traffic. And so we think that this report, if for those of you who want to read it, it's available,

suggests that the traffic impact will be minimal.

Finally, in regards to the board request, I just want to draw attention to this where the area homes. So the light purple in this area is where the proposed project would be. You see the driveway coming in off of Route Six. As we mentioned before, it's set back a good distance for for two reasons. One is that there's ledge in the front. And the second reason is if we're going to

be good at giving good high quality living for people, they're not going to want to be right on Route 6. They want to be more set back. So, we're doing it in part because financially and development wise, it makes sense, but partly because longer term, it's a it'll be a nice place to live. My mom's 88 years old. She lives less than a half mile from here. to live on one floor

when you get older is a nice option to have in Dartmouth without without having to if you've got a young person or a graduate student at UMass Dartmouth who wants to be able to live relatively close, this will be a nice option for them. But to answer the chairman's questions, all of the red squares are every structure, you know, obviously this is not necessarily a residential structure, but every structure that is

located in the immediate area uh to give the board a sense and I I know I don't have the the interlay of the 250 versus the 500, but I think the board has a sense from the prior image about where where things would be located. Um so you know again we've come to you and made a full presentation on these four issues before. We believe that with the unique ledge that we have there we meet the

standards. We believe that we in good faith listened at the last meeting. We tried to address the questions that that that were raised that were legitimate questions. The answers they received tonight are not the final answers. If we're successful through this process, we still will have an iterative process with the neighbors, with the town, with the conservation commission, with the

planning board to get to a final plan.

But we think that this is a good use of this property in a town that's trying to develop more housing that will improve the tax base and that will be a good use of this property. Um, I expect that some of the neighbors will want to talk and I'm happy to try to answer some additional questions. But before I do that, does the board have any questions that you recall from the last thing that

I did not address?

Uh, any [clears throat] questions?

Okay.

See if I can get to a blank screen.

I'll just step aside. There we go. Okay.

Thank you, Attorney Mark. Um, before we open it to the public, uh, any questions from or any discussion, any I don't have any at this time.

The board members, not at this time.

Okay.

Um so at this time um you heard the presentation and uh you know what your concerns are and uh I believe we took note last at the last meeting exactly what the concerns and we asked the applicant to address them and u if you you heard the presentation and if you still have at this time I would ask anyone who has uh come up to the podium either in support or in opposition

position or just to state their concerns at this time. So, but please when you come to the podium, state your name and your address so we can have it on on record here. So, hello. My name is Karen Ferry, 531 Reed Road. Few concerns um with the blasting.

First of all, my foundation, I understand you said you'd be taking a videotape. Who's responsible for damage if damage occurs? Point blank. Um, the other concern that was not brought up but comes to thinking about is the height. You know, you're we're giving an extra 11 ft for height and width.

That's taken away privacy from front of our homes, back of our homes. Um, in the traffic report, 2% of what? To who? How many people? You have two to threebedroom apartments, you have two to three cars per resident. So it's still so many variables and I am nay against this.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

Anyone else?

Michael Gilmet 527 Road 527.

527. Okay.

Uh you've already heard my uh spiel last time, okay? But I want to re-emphasize, you know, as far as what is going on, okay? This is a not a piece of rock. This is a basically a huge huge cliff that's hanging there. Okay, I looked at the the drawings that they have there. And on my side, it looks like they're going to put two tiers of wall there. And to get up that height,

each wall is going to be like roughly around 7 to 10 feet high. So, I'm going to be looking at wall, stone walls in the background. What I'm worried about is, you know, kids falling off or, you know, even though it's fenced in, uh there's going to be problems, you know, with especially with kids finding their way around us.

Uh also the view, uh you can't put any kind of trees or anything in there because it's granite underneath. No, you may go down maybe two or three feet, but when the roots hit that granite, they don't have any way of surviving on that. Uh, as far as they put in a Dunkin Donuts, I wish they would put a Starbucks, but we'll we'll see what happens. They got a Dunkin Donuts across

the street. I know it is just a example but as far as uh that's concerned what happens is the major blockage of traffic happens in the morning everybody leaves at the same time either 7:30 in the morning to 9:00 okay they come home guaranteed 4:30 to about 6 o'lock add 2% of that everything else. I'm not even going to concern about that. I'm more concerned about, you know, the parking lot having

a dumpster right above where my back yard is. when they have the dumpster empty 7 o'clock or six o'clock in the morning when they come they bang the door of the dumpster wakes you right up. I don't like that as alarm clock especially on a Saturday or if you you got a day off or anything like that. So that guaranteed happens and it goes right through because right now that is about 20 feet

high above this level. So it carries. So everybody in the neighborhood would hear this.

There's no uh no stopping it.

As far as uh the amount of people, I mean, you can't stop it. It's going to happen. But as far as tax base, they're not going to get any increase in tax base because don't pay the taxes. The owners do. And they have a lot some. You know that it's the same.

It's a different tax b tax tax base as a a commercial or industrial plant. They have a higher tax base tax rate than a regular residential or or hotel or anything like that. They get all discounts.

Um as far as sewage, I mean the water going out, they're going to have major problems because there's no way of draining that.

They can put a retainer PL pond in there, but there's no room for retainer ponds because whatever is is open, it's got granite underneath it. So, I don't know how they're going to solve that problem.

I'm sure we have a whole bunch of other issues. We have neighbors, they're going to have their backyard looking at a four-story building.

That's not fair.

They didn't ask for that. They had woods back then.

So that's about it for now. For now.

Thank you.

Oh, before I think this Oh, yes. Go ahead.

Hello. Uh, I'm Christine Donnelly at 209 North Quarry. I'll try to make this quick for the board. Um myself and my mother Laura Lynn who is sick today. Um we are against this project. We strongly urge the board to vote no on all reliefs. All the use variance, the height variance, the special permit request, all of it. Um we request that the applicant build within the confines of the town bylaws, either a residential

or commercial. no special permits or variances.

We request a no vote for all the reasons already stated in the last meeting and um because of everything that all of the people who are against it already said.

I agree with everything they said. No need to repeat it.

Um specifically, our home is older, 1909.

uh we don't know about the sustained damage, possible damage that might be not evident during the initial blast years, months down the road. We just don't know.

Um the special permit uh for the lot is way over the 25 and some odd square feet. That's just an insane amount to be asking for a special request. Um I further request a forego of the vote today. so I can speak further with the fire chief for questions about the blasting and I don't believe a vote is ready uh because the drainage is not a full report.

Uh and one last thing, the height is a serious issue for me. I do very very close. I'm within like I think 150 ft and so it's four stories. My house is here and it's really really going to impede on our privacy and we just bought the lot 2021.

I'm sorry. What was your address again?

Yep. 209 North Quarry Street.

Okay. Uh, and one very last important thing is the neighbor at the top of the road is doing a um something where he needed to dig and he just recently needed to dig and he had to um uh create a huge delay in that project because there was un he unbeknownst to him there was rock and ledge. Of course, uh he just was going to do a simple water line only maybe about 15 ft down

and it was a severe it's still there's no street sign on North Corey right now because it's still weeks and weeks. It was supposed to take about 3 days. So I think that this project will have some serious delays um if it if it eventually does pass. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

Anyone else?

[clears throat] Okay. Um, attorney Marquy, I just have uh Yeah, if you if you don't mind go on the Yeah. Uh there there was someone who wasn't here at the last meeting and I just wanted to let them know that I'm not a traffic study expert, but if you looked at the traffic study, it would tell you that um this building based on their studies would get approximately 218 car trips in

and 218 car trips out on a given day with 56 units. That's, you know, people don't just leave once and twice during the day, right? But so, but when you look at what the traffic is on Route 6 during the day and you look at the traffic on Reed Road, because you know that if everybody comes out of that apartment building, they're not all going to turn onto Reed Road. Some will

continue on one way, some will be going back towards New Bedford. So, it's going to be less than that that's on Reed Road.

No, no, no, no. Well, I I I guess my understanding would be if I left that if I left that, I would turn towards Reed Road and I would take a U-turn and head back towards New Bedford or depending on where I'm going. If I'm going to Dartmouth, if I'm going to clearly if I'm going to downtown New Bever, I might go on to Reed Road, but that's heading out. My understanding of the concern of

the neighbors was a line of traffic waiting on Reed Road that made it difficult for you to get out of your driveway depending on which side you're on. In any case, you ask the question. I want to direct your attention. It's a very detailed report that talks about in the morning how many trips out, how many trips in, etc. That would be useful to you. And I wanted to draw attention to

the fact that everybody that came in would largely be coming in either from Route Six or coming down Reed Road. The preference would be not to have to turn and go down re down Route Six and turn around. So people might be taking Fonts corner. That's that was one point that I wanted to make in response. In regard to the height, for those who were at the last meeting, you're aware the height

largely was caused by elevator shafts that will be sitting on the roof. It's not the entire building that is imposing above the height requirement. It is three stories on the front because of the topography. It's four stories on the back and the majority of anything that's above the basic line is the the the several elevator shafts that would be helpful to older people who were coming

in and out of the place. Um, I wanted to just answer those questions directly because I didn't have a chance to meet you at the last meeting or at least my memory isn't as good if if because I am 61 now. The other uh the other point I wanted to make to Mr. Gilmet is um the questions like the dumpster question are classic planning board questions. It really is we should make it as good as

possible to all the neighbors and we agree with that. But right now, the question is, if my client is going to spend tens of thousands of dollars in engineering costs and in other costs to try to develop and design the project, it doesn't make sense to do that all and say you're not allowed to do it. That process is we think you might be able to do it. Go to the planning board and tell

us how you're going to do it. And then all of those practical questions about where should the entrance be off of Route 6, how how many lanes do you want to have in and out, where should the dumpster be located, um those things are all going to be addressed at a future at a future time. So I I just wanted to address those two issues and again I appreciate that you're here speaking on

behalf of your mom, but you know, we tried to address the questions that were raised the last time that others have said. And as to the height issue, I just wanted to reiterate what I had said before and I appreciate the opportunity.

Uh thank you, Attorney Marque. Um I think uh we want to turn back to the to the board for discussion on this. Uh I like to add I first of all for the traffic.

I mean unfortunately most of us or most of us here don't understand traffic but we're I understand traffic. I deal with traffic every day. I just wanted to assure you and I think I spoke last week too. Any retail or commercial project, small restaurant or fast food or a drive-thru would generate four or five times the amount of traffic of of this residential. But I wanted to make sure

that you had you wanted to hear it from the professionals and from the experts.

That's why I asked for traffic. As far as storm water, we have regulations in town and and the state has regulations too. You can't you can't cause any flooding to adjacent properties. There's there's, you know, D is regul regulated by D, regulated by storm by by local storm water bylaws. It has to be reviewed by the planning board, has to be reviewed by engineers. And they might

ask for a peer review, too. hire another third party to do a peer review on the design of the engineers on the applicant's engineer. So, it's not something and as a board here, we're not here to approve. This is their first step. If we approve this tonight, it doesn't mean they can go tomorrow and and and and apply for a building permit and have and start, you know, and have a

shovel in the ground in in in a month or two. It's a long process. they still have to go through boards and and state agencies and address the storm water issues. Um the the again the blasting is also regulated by the state and reg because this is route six. It's a state highway. I believe they have to to apply for mass DOT also for this beside the fire. And I the applicant said

regulation says they have to do a pre construction survey of 250 foot radius and being a good neighbor he he volunteered to do 500t radius and I think this is going to be a condition probably on on added to our permit if we grant this this uh tonight. Uh, as far as the height, I understand. Uh, and as attorney Marque stated, I looked at the plans. The the third floor elevation is

31 ft. It's in compliance with with with the zoning bylaws. The elevator shaft is higher. So, it's not somebody sitting on the roof um, ba sunbathing or whatever looking at the neighbors, you know, it's not it just access. They need the shaft for mechanical uh uh uh aspects for it to work. They need the shaft to be on top of the uh on top of the building.

And uh that's why we have special permits and variances. And that's why we have zoning board of appeal. With all respect, you requested not to grant.

It's not not to grant. We we don't grant variances and special permits just because we want to. We look at every case by case and we look at the the constraints. We look at the site and we look at all these things before we make a decision. So I as same as you have the right to object to a special permit, the applicant also has the right to apply for a special permit. So but we wanted

to make you feel comfortable. We want you know you're you're the neighbors again. You live there. I live I don't live far trust me. You know I drive but I live off of Reed Road. I know the area exactly. I drive by every single day. I know I see the restaurant. That restaurant that is there would I guarantee you generates four three four times the traffic of the the 200 of the 56 units, you know. Uh

so this is in regards to the height to the traffic to to storm water and also I think uh attorney Marky I just have you have the large plans that shows the aerial mapping and you I believe the closest point from the proposed building to the property line is somewhere around one on the east is 167 ft. 67 ft. The one to the north is is uh 190 ft and to the west

it's a little bit closer 150 145 but also there's a vacant piece of land in between because it's all wetlands. It's undevelopable property. So you you you are close but you're not that close. I mean, you are in a butter, but it's not a building that is going to be 40t, 50 feet or 60 feet from your property.

With my guess, I would say the closest residence or existing structure would be probably over 200 feet. Am I correct?

Uh, my understanding is you were describing initially from the property line. The building is not so the actual building is off of the property line. So, it would be exceeding 200 feet. That's what I meant.

And then one other point that I had forgotten to make and I apologize. If there is an issue with blasting, the blaster and the owner is responsible to you under tort. And there's two good lawyers on the board that might take that case. Mr. Newman or Mr. Farrier are both lawyers that they can explain to if it's an intentional act that causes damage to another, it's no different than a car accident. And that's why we

do the testing before and you'd be able to prove what happened afterwards. And I know some people have said, "Well, who knows? 15 years later, maybe this was one cause of later problems."

I I can't speak to that, but I can tell you if there's an immediate problem, you have a lawsuit. We're responsible and the blaster is responsible. And that's why the state regulations require the blaster to both be competent and reviewed and also to have sufficient insurance to cover any damage, however minor or however significant. Uh I I wanted to address also the the the dumpster because I understand you know I

I do a lot of development I with gas stations and convenience store and drive-throughs and some of them are budding residential areas and people are concerns about tra or maybe gas delivery at night or you know the dumpsters. I think I'm not sure if the planning board you're going for a site plan review not special permit. Uh, so I'm not sure if the planning board can place conditions

on the site plan review. If not, this board can put conditions on the dumpster pickup that could that should be in certain hours. So should be probably between 9:00 a.m. to 4 or 5:00 p.m. So it's not somewhere some like 3:00 in the morning or something like that. Uh if this is something that if the planning board doesn't have that jurisdiction with the site plan, I'm not sure. Uh because you're going for site plan

review, not plan. Uh we would be open to you basically saying we defer to the planning board to choose, but if they don't, these are our hours that we would impose. If you write that as a condition, then the planning board can can do it if it's within their jurisdiction because they have more experience with it.

And then if not, you have the suggest that between certain hours I think um that's my Mr. Chairman I think there's a gentleman wants to address this again abs Mr. Domas is it Domas?

As far as the height is concerned, I remember years ago, I'm sure you'll remember this when they put in Macy's.

Remember Z before that single single floor and it was a 14 foot high ceiling and they put the two stories and they wanted to get a zoning variance for it and they had a tough time getting through. The only way they could get away with it is they stipulated that there would be a skirt on the top of the roof hiding those two whatever the air conditioners in their case they had air

conditioners. So if they put a skirt on the top design skirt obviously not just the wall or something like that. I'm sure they have that at the at the hotels across the street. They have the same similar things, you know, just to cover that portion of it.

You're referring to mechanical mechanical. Yeah.

Right. That would be with this building size.

I don't think you will see it. If unless they place it right at the edge of the building, but if it's set 20 30 feet from the edge of the building, you're never going to see that uh mechanical unit. 10 ft.

But again, I think this would be when they go for with the planning board, they do they do I believe they did that in the the appeals back then.

Uh we can add again we can add another condition that they have to screen the mechanical uh on on the roof. U [clears throat] if the plane board doesn't have the jurisdiction to do that like we can same as we did with with the with the dumpster. It's not it's not an issue. We do it all the time. We we do screen them and uh it's and like I said, the only

way you'll see it if it's close to the edge of the building, but if it's set if you close the building, you're not going to see it up there.

It's further back you see it.

I I don't think with that size building, yeah, you're gonna see 10 feet.

All right. Well, again, you know, this is I don't think the applicant is opposed to this because these they'll have to go through this with the with the planning board anyways and again like we're here to address your concerns as the first step and this is not granting a building permit tonight so you can understand that. Thank you.

I had a simple question. I want to know is there any way that um I don't know if it's called a condition but six to eight weeks after the blasting is done can somebody come back from these um special people and kind of see if there's anybody who wants that because I would want that. I'm one of the ones that's about 150 ft. I'm the one that has the little um triangle piece of land

in between at 209 North Quarry. So, I just, you know, I'm not talking about 15 years later. I want to know like if if something settles or a crack happens or something terrible, you know. So, that's my question.

I attorney Marky, I'm not It's regulated by the fire, but but I'm not 527.

It's regulated by the fire code that when they do the post inspection, I don't know whether it's two weeks or two months.

I'm not sure either. That's why I will defer to them to say they do it at four weeks or eight weeks or two weeks because it's the right time. I can assure you we're here. We know who you are. if if if they come by three weeks later and there's no problem and you notice something, if you contact us, you have the claim that she described and we'd be happy to come back and take

another look on an individual basis. But I don't want to promise to do something twice when the state says the right time to do this when things settle is 3 weeks, 6 weeks, nine weeks. I don't know that off the top of my head because I'm not a blasting person. And just to one other point, Mr. G, things like appearance is classic planning board. So I I'm happy to say limit hours and have this board impose

hours on us, but things like screening and what does it look like and do you like that? That's the whole purpose of going to the site plan review and the planning board. So I'd prefer if this board would say yeah on ours don't make noise if they can't do that. But on on the other issue about what would look nice, what looks nice to you might not look nice to me or to another neighbor.

So I don't want personally I'd prefer that that not be a condition coming out here. Not to push back too much, just generally speaking. I'm sorry, but I just wanted to address both of those issues, but I don't know if I responded to you.

Well, yes and no. I just want to make sure that I can like touch base with you at some point or somebody pier because you know these meetings go quick and then boom, we're we're done.

And and two things. One is there will be no blasting until not only are we through this process, we would have to go through the entire planning process where they talk to us about what they want the lighting to look like so it doesn't disturb neighbors, how do we want the traffic flow, where do they want us to do plantings of trees to give screening for people. There's a whole bunch of things that happen in the

planning board process that are much more micromanaging than what this board would do. And that would be a time when you could you could you know you're going to see us many times. It's not as if the blasting is going to happen anytime soon. So yes, we we are happy to come back again. We will follow whatever the regs are for the post test.

I'm so close. I'm one of the closest ones within what he was just speaking about.

And I'm not suggesting you shouldn't have a concern. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't ask the question.

I don't want it to be dictated. Oh, well.

We can't have an open conversation, please. So yeah, I mean, let him finish and then if you you can again just I don't want to be dictated. This is the first step and I think the blasting won't happens until they get a building permit. I would assume before they start the excavation. So that's with this with project with this scope.

I would say this is 6 8 months from now.

Just nerve-wracking that's all.

Yeah. No, I mean you'll have all this is a public hearing. Everything is on record. You know that you can get a copy of the minutes and you're on record what you said and he's on record what he said. So it's not we're not disappearing tonight after the hearing. though. Okay.

Thank you. Uh I think we're good at this time. We heard the neighbors and we heard the neighbors concerns and the we heard the applicants.

I'd like to make my final statement this.

Uh sure. If you can make it quick, please Mr. Thank you. [clears throat] With all due respect. Okay. Okay. The reason we're bringing up this subject of the skirt, you are required to give this person permit to build higher. Okay. If he's building higher, you have the right to say, "Okay, we want something in return." The building uh planned board their stamp. No, they do their thing.

But if unless you put that in writing on your part because you're giving them permission to go higher. Okay. So, that's a stipulation.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh I believe either even if they're not asking for uh the uh the height when they go for site plan review, the screening is part of the review. But again, you're right because they asking for variance on this time. We can we'll make sure that screening is is uh addressed whether from from this board or from from the planning board the the screening will be

in place. So, so that would be part of the uh if one of the conditions or deferred to the planning board uh like the same as the dumpster and the uh yeah like the dumpster the the hours. Um Tony human I I don't have anything to add. I mean I've heard everything that everybody has said. I've heard what attorney Marky has presented. I don't have a problem with the project.

Mr. Chairman, I don't I don't have a problem with the project and I just wanted to emphasize here that this board since since I've been uh involved in town politics and I think it's probably a hundred years. This board we serve to protect the people of the town of Damoth. And I think that I'm seeing some confusion here, but uh as sitting as a board member, I would like to address

some of the problems that are addressed here, but we we don't have the jurisdiction. This property, from what I understand, I I believe, and I may be wrong in the zoning, uh whoever the owner is could put a motel there and they wouldn't have to come before this board. You could have a hotel there.

You could have a restaurant in the hotel.

And I'm going to tell you something. I'm not a traffic expert, but an old friend of mine once told me, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. And what I'm saying is if I don't even want to go on Route 6 sometimes. The other day I had to I had an appointment. I had to go by the mall and I thought people were Christmas shopping. Probably they were. There was

so much traffic out there. But this project isn't gonna I don't think it's going to cause any traffic problems, any additional traffic problems because a motel, a Dunkin Donuts, these are uses that are allowable that we don't we have no control over at least this project.

And I and I would also say, Mr.

Chairman, I think even our involvement is in a limited uh limited way. Uh you know what they're asking for use variance only because they want to put residential. They want to put, as I say, a motel, they wouldn't be here.

And don't, nobody's going to tell me that the Dunkin Don Yeah. retail, whatever. But restaurants, there's going to be more traffic.

Mhm. in any other project that I see of a motel and I wouldn't honestly I wouldn't want to be living in in that area because I you know I've I have a little place in Miami Beach and I can't even get in my car and drive down the road because there's too much traffic and it's ruined everybody's quality of life and we're facing that in Damoth that in certain areas in Damoth the

quality of life isn't what it should be but it's there we we have to try to deal with it. I mean, I wish I could ban I wish I could ban automobiles.

That's not before the board. I I I as I said, I I hate to get in an automobile and drive, especially especially on Route Six or now on on Tupper Road to get to Route Six.

Actually, that location has public transportation that there's buses that go by there. That's another thing that we need to, you know, I think some some point in time I I've made a statement the other day. I said 10 years from now, people won't be driving cars. they'll be taking trains and buses uh because too many cars on the roads and you can I was a selectman in this

town from 75 to 85 I think and in 75 all we heard was expanding uh Fon Connor road improve it we're still improving it 2025 and it's still going on there's more traffic on FER road than ever before I'm seeing the same thing as traffic on DM street where there's a lot of development. I live in South Damoth and it used to be going home was a a pleasure, but there's certain times

you go home on on Dam Street, the traffic's horrendous and most of it's commercial. But I think that I I've listened to the concerns and and I I want I'm here because I want to listen to the concerns and I think they're legitimate, but some of the things about the dumpsters, there's going to be dumpsters there, whether it's residential or commercial. And I think the the chairman said there's certain

things we can do about the dumpsters, the time. Uh but they're going to be there unfortunately. And uh again, the traffic uh the storm water that there's going to be storm water problems that really is not purpose of this board here. And as far as the height goes, I don't see they're in compliance of building the planes. I saw it's because of the elevator shaft that causes it in non-compliance here. But again, if it

was a motel, we wouldn't even be here.

We wouldn't be able to listen to you.

Let's start the construction and the blasting.

Uh that's another thing that's not in our jurisdiction.

You know, I guess we can put certain restrictions, but the state uh I'm sorry. you need to come to the podium if you need to speak but uh hotel or not or residential as neighboring we would have to be notified of blasting well not from this board we wouldn't you wouldn't be you wouldn't be up here having a podium here and talking to the board from the town of Dartmouth we wouldn't have a board

I think it would just be the 250 ft and I don't know whe whether you're inside of that there were very few that were inside the 250 which is why we Sounds like the decision's already been made.

So, I'm just kind of confused.

Uh uh. No, if the decision was made, it would have been made last last time. We asked for professionals, expert opinions, and and that's why we're here. And that's why I said I want I wanted you to hear from that, not from us. Even though I could have told you those things. I'm an engineer myself, but it's not I'm not doing that. So, uh I I think at this time we're not going

to close the public hearing, but it we're just going to have a quick discussion. It seems like the board is inclined to to to grant those uh uh [clears throat] reliefs for the both the uh the uh variances and the special permits. Uh yes, I'm I'm in favor of it. Uh at this time I think uh u attorney Marky I would ask you if you can write a draft decision for the board for the three

cases and please include the uh addressing the uh the dumpster and the screening in a way that if the planning board doesn't have the jurisdiction it falls back to us. So uh and for hours I think uh maybe eight uh I don't know if you want to pick time for the dumpster or we'll uh just in case the plane board deferred back to to the pl to the uh to the zoning board. I

think 8 to 5 is reasonable.

Sure. Whatever your pleasure is.

Yeah. I mean 8 to 5 this is during the week. I mean I mean during the day nobody's sleeping mostly you know after and still early enough people not having dinner or so we you know we we understand you live there so we we understand um so at this time I would ask to continue but uh Michelle what do we have for uh I think January January 8th uh oh January 8th

well Okay. Yeah. So, that's uh next meeting is January 8th. So, you'll have something probably to Michelle maybe a week before or four or five days so we can take a look at it. And I won't bother on New Year's Day, but I will four or five days in advance.

Okay.

Um, so, uh, attorney, you want to make the, um, so we need to make a, uh, motion that we continue the three hearings and you probably have to them. Um, let me just I make a motion that we continue the hearings on ZSP25-5, ZAV25-8, ZAV25-9 to January 8th, 2026.

I'll second that motion.

All in favor?

I I Okay, see you on January 8th. Thank you.

as well. Is it five or six o'clock that night or do you know yet?

Five.

Five.

Five. Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Um at this time, we'll take a five uh minute recess.

The zoning board is back in session.

Moving on to the last matter that's on the agenda for tonight's meeting is comprehensive permit ZCMP-25-1 continued from October 23rd, 2025. The petitioner is Paul Cussen. The owner is Bliss Investors LLC. The subject property is located at 970 Tucker Road known as map 46 lot 2 and it's located within the single residents B district.

This matter has been legally advertised and we waved the reading of the abutdders list. The petitioner is seeking a comprehensive permit pursuant to Mass General Law Chapter 40B section 20-30 and the comprehensive permit guidelines and they're looking to on the 56.3 acres site uh to name it the residences at Hawthorne to be located at 970 Tucker Road. Development will have a total of 147 homes. I think that's been

somewhat adjusted, but we'll address that again here tonight. 117 single family homes and 30 complex units, excuse me, duplex units consisting of 15 buildings. Um, I'm not going to read all the different code sections. We've read that before.

So, at this time, I'm going to call upon the petitioner, unless there's anything else we need to address. I'm going to call upon the petitioner or the petitioner's representative to come forth and explain to us where we're at.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Paul Cussen, uh, managing member of Delac Associates.

Um, at this time, what we would like to do is there's been an engineering report, uh, submitted by your peerreview engineers. Um, and Christian Fallon from Fallon Corporation. Um, we have not had the opportunity to complete the entire review. We just got that not too long ago, but we'd like to bring the board up to date and then there'll be a full formal response to that uh review. So, Christian King.

Well, in the interest of time, um this is what is it about? Is it about traffic?

No. Well, we we also have my understanding is that um your traffic peerreview person is not here, but at the last meeting um we were asked to take a look at another uh section uh uh of of town uh on the corner of Allen Street and Souk Road. And we have done that and there has been some communications going back and forth between uh your peerreview and and our engineer regarding that particular

intersection. We can bring the board if you'd like tonight just up to date on that particular intersection or we can just put traffic to the next meeting that for the next meeting.

Fine. Okay. So tonight we're just going to talk about the engineering that's brought been brought up to up to date and somewhat of a response verbally to your engineering peerreview that was received by niche engineering.

Okay.

Okay. And and the development has been changed and Christian will get into that from 147 units to 138 units.

138.

138. And the reason for the change is primarily as Christian has been developing more and more of the engineering it's necessary to accommodate certain issues. So it's it's although so it is 138 units that he'll be talking about. [clears throat] Does it excuse me Mr. It doesn't make sense uh though to have your the board's peerreview engineer give an overview of his letter first so

that your the board and the public can hear what his findings are.

I agree. Okay.

Thank you. Um so a gentleman's from Nicholas was Mr. Gabriel.

Yes. How are you?

Well, how are you?

You're on the hot seat. [clears throat] Kindly identify yourself name and address. Absolutely. One second here.

Mark Gabriel for the record with Niche Engineering. All right. Um peer reviewer for the town of Dartmouth here uh at the for the residents of Hearth Project. Um so just briefly, I I had submitted a peer review letter on November 14th. Um and just going backwards in time a little bit. Uh we received some plans on October 13th through the town of Dartmouth online portal. uh the engineering plans and the storm water

report to do the review peer review on those plans. Uh as you mentioned before, we had our meeting uh on October 23rd, 2025 where we got to hear testimony of uh the project and uh hear from the abutters as well. Uh and then on October 28th uh 2025, I was able to go visit the site uh do a sitewalk uh with Mr. Barber and um just see what exists there today.

um leaving the hearing on October 23rd, we were requested to submit the peer review [snorts] letter no later than uh November 22nd and we did get the review letter out on November 14th. So we met the deadline that the board had asked us to meet.

Uh if you believe you all have had a chance to see the letter that was updated uploaded to the website. Um just briefly going through the contents of the letter. Uh we have a scope of our peer review. uh we go into the information that was gathered and reviewed and before that we do have an executive summary of the peer review which I'll talk about very shortly uh and then we get into

uh our site and project description just kind of understanding what resides there today and what we were seeing uh with the materials that were submitted and then from section A through F we broke it down into uh different sections of the peer review uh with section A being you know some comments that we had on permitting [snorts] Uh section B being our comments regards to the Town of Dartmouth comprehensive

permit regulations.

Uh section C we get into more of the town of Dartmouth subdivision regulation requirements because this is a subdivision that's being brought before the board. Uh section D are just general plan and report comments that we come up with.

And section E is in regard to the mass D storm water management standards and how the project uh complies with those. And then section F, the last section is just the town of Dartmouth stormwater rules and regulations.

So I will not uh read the executive summary verbatim. Uh but generally, you know, the review that we had, as I mentioned, is is focused on the site development and the storm water management uh and how it complies with the town of Dartmouth subdivision rules and regulations and the storm water regulations as well as the mass D standards. uh the submitted plans in general and the drainage report they

generally demonstrate project feasibility uh but do require additional detail to confirm constructibility and regulatory compliance. uh a few of the points that we brought into executive summary. Uh the first one being, you know, just about emergency access and how the subdivision consists of uh what I at the time was 147 units is now 138 units uh with with access on a public roadway uh with a single deadend um

roadway approximately about a half mile to uh the furthest unit from the entrance. uh with there being only one public roadway entrance serving these units, you know, emergency access may be inadequate and we'd recommend consultation with the town of Dartmouth Fire District 2 uh to have that discussion with them and go over uh that with them as well. Uh regards to documentation, there were some documents

that um were still required and per the municipal regulations and bylaws and there was some missing or incomplete information there that we just asked uh be addressed. And for the storm water management, there were a few gaps in the report in regards to some forms needing to be completed uh some calculations to be updated uh and some additional data to be provided so that we can confirm

the necessary necessary information for regulatory compliance. Um that said, I don't think I need to read this report unless you want me to, but otherwise uh I'm here to help answer any questions on the letter that I provided.

Any questions?

Not at this time.

Not at this time.

So with regard to the emergency access, what what has been submitted to uh us that would allow [snorts] for them to have some sort of egress or ingress for emergency purposes other than the main entrance?

All I've seen, you know, the main entrance and then there is a secondary egress onto a private roadway off uh to the south of the site. Uh sorry. Yes, south of the site there. Um they yeah and there weren't I didn't see any preliminary turning analysis either for the firet trucks. There was a request on a reduction of the culde-sac dimensions from the subdivision regulations. Uh so

we're just looking for some preliminary turning analysis to confirm the trucks can make it around those and the roadway width was reduced from the subdivision regulations. There was a waiver request to reduce it from 24 to 22 feet wide. Uh so again just making sure the turning movements and uh adequate emergency access is is provided to the subdivision.

Excuse me, Mr. Chair. So um during the initial traffic presentations that was one of the ear their first hearings. Um council for the applicant said he was going to be submitting a memo to the board explaining why they think they're allowed to access a private way as part of their development plan. and that hasn't been received yet. So there I it sounds like we still don't have any

information as to why they think they can show that as their emergency access, but they do have some updated information. I think they're going to present them tonight. Maybe they can address some of that.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right. Um there's no other questions. I think that's all I have for now, but obviously you're here. Um anything that's raised, we can obviously bring you back and sort of ask you for some guidance. Yeah, I believe the next steps will be as Mr.

Cousins was saying, there'll be a response to comments and we'll address those and happy to do a second peer review at that time.

Fair enough.

All right. Um, does not.

So, I think we can move on to the [clears throat] expert for the uh for the petitioner.

You can identify yourself, please.

Yes. Good evening. Uh, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, Christian Fallon, principal engineer and president of Fallen Corp.

Um, we did receive the peer review uh comments from the town's consultant. Uh, we certainly appreciate the time put into it and for expediting uh that review over to us. We we're anticipating having uh response back by December 19th um which will be submitted to the town.

What I would like to do my um purpose of tonight's presentation is just to provide some context for the design level of the plan submitted uh what's typically requirement of 40B U comprehensive permit and how our submitt certainly um exceeds those requirements.

It's important to emphasize that this project is being reviewed under MGL chapter 40B, which certainly is is significantly different than a typical residential conventional subdivision or or a site plan application that you would normally see. Under the 40B process, uh the intent is to provide conceptual to intermediate level design plans. Typically, they're only around 30% um drawings which demonstrate

feasibility and compliance with safety, environmental, and engineering standards.

The applicant applicants are not required to submit full 100% construction drawings during the permitting stage.

Detailed engineering is traditionally completed after the board issues a comprehensive permit and after conditions are established.

The storm water design uh will have to go through the permanent process of a notice of intent which um is under the jurisdiction of the conservation commission.

This structure avoids unnecessary redesign, unnecessary cost, and allows the applicant to finalize detailed engineering in alignment with the board's conditions.

Although 40 40B only requires 30% design, the plans that we have submitted to the town are approximately 70% uh design. So that's why I feel they certainly exceed the requirements on on the state level. Um the plans presented have roadway layouts, grading, drainage designs which are far more advanced than typical 40B conceptual level drawings.

storm water basins, pipe networks, and hydrarology that have been excess extensively engineered, not simply sketched out or conceptual. Utility layouts, building placements, and access designs have been developed at a level approaching near final design. Many elements in the peer review are typically addressed as part of the board's conditions.

In other words, the plan submitted go well beyond what is required and expected at a 40B design level.

Because our plans are already uh close to 70 75% design and peerreview comments we received primarily consist of requests for clarifications, requests for additional documentations and suggestions for refinements that can be addressed through [snorts] standard permit conditions. Nothing in the peer review indicates that the design is unworkable. The comments reflect typical refinement items that naturally arise as

plans progress towards 100% construction detail.

Can I just stop you for a minute?

Sure.

That plan that's up there, is that the one is that with 138 units or is that the original one with 147?

This was the plan that the last meeting you asked us to revise. So this this reflects the current plan set that you have the 138. Okay. And if you were going to get to that later, I apologize, but I just I was looking at that. I wanted to get a sense.

Um, what has I I I've not seen this one before, but I've seen the other before, and I don't know where the where the biggest changes have occurred there. Is there are there increases in lot sizes as a result of The biggest changes were from the from the uh I see it, but you see the blue areas.

Yeah.

the detention basins that were added.

How many is it? Three altogether. There's 10.

How many was it before?

Um, three.

We had these these big ones down here.

There's another one behind the community building and then these in each in each kind of development. The reason why we need these is because there's a lot of flow behind the houses.

um instead of having that all that flow go directly onto the street and go into a catch basin. Catch basins can only typically handle about [snorts] 20,000 square feet of area. So if all that water went into the street, they would just bypass the catch basins and go all the way down. Um so we captured a lot of that water in between the houses um with these detention basins here which they

fill up. They slow the water down.

there's an outlet control structure that goes [snorts] back into the into the drainage system. Um so that was the main reason um for the reduction of the of the number of lots dwellings.

[clears throat] Is that good?

No, no, thank you.

Um sorry if I broke your train.

No, it's okay.

Um so even though the plan set as I mentioned is more detailed than typically required um it's not worth going into 100% design level at this point and and the reason for that is because the board may impose conditions that require modifications to grading drainage or layout. Um it's inefficient and costly to finalize detailed construction drawings before knowing the board's conditions.

And the comprehensive permit process is structured so that detailed engineering is completed after permit issuance then reviewed and approved by the town staff and or peer review at that stage.

So there will be another opportunity for the peer review to review the final set of drawings.

Um, this is the same approach that is done not just here in Dartmouth but throughout the entire state for a 40B project.

In regards to the to the peerreview comments, we we do want to assure the board that we will respond to each peerreview comment in writing. Um, we will provide revised plans where we feel it's appropriate. We will supply additional calculation or supporting materials needed.

We will finalize um a waiver list from the subdivision regulations and 40B comprehensive permit requirements so that the board knows what standards apply before before voting.

[clears throat and cough] And we certainly will work uh with the town to refine the plans as as they progress from 70% level now to a final design.

Again, I just want to summarize that this is a 40B application where typically only 30% drawings are needed. At this point, the peerreview consultant board, the peerreview consultant and board should be confirming that the storm water design works in a concept level. The site um access is safe and feasible. utilities are serviceable and the waiverss are clearly identified.

We feel our plans are certainly far enough along that once we make the um response to the peerreview comments, we feel the board should should have a pretty good understanding and um capability to be able to vote on the project.

Um since the last meeting, we also submitted to the town um the water and sewer uh flows. That was a memo that came in [snorts] from Apex Engineering. Um they will be doing the design on the um the connection to the sewer line, which is a 27 inch um sewer line that runs along the westerly side of the property. has been determined that there's plenty of uh flow for that to handle our additional flow going into

it. Um I don't think we received anything from the town's consultant in regards to the soar and water yet. Um but certainly the plans are far enough along um to demonstrate where we're tying in with the water and the sore and that's that wasn't part of the the peer review um from niche engineering, but we just want to let you know we did actually do that do that work and that is completed.

In regards to the emergency access, um I mentioned this in the one of the first meetings that we did meet with the fire chief. Um and they had no issues with this project. Um, we feel as far as the fire, we're not looking to access, nor do I think any of the abuters want us to access the road [snorts] um down on the south side here. The only only thing that would be coming off of

this would be a fire truck or an emergency vehicle. So, we don't we don't need permission, nor does the town or emergency vehicles need permission to do that. And the fire chief said that to me directly. Um, they can drive anywhere they want in town, whether it's a private road, public road. The most important thing here is public safety.

If there's an emergency, they're not going to ask for permission. They're going to go ahead and do it. Um, and that's that's normal throughout the state. We don't need permission for a fire truck to do that. Um, if we were using that as an access road for our residents, then that would be a different story, but we're not asking for that. Norah, I don't think any of the abutters here want to see the

traffic going through that property.

That's all I have for tonight. Um, I'll be glad to answer any questions that the boards or consultant may have.

Mr. Far, I I heard everything that you said, but the last few statements that you were making about the ability for fire truck to actually go upon uh someone else's property, you know, those are an exited circumstances. Uh you're allowed to do many different things that you normally wouldn't, but this is a planned subdivision that you're seeking approval from a state, I mean, from a a

local authority, which is the zoning board. I don't I have never seen where we've ever approved any type of uh a [snorts] 40V project that didn't have the last one that we did was the preserve in Dartmouth and they had a designated emergency access area in which they had continuous ownership of the property right up to a public way.

Now it was designated for emergency purposes. So it was closed off maybe with some signage. I don't know exactly what we approved but I know that that was approved. It hasn't been built yet.

They're in the process of building it.

But to say that we're going to approve and allow and accept an emergency exit to be one in which it'll be designated as such on your property or this subdivision and then thereafter to get to a public way it crosses over some other private property owners property.

That's not going to work. I don't see where that's going to work. And I see Miss Thompson and this is an area I know a little bit about. Um, so I consider myself a real estate lawyer and I will say that that's not something that we could approve. Um, so I don't know how that's going to happen here. Um, I leave that upon you guys who have a lot more expertise in preparing plans that you're

saying is 70%. You certainly u say that to me. I don't know if it's 70%. I would turn to him or the peer review or a peer review to determine are these things at 70%. I I don't usually they actually only have to be 30%.

So excuse me. There is nothing in the 40B regulations that state that plans only need to be 30%.

That that is not in the regulations.

I want to get into the percentage and I and I sort of brought it there. It's just that he's saying it's 70 that's great. If he says it's 70, I don't know.

But I think he's saying at minimum in order to present is 30%. And he believes that he's exceeded that. I don't know that. I don't know about how these calculations are made. I'm I'm presuming that there are other plans that have drainage calculations that so how many gallons are going to be flowing sheep flow and whatever else and that's one of the reasons why they've had to put all these detention ponds in there to

accommodate that and that's certainly lessened the numbers. I'm not saying that I'm not believing or thinking that they're kindly reducing the numbers.

They're doing so because they need to and that's that's well within this process. That's why we're all here, right? That's why we're all here. So, um I I guess getting back to this issue of an access uh emergency access area, I don't I don't see and I don't know what type of I'd like to see what type of legal authority someone's going to present me with that says that a subdivision that's being presented can't

have and designate an access area that doesn't have direct access to a public way, but over a third party's private property rights without some written easement or something else in place. If they have that, that's fine. We're still in the infancy stages of this. I get that and maybe they're going to have that. But to say that that's what's going to that's what it's going to be, that's going to be an issue.

Mr. Chairman, absolutely.

Paul Custen, uh the property, we have legal access right to Fairway Drive.

We're not crossing any private property to get to Fairway Drive. So our our property line abuts the property line for the Fairway Drive in that particular development.

So are you going to request a curb cut along Fairway Drive?

No, the fire chief we would the fire chief and an email um that he sent uh suggested as to how that should be built. Um and we would comply with whatever the fire chief wants in the way that built.

Do you have that with you? No, it was I don't have it with me, but it was submitted to the board and I can get you another copy.

Mr. Chair, may I hear a lot of com this we record this and these microphones are actually ultra sensitive. Any background noise, it's all picked up and she needs to translate all this into meeting minutes and it becomes a little complicated. So, she's already asked me on more than one occasion. I haven't been as compliant.

So, I'm trying to be compliant today. So I ask you so I don't have to be blamed for it that we just keep the to not even a mumble but just not even a little rumble mumble nothing if we could just not I'm going to give you an opportunity if you want to come up and speak to be honest with you I don't know how much we're going to be able to speak to about

tonight because we still are up in the air on some of these issues. Um there seems to be comment a lot of comments that and suggestions that our peerreview expert has um and they haven't addressed that yet which is fine. This stuff is it takes time right I get it. It takes time. We don't rush to any of this. Um, and hopefully we'll have more answers the next the next time that we hear. But

back to you.

Thank you. So, I will see if we can find that email that was submitted uh by the fire chief um in which he also recommended how it's to be built and we're still willing to obviously work with him, but our intent was to leave the that egress up to the board. If the board felt we're showing on this particular plan, uh, we are not showing access. We're not we are not showing an

emergency egress out onto Fairway Drive.

Uh, Christian, can you show them where the Yeah, I I know the area. It's just I don't know who.

Right. So, it's kind of cut off there. I don't know if that's just that's that's a roadway there. I don't know if it's conveniently cut off there, but it's just not there. So, it's a big white little triangular large obuse area there.

Uh I think it's where the shrub line kind of makes an indention there. Let's say that that's the southeast corner of this parcel.

That's the property line is ident.

So you're saying that the property line of this particular parcel, this entire parcel actually abuts Fairway Drive.

Correct.

Okay. Right. Well, that's and plan it shows just a culde-sac at that area and the fire chief has recommended a secondary means of egress and in his email he suggested what should be built like a breakaway fence and that's still up in the air as to best way he would want it done. Uh and that would be just on the property line.

So the only way So and I've checked I didn't have an opportunity to speak to the fire chief in district two, but I spoke to the fire district chief in the fire chief in district number one. Um and the he confirmed to me that for emergency purposes a fire truck can go where or any other emergency can that is I agree with that as a general statement. Okay. As a general statement

I agree with that. But the thing is is when you're designating a plan, right, when we're coming before this board seeking approval, we know that we need access for emergency purposes. We don't just leave it open-ended where you're just going to drive over someone's lawn, you're going to find the next open area to a street or a roadway. That's just not the way it works. That's why we have

definitive plans that get approved and reviewed. We we would present a detail if if the board is inclined to ask us to create an emergency egress. We will create that emergency egress and we will design it in accordance to the fire chief comments and so forth and submit that detail to the board uh for their review and peer review uh etc.

If the board feels that a secondary means of egress is not necessary then this plan would would stand. So we're we're prepared to I mean I think a secondary means of personally myself I think it's required. It should be somebody in the right mind would say no.

If I'm going to give you another means of eress, of course.

147 years. I mean, if I'm not mistaken, uh the southeast lot that uh Lshape plot is that the one that would I mean, all you have to do is just extend from the culde-sac and give like a 20 foot easement into that lot and you're right on fairway.

There would be no easement required. the roadway with the frontage on.

No, I'm saying for that lot later on when you sell that lot will be another 20 foot.

No, they don't own that lot. The the one at the bottom, they don't own that one.

Hold on a minute.

Show them part of the uh we got a better shot.

So, we have frontage going on.

All right. They Okay.

So, we're not touching that L-shaped that that lot. We're not touching that lot.

They they don't own that. M Mr. Chair, can Would you mind if I jump in here?

The fire department can speak to how an emergency access would be needed to be laid out. You know, whatever the the right the technical how you create it, how it show appears on the ground. That is the purview. the fire department cannot give them legal access onto a private way. You were correct when you said in an emergency if a a designated means of access is blocked, a fire department's going to do anything

they need to do to get to the people who need their help. However, they have not their council stated at the first one of the first hearings, maybe the second hearing, that he would provide a legal memo as to their evidence that they have the right to access Fairway Drive. As I understand it, Fairway Drive is a private driveway.

I do not believe it's even a subdivision road. It is just the driveway into a condominium. So they don't they don't have just because they have frontage on Fairway Drive or they don't even have frontage because that's a legal term.

They abut Fairway Drive. You only obtain legal access to a street if it is an approved it's an existing roadway, a subdivision roadway. It's a way in existence. It's not. It's a driveway. So they're conflating what the fire department would say, "Hey, listen.

Yeah, great. if we need to come in there, this is and and you guys can put down gravel, whatever the heck they want it to look like. The fire chief, the fire department can say that that does not bestow bestow on the owner of the development parcel the right to create that as public access. So I just wanted to confirm my understanding of the law is the same as yours, Mr. share that [clears throat]

they need to provide legal evidence that they have. I actually had this exact situation in another 40B that I represented a different zoning board and where someone claimed something similar and the abutters went to court and the developer lost. So there needs to be some written evidence, legal evidence, case law, that they have the right to access this roadway and and they have they promised it months ago and they

have not yet provided it.

Wait, so are you saying that? Excuse me, just one sec. Are you saying that Fayway Drive is not a public way?

My No, it's a it's a drive. It's the driveway into the condominium.

That plan says public on it. the last time I just I'm not if I can see hold on what it's may may not be but what does it say on that plan it says public yeah that could that could be wrong that's okay be an innocent mistake Mr. Chairman, if I may respond, I did not know that Fairway Drive was a public was a private way.

Um, but I'm not here to make the case for them and I'm going to give you an opportunity to speak.

We we will we're not going to solve this tonight. We can go back and forth. None of us are attorneys, not on this side.

So there's three of us here.

Legal opinion. Our attorney is not here.

So, he will he will respond. I will say he said he was going to provide the memo if we were using it.

Correct.

For our vehicles.

That's correct. Um, so that was misstated.

Either case, we will we will get to the bottom of it.

It is important to know that Fairway Drive does have Cape Cod BM. Um, and we could we could put in a gravel road right through our grass area. If you've been to the site, that whole area that we own is grass. That would be done in accordance with the fire department for a gravel road so the trucks could access, jump over the curb. So, we wouldn't need a curb cut. It wouldn't be

necessary. Um, that's a lot of reasons why Dartmouth has Cape Cod firms. Um, but let's move on because I think it's a waste of time for us to keep I just I just want I just want to add I think we we we should at least by the next hearing have resolved whether or not Fairway Drive is something that you have access to.

We don't have access to Fairway Drive.

Okay. And in and originally we were talking about having as Christian just indicated that that would be for a second egress not a secondary means of egress and at that time we indicated we would get a a memo. Um and we have since uh acknowledged that Feway Drive is not technically a public way. So therefore, we would not have we could not have traffic go out onto Fairway Drive from our development.

So we no longer are taking the position that we have legal access. However, we are taking the position that the property goes the property line and as Christian said, if you if you go there and you can see the grass that we have, it goes right up to that Cape Cod BM and it immediately abuts Fairway Drive. So we're just asking or the fire chief is asking that that be a emergency means of

egress which they have indicated to me district one chief has indicated to me that they would have the right to access the de the development and and council is correct in uh indicating that there's nothing in 40b that requires the plans to be 20 30 40 or 50% sent the regulations only refer to preliminary set of plans that are that that give enough information to the board to make an intelligent decision

regarding the permit. It talks about preliminary very similar to a planning board. When I go to a planning board, we submit a preliminary set of plans. Those plans are then acted upon by the by the planning board. they make a decision and in that decision they require what we refer to as complete set of plans, a definitive set of plans and and this process is very similar except it's much

more detailed that's presented to the board.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can I certainly if you don't mind, I just want to so thank you Mr.

cousin for the clarification on the percentage and he did state it the plans need to have enough information for the board to understand the impacts of the project in order to even formulate the appropriate conditions and I think that's the question from Mr. Gabriel's review as to whether or not you're actually there. I would suggest that something like an existing conditions plan, which is supposed to be a survey,

there's a whole list. There's no meats and bat. Like there's there's something like an existing conditions plan that doesn't need to be developed later, but yet it's missing significant information that every existing conditions plan for every project and every 40B should have.

So there is there is information that has not been included. You know, the meets and balance of the parcel is not shown. there's setbacks not shown.

There's there's a lot of information that's relevant to the board's ability to evaluate it. And I think Mr.

Gabriel's laid that all that has laid that all out. And so, um, I I I think, you know, that's the that's the kind of give and take here.

Um, and that's all stuff that they can amend, right? That's all those are all things that they can amend.

I just think that earlier rather than later, it should be determined as to where this emergency access or exit is going to be designated. If it's going to be here or somewhere else, I think that that should be determined at some point.

Um, [clears throat] I'm not here to argue for them, but you know, just be just because it's a designated a private way doesn't mean that they don't have any access to that roadway. Because they have frontage, they may have certain rights that attach. No, he's he's just acknowledged on the record that they have no legal rights.

Well, you say no.

Well, no. No legal rights in my opinion to access that on a conventional basis where the where there is no emergency egress is just a secondary egress. So, I don't think we have the the legal right to to have cars go out onto Fairway Drive and then out onto Tucker Road.

That's what I'm referring to. So, we're not and we're not proposing that at all.

We have eliminated in the in the very initial meeting we discussed that and that's what where the idea came up about getting a legal opinion and even though there may be some town services that are being provided to the residents in a private development.

I'm still saying that that we acknowledge that we do not have the right to bring the cars out onto Fairway Drive.

However, the property line abuts uh Fairway Drive and we have we have frontage. Look at the frontage that we have on Fairway Drive. So, so I'm just let me finish. So, I'm just saying that and we're not proposing any the only thing we're pro proposing is the emergency eress and that would be the location, Mr. Chairman, of the emergency egress. I I would suggest that as I stated with all respect to the fire

chief and what he spoke to as what he would need if it was the emergency access totally defer to the fire chiefs with respect to that. However, I believe that there should be a legal memorandum from the applicant's council.

That's case law, not what a fire engine's allowed to do in an exig, you know, like you said, exigent situation.

case law that says that a brand new development, subdivision or otherwise, has the right to designate a emergency access for fire trucks on that goes onto land, privately owned land. And that street is private owned. It may it's a that is private land. It's a street, but it's privately owned land owned by the condominium association. So they have not provided legal basis, legal documentation, a statute case law that

they can designate that on a new development plan as their emergency access. I have never seen it in 30 years. So um you know I I would recommend that the board request that legal evidence.

We'll be glad to Mr. chairman, we'd be glad to refer to council on on that on that particular issue.

I think it's important for both you and us to know because if if you can't do it there, then you got to find another I also have 30 years of experience and we've done that in several developments on the 40B, but we'll we'll refer this to legal counsel so that he can hopefully provide the proper memo that that that the board uh should be is entitled to in moving forward with this issue. I'll look.

All right. Um, gentlemen, is there anything else you want to just before I go there? Is there anything else you'd like to add? Mr.

Farland?

Okay.

I I have a question.

Sure.

How did [clears throat] you how to Mr.

Mr. Farin?

How have you changed the number of single units and duplex units now that you're down to 138?

Do we uh let me go back to the other jar?

[clears throat] So, I'm just looking for a number.

Oh, the the total number, the total number of singles and the total number of duplexes. Now, that the total is now 138.

Christian, just go back to the plan that shows the duplexes.

I think it's going to be on.

Mr. Farland, if you don't have it, you can just tell us you're going to get it's on the plan. You have it. Okay.

The duplexes previously on on the initial plan had 15 buildings, 30 units, 15 duplexes.

No, no, 15 duplex buildings for a total of 30 units was on the original plan.

And and this plan Yeah, I don't I don't think I think there it is. So has one, two, three. Well, sorry. Want to take that out? I'm trying to count. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 nine n that particular plan has nine duplex duplex buildings 18 units.

So we have so we have if you want to do the math 14 14 duplexes 14 so there's 14 so 14 28 from 138 so we have so we have if my math ma math is right we have 124 single family and 14 uh no that's 14 would be 110 right 28 138 minus 28 18 It's 110.

I'm sorry. I We can put it on the cover sheet for you.

All right. So, that's fine. I'd rather not guess, right?

It doesn't mean that you did. You just you reduce the number doesn't necessarily mean you did all the other calculations that fall through. I get that.

6 7 8 9. So, the 9 bill 18.

Excuse me, miss.

Other P gets all picked up on this.

We will get you the exact We will get you the exact number. Uh but I believe it's 138 units of which 18 are duplexes and the rest are single family of 100 of of 120 for a total of 138 units.

Okay.

But we will get you the best.

Fair enough.

Anyone else on the board have any questions?

No.

Just I mean later probably for Mr.

Gabriel. just wanted to see if he feels that the submitted plans meet the requirement of preliminary plans that we can make a decision based on that. So, okay, we don't get into if he's far into it and then we need another 10% of details or 20% details. We don't need to do that at this time. That's what I'm saying. So, so we will we'll call them back up, but there's some people raising their hands.

I want to give them an opportunity to speak. Um, I just I'm going to ask that if you're going to come forward, not necessarily statements at this point, if you got any questions so that we can either have them address them today or take notes so they can address them the next time we're here. And also, our expert, our peerreview expert will be able to listen to what these questions

may be and they may be able to address them as well. So, I see a hand up. This lady with a red, I saw her first, Miss Miller. I'm going to ask her to go come up first. Yes, you. And then Miss Miller's next. Hi, Diane Keltica, 39 Bayberry Lane. Um, could you point out where you get nine duplexes down there?

There's 14.

He believes that there's He believes that there's 14, but they're not They're all down in this area right down here.

Right. But didn't you say you reduced them?

We did. There were there before there were um 15.

So, you reduced one.

That's correct. Ready?

And that all adds up properly.

Adds up properly for what?

For the reduction from 147.

I'm going to change. Hold on just one sec. Mr. F one sec. You have to direct the questions to me.

Did that all add up from 147 to 138?

Here's what I'm No. So, let me just say this. I think there's some fewer single family units as well that they took away.

Didn't you ask them that question as well?

I don't know if I did, but the thing is this. Out of fairness to them, I'm going to give them an opportunity to check their numbers. So that the next time they come before us, they're going to tell us exactly with confirmation how many duplex units and how many single family units that are actually being proposed.

Okay.

Is that okay?

So question two.

Question two.

We've we've been here from the beginning and we keep hearing about the fire chief.

Doesn't anyone hasn't anyone provided him an invitation to come to speak? They keep referring to an email. So they have an obligation to present to us something that we feel is appropriate and meets the requirements of a 40B approval. If it ever gets to the point where we have that question, we will bring him here. I haven't seen anything that shows me a designation or any one of our members

yet a designation as to where on that culde-sac they propose to put it. I get a sense of where it's going to be. Uh, and also how wide it's going to be, what the composition of the roadway is going to be, what type of a gate is going to be there, it's going to be a breakaway gate, if it's going to be an electric gate, a manual gate. I don't know what

it is, how commercial it's going to look in relation to, you know, the character of that area of the neighborhood.

Obviously, we want to minimize the impact of this. I haven't seen anything that shows me what that is or where it is exactly. That's why we're here to gather that information. So, I think them having heard your question, having heard my followup on that, hopefully they can address that the next time with something first, making a determination if they can actually access the roadway

from a legal standpoint with some sort of authority. And when I say authority, either case law, a statute, or some treatise, if you will, that says that that's allowable. And then number two, whether where it's going to be and the extent of how wide or the length or whatever the other specifics, what do you refer to the technical part of it?

Okay.

Thank you.

You're very welcome. Miss Miller, Mrs.

Miller, I should say.

We We won't tell my husband.

All right.

Lorianne Miller, 318 Bakerville Road. I am here as a private citizen and not a member of the planning board. I want to repeat that again. I'm here as a private citizen.

I have looked at the original plan, so I'm not sure if my questions are still going to be the same. Um, where is your location of your post post drop off your postal mail? And on the other on the original plan, there was a bus drop off.

Is that for the school kids? Is it still on the same plan here? And do you still only have like eight parking spaces for the male?

All right. So, and I have I have another question too after.

Let's start with one.

Okay.

Can you answer that, Mr. Farland? Sure can.

Okay.

So again, these this is the um area we're proposing to have the mail um is right near the the entrance. This will be a standalone building um which will have PO boxes in it. Um, and there is currently 10 parking spaces right there for the meal. Um, and then there is a bus shelter um, right located right here.

And if I look at that parking area, it seems to be a wide white one. Is that for handicap accessibility?

Yes.

Okay.

Can I continue?

Uh, yeah. Uh, what a sec. the yeah he addressed both the drop off and the postal right question I may be wrong but I think most people pick up their mail first thing in the morning going to work or on their way home at night 10 parking spaces is not going to be enough for approximately 38 um boxes because they're all going to have to have boxes you're going to have a traffic jam there

for two reasons That's the school drop the school bus drop off. So the buses are going to come in to pick up their students and if anybody drives by where kids are being dropped off in the morning to be for the school buses, you see four and five and six cars there because the parents are sitting in the car waiting for the bus to come to pick up their students. I

know I take my grandkids to the bus stop.

Same thing when they come home in the afternoon, four or five cars because the student the parents are there to pick up the students or the babysitter or the nanny or whatever the the grandparent usually. I talk with a lot of grandparents. So, I think there's going to be a traffic jam at that cisock because you're going to have mail pe mail pickup. You're going to have students pick up and students drop off.

So, you're going to have a problem with not enough parking there. They're going to be parking heading towards Tucker Road. They're going to be heading towards the the intersection.

It's that's not a good good scenario for that area. Now, my next question is, and I didn't have because this is a whole brand new plan is your um detention ponds.

They're right in the middle of housing.

So, what is the depth of the detention detention pond? What's the curve ature?

Are they built out for a 100redyear storm or or more? And are you going to put fencing around them? Because this area is definitely going to have children in it. And a 100redyear storm or more, which we seem to get a lot of them, is not going to drain overnight.

I've seen other detention ponds that don't drain overnight. So unless you have some real good drainings drainage there, these detention ponds, especially down at the lower end, the um west end are going to drain at what percentage, right? Anything else?

That's it. So the traffic congestion and the detention ponds. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. So, um I guess the issue is doesn't feel that there's enough parking spaces for the mail pickup and also worried about the congestion between the proximity and the mail pickup in relation to the bus drop off and pickup area. Any thoughts about that?

Um I mean we can take a look at it, but this is standard number of parking spaces for a typical 40B development. Um it's easy. You got plenty of land there.

We could add more if you needed to.

You could add more if we wanted to. Um but again, you're introducing more impervious area. um which we're trying to minimize.

I get it.

It's something we can look into.

I think, you know, if if they're if they're dropping their kids off for the bus, most likely they're going to grab their mail when they're there, too. So, um Absolutely.

And again, we have walk-in there. There's sidewalks around the entire development. So, hopefully some people enjoy walking and to get their meal as well.

But we'll look at it.

Mr. Chairman, if I may.

Sure. This is one of the only developments in um in Dartmouth that have even provided this type of uh ability for a bus stop with a shelter for the children and also for this type of mailing. If you take a look at Fairway Drive, there's nothing there. Uh if you take a look at uh Peyton Makers, there's nothing there. You take a look at many of the developments in town.

Now, we went to great lengths with our with our landscape architect uh to come up with an amenity area that allows for uh not only stopping and getting your mail, but getting out and turning around. And so, if additional parking is necessary, we do have some additional area and that would not that would not be a problem. That would be a decision for the board to make. Um, and we also have additional parking if you

can see to I guess that would be sort of the south side of the pool area. There's and and the distance between that parking area and the other is is you know I don't know few hundred feet. So there's also additional parking um to the south of the pool area.

So if the board requires additional parking it's no problem.

Thank you.

Can I correct that statement?

Come on up.

Mr. Fallon, you can attest to this. The subdivision you just put in across the street from me, it has those post box at it. This is something that is now required by the postal system. Whether it's a 40B or a regular subdivision, they require that you have boxes. I mean, they're doing it on a two two unit subdivision. They want the boxes together um because they're trying to save money on gas.

Okay. Yeah. I think Mr. Chair, may I may I ask you a question?

Sure.

And this is it's a question town of Dartmouth question. Um in in many communities um that I've worked in on permitting issues.

Um the school department or the public school buses will not go into private developments. They pick up at the street and they will not drive in. So, I guess the question is whether or not that's even the right location for a school bus pickup because typically a school this they will not go into private development. So, I think it's just and I don't know the answer for Dartmouth. I just think it's something worth um

understanding whether or not a school bus would even pull into this development or whether they have to address something at the street for a um some sort of turnin for a bus or something um along their frontage there. Um but I don't know the answer to that in Dartmouth. So I just wanted to ask question.

Yeah, that's actually a good a good point. And we intentionally created an area that's much more safe. Okay. If if the school department uh or if Trembley bus okay uh would stop right at the entrance that creates I I agree I I think it makes more sense but we would encourage and I suggest that the board of selectman also encourage uh the school department and Trembley and it's and and that's one of the

reasons we also created the turnaround the the that turnaround so a bus he can stop they can stop right at the bus shelter, spin around that culde-sac, which which meets the turning radius requirements out onto Tucker Road. So, I would think that's what would happen eventually. If they want to keep it the way it is, I don't think it should be.

Thank you. All right. Is there I think this lady right here, I'm gonna I'll get to you. She's been asking. Come on up.

You want to say? Yes. Yeah.

If you could just identify yourself, please.

I couldn't tell if you're pointing to me. person behind me. My name is Kate Dabney, 82 Fairway Drive. Um, I'm not sure whether you hinted at an answer to my question, but I'd like to ask it directly. When we talk about the um emergency access um from a private road, that's fine. If the developers, it all goes through and the developers say they're going to provide this. What on a daily basis is going to prevent

residents saying, "I can't wait as long as it's going to take me to get out on the regular entrance. I'm just going to take the fairway drive entrance."

Do we have to stand out there and monitor? Do we have to fire? You know, what I have seen before is they have breakaway gates. So, there's a gate that that's there, but for emergency p purposes, it's set up and structured so that the fire the fire department's apparatus just open. They just drive right through them and they open up.

So, it would not be accessible 24/7 and not be accessible. That's not what they did and that's not what we approved on the uh preserve up in Dartmouth up in off of State Road across the street from Cask and Pig. That's how it is going on to Reed Road. They have a breakaway there on Reed Road.

Is that that sound right to you?

Yes.

Yeah.

Thank you.

That was my right. It's been That was before the pandemic, wasn't it, that we approved that?

I forget. I get confused. The pandemic's thrown all that off. All right. Um that Hold on. That lady in the back wanted to go. I'll follow up with you. I can give her a chance.

Hello, Liz Richtor. Um, 960 Tucker Road.

Um, I noticed that there's a number of detention basins.

Sorry, can you just speak into the microphone because I can't hear you.

Sorry, I'm very tall. Um, a lot of water detention basins um towards like the north and the west, but I don't see any um on the east side. So, I live on the east side. Um, and I know that when the country club was originally built, there were a lot of um, drainage issues causing issues for the homes that are parallel to Tucker Road. Um, so I'm wondering what they're going to do about

water runoff um, affecting those homes that there is definitely a downgrade um, into those properties. I think that's a important I do know this. I know that the topography of it drops dramatically from the front near Tucker Road coming all the way back towards the back of the property. Absolutely. So the natur there's a natural slope going west on that property.

Absolutely. But that's like starting at the property line of Hawthorne. Um at that property line it drops down if you're facing east it drops down into the properties that are parallel to Tucker.

So that would cause concern about that Mr. Uh, yeah, the the storm water calculations demonstrate the post development, especially in this area. That was an area that we wanted to really look at because portion of that does drain on to the back of those properties, but we designed it in a way where the there's going to be less water going there now than what was previously there before. Um, so that's really wasn't

I would love to see that detailed. I don't we have a look at the peer review person so we're going to be able to ask him that question that um and my other question is more of a general question. Um some of these meetings feel um a bit like stalling on behalf of the developers. Um and I've you know just hears say I've heard that um there's a deadline that they have a

certain amount of time to present to the board before um they can kind of just go right ahead and start their project. So, I just wanted to ask for clarification on on that policy that you guys have um within the 40B plan. Um is that that's not our policy. That's state law that puts the requirements and that's the lady that's going to answer that question for you right now.

Okay. And and then that's something that um it's also on the notes to discuss kind of at the end what the schedule is, but there's 180 days. Right now, this hearing, unless it's extended with the consent of the applicant, has to be completed by February 20 23rd.

Okay.

Um, sorry.

So, that that would be the last date that the board could take in any new information.

Okay. After that, the board has more time to review everything and deliberate and issue whatever decision that they choose to. But right now, the deadline is February.

Okay. And um will it is it ensured that all of the important topics will be covered by then or is it kind of like if some don't get you know spoken about by that time that they just kind of fall off? How does that I'm I'm just curious because there's so many other I mean the environmental concerns and you know so many other concerns as well.

I think that that's the topic of the the open issues that haven't been covered yet and the schedule for covering those is something I think the board may take up after when you're before you close the meeting tonight.

Yes, we're going to discuss some of that.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. Um chairman can Mr. Chairman, I have a I have a question to the board if I may.

I've been hearing a lot of conversation about the a private way and the uh emergency and the and the fire chief. I I think we should have gotten something by now, but it's a private way unless unless I'm misreading the law. What happens if the people that own that private way decide and you Mr. Jim, you talk about putting a breakaway fence so the fire uh the fire engines can go through for emergency purposes. What

happens if those people decide to put elm trees there and they put some screening material? Does this board have the authority to stop them from improving their private way?

I don't think we do, but I don't know whether or not how this road is specifically designated.

Well, it says designated as a private way.

Well, the plan I just saw this said public. Okay. But our plan with the town that's not with the town.

Not arguing for them. All right. Not arguing for them. It's just at some point we're going to get even we're going to get a legal opinion that's going to tell us whether or not that they can use that area for and I think they ought to figure this out sooner rather than later because we're going to have to change the plans because if they can't exit from this area, they're going to have to find another another

location.

That's what I'm concerned about with the layout. If we get if we get a legal opinion that says that they can access that property, does that mean if the people that own it, they're not parties for this, if they decide they wanted to plant elm trees there for shading, does that mean we have the authority to stop them? I I doubt it.

Yeah. Or to put a fence or anything else along their own property line, right?

It's their own property line.

I'm assuming those pe those people want some type of privacy, too. They might put abide or elm trees. We have we have no control over that.

I'm not an attorney, but I will tell you Massachusetts has a fire code 527 where private owners cannot block emergency access.

There's no emergency access. I think if there if there is one, there is not one right now, but if there is one, they cannot block it.

You can't Okay, hold on. Hold on.

Again, we're talking about something.

But not only that, you guys have a lawyer. Your lawyer is going to provide us a memorandum and then at that point we can decide whether or not we adopt it or not or maybe seek another opinion and then we can go from there. Fair enough.

It it is but we're not going to resolve that issue tonight. I think we can all agree we're not going to resolve that issue tonight.

Correct. But in response to the question to the question is that the planning board had approved the layout for Fairway Drive. You can't change that without going to the planning board for a change. So if you wanted to do something on that fairway drive planting operatives that would you know but but there again we're going to get that legal opinion.

All right. Thank you. All right.

All right. So I I did open up to some public comment. I'm going to let one more person. I'm going to let you come and speak and then we're going to close this up for well we might have we're going to speak to the our peer review expert just for a final comment. You can come up sir. You w your hand. Come on up. Please identify yourself. name and address. [clears throat]

I just have a uh uh Dennis Manner. I live on uh uh uh highest on the seventh green of uh their property line.

Okay.

Okay. My question is this. If it's not private, does the town own owe us money for all the garbage pickup and the snow removal? Because we pay for that because it's private. So, if they're saying it's a public road, are you going to pay us back for all the money that we spent?

No one I don't think anyone's saying it's defin definitively public. It seems to me it's leaning more towards definitively private. We're going to find out at some point and then we'll probably have that answer. I think I think I think it's been impressed upon them now that they're going to have an answer to this. It's coming to a head.

Okay.

Okay. And and my second question is uh since I live on the seventh uh fairway, it's very high there. There's a 15t drop. Could you tell me how you're going to excavate that so that there there could be a house behind the property line? I don't understand how you are you going to just tear that down to get 15 ft.

There's several uh retaining walls that are proposed within the development. So you So now you're talking about walls that you never talked about before.

Let him finish walls. Hold on. That's why you got to ask me the question.

Otherwise, it just doesn't work. It gets adversarial and it doesn't work.

Okay. You heard the question.

We're going to have dialogue. You asked me, then I turned to him. Okay.

Okay. You heard the question.

I heard the question. Okay. And I think he heard it too. And I heard for the first time.

So we're going to see what he's going to tell us. I don't know if he knows specifically where the seventh green is.

I don't know where the seventh green is.

What's your address?

54 highest in drive.

54 highest of drive.

That's the seventh. Uh the seventh I should not the green. It's the it's the T- box.

T- box. Okay.

Okay. That's a 15t drop.

That T- box.

Sir, that's a 15t drop.

Okay.

So, I want to know what's how you going to knock that down.

Just Mr. Chairman, just so all the abutters know the plan set is public record. um has 33 sheets, grading plans are certainly one of them. So it shows the existing topography and proposed topography. Um so if anybody has do you know where he's located specifically? And if you can't answer that question today, that's fine. It's fair that you can I can go over the grading with them because it's all

But do you know where Hyestin Street is and where the specific lot is?

I I do.

Hi Drive.

Hi Drive. Excuse me.

I don't know where it is.

It runs off a fairway.

Okay.

Okay, that helps me.

[clears throat] Mr. Far, I think it's unfair. I think it's unfair to ask such a specific question, expect you to have a response.

Well, we have the plans here. So, if he Which Which house is yours?

54. It's next to the last house.

Is it this house right here?

Where where's that dot?

Yeah, that's it.

So the slope's down 3 to one here. This is all proposed grading.

That's significant.

Let me zoom in.

3 to one.

A large file, so it takes a little bit.

So these are all 3 to one.

These are all 3 to1 contours here.

Explain to I don't know what that is. Hold on.

Okay. Yeah. I'm looking at you.

So a slope you're cutting down. You're cutting it down. So Mr. Faren, you're going me and you explain it.

Yep. Okay.

So you're going down a slope 3 to one.

So you're going three feet, you're going down one.

So it's a slope. That's the slope.

So you're cutting you're cutting it you're cutting it down. Basically the plans again these well for every three lateral feet it drops one foot vertically.

These are the great this is the grade change here. So it's all grading down towards the roadway. But I think more importantly, he's concerned where with where the end of that slope ends in relation to his property and at what elevation it it's going to be in relation to his property.

They match.

And I think that's a legitimate concern is how much water is going to come off of that and how much is going to come onto my property.

And if you can't answer that now, I get it.

It's it's grading away.

It's grading away.

There's no water going onto his property this way. Oh, so it's coming Okay. So, but grading down. So you're grading down from the north to the south.

Yes.

Okay. [clears throat] So that is going to be a grade and all the water that's there is going to stay onto the premises and be either put into the drainage system or the detention ponds.

Does that make sense?

Did you hear what he said, sir?

I heard what he said, but it doesn't make sense.

All right. Well, we're not going to go beyond that today. He's he's described how it's going to be sloped. All right.

Any Is that it?

That's it. But he didn't answer the question. Okay.

All right. But look, no, we'll follow up on it again if we need to. But I think he's already explained what the slope is, and it slopes away from the property.

And I think probably 3:1 is something that's acceptable for safety measures, for the amount for erosion control, and whatever else. But this is the man that can probably answer that if he's concerned if you're concerned about whether or not you're going to get an independent opinion on that. I That's the last one. Next, next time we're going to be here, we're gonna pick it.

Oh, the person behind you. Sorry, ma'am.

I was looking in that direction. Okay.

So, let's move on to the next section of what we're going to do here. We're going to discuss our hearing schedule.

So, as you had indicated earlier, I've been told that the hearing on this is currently required to close by February 23rd. So, when's the next date that we're planning on having um some more information on this?

December 19th. December 19th.

I think that's what you said, right?

Christian, for re-engineering, but the the response the response to his suggestions by December 19th. Is that something you can meet, Mr. F?

Yeah. Okay.

All right.

So, December 19th at 6 o'clock.

No, no, no.

Hold on. For Let's see what we got here. I thought we Oh, no. We picked December 11th. That's our next date. December 19th. No, that's the date that he's going to submit his response letter to Mr. Gabriel.

All right. So, that means that we're going to be in January at this point.

We're not meeting till January 8th. Is that the next date?

Yeah, that's what it is. I got it on my calendar.

So, is is the next meeting is January 8th for this hearing? Is that Well, I just we just have it designated for ZBA for for hearing.

Oh, okay.

So, for it's for a 40B.

Um and it's at 6. We don't have any other local business, do we? for that for the eth. We do at five o'clock.

Yeah.

Okay.

Michelle, would you send me like the dates going forward just so I can put them on my calendar? Okay. Thank you.

Does January 8th work? Yes. A peer review. Does January 8th work for you?

I'm sorry.

So, I'm just looking at the schedule.

I'll be um I'm going to be gone for about a week and a half just after the submission is sent in um holiday PTO. Uh I by January 8th I should be able to have a review of the plans. I don't know if I'll have a finalized letter by that time, but you'll be able to provide comment on it.

I'd be able to come here and give verbal comment on it on what we see. Yep.

But Mr. Chair, are there two dates in January so that there's one for the other 40b?

22.

Okay. Would it be better would it be better then to do switch them and do this one on January 22nd to give Mr.

Gabriel more time?

We're coming up on the 23rd pretty quickly though.

You're you're the 23rd is your deadline.

February 23rd. 23rd. February is coming for for both for both 40 days is the February 2.

I think that they they would work on an extension.

We have a problem with it be better. All right. Okay. Does that work for you, Mr.

Fallen as well?

All right. So, January 8th.

So, I have sort of a general comment regarding the schedule and regarding the closing of the hearing and and how you would suggest that we because once you close the hearing, we can you know what I'm going to say. So, once once you close the hearing, we cannot offer any additional information. Many times what happens is that the board likes to go into I don't know deliberations is the

right word but but to discuss terms and conditions. So it's much more effective if we discuss together terms and conditions and we can do that in the public meeting. You might say you know I'm only going to approve 50 units and we say oh that's that's a problem. Okay.

So we can have that discussion back and forth in an open public meeting is what I usually like to do. And and if we were to do that, typically we would have to give an extension to the February 23rd date.

Yeah.

Uh in order to allow that that time because otherwise you close the hearing.

I mean, council is going to tell you this, too. But you close the hearing and once you close the hearing, you have to issue that decision and you have to record it with within 40 days, you have to record that with the um with with the Thank you for the logistics on that, but let me ask you, do you have a list of all the waiverss already that they seek?

No. So, they're going to send an updated waiver. So, just to speak to that, right? So, if you have a meeting January 8th, yes. Then there's another meeting. I don't know what the date would be in February. But at this point, there still needs to be the applicant's response to the peer review and Mr. Gabriel's opportunity to actually review it. He's only going to have a preliminary review

of that by January 8th. There are a lot of open issues. There's the open question regarding whether or not the plans are sufficiently detailed for the board to feel that it's ready to make a decision if and you know and if it were to grant it with the conditions etc. the water wastewater. I understand that that letter is forthcoming hopefully it's today's already Thursday but hopefully the applicant will have that um

hopefully in the first part of next week and then they'll need to respond and there'll need to be a discussion about the water and wastewater. There also needs to be a discussion about the waiverss. So, you know, to suggest that, you know, all of that can happen on January 8th and another meeting before February 23rd seems a little um aggressive. And I guess you know it's it's very atypical for a 40B to get done

particularly one of this size um and with all of the open issues to be done within the 180 days. So I guess the question is whether Mr. Cussen is going to agree to extend the hearing to make sure that all of the issues could be heard because until all of the issues are discussed by the board, the board the board and myself staff is not in a position to start drafting the decision

and potential conditions. So, you know, that's the question is between now, two meetings presumably between now and February 23rd, can all of those issues, can all of the responses happen, you know, the back and forth between the engineers. I I mean, I I think that's the question for the board whether you feel like that's feasible and if not, then the question is whether the applicant is going to hold the board to

that February 23rd date.

If I may.

Absolutely.

Sure. Um, typically if we think from a developer's point of view, and I've been advised um by the applicant, if things seem to be heading in what I would consider the right direction, we're going to be very cooperative in in to have many of these issues resolved.

Whether it needs an extension, we don't know yet. It may and if it's heading in the right direction, we'll give you that extension. And when I say heading, so and and uh the the waiver, let me just discuss that a little bit. We have prepared a waiver list and that list can is it gets amended from time to time.

But the whole idea of a waiver list uh in the beginning is that we don't know enough about the development all the plans all the details and so forth to make a complete waiver list absolutely including everything that we need.

The waiver is we're we need all the waiverss that are necessary to build the development in accordance to the plans that have been approved.

And then so from a waiverless point of view um I think that that's very doable um I mean for example the review that's already been done says well you don't comply with the subdivision rules and regulations. Of course we don't. We know that that's why we're here. So why why are they spending time and money to to make that kind of a comment and review when we know so we want when I say

heading in the right direction those are some of the things that we need they don't have to spend time and to bother your time and my time and and money to say that sort of thing. So it it would be good to help for us and for them to maybe zone in on some of the waiverss that are required that that hopefully the plans that are presented those are the waiverss that are necessary.

That's typically we are going to have an updated list too. So it would definitely be more a lot more accurate than what correct the initial more specific right much more specific.

The initial plan set we gave you guys you remember that was about 20% drawing level. There was no not many details on it. So we did we had we didn't as Mr.

Cudson said we didn't know all the waiverss but now we're at a point especially after the review consultant did his review and the plans the level they're at to give you a more accurate one which we plan on having submitted on the 19th. I think that would solve a lot and those again those are the waiverss based on the plan that we're asking for you to approve.

So Mr. Chair there is a document called the chapter 40B handbook for zoning boards of appeals. It was issued by all of the subsidizing agencies by the state that give including Mass um housing which gave um Mr. cuss his sight eligibility letter and it states that zoning board and in fact they highlighted it in red take blanket waivers right yep it's a developer's responsibility to

identify the waivers needed in order to building the project as a rule the ZBA should not grant what is commonly known as a plan waiver or a blanket waiver to accommodate conditions that may be apparent on the plan but not specifically identified in a list of waiverss requested by the developer and it was noted from the first hearing or in fact it was noted in the original letter I believe that Mr. Vatitali sent

to the applicant that their waiver list was predominantly all blanket waivers and that pursuant to the guidelines issued to zoning boards by all the subsidizing agencies ZBA should not be granting those types of blanket waiverss and so I would disagree with Mr. Customs representation on that front.

I'm not sure you I'm not sure I maybe explained it properly. Okay, we're not asking for blanket waivers. We may have in in the initial stage, as Christian said, the plans were were at at best at a we know what we need. We need specific waiverss. He said he's going to provide them to us. Let's then we'll have our person look at it and make sure that it meets the requirements.

Correct. Because we don't want to put you in a position where you got to come back and do just because of one little thing that failed to be in there. So, we make sure it's it's inclusive. Correct.

Right. We're doing we're doing the best we can in that regard.

We can work through that. We'll go through it.

All right. So, um is there anything else I need to address here tonight?

Oh, I still need that gentleman. He's got a comment I need to make to see where we want to ask you to step down if our um peer review expert could come forward. I think there was a question that was posed earlier. What was it again that we're going to ask him?

Uh what stage does he feel we're at with the plants?

I mean, we don't need to be 90 100% and certainly we're not at 25%. Are we do we have enough information that you feel that you can recommend uh approval or denial or whatever it is? You know, I'm just going to piggyback on that one second. So, your review of all this was of this most recent plan with 138 units.

Correct. Good. Okay. Continue.

Uh oh, yeah. So to answer your question, yeah, no, I believe at this point there's based on what I have in the peerreview letter, there's still some more information that needs to come back to be able to say that these should be recommended for approval.

Okay. So when you say more information, need more detailed plans or there needs to be more more answers um that have nothing to do with the plan itself, but more of description. Well, one one basic example is just in regards to the waiver request because there is some there are a couple blanket waiver requests in there. So, that information needs to be uh listed out in detail as to what exactly they

want. So, that's just an example and he's going to do that.

Exactly.

All right. Um Mr. Chair, if I may.

Sure. Um, may I ask uh the peerreview consultant when he is taken off for vacation because I would what I would like to do is even if I can get my letter a little bit sooner. I think it would help expedite it if we can just sit down engineer to engineer and just go through the go through the list. Um, if a board member wants to be on, I mean, we can do it via Zoom.

I don't I let the experts work with each other.

I think that would be a great idea.

Are you willing to share that with him?

Not you don't have to do it publicly, but before we leave here tonight.

Sorry. What was your question there?

Whether or not you would share with him when you're leaving on vacation so that he can have an opportunity to make sure that he does so before.

Yeah, [clears throat] absolutely. I mean, I'm heading out on Christmas Eve because my kids have gotten off for school and I'm going to spend some time with them over the holiday.

But if we can meet on the 19th or maybe I have my letter majority of it done 18th or 17th. I think it would be great if we can have a you know one-on-one Zoom.

Mr. Chair, I agree. I I think that it's always great for engineers to speak together and I'm happy to do that.

Right. I ask that the two of you be able to do that.

Yeah, absolutely.

All right, sounds good.

Good.

Um, Susan, is there anything else I need to address?

And don't be shy.

No, I think I think that it at the January 8th meeting, I think then the timing is going to become the critical issue. I guess at the next meeting, we'll know more.

Yeah, at the next meeting, no more. I I guess for the next meeting um maybe follow up or update on all the civil engineering from Mr. Gabriel. Also, if the if the water storm water letter comes in and is able to get to u Mr.

Cussen's team hopefully in the next week then um maybe that can get addressed on the ETH too and try to get some of these issues addressed that need to be covered. if I don't know if I it'll depend on obviously when he gets the letter but um that would probably be good and then you know I I think those these discussions are all going to inform as Mr. Cussen Mr. Farland said

what their ultimate waiver list is going to look like.

Okay.

So I did say no more. We'll save it for the next time. But is there is there something significant that you think could assist us here?

I just want to ask quickly, not a comment, just a comment. Chuck, res.

Sorry, you got to come.

I'm going to have come to the podium. I just wanted to keep it short, but come over. Come up to the podium.

Chuck Rosik, 48 Green Drive. The meeting that we had discussing traffic. At the end of the meeting, the de uh traffic the consultant consultant mentioned our traffic consultant mentioned that the reg that the standards that the proposer had used were out of date and asked them to refig refigure his numbers based on the new state standards. And I was curious if that was ever done.

They did.

Thank you. So they did. Okay. But we're going to have another opportunity to speak about that as well.

Mr. Chair, if it's it's okay between now and [clears throat] when, you know, we're get preparing for the January 8th meeting, if I could work with Michelle and the town administrator's office and then we can communicate with the applicants team and come up with what what topics everybody's ready to talk about on the Is that okay? All right.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Absolutely. We don't need a vote for that either.

No.

No. Okay. Thank you.

All right. So, uh, gentlemen, I'll, uh, at this point, if there's no other business to discuss, I'll I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. Everyone knows that we're on for the next date for this [snorts] particular hearing.

We need to January 8th.

Yeah, I will make a motion, but I'll let them know that that's what we're moving towards. All right. I make a motion that we continue comprehensive permit ZCMP25-1 to January 8th of 2026.

Second that motion.

All in favor?

I I the eyes have it. So we're all on notice. January January 2026 both six in this in this office this room.

All right. Any other business we need to discuss gentlemen?

Can you just I asked we still we're still in session.

We're still in session. We're still in session sir.

Well, I thank you very much.

Thank you for the vote of confidence.

Anyway, gentlemen, I'm going to need a motion to There's still a public hearing going on.

You are up there on the screen, so please motion to adjourn.

I second that motion.

All in favor? I The eyes have it.