Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting - February 12, 2026

Good evening and welcome to the zoning board of appeals meeting of Thursday, February 12, 2026. At this time, I'm going to call upon everyone so we can stand and pledge allegiance to the flag.

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

Thank you.

There a couple of announcements that I'd like to make. First is that the next meeting that we have scheduled for the zoning board of appeals will be February 26th here in this building at 5:00 p.m.

Um, and that this meeting is being recorded by Dartmouth Community Media.

Moving on to the public's hearings portion of tonight's meeting. It's a continued case. It's Zuse variant ZAV2-13.

It was continued from December 11, 2025.

The petitioner is John Williams. The owner of the property is Margaret Tomkowix. And the subject property is located 576 Fon Connor Road. Um this is a case in which the petitioner seeking a use variance. This case was already opened. We're not opening the case tonight. We have a problem. Uh we don't have a quorum to hear this case. Um Dr.

Agai um has a conflict and he's recused himself um in taking any action on this case. I have also had would have to recuse myself as a result of a conflict with the petitioner in this case given that we don't have attorney who here this evening. He was not able to attend and not be present at tonight's hearing.

So, we're not able to move forward.

So, we're going to have to continue that case. And if there's anyone in the audience that would like to uh that would like to be have it known, it's going to be continued to February 26th at 5:00 p.m. here in this building. So, and that is variance case ZAV25-13 and that's for 576 Fonts Corner Road. Is there anything else you gentlemen would like to add?

No.

Nope.

All right, moving on.

Hi, I just want to make sure that you're aware that um for the next case, I'm here as an abuter, not as a member of the select board.

All right, we'll get that open and we'll go from there.

All right.

All right.

Would you like me to repeat it then?

Yes, absolutely. Okay.

Thank you.

Um, moving on to the next matter that's on for tonight's meeting is special permit ZSP25-6.

The petitioner is Jenny Reynolds. The owner is Tracy Nunan, manager of 8 Vono Court LLC. The subject property is located at 8 Bono Court, also known as map 121, lot 19. It's located within the general residence district. This matter was legally advertised on January 22nd and January 29th of this year.

I make a motion that we wave the reading of the butters list.

I'll second that.

All in favor?

I I the eyes have it. Anyone in the audience or our viewers at home would like to see a list of the abutters that were notified that's on file with our secretary here at the office of the zoning board. Um, in this case, the petitioner Tracy Nunan is seeking a special permit proposing to construct a 576 square f foot addition to a non-conforming structure built in 1950, which is required to increase the

non-conformity of the structure. The current structure meets one 10-ft required yard setback back and the front yard setback of 20 ft. The addition is proposed to be built 11.9 ft from the street.

seeking relief under article 10 section 375-10.4D3B setbacks and section 375-6.2B2 non-conforming structures. The property is located at 89 Bono 8 Bono Court in the General Residence District and identified as map 121 lot 19. And it says information is on file in the office of the board of appeals and may be seen upon request. All right, so we surely have some comments. I'm sure we

have a denial letter from the building inspector that I have to look through here.

Attorney Medeiros.

Yes.

I just want to make you aware I'm Heidi Silva Brooks. I'm a member of the select board, but on this matter I am here as an abuter.

Thank you very much. It's on the record.

No.

We've got a lot of letters here. I'm trying to find the denial. Here it is.

Here.

This letter was dated December 5th, 2025. It was to Jenny Reynolds of Prime Engineering and is regarding 8 Mono Court indicates that I have reviewed your application and at this time your proposal cannot be approved due to non-compliance with current zoning regulations. Applicant seeking to add a 576qt addition to a non-conforming structure built in 1950. The current structure meets 110 ft required yard setback and

front yard setback of 20 ft. The addition is proposed to be built 11.9 ft from the street. A special permit is required to increase the non-conformity of the structure. Your application is being denied under the following sections of DOT zoning bylaw.

375-10.4D3B.

Sub part B says, "In addition, the buildings or structures may be placed a minimum of 10 feet from all other perimeter lot lines or 20 ft from a street line if the lot upon which the building or structures to be located was in existence prior to October 16th, 1993. The benefit of this exemption is available to lots which already had buildings or structures located thereon prior to October 26, 1993.

And also 375-6.2 2 B2 non-conforming structures. Subp part two says when the expansion or alteration of such a structure cannot conform with the development standards for structures in the zoning district in which the structure is located, the structure may be extended or altered only by special permit granted by the board of appeals. The board of appeals shall not issue a special permit unless

the board finds that the extension is not more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming structure.

And it indicates that the property is located within the general residence district and it was uh from the building department from uh zoning enforcement officer Mr. Randall Bet. All right, that's that letter department comments within the town. The board of health. This facility is connected to town water and sewer.

During building department process, the board of health will make further comment to the applicant or applicants representative that rel that relative to any remodel/demolition requirements. No further action by board of health con plans were approved by the conservation commission on September 10th, 2025.

Notice of intent- 25-30/mass DP15-2797.

and DPW indicates that compliance with the following DPW regulations, rules and specifications will be required but not limited to the following Department of Public Works construction specifications and standard details. The storm water management and policies of water division of the town water department would also be required. All right, I've got that.

And I've also have some letters.

Now, historically, we have read red read letters into the record, but I've been finding that some of the some of these letters can be quite extensive and very lengthy. And I find it problematic where people are trying to support app or prove their case just by written letter. Um I I will try to read some of this into I know that this letter is a well-written letter and it reaches and it does touch

upon many of the points but it's also quite lengthy. So I will read this one at least the opening of it into the record and it will be placed on file.

We'll accept it and place it on file.

Gentlemen, is that all right?

Yeah. make a motion that we accept the letters all of them.

Okay. But let me just we'll identify what they are then we can do that collectively. Okay.

So this is a letter from Sean and Pamela Redern stated February 10, 2026. It's addressed to myself in my capacity as chairman of the zoning board. And it says, "Dear Mr. Medeiros, Mr. Bet and members of the zoning board of appeals.

We are about us to 8 Bono Court and object to the special permit request being sought from the applicant to be non-compliant with the 20ft front yard setback requirement in town zoning bylaws. 810 Court is a single family residence primarily used as a short-term rental property and we feel that the proposed special permit to encroach upon the 20oot setback would only benefit the property owner of 810 court while

disproportionately having a negative impact on the surrounding residents and neighborhood. As the town of Dartmouth zoning bylaws indicate, the purpose of lot setback requirements is to lessen congestion and overcrowding of lots, to provide access within the lot for general circulation and maintenance of the buildings located thereon, to provide access in the case of fire, and to lessen congestion and promote safety

in adjacent streets. There is no reasonable justification to comp for compromising these safeguards for the neighborhood. And this is in the second this is the second attempt by the applicant to seek the same setback reduction from the zoning board of appeals. The first attempt through a variance request was denied.

I'm not sure if that's accurate, but we'll we'll we'll see that if that if there's anything on the record. The proposed building encroachment, the proposed building's encroachment into the 20 foot front yard setback will undoubtedly change the character of the neighborhood with the proposed building extending out past the other adjacent residences along the Bono Court rightway, blocking both light and air

into the neighborhood. If approved, the proposed non-conformance would also create problematic sight lines for vehicular traffic and compromise pedestrian safety in the right of way.

It will increase congestion and density on an already overcrowded site.

Providing relief to the required 20-oot setback is contradictory to the intent of the town zoning bylaws and approval of special permit would unjustly prioritize one owner's wishes over the collective well-wish well-being of the immediate Bono Court community who are seemingly unanimously opposed to the proposed addition. We dispute the applicant's indication in their narrative that the town sewer easement

poses a hardship on the property. Beyond the original property owner who bore the burden of the eminent domain easement, one could argue that all other owners of the property have willfully entered into agreements to purchase the property without the burden of the town sewer easement and its associated constraints on the property. As two architects registered in the state of Massachusetts

with over 30 years of experience, we continue to find the information and detail provided by the applicant for the proposed addition to 8 Bono Court to be incomplete and contradictory. As professionals who regularly prepare, coordinate, and review these types of drawings and documents, we would like to point out to to the town's reviewers that there are inconsistencies and missing information within the submitted

application. Some of this was highlighted in our previous letter submitted at the board of appeals hearing on October 30th, 2025 in which the applicant sought a variance for the same proposed setback reduction. That variance request to reduce the 20 foot setback requirement was 11 ft 9 in was denied. We are requesting the following inconsistencies and missing information be provided and clarified by the

applicant before any further decisions by the zoning official or building official are made and any permitting on the process is granted. Furthermore, we believe that there are other zoning variances required by the applicant from the town of D zoning bylaws but do not find them submitted to the zoning board of appeals or yet addressed. We seek guidance and clarification from the town

of Damoth on the following following zoning items. floodplane overlay district and FEMA compliance. The proposed addition to 810 court represents a large addition. It is not inconsequential in size. The proposed two-story addition 1,152 GSF gross I guess square footage will increase the existing building's overall square footage by 160% and will increase the building height by another story. The

proposed size of the addition results in a substantial change to the building structure. We ask that the DOM zoning official review this application in the eyes of town zoning bylaws article 27 flood plane overlay district for compliance. The project site is subject to storm flowage and coastal flooding.

The town zoning bylaws require compliance with FEMA regulations. The applicant's request to build the addition at a flood elevation of plus or - 12 ft is well below the required flood elevation of 19 ft at the lowest structural member.

It is also unclear if the applicant has provided sufficient backup showing that the that the proposed construction cost of project does not exceed 50% of the cost of the assessed value of the existing building structure. We ask that the town seek the supporting cost backup from the applicant to demonstrate compliance. The requirement of for the applicant to comply with FEMA guidelines

is documented as part of the order of special conditions issued by the town of conservation commission for the project. Refer to appendix one conservation commission minutes dated September 9, 2025. We would like to point out that the relevant FEMA technical bulletin requirements referenced by the project are incorrect.

The project's architectural design and construction details should be updated to show project compliance with technical bulletin 2 flow material flood material resistant materials technical bulletin 5 free of obstruction and technical bulletin 9 breakaway walls.

Sub part two, percentage of lot coverage on the site. The proposed addition and the proposed deck of the addition are increasing the non-conformity of the size lot coverage. The town of Dartmouth zoning bylaws set lot coverage of impervious service on a site impervious area on a site at no more than 50% of the lot and does not offer any exemptions for existing sites exceeding the the coverage. A project that

increases or expands an existing non-conformity is generally prohibited.

We ask that the town provide guidance on this issue as it relates to article 10 general residence district development standards.

The existing law already far exceeds the maximum allowable percentage of lot coverage. I don't know why that wasn't what wasn't addressed. I don't see what that was addressed, but we talk about that. Number three, impervious area and storm water management. The applicant submission does not address the site's impervious area. The site currently consists of a variety of different pavement types and building structures

resulting in roughly 90% of the site surface area being impervious as defined by the town zoning bylaws. The applicant's proposed building addition with its roof line is increasing the site's current storm water flow volume as well as the impervious area of the site by an additional 112 square ft.

Mhm.

The applicant submission does not address how they intend to deal with storm water drainage on their property as indicated by chapter 313 storm water management of the state's town bylaws, excuse me, of the town's bylaws and the Massachusetts storm water handbook. We ask that the increase in the non-conforming imperous area and the storm drainage on the site be addressed by the applicant and that information be

provided to the town regarding how this deficiency will be addressed prior to any further approvals. The requirement for the applicant to contain storm water runoff on their property is documented as part of the order of special conditions issued by the town of Dmouth Conservation Commission for the project.

Refer to the Dartmouth Conservation Commission minutes dated September 9, 2025.

Page 10, condition 21. Applicable codes.

They give us a list of all the applicable codes which I'm not going to read into the record.

Then they indicate further missing information in the drawings submitted for permit. In our review of the civil drawings issued for permit, accurate documentation of the existing conditions is missing from the applicant's drawings. These elements are critical to the design and relevant to the decision that the town is basing their review and approvals on. Missing from the drawings

are two manhole covers that represent what we believe to be abandoned cesspool or septic pits adjacent to the existing house in the exact area where the applicant has proposed building their addition. We ask that the town have the the applicant accurately document and evaluate these existing conditions on their site plan drawings and indicate to the town how this existing condition will affect the construction of the

proposed addition and its foundation systems.

The applicant's exterior architectural elevations and roof plan show a large deck extension on the water side of the house, but the deck is not shown on the applicant's civil site plan, floor plans, or foundation plans. The deck was not included in the site documentation submitted to the conservation commission as part of their review and it should therefore be subject to further review

and approval by the conservation commission. The deck also further increases the nonconformity of the site lot coverage which is not allowable for the town zoning bylaws. Inconsistency and drawings is submitted for permit. We ask that the town of Damoth seek clarification from the applicant on why we identify as in on excuse me on what we identify as inconsistent designs being evaluated by the town. The

drawings submitted for a building permit are inconsistent with the information included in the applicant submission and testimony at the conservation commission September 9th hearing. Because of these differences, we ask the town of Damoth re-evaluate the project approvals given to date. Item one, the order of special conditions issued by the town of Damoth Conservation Commission. Special

condition SC number four indicates the proposed addition shall be pile supported. The drawings subsequently submitted for a building permit indicate a CMU pier foundation system with footings. These are vastly different foundation systems.

The applicant submission for permit does not show the proposed layout or depth of a driven pile foundation system. Nor does it identify the potential impacts of vibration, soil movement, and soil sediment from a driven pile system on the existing building foundation system to remain. Because a driven pile foundation system presents complications with the existing foundation with the

existing building foundation system, we ask that the town have the applicant provide a detailed foundation design with calculations by a qualified structural engineer so it can be properly assessed by the town's reviewers for permit. The applicant submission for permit does not show the relationship between the existing to remain building foundation to the proposed driven pile foundation

system. It provides no assessment of the driven pile system in regard to the radial displacement or vertical heaving in that will be imposed on the site soils and its effect on the existing adjacent traditional foundation system.

The applicant submission does not consider the potential for differential settlement between the two different foundation systems. All right. Then number two, there are no framing plans provided in the applicant submission for permit, but the applicant submitted drawings indicate that the new addition is going to be built on top of the existing building's exterior wall and foundation. Because of this, the

existing wall must comply with the building code for new construction.

There is no evaluation presented by a qualified professional to ensure that the existing wall and the foundation are capable of handling the increased weight. All right, moving on. Proposed construction effects on the public sewer easement. In the applicant's letter to the conservation commission in their testimony to the commission, the petitioner indicated that a foundation system of driven piles

would be used to support the building addition. Their testimony indicated that the use of piles would create minimal land disturbance. However, the applicant cannot has not accounted for the clay soils prevalent on the site. In clay driven soil can mo move laterally over large distances. The soil displacement has the potential to compress, crush or sift the nearby public sewer line

located in the sewer easement adjacent to the applicant's proposed addition.

The clay soil becomes a key factor in defining the number of driven piles feasible at the site as well as defining the depth of the piles to carry the substantial load of the proposed addition. The potential impact on the public sewer needs to be understood by the town's reviewers with respect to the existing soil conditions. We ask that the applicant provide additional information to the town regarding the

potential impacts of the vibration radio soil movement and soil settlement that the driven pile foundation system will impose on the public sewer so that the impact can be understood and evaluated by the town. As abunders, we are directly concerned with any impacts from the proposed driven pile foundation work. In conclusion, there has been no attempt by the applicant for 8.0 Toronto

court to reach out and address neighbors concerns throughout the course of their submission and review process for this project. This includes the time frame from when the first presentation was provided to the conservation commission on September 9th to the first zoning board of appeals held on October 30th and to today February 10th, 2026.

Considering the mistakes and deficiencies identified in the submitted project documents, we ask that the town have the applicant correct and resubmit the design documents, adding sufficient clarity and detail to show the full picture of the project to the town's reviewers before any further advancement to this project. We ask that the zoning board of appeals deny the special permit for a reduction in

the building setback requirements. Not only would it increase non-conformity of the lot, but it goes against the very purpose of the setback requirements of the zoning bylaw section to lessen congestion and overcrowding of lots and reinforce safety controls within the neighborhood. Signed by Sean Redern and Pamela Redern.

All right.

Denied without prejudice.

Okay. So, one of the things I wanted to clarify was that the case was previously denied, but it was denied without prejudice. And that's how the petitioner was able to come back here before us today.

Was a special permit, Mr. Chair, or I I don't know if it was a special permit.

It was a variance. It was a variance.

And they're not coming before us for a variance at this point.

They're coming for Okay.

They're coming for a special permit.

Okay.

Um, now we also have a couple of other letters here. All right, we have and I've just I've read these and I you gentlemen have had an opportunity to read these and I'm going to refer to them and we'll have them just placed into I'll refer to them and we'll just collectively uh have them admitted into the record. Okay. One is a letter of Jane Shapiro uh dated February 5th of

2026. I also have an email from a DK Smith um dkith223charter.net is an email from them. I believe it's uh David and Carrie Smith.

Um I also got a letter, we received a letter from Benjamin Sperry.

We also have a letter from Carla Manchester. And I didn't give the addresses, so I should probably state the address of these people. Jane Shapiro is a six Bono court in South Dath.

I have David and Carrie Smith. I've got nine Bon. No, it says is it nine Bono?

Yes. Yes. Nine.

and 9.10.

Then I have Benjamin Sperry of 22 Clarence Street.

Excuse me.

He has property on Can't hear you.

I'm sorry.

All right. Because it's a regarding he owns He owns 10. Okay. So they own 22 clearance and they also own 10 B.0 no court and that's Clarence Street.

We also have a letter from Ka Manchester of 21 Clarence Street.

And I also have a letter from Keith Manchester at 21 Clarence Street.

Excuse me.

We also have a letter here from Bruce Brooks.

I don't know where that person's from, owner of Three Barnau Court.

And we also have a letter from David and Carrie Smith, dated February 2nd, 2026.

Bono.

And that's from nine Barno Court. So, I'll entertain a motion, gentlemen. Hold on one second. Is that all of them?

That's all of them. I'll entertain a motion.

Place the letters on file.

Second.

All in favor?

I I The eyes have it. They're placed on file.

All right.

Is there anything else that we have to read into the record at this point, Michelle? I don't think there is. Is there? We've got the narrative that we received from the petitioner, but they're here to plead their case.

All right. So, at this point in time, I um will call upon the petitioner, their representative to uh plead their case.

Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks.

Does the placement of that work for the people from um community diamond community TV so they could Yeah, I think they got it.

Does it work?

Surprise me.

Okay. My name is Rich Ray. I'm chief engineer and principal of Prime Engineering. And we prepared the plans and the petition. Um I've shown on here um the existing structure um and and the lot and the areas that are paved.

As you can see, the majority of the lot is uh paved. It's about 90% impervious cover.

and we're not proposing to change the impervious cover. Um, and we're proposing to comply with all of the uh FEMA regulations and uh provide proper geotechnical information at the proper time.

Obviously, we wouldn't spend the effort at this stage. If this petition gets denied, then we're not going forward.

So, we're not going to spend the money.

Um but essentially uh we submitted an application to the building department to find out whether this met uh zoning standards and he found that it it did not meet zoning standards from the standpoint of front yard setback uh to the street. Uh 20 foot is required.

Um and we have 11 feet 9 in. Uh so we're we're shot by 8 ft. Um on on this exhibit I'm showing where Barno Court ends and it ends before the proposed um addition is. So basically we're talking about the setback to a a landscaped area. It's a grass area that is a paper street, still barn of court, but it's it's not ever going to get built. So, the the setback is is

comparable to the setback of the other units in the area. I basically did an assessment of uh Cottage Street, Wilson Street between Cottage and Howland, Howland Clown Street and Barno Court.

And the average front yard setback of those 50 homes is 12 ft. And what we're proposing is essentially 12 feet. So, we're complying with the norm of of the area. We we meet all of the other zoning standards. Um, and the statute basically says that um the uses um have to be shown to be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the bylaw.

And this is a general residence district and the standards are a preserve the rural character of the town by maintaining um moderate population density and the lot size is comparable to other lots.

The building proposed size is comparable to others in the area.

B is to minimize congestion on town roads. And if you've traveled Pottage Street, Clarence Street, How they're very lightly traveled. They're not anywhere near capacity. They're level of service A and with the addition of two, they'll still be level A.

C is to provide uses compatible with on-site sewer and water capabilities.

And there's a giant sewer main that runs right through the property. And the water is adequate high pressure, high flow. So that's not a problem. Minimize the impact on development of natural resources. We appeared before the conservation commission. They reviewed all aspects of the design and said yes it complies you know and issued an order of conditions and E is to allow the use of the

property without creating a nuisance to abuing properties and as I said the the setback sideyard front yard setback is comparable to the units on Howland Avenue on Cottage Street on Clarence Street on on Wilson Street. It it meets very much in harmony with the neighborhood. And the only question is, is it good to allow a 12-oot setback when the standard in the neighborhood is 12T?

I can show

You can see it's larger footprint uh than than the other one than what's existing.

So, we're currently 20 uh square feet of building on a lot that's slightly under 5,000 square feet. And we're proposing to put a 24x 24 addition uh on on the property. Uh the addition itself is going to be twotory. Um it's going to be on peers so it complies as much as possible with the FEMA flood regulations and uh we have done considerable number of um projects in the flood plane and uh

this will meet the the FEMA regulations.

The the other exhibit I've shown in in pink on here in the 1960s when the town came through with the sew easement they basically came through and did an L around this lot so that it makes expansion um to the to the uh east.

Impossible. It's only six feet from the property line to where Ellen and Bill Dingwell are. So, you can't expand that way. And you're right on the water, so you can't expand this way. So, this is the only way that an expansion can take place.

And if you only expanded with a 20 foot setback, you'd end up with a 9 foot by 9 foot bedroom, which is ludicrous. So, um, we're going for the special permit, which we don't think is any um is that is it is completely in harmony with the neighborhood.

I've got the architectural elevations if you want to look at it, but it's Yeah, if I can see those, please.

Um this is the elevation that would be seen by people upgrading in other words land of the of the project. And this is the elevation view that would be seen by people that are out on a on a point against it there. Um twotory on the right side. Uh just one story matching um the the existing facility and nonhitable space underneath that.

Basically the only story and the view.

Um, here is what Jing Shapiro would see from her house water. And

uh this view is what Ellen and Bill Dingwell would see from their house, which is the the end and the distant second story structure without What about the deck? You don't show the deck on the site plan.

Right. We're we emphasize the fact that the existing area underneath that deck is concrete uh pad. Um if we just showed the balcony, you wouldn't get the effect of the fact that we already have that as in previous area. But it's not it's not relevant to the case because the only issue is would a would a front yard setback to that lawn area be appropriate at 119 versus the typically required 20 ft.

But we we count people's decks as in making the determination for a front yard setback.

It's part of the structure.

Oh. Oh yeah. The deck does not extend towards the street. Extends to the water still.

So there's there's no there's no um extension towards the street. There's no balcony.

Okay, I understand that. I understand where it goes to, but I said front yet.

Set back, but it's a setback point to the water. You have it listed right now at 11 ft, right? 11.9 11.

119, but it's not really 119 when you add the deck to it. How many feet will it be when you add the deck?

Takes 8 ft.

I was just adding asking you to tell me what it is. How many feet would it be?

This is 119 from the face of the building that has no balcony to the property line because this is the paper street.

Okay.

This is the existing balcony is just going to be extended. So in in Dartmouth, you're allowed to extend a a non-compliance sideyard at the same same or less until you see another setback. So that's I understand what you're allowed to do.

I just don't see it on the plan.

I'd like to see it on the plan to be honest with you. But that's okay. That's just a an issue that I'm having with it so I know exactly where things are going to be.

All right.

Okay. But you understand that Well, I wasn't certain exactly where the front yard was, but so your your front yard measurement at this point goes to this Barno Court, which is the private way. And that's the 11.9 ft that you're measuring here. Okay. I'm I'm seeing that. All right.

And what you're telling me, excuse me, sir. Sir, we can't have conversations. We're being recorded.

Okay. Thank you.

Um, so I just have concern that it's not on the plan, so I don't know exactly where it's going to be placed in relation to the side lot line that's adjacent to a pony against Bay.

But that's just one point that I have.

That's all. Um, that's is that it uh Mr. Rio?

All right. So does anyone have any questions of Mr. Rome at this time?

I don't have any at this time right now.

I I do a few question. I do have few questions. Uh but it's more technical because what I heard from the opponents.

So, so normally when you do your lot coverage, you would provide the data for the existing conditions and you know you break down all the uh lot coverage on the site concrete and previous deck and all that and then you know you do your analysis existing versus proposed but you're saying that currently the lot coverage is around 90%. So you're covering the the building will be will occupy an existing area that is

impervious currently. Exactly.

Is it what what's the imper I didn't see. Is that the crush the uh what's impervious? Is it paved or is it the the crushed uh it's it's it's crushed shell on top of pavement.

Okay.

And and same thing here. This I showed it as gray because it's pavement, but they they've put shells. So the only green area is this thin green band to the east.

Okay.

Yeah. I just wanted to confirm you don't have it even in the legend that you have here. You don't indicate exactly what the existing lot coverage percentage is right now.

You just indicate that the max law coverage is 50% and you're proposing 90%. Doesn't say what the existing is.

But the existing is 90%. So it's not changing.

How do you know the existing 90%.

Because this says proposed 90%.

And he it's the existing 90% too, right?

Is that what you said?

90% and the proposed addition is over over imperous areas. That's why and now it's later.

Okay. But normally, yeah, you increase in impervious area and that's probably why the building inspector didn't require that addition.

I just wanted to confirm because that's brought up. The second question are the the new addition is going to be on peers. So you have it's open bottom, right? So you're not impeding on the on the uh be breakaway walls.

Breakaway. Oh, you do have breakaway wall. So it's not a block wall.

Velocity zones.

A block I block wall is not a breakaway wall right?

Oh, no. The existing I think the existing structure is block.

Okay. Because I heard that it's a block and Yeah. So you're not you're not affecting the the we would not be able to put the the flood capacity or anything.

Break away, right? Uh, that's fine. And, uh, the finished floor elevation, that's my question. I think you said 12 feet.

Yes.

What's your 100year flood? Is that the 100?

It's um, I think 17, but you have to be two foot above that because it's zone. So, the bottom of your structural member has to be 19, which would make the finished floor 20. So you you'd have to be 16 ft above the existing ground and they they don't want to be 16 ft above the existing ground.

So as long as you only add 50% the value of the structure.

Okay.

You're allowed to continue that.

But how did you come up? Did you demonstrate to the building?

I mean you would have to file those will have to be details on your building permit application. But uh did you did I'm not sure how you get 50% of the value by adding almost doubling the the space of the existing structure with today's market. I mean it's probably $400 $500 square foot something. I I don't know maybe less than that right.

Uh I I got that fact from the architect.

The architect said that they would be able to justify that there would not be a 50% uh increase in the value of the structure.

Okay. So if if this is the case, they don't have to to comply with the elevation of the building. Okay.

But how do they arrive at 12? How do they make a determination that 12 ft would be adequate? We have to we have to in our full application to the building department that has to be submitted to them to show that it's not more than 50%. If it's if I get that part of it, but then at this point you're saying, well, we're not more than 50, so we're going to build it

at 12 ft and not the required 19. How does that determination come into be?

The the building inspector is going to make that final determination. If he says that no you need to make it um in phases then this would have to be built in two separate phases.

Phases is one thing but we we're also concerned about height requirements. We have a height requirement here of 35 ft.

They meet the height requirements at 12 feet. But do they meet it at 19?

No, not if they go to 17. Okay. Uh are you assuming that you had to build it at 19 ft? Would you be able to meet the 35 foot height requirement?

No, it's eight with two story.

I don't think so.

Unless you have a flat roof.

Okay.

I don't think I'd be able to meet the second.

All right. But anyway, so thank you. Um Doc, do you have any questions?

No. Thank you.

All right. So, I'm going to open it up to uh the public so that if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak either in favor or in opposition to this project, I ask you to come up, state your name, your address as loud as you can just so that we can have it for the record and then explain to us what your concerns are.

Excuse me.

This this is Barono Court.

Thank you.

Bruce Brooks, uh owner of uh Three Bunnel Court. Uh quite a few misstatements were made there. Um when he talked about all the setbacks of all the neighboring you, he he mentioned every street except for really Bunnel Court. I took measurements of all the properties on Bunnel Court.

The very closest was 14 feet and the next I think was 25 and I think it's actually in my letter there's some one actually 42 feet. So to state that that 11 ft is conforming with all the average bunnel court is a private lane. The other ones are streets certified streets. So that is a toll whole different ballgame of setbacks and to state that is such a misdemeanor. um

hype if he goes over 50% of the value of the house, not the land or anything else like that. And the house is valued atund I think it was in $192,000.

So that would be $96,000 that this project would be a to be done for.

Well, I don't know if they use assessed values for that, sir.

Yeah. Yes, they do.

Um sir, I'm I'm a I'm a contractor, licensed contractor. I know I have to abide by those. Okay. Um, then if that's accurate, then this project's never going to get off the ground.

I don't Well, like he said, if he tried to accurate, just seriously, if that's accurate, then I don't see this project ever getting off the ground.

The only way he would get away with it is is by doing it in a portions. But either way, I can't see how he can do the foundation, the site work, and put a first floor on even just a just a single floor for the value of $96,000.

If he's got a contractor that he has to do that, I want him to uh so I can make some money off of him. Um me, too.

There's no reason. Um you you've got 11.9 ft uh left over off the 20 off the house itself. Why why 24 ft? Wh why is it mentioned that you're not going up on a second floor on the existing building instead of bringing it out and adding it on to that? Um and also any in in the building codes and the state law, if it is a substantial improvement,

then it has to go up to the 19 ft. A substantial improvement.

and they're putting on more square footage than the exact the existing house. So, it has to be considered a substantial improvement.

Um, and I'm sure there's other things I might think of, but right now that's fine. I'll give you another opportunity if it's something different, but that's fine.

That's just the beginning.

Okay.

Thank you. Anyone else would like to speak either in favor or in opposition?

Opposition. My name is Keith. Keith Manchester, 21 Clarence Street. And um I don't know if anyone's visited the site or not, but I just want to give you a quick quick picture. It's just one little lane way that allows one car to go one way at one time. And it's all private area like Bruce said. And um I'm just going to make try to make this really quick. As far as um the setbacks

on uh 375, the lessened congestion, overcrowding and promote safety doesn't conform to in my opinion. Minimum setback requirement the 20 ft. That was why we're here for um it says from a street or an easement and there's nothing in there that says because it's a grassy area an easement has property lines lines and it says e it says under in 375 from the a street or easement. I want to make that clear. And uh

residential district um the to uh preserve a rural car uh rural character of the neighborhood and to maintain low population density. Just by putting that addition on that extra 10 ft would would devastate their butters cuz everybody had in that little area that's private.

Everybody has their yard, everybody can see the resources, sunsets, everything else. But this would absolutely devastate their sight of view and their livelihood.

So that's that's that one. And uh the minimize development and a rule. I just did that 11 ft from the high it's 11 ft from the high water mark. And if you look at that I think I sent you some pictures as far as the seaw wall completely demolished. It's it's all rotted. uh concrete underneath where they want to put the porch is just slabs like 3in slabs, 2 in slabs that that

wouldn't go um do it. So um so three out of the six requirements are not met as far in my opinion and I just want to make let you know that um a variance to me is to override rules and regulations the town has in place to protect the neighborhoods and uh 101 as far as I'm concerned it should be sparingly used variances. So, and uh there are other other options for this applicant to build.

They don't need that land to build. They there are other options. So, it's not like a hardship. They there are other choices to meet their requirements of what they want. And um thank you.

All right. I just want to clarify a couple points. So, um, and I know that you've stated the word variance here, and a variance is a much more difficult, uh, type of relief to obtain as a petitioner, and that requires a showing of a hardship here. This is not request, they're not requesting a variance.

They're only requesting a special permit.

Isn't it the same thing?

No, it's not the same thing. And it's it's a much lower level or much lower standard of review from us, from our standpoint to either grant or deny a special permit. Can I ask you what are the setbacks for a special permit?

There's not nec necessarily a specific setback with a special permit. A special permit is a type of relief that you're seeking. And here, because of the fact that this structure was already in existence prior to the implementation of zoning, it was in existence in 1950. It was created and it's non-conforming, meaning it doesn't meet the existing structure doesn't meet our requirements

of zoning. they can expand on it and seek a permit to expand on it only by filing a special permit. And the threshold for a special permit is much lower than it is to prove the requirements of a variance. So for that reason, I just want to make sure that everyone in the audience understands what we're dealing with as a board, what the requirements are of of us and what

the level and the burden of proof that the petitioner has to present to us. And all they have to show is that it's not any more detrimental to the neighborhood than what the current existing conditions are. And you've touched upon that. You have, but it's just that the word hardship is really not applicable in this context given the analysis that we are to apply to it under our own zone zoning bylaws. Okay.

Yeah.

So, I wanted that to be clear for everyone.

Yeah. All right. Well, um, but I understand the gist of your argument is that there's going to be an impact and you think that is a substantial detriment to yourself and to also others of the property.

And in this day and age that you couldn't do that, you couldn't do that if you're going to build a new home, right? Correct.

No, if you weren't going to if you're going to build a new home on a new law, you could not do that. No.

But these are exceptions that are created within we're not we didn't create these exceptions.

I understand that. I understand your position. But try to understand ours.

Two wrongs don't make it right. Okay.

So, that's all.

All right. Thank you, sir.

Thank you for listening to me.

No, and I and I did we did read your letter and we did admit it into the record. Okay.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Is there anyone else that would like to come up and speak either in favor or in opposition to this request?

I just have a couple questions. Frank Silver Barno Court.

Mr. Rays mentioned Barno Court not going by the property.

on court goes to the water. Our top stops at their driveway because we paid for that years ago.

And the other thing I question is about a shed or something that's under the porch facing the water. Can you explain that?

No, you actually you have to direct the questions to me and then I can bring him up to ask them. So you're asking about a shed. Is that what you said?

Shed on the drawing under the porch at towards the water that is not there.

Now, um, and another thing, in my youth, when I used to drive piles, there was a lot of vibration.

Okay?

And it's going to take some good equipment to go down that lane.

And it's going to bust up even worse than it is.

Okay? And every time they build something down there, the trucks drive over my slate walkway and in the yard and somebody's got to come fix it.

Well, that's something that would have to be addressed for sure, but um that's not necessarily directly within our purview. Um those are things that you could address with the building inspector. Uh but I'm not sure about the shed. We will ask uh Mr. Rome and I'm sure he'll provide some clarification from that for us. Okay.

Okay. Thank you.

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

Just very quickly, Heidi Brooks, owner of three Bono Court. Um, I just wanted to state that on the drawings it shows it he continues to refer it as a twostory edition, but that addition is built above on pylons above what is currently the garage. So in essence, it'll be a three-story structure. Bono Court is primarily made up of what was once summer cottages, and they have been renovated over the years and and uh

winterized over the years, but most notably directly uh next to Apono Court are two very much little summer cottages. Um also, Mr. Rayom said that the use of property by not creating a nuisance to the abutters. Couple of things there. The construction is a nuisance to the abutters. As we said, it's only a single basically the lane is a driveway. A driveway that is um no bigger than a driveway and any damage

to it is paid for by the residents of the lane. the last owner of the property that did a significant um upgrade to the property and made it what it is today um did not uh offer to pay for any of the damage that was done to the lane at that time.

It had been a two-bedroom cottage. It is he turned it into a one-bedroom cottage since 1950 up until the purchase by Tracy Nunan. It had been used as a residence, a family residence with the two bedrooms. Um, and only towards the very end did it become long-term rental where we would have renters there for years at a time. Once it was purchased by the person that did the initial renovation, it became a short-term

rental and Tracy Nan has used it as a short-term rental. And as far as nuisance to property owners, and this has been told to Tracy Nunan, sometimes her renters are problem renters. They're on the um dock, which her property does not have any deed rights to, but they're on the dock, children without life jackets, causing a concern for the residents who are watching this. So, my concern is

going from this one-bedroom cottage to a tree or three is certainly going to make it more marketable for her, but it's not going to be great for the neighbors.

Currently, it's offered on VBRRO and on Airbnb.

Thank you.

All right. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak either in favor or in opposition to this request? I'm ready.

I'm Sean Redern. I live at um Fib Bono Court. Um I'm against it. Um thank you for uh acknowledging my letter and reading it. Um there were a couple things that um uh the applicant had stated in his presentation here that I wanted to get some clarification on. Um the you you had indicated that uh the current drawings uh do meet FEMA regulations, which they do not.

Um and then you had indicated that uh water runoff uh is uh non is not going to be impactful but what happens water runoff is really looked at as in terms of surface area. So all the surf additional surface areas you're creating on the site are actually adding to the water runoff on the site. So all of those areas need to be part of your calculations.

Um and then the drawings that um are on file with the building department, they do indicate CMU at the base of the building um which he said was not actually Excuse me.

Can you say that again? I missed that.

The drawings.

Yeah. What about the drawings?

Building department.

Yeah. What about them?

They indicate CMU at the base of the building.

So as an architect, this indicates CMU.

CMU. And these are this is a hatch that you would use as CMU.

And what does that refer to specifically?

So this is all this is the whole base of the building that they're showing where he had indicated were breakaway walls.

So block.

Okay. So the existing is not breakaway.

We get that right. And there's going to be a portion which this new structure will sit upon possibly a portion of it on the existing block walls. Correct.

Uh there he has the this is the existing building right here. This is the proposed addition here.

So all of this here that he's showing is CMU.

Okay. It is actually not should be. It should.

So that's not how it was on the design plan. That's what you're saying.

Okay. Fair enough. Okay. Great. Thank you.

Thank you for showing me that.

Um and so we just we seek clarification on this and still don't recommend that you you approve the Where do you live specifically, sir?

I live at Five Bono Court. I overlook the property. When you say you overlook it from so are you so the east the east part of this pro so you're you're easterly of the property correct?

Uh yep I am I am right here. This is the right.

Okay. So you're east of it. I thought you were here but you're here. Okay.

Thank you.

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

Good evening. Pam Redern. I live at 5 Bono Court and I'm opposed to the project as well. Um I just in in addition to uh what you had heard this evening just wanted to point out um the applicant talking about the 12t elevation versus the 19T elevation. If it were to raise seven feet up to meet the FEMA requirements at 19 feet to the underside of the floor structure, that would mean it actually would be more

like 20 feet up to the floor elevation.

You're talking about a difference of about um 20 minus 12 8 feet up. To get 8 feet up takes horizontal distance as well. So that's additional surface area.

that's unaccounted for. In addition to that, the deck that's being proposed, the current deck is um meets the grade by actually coming down to what he's what is the street side. So, if the deck continues across, there would definitely be additional um intrusion into that what he is proposing at 11'9 that would be encroached even further. So I would look very carefully at how if there is a

de a deck um included have that included as part of the application and understand how that actually meets grade and the street frontage setback.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak either in favor or in opposition to this project?

Insula three bottom court.

What number?

Three.

Three bon court. Okay.

We have been residents at three bono court since the early 60s. We have seen lots be improved, homes been improved, and we have noticed through the years that they're residents only, not absentee landlords. We are now going into a different phase on Bono Court.

We have had experiences already with the new owners of nine Bono Court, excuse me, eight Bono Court. They didn't have the same numbers when I started. We have seen uh what's been going on with having short-term rentals. Uh maybe some were longer than short, but nevertheless, they are not owner occupied. When a property is not owner occupied, the neighborhood's going to suffer.

I being 85 years old might be almost the oldest person on the lane. We need access on our 10-ft rideway for an ambulance, a fire a fire state, fire engine, excuse me, or a police car.

It's not easy to use 10 ft for those entities that have to come in to help us out in an emergency. If this construction takes place, they're not going to bring in the materials through the water. They're going to try to bring them down through a 10-ft rideway.

I can't give you all that information that architects can give you. I can't give you all the numbers and all the variances that your board has to look through, but I can tell you from experience, this will be a hardship on the existing neighbors and neighborhood to which this person has never occupied the home long enough to find out what that is.

I hope that you can use sensibility as well as rules and regulations to make our neighborhood stay as it is. It's not a public street like Clarence, Holland Avenue.

It is not a deadend street like Holland Avenue or Cottage Street.

It is a private 10-foot lane giving access to maybe eight summer cottages that have become a full-time residents. And I would appreciate you taking that into consideration and hopefully we can read between the lines.

Thank you.

Anyone else would like to come up and speak either in favor and opposition to this request?

Hi, I'm Michelle Sperry. I oppose. Um, my husband and I own two properties. We own 10 Bonu and 22 Clarence. And I'm just kind of curious what happened with the variance. They've all decided not to go for that. We all showed up for that.

They were not here. Now they're trying to do a special permit.

I don't recall specifically what relief they were seeking under the variance, but whatever it was they were seeking, the building inspector at this point felt that based on what the proposal as it was, cuz I didn't really review the other proposal, and if I did, I don't recall truly, I uh I do know that the building inspector based on his interpretation of our town bylaws and based on the petition that's before the

him and the application, he denied it and said that if he needed if they wanted to pursue it, that they needed to seek relief. for us for a special permit. No variance required, just a special permit. I don't know if there's any significant changes from what was initially proposed. I didn't I didn't compare one to the other. Quite frankly, it's not even relevant because it was an

it was an application that was denied.

Um, and we historically have always denied it. Actually, we didn't usually uh that I think it was one of the first ones in which we've denied it because they didn't someone didn't appear. we would always give them the courtesy of of another date, but that one um I think there was some um influence that was had by people in the audience and we all voted to just deny it without prejudice

and I wasn't I wasn't surprised that they're going to be here again at some point. Um but they're here tonight.

They've presented their case. I' I've got some questions to ask them. Um that's something I don't I don't see the real relevance as to what they were seeking before. All I know is what's here now. Quite frankly, it does require relief and it's probably the lowest threshold of relief that they can seek before our board.

It doesn't have a very high standard, but I do have concerns. I certainly have concerns with the amount of improvement that they're trying to make to this property. This is a very small lot. Um, and there's no square foot there's nothing on this plan that tells me the exact square footage of the existing structure. And if there there is, it's not on the layout here. It doesn't tell

me what the square footage is. Then it doesn't I don't know the exact square footage of the of the two-story building.

Um yeah, I don't have the square footage, but there's a significant amount. Um I just see I see it as a lot of improvement for a very small lot.

Yeah, it's a threetory.

Well, it's got to be a threetory because of the fact that they have to uh put it on.

They're not just doubling the size.

They're they're it's a it's two stories of living space. You don't count the sp the portion of it that's just has a stilt.

Let's just call it the pylons.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Hi, I'm Jane Shapiro and I live directly next door at six Bano Court and I've lived there more than 45 years.

Um, I can confirm everything my neighbors have said.

You can't imagine how tight it is there.

We couldn't even have really have the snow plowed appropriately with this last snowstorm because it's so narrow.

All of us live at the beginning. It goes down and the home in question.

Give me one second. One second. Excuse me. One second. Could you kindly close that door for me, please?

Thank you, sir. I couldn't hear you, ma'am. There's a lot of background noise.

The house in question 8 is at the very end with as as Mrs. Silva said, "Previously, when there were people changing the house, doing construction on it, it was nearly impossible for us to get into our houses.

And now we're all that much older. We're about five, six years older. And some of us are really sick and we might need an ambulance or occupational therapy or a visiting nurse. And I don't know how it's going to be possible because there's really no turnaround. And if this house is changed the way they're advocating, there will be no place to turn around.

So I don't know how it's going to be workable. Furthermore, I hope to impress upon you the fact that this house since it was purchased by the owner has mainly after about two months of her living there has been used only for Airbnb. I looked up the the uh advertisements and if you put on that it's it's built as Mermaid's Lair and if you look on Mermaid's Lair you find seven or eight sites, international

sites, national sites. We've had a wedding there. It's going to be a venue and so our little neighborhood will just be the area preceding the venue and that's not a home for any of us.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak either in favor? Bruce Brooks uh three bundle core just wanted to you know I just pulled out the building permit the proposed square footage is 1152 square ft the total existing is 780 so when you're talking about substantial just that alone I have concerns about just want to clarify that so that way you know you ask for that thank you

if I may Pamela Troy Redford again 5.0 court. Uh I think a lot of the things you've heard clearly logistics of the construction are a concern. I think to the heart of it though the permanent change of the of a reduction in sighteline for safety. That really is at the core of my concern. There's pedestrian um walking right up until you know that setback. So if you were to shorten that, that would just

permanently, I think, create an unsafe condition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else?

All right. Um, Mr. I got a question for you. It was raised by someone something about a shed being on the property. something that's there that was there and it's not no longer there or we we've done our survey just in the past year. So I don't know about a shed that existed before and now it's not there.

So to your knowledge since you started on this project there was not a shed on the land when we surveyed it. There was not a shed now.

Okay.

Um gentlemen are there any comments that you gentlemen would like to make or any questions that you have for Mr.

I don't have anything.

So, Mr. Rem, I have some concerns truly about this the size of this project given the size of the land that it's to be placed upon.

Um, I think it's I think it's substantial is is an understatement for what for what it is. When you when you look at the lot is a lot a little over 4,000 square feet. Is that what it is?

It's just under 5,000 feet.

Just under 5,000. So, it's just under 5,000 square ft and you got 90% of it impervious surface already. And it's unique in that, you know, it's a uh it's a roadway that's a private roadway that's super narrow that serves a lot of homes. It's almost a community within a community from what I can gather. Um I have difficulty with and I know the standard is pretty low for this. Um, but I personally have difficulty with

something of this size on a lot that's this that's this small that's served by a roadway that's this narrow and it's this unique. But I don't like to make decisions until I have all the facts.

And I can only speak for myself. There are two other members of this board. Um, and obviously they have as much input as I do. But I would like to take a drive by and take a look at this myself. I uh I almost want to ask you to plot out the 24 by 24 on stakes. Um so that I could go there and get an assessment as to how

big this is going to be in relation to the property line and in relation to the roadway, in relation to the use or the historical use of this roadway for the people that are butters on this roadway.

Um but I'm not saying that that's going to change my mind one way or the other.

I'm just saying that before I I I would have a definitive decision on this, I would like to go by and look at it. Now, I know that we are in the winter months and we have an extraordinary amount of snow that we don't usually have as persistent as we've had this year. So, um we would be able to stake it out because it would be coming off of the existing structure.

Okay. So, if you could do that, we could get it staked out by the end of next week.

Okay. Now, the problem is is I have the next date that we have is February 26th.

On February 26th, we already have three cases on that day. Um, it's already a heavy day. Um, I would When's our next date after that?

March 2nd.

March 2nd. All right. Well, well, we already have We have the 40B on March 2nd. What do we have for regular matters on 40? None. Okay.

So, would March 2nd work for you for another date for us to come back?

For me. Okay, gentlemen, if there are any comments that you'd like to make either to the audience or to Mr. Rome, um, yes, speak. Yes. Uh, Mr. Chair, uh, I agree that, uh, this lot is unique. Uh, I've been on this board for a long time.

I'm an engineer with structural architectural background and I've I've seen these things. I see it every day.

uh being in the uh uh in the flood zone and the velocity is challenging.

uh if this wasn't I can tell you we can do we we granted before variances on uh uh setback relief within areas that comparable which you know I I agree lot coverage I don't think I have an issue with the lot coverage but I'm not sold I'm not convinced that you can do this size addition without going 50% over the value of the house that triggers another thresholds of of of meeting requirements for

flood storage that you have to be if you if you need to be above elevation 19, how you going to get there on on a with the 11 7 in riser on a on a 10 in or 11 inch thread. we wouldn't be able to get the extra story if but I think this is I don't think you I don't think you're going to qualify for I don't think this is this is going to

be 50%. That's my whole issue. No, I don't I'm not convinced if and I think there's I don't know if you talk to the building inspector now if you meet maybe a smaller addition that it's designed more to to to complement what's there or the neighborhood in some way. you know, this just it looks like a rectangle block that was maximizing the space on the lot. That's my feeling. And uh and

again, if it wasn't in the in the flood and the and the velocity flood and and all those constraints, I would probably feel differently. But it's a very challenging. I don't think I honestly don't think he can do this edition on that lot.

Okay. So I will that's my feeling submit some additional information for you to well the additional information you need to show I think I didn't look at the elevations and in details but uh you you need two means of egress I only see one set of stairs on the site you need to show on the site plan your stairs where do your stairs are I mean they show it

on the elevations but I don't I need to see how you access the the unit um the flood Maybe you can indicate on on the elevation the flood elevation too on the elevation of the buildings.

Yeah.

Uh you know it's straightforward. I your uh my main really my my main concern is if you don't qualify for to to wave the requirements for the flood elevation, you can't build this. And I don't see how you could do it with with the 24 by 24 unless you get some I'm not sure who's going to build this for 100 bucks a square foot, you know, right now materials over that. So I don't even if

he says I'm doing it as the homeowner, you can't justify it.

So that's that's my challenge, you know.

Well, in the interim, um, I just kindly ask that you would Oh, I'm sorry.

No, I was just apologify

the board in the chair here that I've been out there a few times. In fact, uh, when I was growing up, uh, I spent a lot of time in that area.

It bothers me right now that nothing that the town can do about about it, but I think this addition I I agree with my brother here that uh I don't know how it can be done. Mr. Brooks is a builder. He he said that if he could find the guy to build it for that price, he'd hire him.

I'd hire the guy today to build it.

Uh Mr. Rome did a great job on the plans. I don't have any problems with the plans there, but this project doesn't make any sense for that neighborhood.

And it doesn't make any sense uh that we have and no control over the town here, but it doesn't make any sense. We're you know what? We're uh actually sanctioning a person to run a business in a small neighborhood because that's what this woman's doing. She got Airbnb. I just happened to bump into somebody that rented it and now it's what she wants to do is expand that business to the detriment of that

neighborhood. It doesn't make any sense.

I agree with you, but we don't have a bylaw that allows us to prohibit everybody anyone from doing that. They I realize that I just mentioned that because property rights in my my opinion that's one of the reasons why I would I would I would I can't vote for this project no matter how many times we continue it. I just don't see it makes any sense for that neighborhood.

Okay. Um I I mean part of our job is to look at every single case by case and uniqueness. I think this is why I was saying before this being in the on the flood zone and then velocity zone that's problematic for this kind of size addition. Maybe there's something they can do with the building commissioner. I think if you meet the setbacks you get a smaller addition that you need to do.

Maybe you know demonstrate to the building commissioner that you are within the 50% and you don't have to go you know that would be great but I don't see it. I mean, I agree and believe me, I've been on this board what maybe I don't know, close to 12 years now. I mean, 20 years, I'm not sure, but I I find it hard to grasp, you know, and especially when I said with

the background that I have, I I don't see it, you know, I would I would hire a very talented architect or creative and see what you can do.

Like I said, this is just a a block. It just looks like rectangle. Somebody put a block and put a second floor with the roof on it, you know. Doesn't, you know, doesn't complement what's there too, you know. So, okay.

So, Mr. Remem, um, now that you've sort of got a a sense as to what the thinkings are of each of the members of the board. I still leave it up for you to decide whether or not you still would want to plot it out so I could go take a look at it. Um, but I think attorney Faria has sort of and I don't want to speak for him, but I think he's

certainly voiced that given the uniqueness of this and and I think this is almost a neighborhood within a neighborhood. I I think that's a fair assessment of this uh that these people this is this is a private roadway that serves some homes. Um, and even though these people aren't related, but they're related by a road um and they all get served by it. Um, and and the lady said something and she said, "Read between

the lines." And I think that touches upon a lot of what goes on. Even though we don't have bylaws, we don't have bylaws that prohibit us from keeping people from being able to use their properties as an Airbnb. We don't. Um, and if that's something that the people of this town, they want to protect from, then that that's something they ought to consider at town meeting and present

that before town meeting as to how that would be handled. But I can tell you this, um, that that doesn't drive my decision in and of itself. It's more about um the impact that what the construction in and of itself will have on the immediate property and then the surrounding neighbors. And I think it's pretty significant to me, but I wanted to get more of a visual. I'm a conceptual type thinker and learner and

I wanted to see sort of the size of this based on what was plotted out. But you heard what attorney Faria said. So I leave it up to you. If you want to continue it, we can continue it to March 2nd. If you want to put the plots out and the markings, I will go a couple days after. You could just let Michelle know and then she will let me know and I

will take a drive out there to take a look at it.

Yeah, I do want to continue meeting and I will stake it out.

Okay.

Um and I will notify Michelle when it's been staked out.

So, we'll put it on for the March 2nd meeting. It'll be the first case out.

Thank you, Mr. Rome.

Um I'll entertain a motion to continue it.

I move we continue. Uh I don't have you have the numbers of that.

Yeah. Special permit uh ZP-25-6 to March.

Second.

Second.

That's 5:00.

5:00.

Second.

All in favor?

I I the eyes have it. So for everyone in the audience and the viewers at home, this case is being continued to Monday.

Not going to be a Thursday. It's Monday, March 2nd at 5:00 p.m.

And in the interim, it's it's been made public that I will go and take a look at the site. I want to see what I don't think I've ever been on Barno Court. I was born and raised in this town, but I don't ever think I've been on Barno Court. I want to see what it looks like and get a sense as to what the structure if it were built, what it would the sort

of get a sense of the impact it would have to the road and to the to the use of the road and to the immediate abutters. Okay, thank you.

Fair enough.

All right, be well, folks. Have a nice night.

All right. Um, we're going to take a uh five or 10 minute recess.

Good evening and welcome to the zoning board of appeals meeting of February 12th 2026.

We started the meeting with local matters. We now have the 6:00, we're running a little late, but the 6:00 portion of tonight's hearing is designated to 40B and it's a continuation of comprehensive permit ZCMP-25-1 and it was continued from January 8th, 2026. The petitioner is Mr. Paul Cussen.

The owner is Bliss Investors LLC. The subject property is 970 Tucker Road. Um, it's also known as map 46, lot 2, and it's in a single residence B district.

I'm not going to go through the whole dissertation. And we all know that this is a 40D project. They're seeking to at this point I believe it's 137 units at the former site of the Hawthon Country Club and it's now called the Hawthon. So we are here tonight to obviously we're opening the hearing again. We will have public comments available. I will allow public comments later on in the meeting.

But first we're going to hear upon some town officials. We have Mr. Tim Barber and we have Mr. Daniosa who is going to explain to us um some of the waiverss that are being put together. There was a list I don't think I think you might have seen them up there before for those who haven't they look like this. There are numerous of them at this point. I don't know. Let's see

what the number is at this point.

100 11 111 111 waivers.

A nice number. So obviously I'm I'm hopeful that some of this stuff is just, you know, we can paraphrase over it, but we're going to hear from I'll call upon Mr. Tim Barber, put him on a hot hot seat first.

Well, I I I'm going to go first if that's okay with you, Mr. Chair.

Okay. I just want to set the context for everyone.

Actually, before you do that, I want to just explain one more thing. So, we've always had three members of this board.

Attorney Newman um has been sitting since day one of the hearings of this particular case. However, unfortunately, he was not able to be here tonight. I've been told through council and also based my understandings under the law, we're able to proceed with just two members of the board, myself and uh Mr. Mr. Excuse me, Mr. Schuba. Uh and we are voting members of the board. Uh it will be

required that prior to the next hearing date that Mr. Attorney Alvin will have to listen to tonight's meeting via video. He'll watch the video. He has to sign a affidavit. It's a Mullen's uh it's under Mullen rule and he signs it indicating he reviewed it. He understands what was what transpired and he can do that I believe at least one only one time uh and still serve as a voting member. So we're following the

rules that are allowed by us. Um unfortunately he couldn't be here this evening. We tried to see if we could accommodate it but it wouldn't wouldn't work for him or us. So as a result we're moving forward. He will be here at the next hearing is my understanding. Uh as to what date that is that hasn't been said as of yet. That'll be something we'll discuss towards the latter part of

the meeting. So now I'll turn it over.

Oh, excuse me. One of the things. Oh, yes. I also need to reiterate that Dr.

Agai has previously recused himself on this project on this request. He's not he's an alternate member of this board, but he's not partaking in any decision-m or any part of the decision-m process.

Um he basically simply sits here today as an abuter as all of you. He's an abuter to the project. no different than anyone here in the audience, either here in person or television audience. So now at this point, I guess I can turn it over to Attorney um Murphy.

Okay. Thank you. Um I just wanted to kind of set the stage um for everyone since there's a lot of information, a lot of it's going to be technical um that uh probably Mr. Farland and the staff members will be speaking to. So, as part of the 40B process, the zoning board sits as every other local board.

So, you sit as if you're the planning board or as if you're the board of health, as if you're the um DPW committee, you sit in theirstead under chapter 40B. And as part of that process as well, the applicant is permitted to request waiverss from any local regulations um that they don't wish to comply with.

they state the reason why. Um then the board needs to review those waivers and make a determination whether or not to approve or grant or deny the waivers. So in this case there is this chart that was provided by the applicant. Part of the reason why it's expanded over time is because the original list was much more generic in nature. What is referred to as blanket waivers. blanket waivers

are not appropriate because it's kind of a wholesale waving a whole bylaw or a whole sections of the bylaw. So, they did do what was requested, which was to break down all of those different regulations and list out all of the various sections that they wanted waiverss from. What's a little bit different here and I I know it's going to be hard for anyone sitting here to to read that. So, because the print is very

small, but you know, we'll try to explain it the best we can since they won't be able to read it themselves. But the reason why there's three different colors on what's before the board and what's up on the screen, there's items that rows that are in white. Those are uh waiver requests in which um the the your peerreview consultant and your town officials overviewed it and there's a

couple legal issues. So I'm in here too have are recommending what the board's action might be. Um there's a few that are in yellow and those kind of came in in the last kind of wave of updates to the waiver request where some clarification is needed. So that's why they're in yellow. we might need to discuss them or the board may wish to discuss them in a little more detail.

Um, and then there's the items in blue.

And the items in blue, you'll see there's a there's a row where it says waiver request, but it doesn't say waiver. It says post approval. And this is information or design or calculations or whatever it may be that is required under one of the local regulations but the applicant has not prepared those materials or that information yet. So it's never been presented or submitted to the board. And what they are stating

is that they are going to sub if if assuming an approval of this project that they would submit all of this information after the fact. So it's it's three different categories of of kind of requests that are here. And what I wanted to do was at least just set up the context for it. Um and and what I'll do is I'll just I'll just speak to um kind of the the recommended action um by

the board on all the blue items, but then when you get to the all the other items, the technical items, I'll turn it over to the people who know the technical. Um one of the things that's important to um note is this project is a subdivision. A subdivision is a legal term that's defined under the subdivision control law, which is under Mass General Laws chapter 41. And under 81L, it defines a subdivision. And

basically, they're taking one lot and they're putting in subdivision roadways and creating multiple different lots.

They It is a subdivision. This just because this is a 40B does not mean that the subdivision control law doesn't apply. The state law apply all state laws apply to all 40bs. So subdivision control law applies to this project. The only question is whether or not the board will grant waiverss to any of the local planning board regulations that the planning board adopted in order to

administer the subdivision control law.

So um you'll see on some of them are maybe a little bit different but for the most part and I and I'll read it. It's it's on the far right, so you can't see it on the screen, but for all of the blue that you see where it's saying whatever the regulation is that they'll say we'll submit this information after the fact if you approve our project. Um, what I what I have prepared this

language for the board's consideration.

It says post approval submission with the definitive subdivision, which they will have to submit a definitive subdivision plan. So post approval submission with the definitive subdivision permitted subject to peer review by the civil engineer if required as determined by the DPW director. But no waiver from this regulation is granted as no information has been provided during the hearing for the

board or peer review. And then changes un shown on the definitive subdivision plan require a notice pursuant to and then I cite the statute 7 the regulation 760 CMR 56.0511.

And so what that regulation, that's a 40B regulation. And what that regulation says is if after a comprehensive permit is granted by the board, an applicant desires to change the details of its project as approved by the board, it shall promptly notify the board in writing describing such change. And then within 20 days, the board shall determine and notify the applicant whether it deems the changes substantial

or insubstantial. And if the board deems that they're substantial, then they will have to come back. So typically once you get approved, you're not supposed to be required to come back to the board for ministerial or plan cleanup or that type of thing. But if you make substantial changes to the plans after a permit has been granted, the board looks at the plans, deems whether they're substantial

or not, and if the board finds are substantial, they will have to come back for a new hearing on those plans. So, um, although you will see there are, you know, we we can go into as much detail and like I said, if we want to get into the technical detail on any of the items, you have Mr. Farland and you have your town officials here who are experts. But as a in general, just in

summary, any item that's on blue has pretty much almost verbatim the same recommended language that um that the board could consider adopting with respect to these items if you get to a vote, a favorable vote on the project.

And I'm happy I know that's a lot of information, but I'm happy to answer questions.

I I kind of get the gist of what you're trying to say.

Yeah.

Um said I'm noticing that there's a lot of blue, right?

So for the for the most part and you'll see so at the top of each sheet it says the regula the regulation. So the first one storm water, the next couple of pages are subdivision rules and regulations. And in effect, what has been submitted is what might be considered a preliminary subdivision plan under the subdivision control law where it's basically a very barebones subdivision plan where not a lot of

information is given and the board, you know, the planning board typically would review it just like almost like an informal review. It it doesn't matter whether if this was the planning board, it wouldn't matter whether the preliminary plan was approved, denied.

It it doesn't have any legal, you know, substance to it. The purpose of this of the preliminary plan is for the planning board to take an initial peak at what the developer is proposing and give them feedback like when you come back, you have to do this, you've left out that, you need to provide this information.

So, in effect, what you have before you is a preliminary subdivision plan. I would say it doesn't even meet the requirements of a preliminary subdivision plan under the town's rules and regulations. So, for example, it doesn't give you the lot size of every lot, the frontage of every lot, etc. But let's just say in effect, it's as if you were given a preliminary plan. And pretty much everything in blue here is

what's required when you submit a definitive subdivision plan, which they will be required to do even under 40B.

Okay. All right. So, um I I think then maybe it makes sense to then we can maybe skip over the blue um at this point and maybe start walking through the the items in white that starts with line five. And at this point, I would talk turn it over okay to the DPW director.

All right.

Please state your name.

Tim Barber, uh Department of Public Works director.

Good evening.

All right. So, you're going to explain to us and the public here at large just what's what some of these regulation uh some of these waiverss what they actually mean and how it is that they're arriving and you're feeling that it meets the requirements that the town regs have provided for. Is that what you're going to basically indicate to us?

Yes.

Okay. Great.

So on item number five um storm water management plan which is required in the town storm water regulations. The waiver was requested and based on that the the 40B project and the applicant is filing a plan that a storm water plan that meets mass D standards.

We recommend the waiver.

Okay.

Um on number six, uh general performance standards for all sites. Uh where the 40B project the applicant is filing a plan again that meets the mass D standards. U we we recommend the waiver on number seven where the applicant has requested a waiver from uh pollutant removal thresholds. So both total suspended solids where uh the town bylaw and storm water regulations require removal of 90% total suspended solids

and 60% of uh phosphorus.

Um the local requirement exceeds the mass EP storm water standards and due to this being a sensitive area um draining into a aer 2 zone and then indirectly into the Pasamit River which currently has a total maximum daily load of of pollutant load and nutrient loading that cannot be exceeded along along with the town's wells being just west of the passing man river we request that this waiver is denied.

All right. So just for clarification, assuming that we were to deny the waiver, what onus or burden does that put upon the applicant to design their storm water treatment systems to meet those standards of 90% uh removal of suspended solids and 60% of nutrients and that's to meet our local standards even though they exceed correct the state standards?

Yes.

Okay, great. Thank you.

And that would be excuse me, Mr. That would be submitted after the post development or prior.

No, no, they we're saying that they we would deny the waiver. So, no, no, I know you were denied the waiver, but they have to comply, but would they they have to comply post the So, they I see what your question is.

Okay.

So, what what's your thought on that, Susan?

Well, my understanding, but Mr. Farland could correct me, is that at this point they've submitted everything they plan on submitting. Mhm.

So it would become this would get rolled into the conditions if the board were to approve it. There's going to be an I mean obviously there's lots of information that's going to need to be submitted and this would be included. It would have to be an updated storm water report that shows that they designed it to that standard. So, let's assume we've got a litany of of conditions that we

feel as a board would adequately address the concerns of the immediate abutters, people in the town, traffic, storm water, all of that. We have a bunch of them and they don't agree to those conditions. What happens then?

They could appeal the permit. So, even if you typically people think, oh, you deny your permit, then the applicant may appeal. But it it can even if you get granted a permit, if you don't if agree with the conditions, whatever board, whether it's this board, any board, if you don't agree with the conditions, you can appeal it. With a chapter 4B project, there's a state uh created

board by statute under chapter 40p. It's called the housing appeals committee, and their sole job is to hear appeals of applicants who are unhappy with a zoning board's decision. So that would be at their option to appeal.

Who would be present at that hearing to basically support the determination made by this board?

So typically how it how it works at the housing appeals committee is they would file their appeal and they would list all of their disagreements with the either either disagreeing with the board's conditions or disagreeing with the board's determinations on the waiverss. They can object to either. Um and then both sides would have their expert witnesses. So typically um the expert witnesses for both sides

would make their case first. They do it in written pleadings.

Okay. um as to defend like either the the zoning board's experts defending the board's decisions or the applicants experts explaining why they believe that the board's decisions were inappropriate. Um and then there may also be um a trial where based on the pleadings each at the attorney for each side can cross-examine the other side's witnesses and that's done in front of the housing appeals committee and then

they take it under advisement. They're like a they're not a court, but they're like the equivalent of a threeperson adjudicatory body and they take it under adisement and then eventually they will issue a written decision and state which side that they believe um was more credible um in presenting their evidence. So that's the process.

And the people that sit on that committee, are they retired judges or are they lawyers?

No, they're appointed by um the governor.

Okay.

Um, sorry we went down that track. I just wanted some clarification on that to see where if you know if it goes down that path where things are going to go.

Um, didn't mean to interrupt you.

Continue, Mr. Barber.

Thank you.

Number eight, um, of the storm water regs uh, waiverss uh, regulatory compliance documentation summary. So, uh, the basis, um, that it's duplicative of the mass D and federal storm water compliance documentation.

So, we recommend that it's waved to the extent uh, the regulations. is dup duplicative of mass D and federal standards, but the project should be subject to other storm water regulations that are not waved by the ZBA as they have been adopted to comply with Diamond's MS4 permit in accordance with state law.

Okay.

The number nine uh waiver uh in regards to low impact development narrative uh mass D encourages u low impact development but does not mandate LI construction. Um so we recommend that it it is waved as well.

Number 10, uh, building on steep steep slopes. Um, 40B, the 40B applicant is filing a plan that is meeting MAP standards. So, we recommend waving allowing this waiver.

Okay.

And number 11, um, requests a waiver of a 10-minute uh, time of concentration. Uh, the six minute basis of the the waiver is that the recommended minimum of 0.1 per hour is utilized and they they currently they are meeting this requirement but they requested to keep the waiver in case they need to use it in the future.

uh we recommend it's denied as the requirement is met and as part of a blanket waiver that should not be granted.

The uh sections 12 through 21 are also colored in blue which are considered uh post approval.

Yeah, we're going to we're going to skip those for tonight.

Skip those.

So section 21 um a waiver requesting uh that waving the inspection and site supervision of the DPW uh for the storm water construction. Uh on the basis that the the project will be a private development. Uh we recommend that this is denied. Um as typically the the town of Dammouth uh Department of Public Works is the inspectional authority for the town for storm water construction for for subdivisions.

One correction. I just want to make sure you may have a different version from what I have. You referred to it as number 21, but I think that was number 22 on my It was 22. Sorry.

Okay, no problem.

Number 23, a waiver requesting uh shity of the project um based on this being a private development and we're recommend that it is waved subject to the compliance with Mass General Law chapter 41 section 81U with the provision of security.

So, and and Mr. Chair, I can explain. So again, that's a section of the subdivision control law and so it's a state law and under section 81U anyone who builds a subdivision is required to provide some form of security to typically it's the planning board in this case it will be to the zoning board and it's either in the form of a covenant so no lots can be released until they meet certain conditions or

they can provide a cash shity or a bond.

So there's different options under the subdivision control law. The applicant can choose which of those they wish to provide, but they must provide one under the subdivision control law. So that's I just wanted to uh explain the statuto refing board does. They take covenants.

Exactly the same thing except you are the planning board in this instance.

Form F covenants or something in uptown.

Are they form F?

They form F covenants or it's a performance covenant.

Performance covenant. Okay. But there's a form for it. I thought it was just our designations.

Fair enough.

Number 24. Uh requesting a waiver of final reports on the basis that this would be a private development and reporting in accordance with state regulations. We request that this is denied as we would request uh final reports for for all construction of the storm water.

In uh addition to that, again with our MS4 state regulations and federal regulations, we're required to report on the storm water and the storm water uh operations and maintenance year after year.

Number 25, uh the request of the waiver for the certif certificate of completion of the storm water. Uh due to this being a private development and reporting in accordance with state regulations, uh we would recommend a partial waiver to the extent that specific waiverss are granted to any of the storm water regulations, but not on uh any that are not waved or recommended for denial.

So then we're moving to the subdivision rules and regulations. I don't know if Mr. Giosa um would like to speak to these.

Sure. Um for the record, Daniel Giosa um planning director here in Dartmouth. Um so the first one under line 28 um this is a waiver of the form C application.

As mentioned the ZBA will act as the approving authority on this. Um so the they are asking to not have to file that form C application with the planning board. So that is um recommended to be an approved waiver request. Number 33, plan order. Um throughout these these comments and postapproval comments, the applicant is pretty much planning to provide all that information. So um

there's no need to to grant that waiver.

So we are recommending to deny that one.

Um for plan content notes again these are notes that are typical of a subdivision. So it'll just as instead of the planning board it'll be the ZBA. So that one is a recommended to deny locus size.

Basically just making the locus at the size requested. Um so that is a request for deny.

Going down to number 41 property monuments.

So this is a partial um recommendation.

They are proposing only 12 permanent markers for the whole subdivision. If they were coming before the planning board, they would require monumentation.

Uh any change in curvature of the road.

So anytime the road bend, it'd be a bound at the at the at the tangent points. Um that is a lot of bounds for this subdivision. Um we understand that.

So, we were recommending a partial waiver that requires monuments at all the intersections and at the culde-sacs, but wave monuments for for the changes within the the roadway itself.

Going down to number 43.

Uh again, plan notes. Um so, it is our um recommendation to deny that one.

Number 45. Um this is street and utility plan requirement. Um, again, this goes back to what Attorney Murphy had mentioned. Um, this is a subdivision, so the subdivision control law will will apply. It'll just be um for the ZBA to make those decisions.

Number 47.

Again, these are notes for the street and utility plans. It is a subdivision, so we are recommending denying that waiver.

On to the next page. Number 49. Um, alternate roadway designs provide safe access while minimizing imperous areas.

It's not a specific waiver they're looking for, just by definition. So, the recommendation is to deny that waiver request.

Um, wave law access and frontage limitations of street classifications.

Um, this is number 50. This goes into the request for um layouts and how the roads are are determined for different different volume of lots. So we are recommending that waiver number 51 wave maximum number of lots service served by combination of residential service streets. Again same same comment on that. So we recommend the waiver for that one. All right.

Number 52 allow straight lengths of roads in excess of 300 ft. In our regulations, we looked for curve linear roads. Helps with um reduction in speed safety concerns. Um it's not something to say that that it's not acceptable from from a state standard. So we are recommending yes on that waiver. Number 54 again allow straight lengths of road in excess of 300 feet. Same comment. So yes on that waiver down to number 58

wave requirements that all roadways be constructed in accordance with DPW specifications.

Uh we are saying yes on that provided that all roads in the develop development are maintained as private roadways in perpetuity.

So they wouldn't be eligible for acceptance by the town. Number 61 allow shoulders area horizontal grade of 1.5%.

Um, we recommend granting that waiver request. Number 62, wave requirements for guardrails where planning board opines hazards such as drop offs, steep grades or water bodies. Um, we obviously the safety concerns. Um, so we are recommending to deny that one except to note that the ZBA is making the determination rather than the planning board.

Um again, this is necessary for safety for vehicles, pedestrians, um especially children in a subdivision of this size.

Number 64, street trees. Um they're looking for an alter alternative street trees designed and will be finalized post approval. Again, u we are recommending a partial waiver on that.

um street trees required, but prior to commencement of construction, applicant must submit a plan that includes the location and spacing that will be subject to to review and approval by the planning director. Um number 66, this goes back to very similar to one before talking about roadway monuments. Um recommend a partial waiver that requires monuments at all intersections and at

the culde-sacs. recommends waiverss for any change in roadway curvature.

Um 67 um this is for a drainage um waiver storm water to comply with mass D standards. Um we are um recommending a partial waiver on that. So there are parts of of the drainage um that don't coincide with with um the D uh DPW's new storm water regulations. So as long as um they're in compliance with those storm water regulation um we will agree on the waiverss for that.

Number 70. Community mailboxes location per final plan are approved under equivalent by building commissioner.

Yes. Subject to review and approval of location by planning director.

Um number 71 subdivision control law doesn't apply was was was the the basis for that. um subdivision control law does apply but wave as not applicable to this project.

The same would be for the next two stonewall prot protection and specimen tree protection. Um the subdivision control law will apply but we can wave it as not applicable to this project. Um specifically um approvements outside of subdivision.

This is number 74.

um recommends to deny as both applicants traffic consultant and board's peerreview consultant have recommended conditions related to adjacent public ways outside the subdivision and those conditions should be included in the board's decision. Also, subdivision control uh applies to this project.

On to the next page at 75. Now, um, homeowners association, um, again, the the the basis subdivision control, oop, sorry, number 76, there was 75 was a category. Thank you, Tim.

Subdivision control does not apply. Um, again, this kind of goes into yes, the planning board is not involved, but um, we recommend that this still be submitted to the town planner for review and approval rather than the planning board. Um, this just gives us a chance to look at how that that homeowners association is is written and allow for comment. Um, review of other municipal or local agencies. Um, this is being

reviewed by the zoning board and town consultants. So, um, recommend yes for that waiver.

Number 78 for public hearings.

Subdivision control law does apply but they can wave this as planning board hearing as again the ZBA is sitting as as the planning board under MGL chapter 40B.

Um number 79 decision of the planning board. Yes, except as to any applicable requirements under the subdivision control law which will be administered by the board.

Number 80, subsequent action to a definitive plan. Uh recommending to deny this waiver request. The project constitutes a subdivision as det as defined in MGL chapter 41 section 81L and therefore the subdivision control law does apply. Due to the amount of information that the applicant has indicated will be designed and submitted post approval, the definitive subdivision may require a notice of

project change under 760 CMR 56.0511.

In addition, this project is subject to MGL chapter 41, section 81U and all other applicable provisions of the subdivision control law as a state law as to the requirements for endorsement of the definitive subdivision plan and for the release of those lots.

And I just want to note and and we can maybe go through all of the ones in white first um and then talk about what's best. We did um the the staff and Mr. Gabriel who's your peerreview engineer had not had a chance to go back to Mr. Farland with their questions of the items in yellow. So we can either discuss them at the end if the board wishes with Mr. Farland or he's just

seeing this for the first time himself.

We could hold off until next time.

Whatever the board decides, but I just wanted to Yeah, we can skip them for now.

Yeah. Okay. So then the next is the zoning bylaw. So might be Mr. Giosa again. That's You want me to go through these?

Yeah. The ones in white. Well, the first one, I'll just speak to the one in green and and Mr. Parland, this might just be something we clean up in the waiver chart going forward. There was a a waiver requested which we don't believe is needed because we believe the subdivision subdivision roads or subdivision projects is exempt from the earth and soil removal bylaw. There was a waiver asked, it was put under zoning

bylaw, but I believe they meant to ask for a waiver of the earth and soil removal bylaw. However, that bylaw has an exemption for subdivisions. So, we don't believe that you need the waiver, but if you want to take a look at that, Mr. Brown, let us know if you think you need it. Okay. All right. Sorry. So, we're on 84.

Okay. Um, this is for zoning bylaw um under section 3758.2.

Um, the underlying zoning district, single residence B. um does not allow for two families. Um but we are recommending the waiver to grant the 14 two family homes as proposed. Um the next one number 86 has to do with lot frontage. Um allow lots what they are requesting is allow lots with less than 200 ft of frontage. Um we are commenting to wave only to the extent of the dimensional information provided on the

zoning table on sheet one of 34 in the plan set. last revision January 7th, 2026.

Um, under section 3758.4G2, minimum parking ratios and layout standards. Um, the basis commented was to allow parking spaces within 10 ft from perimeter property lines and within 20 ft from street lines. Um, we are recommending that waiver request. Under 375 8.4 4 G4 allow parking spaces to be 9 by8. We are also recommending yes on that waiver request 37524 site plan review regulations. Um

comment was site plan review wouldn't apply. We agree waiver not required as this is a subdivision.

37525 limits on size and location of project signage. Um, project signage limited to identification and safety needs. Um, this was listed as a no. Uh, Mr.

Chairman, if I can through um, Attorney Murphy, we were just looking for more clarification on that one. Right.

Right. So, I mean, it's just for a blanket waiver for all of the signage dimensional requirements. So, it's unclear why whatever I mean street signs are the size of street signs, stop signs are stop signs. So, we're not sure what kind of signage would need a waiver. So that's why it it seemed like a blanket waiver without any further clarification as to the type of signage would that would need a waiver.

Okay.

Well, do we need clarification from them on that as to what Yeah. Well, I I think if they would like the waiver, they should provide specifics about well well we're we want to have a sign at the front entrance and we want it to be this big. like then that would be something that the your staff could evaluate and say, "Okay, yeah, it's two square feet bigger. No big deal." But you don't we don't have

any of that. We didn't have any of that information to evaluate and it seemed like a blanket waiver.

I was thinking of it as for, you know, driving signage, you know, so people will know where to go, where to park, things of that nature.

MUTCD, I believe, right? Is that recommended by the traffic engineer?

Would would not We're not talking about the directional and the uh a flow of traffic within the subdivision, right? We're not talking about that unless we are if we are then you asking me Mr. Jim.

Yes.

Yeah. I think um in this case would it would most likely be the signage in the front for the development.

Okay.

But we can Is there anything on the plan that shows that there's going to be a sign and what the size is?

There's not just just the um just the street signage is on the plan.

Okay.

But we could um this is this request was about the signage out in front I believe so. Okay.

Okay.

So, the next one would go um back these are the the DPW um construction specifications.

Um so, I think we can go back to the DPW director. Yep.

Thank you. Um 96 uh requesting a waiver of general provisions. Uh this section should only apply to work within the public way and not within the private development. Uh specifically the inspectional requirements. Uh we recommend a partial waiver as to DPW inspection of roadways only subject to compliance with the subdivision regulations and that the the roadway is maintained as a private roadway in perpetuity

based on not being inspected by the department of public works.

97 uh for road construction waiver. Um 40 tob projects a private development.

Material specifications shall be per the details within the plans and not per mass dot specifications specifically gravel, concrete and asphalt requirements for parking lots, roadways, sidewalks and driveways. Uh we recommend a partial waiver again subject to pavement design calculations for public safety subject to third-party inspections within compliance with the subdivision regulations and maintained

as a private roadway in perpetuity.

So I just if you don't mind I'm just going to jump in. So for example, Mr.

chair. We'd want to the town would want to be sure that the fire trucks like the roadways are designed to a proper load that a fire truck could would not sink the road, that type of thing.

Okay.

Is that right? Did I get that one right?

Absolutely.

Okay.

Number 98 on drainage construction as a 40B projects a private development uh requesting a waiver of uh highdensity polyethylene flared ends to be allowed rather than the specification of concrete fillet ends and we recommend this being denied. Uh the the requirement or specification of concrete fls and endline uh pipe sections is considered a safety uh specification in case of of fire um in a field or within

the drainage system. It could it could pose a hazard if if you use a polyethylene pipe versus a concrete pipe.

Um section number 99 also on drainage construction. uh requesting a waiver of frames, covers, gradings, and hoods that they should be per plan and do not have to be manufactured within the US. A and frame casting shall be raised by means of methods of the contractor and polyropylene grade adjustment rings are not required. Uh we recommend waving this requirement subject to the drainage

facilities being privately maintained along with the roadway in perpetuity.

Number 100 also drainage construction uh requesting a waiver of the outlet control structures uh that they should be per plan and not in accordance with department of public works standards specifically wear plates and trash baffles. Uh we recommend uh waving allowing this waiver uh subject to the drainage facilities being privately maintained in perpetuity.

101 uh waiver for also for drainage construction on the back fill material and methodology per design engineer and not per department of public works or mass DOT specifications.

We recommend allowing this waiver uh provided the back filling material meets the drainage pipe manufacturer specifications and drainage facilities are privately maintained in perpetuity.

102 requesting a waiver of rip wrap per uh from DPW and Mass DOT specifications.

We recommend waving this uh provided that the RIP wrap meets uh specifications and drainage facilities are privately maintained in perpetuity.

Number 103 SE water main construction. Uh the applicant stated that this section should only apply to work within the public way not within privately de private developments spec specifically the inspectional requirements.

Uh we recommend uh denying this uh because the water service for the development will be provided by the municipal water system. All components of the water distribution system within the development must comply with materials and construction methods which also apply to all private residential and commercial developments which is served by the mun municipal water system.

Section 104 also requesting a waiver of thrust block material and methodology per design for the design engineer for water main construction.

uh request that this is denied on the same grounds. Uh that the water service or the development will be provided by the municipal water system. All components of the water distribution system within the development must comply with materials and construction methods which also apply to all private residential and commercial developments which is served by the municipal water system.

Excuse me. I may I ask a question, Mr.

Chair?

Absolutely. Would would that they also apply to any uh town projects? Do town projects have to comply with these as well?

So it would be private or public?

Private.

Would that be a like a clarification to make? Okay.

Yes.

So 105 the applicant has requested a waiver of chlorinating bacterial bacterial and pressure testing by third party engineers and and not in accordance with department of public works specifications. Uh we we also recommend denying this based on uh this the water service for the development will be provided by the municipal water system and all components of the water distribution system will be within the

development must comply with materials and construction methods which also apply to private, residential, commercial and public uh water main construction.

106. Uh the applicant's requesting a waiver for a sanitary sewer construction.

Um that the section should only apply to work within the public way and not within the private development.

I recommend denying this because the sewer service for the development will be provided also by the municipal sewer system. All components of the sewer system within a development must comply with materials and construction methods which apply to all private, residential and commercial and public developments which are served by the municipal sewer collection system.

107 request for waiver of the frames, covers, gradings and hoods that they be per plan and and not have to be manufactured within the USA. Frame casting should be raised by means and methods of the contractor and polyropylene grade adjustment rings are required. I recommend denying on the same grounds that the service the sewer service for the development will be provided by the municipal sewer system.

All construction components of the sewer system will be must comply with materials and construction methods which apply to all private, commercial and public developments which is served by the municipal sewer system.

Number 108 I mean yes 108 requesting a waiver of the back filling material in methodology per the design engineer rather than uh the department of public works and mass DOT specifications. I recommend denying this as well because the sewer service for the development will be provided by the municipal sewer system. All components of the sewer system within development must comply with the

materials construction methods which apply to all private, commercial and public development served by the comm municipal sewer system.

Section 109 applicant requested a waiver for testing by from that not in accordance with department of public works specifications but by a third party engineer.

uh recommend denying this as well because the sewer service for the development will be provided by the municipal sewer system. All components of the sewer system within development must comply with materials and construction methods which apply to all private, residential, commercial and public developments which are served by the municipal sewer system.

110. Uh the applicant requested a waiver of the summary sheet of approved materials for all all construction.

Um this we recommend denying this as it's a blanket waiver. As a rule, the zoning board of appeals should not grant what is commonly known as a plan waiver or blanket waiver to accommodate conditions that may be apparent on the developer's plan but not specifically identified in a list of waiverss requested by the developer. the chapter 40B handbook for zoning board of appeals dated March 2017 page 26

and number 111 uh the applicant requested a waiver from the town of Dartmouth uh construction details and that they ask that they they only be uh within the public way and for connections. Um, we recommend also denying this waiver as a blanket waiver.

As a again, as a rule, the zoning board of appeals should not grant what is commonly known as a plan waiver or a blanket waiver to accommodate conditions that may be apparent on the developers plan, but not specifically identified in a list of waivers requested by the developer. Again, chapter 40B handbook for zoning board of appeals dated March 2017, page 26.

That Mr. Chair, that's the end of the list. I would note um that Mr. Farland did get these recommendations tonight, so he's just seeing them for the first time. And also, like I said, we um the your team had not had a chance yet to follow up with him for clarifications on the item in yellow.

Okay.

But that otherwise that brings us through the list.

All right. So, um we don't have any peerreview consultants here this evening. Um we do have the petitioners engineer. they're here. Um, but I did and I I have repeatedly said I would allow people to ask questions who have any concerns. So, at this point in time, I think that you've heard a lot of the requests that are being made for waiverss. And is there anyone in the audience that has any questions with

some of the recommendations or suggestions that have been made by either the DPW director or the um town planner as to some of the denials and some of the approvals of the waiverss.

If there's anything specific and obviously I I guess at some point if anyone wanted to see the list we we could provide that to them. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

No. Um Miss Vier could post it to the public portion of the ZBA website. post it.

We'll post it. So, it'll be on the website if anyone wants to see what they are.

So, we are opening up to the public for comment. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to come up and raise any of the concerns that you may have uh about the project? But before we do that, yes, I did make one promise. There is an issue that's been sort of lingering out there with regard to the access for emergency vehicles from this site onto Fairway Drive.

We did receive a letter or an opinion from an attorney. I think it was attorney Matthew provide us an opinion that sort of uh led us to believe that he there was the ability to access Fairway Drive given some um relationship and I don't remember the specifics about it. It was already a few weeks ago. Uh however that is more of a private interest in property that they're not we're not directly involved in. But the

immediate butters or some of the immediate butters have engaged council an attorney who's presented us with a letter and that letter is of a different opinion as to the availability of Failway Drive for access from this site for emergency purposes or any purposes for that matter. And I think that's attorney Dan Perry. Um, at this time I'll invite you to come up and explain to us your client's position.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Um, I, um, can we start with just one thing first?

Who do you actually represent?

The Mil Valley Farm Condominium Association.

Right. And who are they specifically?

The trustees or they they are one of the condominiums that has frontage on Fairway Drive.

Okay. So they have they're the association that governs the the usage of fairway drive as a private way.

They they are one of the one of the um organizations. Each of each of those several condominiums has an organization. Each of them uses Fairway Drive for access. I'm speaking tonight only for Mil Valley Farm Condominium.

Okay. And how many unit owners are part of that organization?

14.

14.

14. Okay, thank you. I just wanted some clarification on this so I know who was actually making the request.

Um, so, um, I am members of board, I'm I'm addressing a very a very technical legal issue tonight. Uh, and, um, I expect you are looking for guidance from your council on that. So, I in some to some extent addressing my arguments to her as well as the board. You're all you several of you are lawyers. Um, but uh I would like to review the whole thing and show you in specifically what what's

going on here. Um, the opinion of attorney Matthew that was referred to earlier, um, stated, and I have not addressed this in my opinion because I just I didn't see it at the time, stated that he felt that a 1980 deed from the developers who were then were Dorothy Agai and William Scheler uh, to the first condominium project uh, reserved rights of access over Fairway Drive. and he

inferred from that that that reservation would be a benefit for all the property.

Um I think that's clearly wrong. Uh the fact that they reserve the rights which they had to because they they were going to develop those other condominiums does not mean they were committing themselves to grant it to any to uh in the future to any specific project. And I think you have to look at the circumstances of the original deed that deeded out the Haw Country Club property to understand what

happened. Um, historically, there was a subdivision that created the ways that um, we're talking about now um, several years before that parcel went out. They used those ways subsequently in other in other projects but the permitting scheme that was part of that subdivision was abandoned.

What happened next was a they created a an ANR plan for the u for the country for the country club itself and in analyzing this question um I think it's important to uh keep in mind the doctrine that creates these rights of way which is a little bit obscure but most easement rights in on subdivision plans are created by a doctrine called easement by estoppel and that is that says that if

you grant a um a lot on a subdivision plan that shows a way you by implication of law give that lot the right to use the way. Um easement by a stople also applies when you don't refer to a plan but you describe the frontage as being on a way. In both those circumstances the owner of that lot gets right away.

What's unique about this project was the um the owners of the property took great care to avoid characterizing these these roads that had been shown earlier plumes as ways. And if I may close the board, I want to show you the most important plan here.

This is a that's part of your letter.

That's one of the exhibits. Is that exhibit C?

That's exhibit C.

Exhibit C. Yeah. Okay. I'm familiar with that one. Okay.

I believe it's and um the the main country club parcel is parcel.

At the time they had another hole on par. I'm old enough I remember playing playing that golf course. uh but and that's subsequently became part of the condominium uh which is significant but you'll notice that parcel A and parcel that there's nothing referring to what was fairway drive on the plan identifying as such plan you'll also notice that in if you refer to the deed that refers to this plan it

does not describe this portion of fairway this portion of the the lot which front and back fronts on fairway driveway as shown on another plan as being on a way. It just refers to that distance. Same with parcel C. All these dimensions do not refer to the way. In fact, the other portions of the property that do front public ways mention specifically the way in those two.

Let me ask you something.

back in 1980 who owned the actual parcel that's considered the country. Um I think the A guy owned it with together with William Schuler and I think they deeded out partial interests between 1980 and 1982 which is why the grtors and the deeds for the country club parcel were different than they were in the 1980 deed.

Okay.

But but they own so when that when it was owned in 1980 there wasn't an active country club there at the time. There was there was Yeah.

All right. And that was held by two individuals at the time.

The land was owned by two individuals.

There's a long history that I haven't gone into before that.

But when they conveyed that property, was there any reservation of rights to use any of the ways that are part of Fairway Drive?

Um, when they conveyed parcel A, no.

When they conveyed parcel C, no.

There's no mention of those ways.

Okay.

Um there's more there's another document that is is even more significant. At the same time they convey that parcel A and parcel C to the the future developers of the country club and there were intervening owners. Um they gave an easement across Fairway Drive.

It's only 20 ft wide and that's so they could get from the hole on parcel C to parcel A. That easement is only 20 feet away. They would not have to grant an easement if they had intended to give easement rights over general easement rights over fairway drive. I think it's pretty clear that's what they were doing. They they were clearly creating a plan without reference to the ways

without and with deeds without reference to the ways and gave an easement across the way. So it was very very clear that this country club property did not have the right to generally use fairway drive.

What was the specific grant that was an express easement, right? Yep.

And it's what did it limit the use to?

It's um exhibit D.

D, right? Exhibit D. That's where I'm at. Is it the highlighted portion here?

Yeah, that's right. basically says agree that persons entitled to the use of the golf course shall have the right and easement to travel by foot or golf cart to and from said parcel A and said parcel C across said land of CMJ over a golf cart path not to exceed 20 ft in width in a location to be mutually agreed upon and to be finally evidenced by the recording of a plan showing the

location of said golf cart path. said path shall be generally located in the most direct route from said parcel C across Fairway Drive and the land of CMJ within the northeast portion of the lot shown as 3.69 acres. So there's some specific limitations as to what the grant of the easement was.

They only could use that 20 foot street.

It was only really to traverse it across from one side to the other, not along the road.

They didn't want golf carts up and down Fairway Drive. It was pretty clear. Um, continue. I just wanted to make sure I was reading the right thing. Uh, there's a couple cases I refer to, the Patel case and the Darm case. I'll just re briefly summarize what they say. Patel says you get an easement by a stoppple.

If you you refer to a plan that shows it as a way or you describe it in in a deed as being on a way, those are the only two ways. If you don't have that, you don't have eastern besttoppel. And that Darin case, I think, is significant, which says that the fact that a piece of property borders on land that is shown on a way other than the plan referred to

in the deed does not incorporate that plan and does not create any rights.

Um, another issue that's come up is they have suggested that uh that um because They're only wanting to use this area, this portion of fair, they only want to use Fairway Drive for immediate for emergency access that um because municipal authorities have rights to go overways over private property and performing their duties and that's conferred by statute. that this is the only right that's being being

implicated here and that uh the and that the developer really isn't asking for any use itself is simply providing space for municipal users. Um we're fortunate enough to have a case in the land court from about a month and a half ago that confronted that very direct issue and they made the exact same argument. I believe the board has seen this case, but it's um in my letter of today, February 12th, I've attached

it as as exhibit A.

We had, but we hadn't we knew that it hadn't been appealed yet and it was still within the appeal period.

That's expired now, right? And that's expired and there was no appeal filed.

No.

Okay.

Okay. So, that's good.

I haven't really bought into that argument anyway uh from day one, but I get it. But but but we have a case now and it's the only case of authority and says no you can't do it and it's pretty well reasoned say you know you're not piggybacking on the municipal rights to go into a burn burning building that doesn't mean you can build an access to a private way to serve your subdivision.

So that is that's my push members of the board. Um I'd be happy to answer any questions.

I don't have any questions. Um I think I get an understanding of it but I'm there may be I've got Mr. Shouy here if he has any questions. No, I just I'm just I still have attorney far.

I I don't have any.

All right. All right. So, in case anybody in the audience would have any questions, if you'd like to hang around just a little bit longer in the event that they have any questions about that, but I also I think I I've got to give a little explanation that this is not directly within our purview here in the granting of this particular uh form of relief. These are private uh property rights uh that are basically to be

debated or dis disputed or resolved between two private individuals and a trust in this case potentially versus the owners or of the of the site. But I wouldn't feel comfortable granting something without leaving some provision that requires them to have legal authority that would have to be determined at some point, not by us.

It's not us to make that determination, but they'd have legal authority to actually access a roadway. It doesn't have to be Fairway Road. You know, there are other options. They may buy a house that's right on Tucker Road and just use some land there to access for emergency purposes. Those are other options that they may have. I I would suggest you, Mr. Madurish that there's case law under

the subdivision control law that says that um you can't if you're showing away for access and you don't have the right to use it the the board can deny the plan.

I think you have that if you they do not cannot demonstrate to you that they have the right to use the ways that they have represented the ability to use you have the right to deny this plan.

Well, thank you for that. Um, all right.

So, we've heard from their council. Is there anyone in the audience? I want to give the uh the public at large here to have an opportunity to come forward uh raise any concerns that you may have. Uh and this could be pretty much about anything. But I just ask you to keep in mind we don't have some of the experts here tonight. So, if you wanted to talk about traffic, you can ask the question.

I'll take the note down. But I'm not going to have any answer for you that I'm I don't believe I'll have an answer for you uh because we don't have that expert to actually provide that to us tonight. So, anyone in the audience, would you like to come up and speak either in favor or in opposition to this project?

Mark Gazel, 148 Green Drive. Um 14 where?

148 Green Drive. I'm in a butter.

Okay. uh regarding to this emergency potential emergency exit, I'd like to say that that uh the loop that he spoke about just um allowed the golf carts to come onto Fairway Drive, loop, and then go back into the golf course and did not allow them to go all the way to Tucker Road because I know in the other letter that we've seen, they said There was an easement all the way to Tucker

Road. This is just a a loop out a fairway drive and then back into uh the golf course. I'm in opposition of the development. I think it's uh much too large and uh I think it would be detrimental to the river, the Pascans River and the Pasamens woods and all the wildlife that live in that area. Thank you. Thank you.

Oh, sorry. One more thing. I'd also say that uh on Fairway Drive, parking is allowed. And I often see um people park in that area where this potential emergency exit is um including landscapers and tow trucks because there's someone in the area that um drives tow trucks. So that area is often blocked off and of course the last few weeks it's been completely blocked with snow. Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the audience I'd like to come forward and speak either in opposition or in support of a project?

Hello. Liz Richtor, homeowner Abutter 960 Tucker Road. Um, I respectfully ask the board to carefully evaluate the drainage implications, particularly given the approximate three foot downgrade from the Hawthorne property into my property. You could put a ball at the top of it. It would roll down into my property. Um, I have seen no um information about drainage, water runoff um that would um

handle that issue. Um, I request that no approval be granted unless there are clear certified evidence that post-development runoff will not adversely impact a butters. I also ask the board to consider whether the scale and density are consistent with the surrounding neighborhood character.

Well, it won't be and that's why it's 40B. That's not going to happen.

Um, I last time that I spoke about this downgrade into my property, um, I was told by someone on the board that that's not true, but it is in fact true. And I think that there needs to be some sort of a further study to display that that's an issue. When the um, country club was built in the for first place, just that, you know, parking lot and the concrete base for the structure, um,

there was a lot of flooding into my property and the property just north of mine. Um, think about that times all of these other buildings that are going to be on that are proposed to be on this property. There is potentially a lot more water runoff into my property that I think needs to be evaluated.

Well, it's been evaluated and as a matter of fact, he's here. you could speak to it, but we have an engineer on the board and I think he'll tell you that for the most part when these sites are designed, any water that's on that sheds onto this property is actually accounted for, it's calculated for so that it would not go onto any adjoining property. Sometimes these things end up

being much better than what they are in their current existence. But if you want to speak to that, I mean, we have a peer review to I'm not very specific with the plans, but in general, yeah, they can't create any uh any more runoff or any undo flooding to other properties, but and that's why we have a peer review that working with the applicant and they're all professional engineers and this is their specialty

and they'll they'll address any concerns that you have, you know. Thanks.

So, are we going to have the storm water peer review come back at another another date?

We we need to talk about that peer review situation in a few minutes.

No, ma'am. I just want to make it known we're going to that inadvertently we're going to get to that point. Um, in a when I say inadvertently, we don't have they haven't paid us for us to continue to hire peer reviewers. When we receive those monies, we'll be able to have them come back and I'm sure that they would be able to answer that question specifically. They will be here. You'll

be able to tell them your exact address.

They'll probably call up the plan on the screen. You'll take a look at it and you'll probably be able to answer it on that given evening. So, I'll keep that in mind. I've already taken a note. Um, is there anyone else that would like to come up, please? We are going to get to that and I'm sure Mr. Far hopefully has authority to make those decisions with us here tonight.

I did say him. That's okay. We'll take you first.

Sorry.

Ladies first.

Ladies before gentlemen.

Here we go.

I'm Donna Man of 54 High Drive. Um, and a butter to this project. I have a question for Mr. Barber. Mr. Barber, the amount of money that has been allocated for water in the town budget has gone from $625,000 in a fiscal year to $1.4 4 million dollar in two years, which has increased our water bills, decreased our use of water because now we have letters that go out saying you can't water your lawn,

you can't wash a car, you can't do any of this stuff. And the quality of water that was reviewed that we buy from New Bedford was substantially less quality than our own water with the addition of 137, properties, houses, families. What is the impact that we will feel once if this is ever approved?

All right. So, ma'am, actually, you have to direct the questions to me.

Oh, I'm sorry.

No, no, that's okay.

I'm sorry.

You're a new face here. That's okay.

I'm sorry.

You have to direct the way it works, you direct it to me. Even I don't know the answer to the question, but you have to do I have to repeat the whole question?

I heard you and I'm sure he did, too.

Now, whether or not he has the answer, I don't know, but I know he's going to uh make an attempt to answer the question.

Are you able to answer the question for the lady?

I think so.

So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so the the costs that you you were stated, uh, the 620 to 1.4 million, that's just for the purchase of water from the city of New Bedford. That doesn't include the rest of the budget. Um, that's right.

So, we've gone from 600,000 to purchasing water from New Bedford to 1.1 what million?

1.4.

Okay. 1.4 higher. It's actually gone up since then.

Yeah, I'm sure.

Um, what's the reasoning behind that? it well it's the the cost of supplying water um the the the cost of purchasing water as we we have an intermunicipal agreement with the city of New Bedford their costs continue to go up and and every year they increase their rates that we pay so as as our peak demands are increased during peak use and it was mentioned um in regards to the the use

of non-essential use outdoor water use that's specifically enforced from May to September during drier periods where our Pascam river levels are monitored for for elevation and flow and once they drop to a certain elevation and flow we have to restrict our wells which increases our our purchasing during peak use times. Um so along with additional growth and additional use this peak use

will go up during those times. So that's the impact. So it'll it'll it'll cost more although the they it will include a number of additional rate payers which will also take some of that burden.

Yeah. That it's not the answer you wanted to hear.

Well, because I mean, yes, that's true.

So, you invite all of these people in.

Oh, sorry. So, you invite all of these people in expecting them to pay their fair share, but that isn't solving a problem.

All that's doing is increasing the need for water, which we have to buy. And we're buying it from somebody who's, I guess, not willing to negotiate a price. They can set any price they want and we would have to pay it, which now impacts what we pay for water without the addition of the 137 houses that they want to build on the golf course. the 288 apartments that they want to build

someplace else. All of that to get 54 affordable housing. I mean, that doesn't make sense to me that we would have to build all of those houses and apartments to make an an impact on that 10% of housing that we have to say is affordable. I just don't understand. It doesn't make sense. Why don't Why do we have to build all of that just to to satisfy that number of 74 homes?

I mean, it's it's kind of like the building department would have to issue 137 building permits in that one area.

And I think that if 137 people approached the building department about building that they would not be able to say yes to all of them. And yet with one sweep of the pen we're going to say yep, it's okay.

So I think it needs to be considered.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let's come on up, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allow me some time to express my feelings on this.

Um, need name and address, sir.

Emanuel Netto Netto 13 Country Club Boulevard.

You Mr. N.

How are you, sir? I am a and a butter that runs about 550 ft to this property only separated by 100 ft of um preservation uh land and that land is there because in 1980 there's a little bit of history and the Arbury question one of the speakers 1980 a similar proposal was made uh by Mr. Bill Schumer and his partner and it was denied at the time.

And my thought process leads me to believe that if something was denied for basically the same thing in 1980, why is it coming back now and being eligible when additional housing?

uh fairway drive being one of them that was part of the proposed deal in 1980 by Mr. Schuler.

And now you have that additional those additional units. We have West View Drive, we have Winslow Lane, we have all of South Dartmouth now. We have many, many more automobiles on the road. and my my appeal to you is strictly on traffic problems. I don't think with all due respect to the petitioner um I don't think this uh proposal belongs there at all. I don't think it's even hard to understand that. I mean the

density of this problem alone uh should be enough to make anyone who has to make this decision very clear that this doesn't even belong here. I I looked I looked seriously and and at the traffic at the traffic studies that had been done and I noticed thanks to the good reporting of the standard times whoever is doing that reporting. Uh congratulations.

you did a very very good job and thanks to you I wouldn't even be here because I wouldn't even know or remember that we had this hearing here and I suspect that a lot of people are not here because they unfortunately have not read your your story but in any case the report to traffic report that was made for Route 6 and Tucker Road and Allen Street and Tucker road and Russ's mil and Tucker

Road. They are more that should be more than sufficient for you to see the numbers and what could what have and could happen again on that small road called Tucker Road. Now, because I live on Pascans Valley, I have I have no idea where you know where Pascommen Valley is. But country club uh road is the main road that goes in and out of pass commmens and I'm an old man as you can tell.

My wife unfortunately is as old as I am.

And we get we get it in and out of that uh development every single day sometimes more than once. And getting in and out of that development I invite you. I'm sure most of you are familiar with it. But I invite you to take a drive there. Getting in and out of that development is like having a two guns coming at you. Two guns come. One from the south part of

Tucker Road and the other one from Allen Street, the north part. And if you are familiar, for those of you are familiar with that particular site, one is a little band of about 90°. The other gun is even smaller. You have to have good reflexes. I don't mind telling you that I used to play soccer in my young years and I had good reflexes then. Those reflexes and there anymore and you find

yourself sometimes having to stop in the middle of Tucker Road because the cars are coming at such it's not just a speed, it's just a proximity to where you are on both sides. Now, you would be giving me a third lane, a third gun. And may I suggest that I I'd rather have three guns coming at me than three cars speeding at the same time because I have to assume that the guns would be

unloaded and these cars are loaded and they they're not going to stop. So, please take a look there and uh I don't have to give you I don't have to give you a suggest to you that something is going to happen there. Something has already happened there a few years back.

There is an 18year-old who's still there and his parents still live in the neighborhood there. An 18year-old who was killed right in the middle of Takar Road because of the same situation that I'm trying to You're referring to the motorcycle fatality there. I'm quite familiar with that.

So he's still 18 years old. He's still there. And I'm reminded every time because even today, even today, I had to struggle with a car coming right at me there. And I'm not trying to dramatize.

I'm not trying to build something that these are the facts. These are the facts. something that you really should take into consideration because all the people that live not just in that neighborhood but all of South Dut comes through at that bridge the Pton Bridge which by the way I think it's one of the prettiest places in America just as a little side note here and uh once in a

while closes down and sometimes more than a day that's happening and all that traffic from Santa it goes through Tucker road some of it will get off us is mailed, but most of it goes through through Route 6 and all that traffic.

And right now, right now, try to you have a nice school there with a few hundred cars there and try to drive by there. And I'm not even talking about the the the uh uh the seriousness of the uh of the traffic uh off my road, but the density of the traffic off Route 6 and Allen Street, it's a nightmare, believe me. and you're adding 300 two 136 more buildings with possibly 500

more people give or take whatever the estimate could be and you really Yeah, I'm sure you don't want to go home one day and have blood in your hands. I'm sure I'm sorry to put it that way, but that's reality. So, thank you so much for listening to me and I hope that I helped a little bit in you making a decision.

Thank you, Mr. Neto. Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to come up? Come on up, sir.

Chuck Rzik, 48 Green Drive. I'll be very quick. Um, as far as the uh the golf cart signs on on uh on Fairway Drive are still there, limiting the use of golf carts on Fairway Drive. And even though the club is long gone, the signs are still there. Uh I one question I wanted to ask since the beginning of attending these these meetings is if this project goes ahead and is approved

does all the infrastructure have to go in before any homes are sold or is it or can or is that phase I believe what they indicated to us is they would be building this in phases.

So there would be different phases and then there would be um occupancy and then additional phases built. Now specifically how many homes on the first phase or the second phase, I don't know.

Um now I'm going to ask our council, is that something that we could require that the phases be limited to certain numbers before um there be certificates of occupancy issued?

the what's going to have to it's going to be dependent on what's needed. So, they want to put in I don't know a portion of a roadway, but there's going to have to be able to make sure that if you're only putting in a portion of a roadway that maybe they might have to put in a temporary culde-sac because a fire truck's going to have to come in and turn around or

what. There's all these aspects that will have to be covered. The drainage will have to be in place for whatever the portions of the roadway are. So the phasing is somewhat of a and and you can probably speak to it better than me. The phasing is somewhat complicated because you have to make sure everything's being done in a proportionate way.

Yeah. And yeah, I'm sorry I wasn't answering it very well. But I think that, you know, one of the conditions would probably have to be a phasing plan that indicates what aspects of the infrastructure was is going to be built at each during each point. So they'd have to say, you know, however many phases, this is how many homes, this is the infrastructure that would have to be built, and that would have to be part of

what's a post approval submission.

Okay.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Well, actually, I'm going to give that gentleman a chance. He already you have you've already spoken, but I'm going to give you you'll be next.

Okay.

I promise I'll be brief.

Uh, thank you. uh Vin Lord 6 Westview Drive here in Dartmouth. Um I had a question or one of the prior meetings there was some discussion about whether or not school buses would be allowed into the development and I don't want to take us too far down a road but I have like Mr. Neto, I and many of the other residents, I have serious concerns about the amount of traffic that's going to be

on Tucker Road and all the ancillary roads. And the reason why I asked that in particular is I know when the studies were presented, it wasn't quite clear where those eventually, let's say there are 500 children in that development, there are going to be buses that need to stop there. Now, whether they're going to stop on the street or actually pull into We did discuss that. Um, okay. The plan

that was presented by the petitioner did have for the uh location of a bus stop.

However, we've come to learn throughout this project and other projects that the school department does not allow for u the placement of bus stops on private development sites.

Exactly. So, there's going to have to be a pickup site at the roadway somewhere around Tucker Road and the opening or the the main roadway to this subdivision. Now, that hasn't been I don't think that's been amended.

Whatever that proposal is, I haven't seen it. Um, and if I've misspoke, please let me know. No, that's the understanding from the communications that the your former assistant town administrator did get that information from the school department and I believe it's the board was provided with those emails. Um, so and no, the plan the plans have not been changed to reflect anything with respect to the parking.

So, I mean the bus stop. So, it is something that would have to be addressed at a later time. And I would just ask that that that be included as part of the traffic survey uh study that if those school buses from middle and elementary and high school are going to have to stop on the side of the street there um we need to factor that into the the traffic delays.

Thank you.

I'm sorry I forgot your name, sir.

Mark Moazel, 148 Green Drive. I just wanted to say one more time about the uh um proposed emergency exit is that as Chuck had mentioned that the there's still signs up right now that say um please respect Fairway Drive and use it only to walk or drive your golf cart on in the loop way. And that supports what uh attorney Perry had said. They're still up there. You can go and see them

at any time you'd like. Thank you.

Thank you.

Come on up, sir. Please state your name and address.

Good evening. Robert Saltzman, 966 Tucker Road.

I'm another Tucker Road a butter. Um, the last time the zoning board approved development at 970 Tucker Road, the water runoff flooded and ruined our basement. So, we are worried about what the the applicant saying about what's going to happen with the new development. Not only are we a tucker over the butter, we're the very first driveway next to 970.

Um, we're scared of the increase in the in the amount of traffic on Tucker Road.

Something that development you're referring to is 970 Tucker Road. Was that one single residential home?

That No, that was the golf course. That is the country club when they expanded, put in a driveway, put it in a parking lot. The water runoff has ruined our basement. We can't do anything down there now.

That and that's technical. I'm now going to talk more about our concerns with traffic.

Even before I heard the bus stops going to be at the end of our driveway, um we're scared of the increase in traffic on Tucker Road. Uh let alone normal Tucker Road traffic. I mean to getting to Route Six now there are backups now sometimes as far as as Friends Academy.

We're so worried 137 units could be 200 more cars as well as buses and trucks serving the that area. Our mailbox has been hit four times in recent years.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to come up?

Diane Keltica, 39, Bayberry Lane, North Dartmouth. Um, a comment. May I make a comment?

Sure.

We need affordable housing in this town, but that's not the place for it.

I just The children that live in our development have to go up to Tucker Road. It's wide open. The parents stay stay there in their cars.

I can't even imagine in front of Bob's house the children I that is a disaster just like Mr. Edo said, "We need it. We need housing for young people, for towns people, but that is not the right place for it. So, can't we just like work together and try to find a place? Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Um, so this is not the end of public comment. It may be the end of public comment for tonight, but there's some other matters we got to get to. Uh, some housekeeping matters with the petitioner. So at this time I'm going to call upon Mr. Farland. So one of the main issues we have Mr. Farland, we sort of touched upon it earlier is replenishment of the account so that we

can continue not just continue but we actually owe our peer reviewers some money as we stand here today. Um I can has he been provided with he no he doesn't have this chart the so I we can I I think that um Mr. Hadad your town administrator and Michelle and um Mr. Giosa are kind of working on all of this in order to make sure that the applicant has the most recent of

everything. But when when the board when there was the discussions back at the beginning of the opening of the hearing in August, September, um the board had voted at the September hearing about the amounts that Mr. Custo needed to deposit and he did he never made the full deposit. there was a vote and it was he had deposited uh almost $25,000 uh towards um in September, but then there

was a requirement for an additional amount and he deposited another 30,000 but that was still over 11,000 short of what the board had voted to require him to deposit. And I just I just learned when we were um discussing about the reconciling of this in the past week that that $11,000 was never deposited by Mr. Cussen. Um but so the issue is that the board had only asked for onethird of the civil

engineering to be deposited and onethird towards the water and sewer. So the the full amount had not even been requested.

It was like we'll do it, you know, as needed, but it's going to be needed and it's going to be needed before this hearing closes for good. Um and and so what I would suggest to the board is I know that Miss Vieier and and Mr. Hadad have been looking at this. They've been um requesting that um the peer reviewers provide detail bills that show exactly how they're getting to the totals that they are

asking for so that the town can review them for appropriateness as charges.

It's all that and all that detail will be provided. But um you know it is a requirement of the regulations that the peerreview payments be made. I'm not suggesting that they won't pay them.

They haven't been asked yet. Um, but as we discussed back in October, if if amounts are due and they don't pay them, that's a a unilateral basis.

Let me just stop you there. Have you have we asked them to pay this?

No. So, this the addition No, we haven't. So, I but I just wanted they weren't aware of it. I wanted the board to be aware of it because it kind of ties into the timing because right now the deadline to close the hearing for good is March 26. So, I know the board needs to discuss when the next meeting will be on or before March 26th, but the board it should not close this hearing

if there are any amounts outstanding amounts due. So, we just wanted to bring it to their attention because it's just been coming to all of our attention and just say that, you know, what the staff I I think your and your town officials intend to do is put this all together, present it in writing to the applicant's team and then give them a period of time to deposit it in advance

of whatever the next hearing is going to be so that the board will know in advance of the next hearing if there's an issue with funds.

So, we don't have a specific number for you tonight because those I know these are these are not vetted numbers yet.

So, this may not be the exact amount like like saying detail bills need to be vetted before the exact number is confirmed. Well, all I can say is this, and I'm not trying to threaten anybody who's coming before us or anything, but I'm not going to put the town in a position where we're going to have invoices for consultants that they're responsible to reimburse us for, and they're not going to reimburse us.

That'll be the first reason why I would stop any project, any project. Don't matter who's coming before me, if we're not going to be footing the bill for this. All right. But if we haven't asked them to pay, I really No. That's why I'm not That's why I'm I'm saying But you're asking me to ask them when we've got people in town that could have already asked for this. No.

And why didn't they just send out an email and say, "Hey, you owe us x number of dollars. Pay the bill."

We're just bringing it to the board's attention. So, for example, the money that the board voted to require in October was never paid. So, that we're just bringing to your attention. As far as there will be a request going out, we're just bring February. No one asked for the bill for for it to be paid.

I I can't speak to that. Okay, sir. Um, but at there was there was a lot there was a good amount in the account and it was covering the bills. So, the bills all started coming in just recently and it brought it to a head. We're not accusing anybody of anything other than the fact that the 11,000 that you voted to No, but you're asking me to ask someone

to pay us and I'm being told I don't even know. We don't even know exactly how much the bill is. But when I look at this, it says pending. No. Well, that's at I wouldn't that number is not a final number. So, I wouldn't go with that number. Um, what I'm what I think is being asked of the board is just to be made first of all just to be made aware

or also to let Mr. Farland know for the first time, you know, he's hearing this again for the first time, but also to just set the expectation that it get resolved before the hearing be ended.

So, that's it. It was just We haven't done a lot of 40bs, but we've done one before. We never had this problem. we would just tell them we need x number of dollars to replenish the money would show up.

So that's that's what we'll do. But we just want because the only reason why I'm raising it is because there may only be one more hearing at which you might be in a condition that you have to close and we didn't if it becomes a problem.

We don't want you to hear that for the first meeting on it. We could always put forth a special meeting just to deal with money.

Not not to Okay. Well, you know, if I'm going to drop the hammer on something, I just want to make sure that we know that they've g have been given an opportunity to one to know and be aware, have notice of what they owe. And if they didn't pay it within a reasonable time, then we've got to do something.

So, that's that's what the intention is and that's what we were just it's just a updating the board. It wasn't to Okay.

So, maybe I misinterpret maybe I misinterpreted what what it was.

Um, I want to know what the bills are that I've received in the past week. Well, actually, we can give it to whoever it is and they can submit it to Yeah, we'll we'll we'll submit it.

They'll submit it whenever they are.

Yeah, because we don't want to involve We have a general's understanding, Mr.

Farland, that if there's a bill submitted that that's going to get paid.

Yeah. I mean, we haven't received one bill. Um that's not true.

We've asked for invoices and every time to Mr. C. They're going to Mr. C.

They're going to Mr. C.

If you can CC everybody, Paul's on vacation right now, so I mean, he's gotten them in prior in case, Mr. chairman, if there's a bill due, we're going to we're going to certainly pay it.

Um, so we would like to know that. I mean, if they have bills, can you please pass it to the design team?

Part part, first of all, like, for example, if a bill comes in and it doesn't have the detail, then we're not going to pass it along because we you are you are owed detail bills, right?

Not summary bills. So, that's why the staff is just trying to make sure that the bills are in the proper form. So, so if you just sent the bill and it says $1,000, but you have no idea what they did for $1,000. So, if I may, madam, um any engineer is going to have engineered hours down. They're not going to give you a lump sum bill. Um especially for a project for reviewing.

Well, that's if they didn't do that, then we certainly do want Yeah. So, and we had pro Mr. Cuss Mr.

cousin had asked for and he had been promised those detailed breakdowns and that's what we're making sure gets sent over to your team.

Okay.

All right. Now, the next is the next date. And when's the when's the um the final date for March 26th?

March 26th, which is a Thursday, which we already have.

We can't do a Thursday.

I'm not going to be around the 26th.

So, we got to pick another date.

The 23rd.

So, but before that, are you in a position to um grant an extension for the for approval of this comprehensive permit? Because I don't think we're not going to be ready by the 23rd of March.

Well, there's a few things I want to talk about. Um are you on the crunch for time tonight or Well, I always tell my board members we'd be up by 8:00. It's already 8:20.

How long do you think you're going to take?

Well, I think number one, I want to address the butter's concerns with especially with density. Um, I'm not overly concerned about that tonight. We can address that another night.

But I mean, how how long are we going to keep going on? How about the all the the waiverss? Can we go over the waiverss tonight?

No, I'm not prepared to go over the waiverss tonight.

And, you know, this is something that, you know, we just got today, too. Um, and I do want to make a comment. You know, Attorney Murphy's, you know, started out with we have 111 waivers.

That's That's not true. Um there's 111 Excel numbers on here. Um 30 of which of these aren't waiverss. They're they're saying we're saying we are doing them.

Yeah.

Post post approval.

Um and I'm I'm a very laid-back engineer. I very rarely will raise my voice, but I'll have to say it's very insulting that the attorney is saying these plans are not even preliminary drawings. Um these are very extensive drawings, probably 85 90% drawings um that the that the applicant has spent a significant amount of money on. Um and certainly my firm is is on this plan. So for someone to to disrespect my company

saying these aren't prelim these are less than preliminary plans is pretty insulting. Um not to my company but to me myself because I did prepare these plans along with my uh team members.

section two of the planning board regulations, preliminary plans. There's about five things you need to do for that. That's pretty much that first set of drawings I came in with. That's preliminary.

Um, so the applicant has spent a significant amount of money on engineering on these plans and they are by far beyond requirements for a 40B project and beyond preliminary plans.

Um, so I just wanted to get that across the table. Um because I don't like, you know, to be insulted like that.

I heard that. I already said it three times. I got it the first time. Number one. Number two, what it cost what what your client has paid and spent a lot of money. That's irrelevant to me. This is a big boys game. If they can't play it, they shouldn't play it, whoever they are.

Okay? So, that doesn't persuade me. But let me just say, I don't I'll let you continue with your points, but I just want you to think so that you understand that what you're trying to tell tell me or tell this board is not persuading me in that respect. And it may be a difference of opinion. She has her opinion as to what the percentage is that's completed. You have your opinion as to what's

completed. We probably could get three or four different engineers in here and they all have different different interpretations of what that is.

Regardless of what it is, it's not complete. All right. 80% 90%. It's still not complete. There are a lot of things that haven't been spoken of. There are a lot of things that still haven't been addressed. And that's why I think that we need to extend the time in order to do this. These people are going to be impacted by this for the rest of their lives or as long as they continue to

live in that area. It's going to be beyond them. I'm going to be impacted.

Anybody that drives along Tucker Road is going to be impacted by this. So, we all have concerns. And I don't know if you just tell me now. Do you have the authority to agree to continue it beyond the March 26 date?

Not right now. No, you don't. Okay. So, we're going to have to set up for a shorter date and we're going to ask for continuance. And if a continuence is not granted, then we're going to make a decision there and then.

And then maybe maybe these people get what they want. They think they're going to get what they want at the next hearing date. But the bigger picture is then all of these conditions that we're able to impose on the project, they go out the window. They go completely out the window. And then you guys get to build what you want to build, your people get to build what they want to

build without any input from any of us.

So we all have to think about exactly what it is that we really want in this.

Yep.

So could I do you mind if I respond? I would appreciate. First of all, I respect what engineers do. I've been doing this for over 30 years. I work with engineers all the time. So it wasn't meant as a personal attack and I apologize if that's the way you received it. I was not saying as a whole. There were just certain details. So, you know, so for example, like boundary line dimensions, like how much frontage for

each slot. So, that's all I meant. And I did say it in a sweeping way.

You did say that.

I did say it in a sweeping way.

So, you know, the frontage in areas around the plant.

Um, I said it in a sweeping way and it was not intended as a insult to you. I I have never insulted an engineer in my 30 years of practice and I apologize if if the way I expressed it was came across that way because I would never do that particularly in a public setting like this. So I I want to apologize for that.

Um so Mr. Chair once you close a hearing whatever that date is you then have 40 days to issue the decision. The risk mi the risk at that point really shifts to the applicant. If the board has to close the hearing and you haven't had a chance to get the applicant's responses to the waivers or to talk through conditions, right? Then the board will be sitting here deciding the waiverss and deciding the conditions

and the applicant will not be able to participate in that conversation. So, I really would say when you speak to your client, Mr. Farland, that's the risk that they're running if the board sets a date. You know, it'll it sounds like it'll have to be before March 26th and there's not enough time to get your responses on the waiverss or for your team to talk back and forth. So I I just

wanted to explain kind of if they have an interest in making sure that they work with us on this as well.

I think that's what you're trying to say.

Yes. I'm trying to say it's in their interest to to maybe kind of work with the board on the timing and I would have expected that but he doesn't have the authority to grant it which I respect that as well. He's being honest. He says he doesn't have the authority to do it. So now we have a decision to make and that is when is the next date so we can have the petitioner

who has authority to make that decision either make the decision that works with us and if it doesn't then we've got to decide how we're going to handle it.

And if I'm wrong, somebody interrupt me.

Right. What do you want to say?

I want to say what what is it that we need to discuss before we can render a decision? I think the traffic is we put a bad it's done.

Well, there are still comments.

The sto I we can drag the two comments for another six months, but I mean are we in a position we have a traffic consultant.

We hired a traffic peer review and they worked. Is there any issues with the traffic?

There are recommendations for conditions that recommendation will be in the conditions storm water. I understand what you're saying because this is a 40B. You don't have to show the the type of the the the level of details that you would show on other projects that do does the peer reviewer agrees with you that we are 60 70 or 80%.

Okay. How about civil? Same. So what else do we have? I guess you know if so from a making a decision standpoint we what you went through tonight was mainly your staff peer review recommendations on the waiverss Mr.

follow me has some kind of responses and want to discuss some of them. There are a few like we said highlighted in yellow that are still kind of questions out there. So that that would just have to get sorted out. And then the other thing which has started but has not been fully put together is taking the recommendations for traffic conditions or the civil conditions or different

notes that the board has been taking or asked me to take during here and putting all of those conditions into one document and giving them to the board, giving them to the applicant team and having a meeting then like tonight where you walk through them. But the question whether you can do all of that at the next meeting and close the meeting that that's the that's your timing question that can all happen and

I I don't know it's up to the we all have jobs as well. There's a so much reading material I spent most of the week just at night reading this material so I know I I can understand how this is going to impact us as a community.

So there's there's a lot that needs to happen.

So here's what I suggest. I suggest we give it a short date so that they can come back, tell us whether or not they're willing to give us an extension.

If they're not, then we can decide whether or not we're going to open up for additional public comment for whatever short period of time that that may be and then either decide we're going to vote one way or another or we close the meeting and then handle it in accordance with what she said. So have 40 days thereafter. They won't have any input into what it is that we're going

to be. So if there's going to be any issue with regard to a condition and it could go one way or the other, it's going to go this in this direction and not that direction because if they don't have any input and they can always appeal to the I'm not raising my voice at you. I'm just expressing with the sort of I mean thinking out loud as to what's going to happen. I don't do

this every day. All right. I don't want to do this every day, but um there's going to be two more after this that we're going to be dealing with and we're dealing with them already.

Yeah.

But this one is certainly this one got out of the gates a lot quicker and it's getting further along.

I started this and it's getting serious at this point.

It's getting closer to the end and I get that. But um again, what do we have for available dates because it's already 8:30.

We have Monday, March 2nd.

So what else? We don't have a 40D on Monday, March 2nd.

No, you do.

All right. We already have a I'm not going to put two.

On the 16th, we have Sherbrook.

What about the the after March 2nd? The Monday after that's what the N board has the meeting room after.

Uh oh.

What about the Tuesday the 10th?

Oh, I'm not around. I'm not around. I can't do that. I can't do the night.

No, I'm not available on Tuesdays and Thursdays have our best days. So then we have the 23rd 23rd of March.

23rd of March. That's a Monday.

That's a close Monday. And then it we close with them on the 26th.

All right. So it's March 23rd.

That's the next meeting.

Yes.

Hold on. I'm just going to Are you available that day?

Well, you think it's too close to human available?

Yes, he'll be available.

Okay, good. Yes, because we can't have another meeting without him.

All right. So March 23rd at 6 o'clock before we close. Mr. Chair, can I just say a couple more things?

Sure.

Um, I applaud the other town departments for, you know, reviewing all these waiver requests. Certainly went through a lot of time and I think they from all the other cities and towns I work in, I think they certainly went above and beyond to try to get this done in in a timely manner. Um, out of all these waiverss, I probably only have issues with less than five, just so you know.

Okay.

Okay.

I just expected none of them looked really heavy anyway.

So, there's not much. And the ones that are yellow, I'm sure we could we could address by next week. Um, just to give you a time frame idea. Um, they've been great to work with. I understand the soar and water um comment. So, I think we can address them and we'll get the bill out sometime next week so that there there'll be a payment shortly thereafter so we can feel a lot more in the comfort zone.

Christian, I'll send you the bills that I recently received.

That'd be great. And then and then lastly, um if the if the attorneys can can work together before March 23rd to come up with some draft conditions, y I think that meeting on the 23rd will be very productive. And if it is productive, I think the applicant would have no problem giving an extension just to finalize that because we want to make sure it's right. We want to make sure it's right. I'm sure the board does.

That's a fair position.

So I think that's probably that's where I stand um with my experience.

Okay. Um so so then we you know I basically what it would be would be me taking all of like I said everything that's come in from all the different consultants the notes from the meeting um and trying to consolidate them in a document and then let's see March 23rd so how many today's the 12th so Monday so okay that's one two three four five and a half it's

a good amount of time. So, um you know the the goal would be to try to get that and obviously it would be a giant draft because the board giant draft mark on it because the board will not have reviewed it so I can't speak for the board but try to get that something to you if we can get it at least 10 days in advance like try to it's just going to be a lot

of collecting all the information running it by the staff etc. But we'll try. I mean, that's a lot a good amount of time to do it. So, we can get it to you in advance so that if you're not getting it like tonight, we we got your fine like your updated list about a week ago and we tried to get it out sooner this week, but you know, sorry about the Believe me, I get it.

Yep.

All right.

All right. We can move it along.

We can move it along.

23rd.

The 23rd. So, I'll entertain a motion.

Um, I make a motion that we uh continue comprehensive permit ZCMP25-1 to March 23rd at 6:00.

Um, given that we only have two members, I'll second the motion.

And all in favor?

All in favor?

I. All right. So, folks, we'll see you on March 23rd. Hopefully, we'll have less snow and it'll be much warmer.

All right. So, we're going to table all the rest of the administrative matters uh to the next hearing. I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn.

Um motion to adjurnn.

I'll second that motion.

All in favor?

I