Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting - July 30, 2026

Good evening and welcome to the zoning board of appeals meeting of Thursday, July 30th, 2026.

So the first announcement I'd like to make is that this meeting is being recorded by Dartmouth Community Media.

And I'd also like to ask that we all stand so we can pledge allegiance to the flag.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I'd ask that we all remain standing for a moment of silence in honor of our soldiers, past and present, and especially those that are in the Middle East in harm's way.

Thank you.

All right. So, moving on to the public hearings portion of tonight's meeting.

The first matter we have is variance case ZAV26-3.

The petitioner applicant is Cody Santos.

The owner is Mach and Lisa Santos. The subject property is located at 3670 Westport Road. Um, the property is located in a single residence district.

Gentlemen, I'm not going to read all of this because this it's only on for tonight for a continuence. This has been continued a couple of times. I did receive an email that was addressed to Michelle and it indicates that I I am waiting for John to call me back about getting an 81X done to combine the lots and I still would have to have him make a final copy of the plans. I called and

talked to the woman secretary, Rachel. I think her name is on her name is on Tuesday 7:22. I think her name is. Okay.

Okay, I guess saying that believe her name is Rachel and it says on Tuesday 7:22 I've not heard back. I would go I would just go on the safe side and get another continuation if possible please.

Thank you. All right. So, um I guess when he refers to John, he's referring to the surveyor who I believe is Mr.

John Romanelli if I had to guess. Um hopefully John can get back to them. Our next date is August 13th. But we have way too much going on in August 13th. So what's the date after that?

In September.

Okay. September. So it's going to put on for September.

Okay.

But obviously this is condition on them sending and signing a continuence. If they do not keep on, he did sign a continuance. All right. So he's going to continue it to the next date, September. What?

We haven't figured that out yet.

All right. Let's figure it out now.

And obviously this is for the five o'clock hour, gentlemen. Right. Well, well, first of all, are there any objections for any of the members in extending this?

No, I think this is reasonable. He's waiting for the surveyor right now.

People are very busy right now.

I did tell him the next meeting was the 13th of August, but we don't have to.

We're not going to put it on the 13th.

But I think we should wait until we get the dates from for sure book for the 40th September.

So want to put it on for the 13th for now and then with an understanding we might have to continue it. Right.

Okay.

And then I'll get the dates as soon as possible and then we'll give them a due date. But for now we will continue to August 15th.

Gentlemen, I'll entertain a motion if you're in agreement.

August 13.

13, not 15.

13.

13. Yeah.

Uh, I make a motion that we continue varing ZAV26-3 to August 13, 2026.

Second that motion.

All in favor?

I motion.

I I the eyes have it. So, this matter has been continued for the anyone else who's in the audience here tonight on this matter. This is the case at 367 O Westport Road. For now, it's continued to August 13th. We have a heavy load that day. It's very likely it could be continued to another date, but they're awaiting um additional plan that they need to put together and that's also for

our viewers at home as well. All right.

So having completed that, we're moving on to the next matter. The next matter, gentlemen, is actually ZAV26-6.

I'm going to ask that we take it out of order as I have a conflict with that particular case. And if there's no objection, I'm going to move on to the next case, which is variance case ZAV26-5.

The petitioners John Williams. The owners Richard and Jaclyn Crosby. The subject property is located at 484 Russell Mills Road, also known as map 125, lot 59. The property is located in the single residence B district and it was legally advertised on July 9th and July 15th of 2026.

Uh, I make a motion that we wave the reading of the butter's list.

Second that motion.

All in favor? I I um the eyes have it. And if anyone wants to review the butters list, it's available at the office of the zoning board of appeals. You can speak to our secretary, Miss Michelle Vieier, and she'll provide it to you. Um the petitioner in this case is requesting a variance to subdivide the existing lot into two new non-conforming lots so that there is only one dwelling house on each

lot. Once subdivided, neither lot will have sufficient frontage. lot area or meet the setback required in the single residence B district. Proposed lot one would have 34,051 square feet with 34,51 ft of upland with 90.07 ft of frontage with 57.2 feet to the street um and 18 ft sideline setbacks. Lot two would also be 34,051 square ft with the same amount of uplands with 100 foot of frontage with a 64.6 six

frontage and sideline setback.

It's 100 foot of frontage, 64.6 to the street setback with 18 foot of sideline setbacks. This application is denied under the following sections of the Dartmouth zoning bylaw section 375-8.4 development standards A1 lot area C1 frontage setbacks DAB subp part B. The property is located at 44 Russell Mills Road in a single residence B district and identified as map 125 lot 59. I've already said that.

All right. So, let's read the denial letter from the building inspector because that's always a good start to get an understanding, but I think we've already touched upon the relief that's going to be sought.

This is a letter that was addressed to Attorney Williams back on April 17th of 2026.

And it's from the zoning the it's from the zoning enforcement officer which is our building inspector Mr. Bet. It says, "I've reviewed your application. At this time, your proposal cannot be approved due to non-compliance with current zoning regulations. Applicants seeking to subdivide the existing lot into two non-conforming lots so that there is only one dwelling house on each lot.

Once subdiv subdivided, neither lot will have sufficient frontage lot area or meet the setbacks required in a single residence B district. And I don't want to be redundant, but it's the same amount of square footage, the same frontage on one lot of 90.07 and the other is 100 ft. Uh we they're seeking relief. They're going to it's being denied because they need relief on the 3758.4

development standards for lot area, for frontage, and for setbacks, which I've already read in the um salutation of this petition. So, uh, but I will read this that the minimum setbacks for this zoning district are 60 foot minimum setback from street lines and also a 20 foot minimum setback from all other perimeter lot lines within the single residence B district. Uh, it's a little

unusual that that property is within the single residence B district given its character, but it is. Uh, I had to confirm that.

We also have other town departments that provided comment. We have a comment from the board of health. office says the dwelling located at 44 Russell Mills Road is not connected to sewer.

Connection is required per the town of Dmit supplemental regulations to title 5.

This office would ask that the board of appeals to consider requiring connection to sewer as a condition of the variance if approval were considered by the board. I don't think that's a big issue.

Um and that's from Mr. Misho of the board of health. Also have a comment from conservation. The proposed expansion of the current driveway to accommodate the creation of two residential lots from the original lot of map 1251 159 does not fall within the jurisdiction of the conservation commission. However, it should be noted that both proposed residential lots do contain wetlands and an associated 100

foot buffer zone at the rear of the parcels that is not shown in the submitted plot plan. Any future work on either parcel would require review and approval by conservation. Obviously, we require that they get all approvals from other town boards and agencies. And the DPW says all public utilities shall be shown to avoid any conflicts and to confirm if a utility easement is required. So, obviously, I don't know

the answer to that question, but we can solicit that from the petitioner's council. So, at this point in time, unless there are any questions of any members of the board, uh I'm going to call upon the petitioner or their representative to state their case.

The floor is yours, Mr. Williams.

Okay. Um, good evening, uh, the chairperson and members of the board. For the record, I'm attorney John Williams with a office at 651 Orchard Street in New Bedford, Mass. And I represent the Crosby's, Richard and Jackie Crosby. And and for you, Mike Bow tide instead of good evening. says the two houses on one lot.

484 Russell Moose Road and 488.

Um 484 was constructed in 1780.

Um has been there ever since that time.

And 488 was constructed in 1965.

Um at at that time when 488 was constructed, the Crosby's had um uh what do you call construction plans drawn up and presented to the building department. I I left up there a c a picture of the of the house in question. And if you look at it, the town has has it assessed as basically like an accessory uh shed type building.

You can see from the picture, it's a house. It's a full residential house. Um talking to Mr. Crosby, he brought in the actual plan.

This is 488, correct?

Yes.

Okay, fair enough. Continue. So he uh he brought in he the plans the plans that I submitted that are attached to that they're very rudimentary but they were submitted I got those from the building department's file here in town hall. Um so they were submitted to the town back in 1965.

Um Mr. Crosby said that he had found but he's looking he's we're still looking for it. The the the square placard that you put in your window that says a building permits issued to do construction. The house is right on Russell Mills Road. It's not like it got constructed when no one knew it. And so obviously it's been there since 1965. So obviously the the building department at

one point in time knew it. He Mr. Crosby said his father applied for a building permit and they couldn't find a copy of a building permit application in the file here and and he said he had a he had the placard but he couldn't find it.

So um so the uh that uh uh let's see um so the house was constructed the the interior was never finished. It was it had been used by Mr. Crosby for for business purposes. If people in town would probably know, he used to he had he had had like a bike bike bike shop there and and some and some other um businesses. But um but the uh it it's was designed as a single family

building. Um so I spoke to a town planner and and this is kind of a different situation that that basically I've never run into in in 35 years. Um he so we had an ANR plan approval not required plan presented. I sent it to him. He said he couldn't he couldn't approve it. He says it was to subdivide the property into two dwellings. Um the ANR plan couldn't be approved by uh as

both lots didn't comply with the town's current zoning regulations. I'm not sure what the frontage and square footage requirements were in 1965, but he got a building up, so I'm assuming that it met the requirements at that time. Um, but anyway, there's uh there there's a case and I'm I'm sure Mr. the chair will recognize it. There's a case that an ANR plan should would should get approved. It's called Siko

versus Planning Board of Brainree and it provides if if the building on on uh 488 Russell Mills Road existed prior to subdivision control law uh came into effect, it it would be legal and basically grandfathered in. The only problem is subdivision control law in Dartmouth came a couple of years before 1965. So it's it we just missed that cut off. Um I looked it up. It was 1953.

Yeah.

53.

53 is when our zoning bylaws were implemented because otherwise that case would be something that you could hold.

You wouldn't even have to come before us and it would be an 81L subdivision that would be approved.

Yep. That's correct. And um so anyway, so the Crosby's are getting like everyone else here. They're they're getting a little bit older. They want that house to go to their daughter and the daughter wants to get a mortgage and she can she can fix it up. Part of the problem is it's all on one assessed lot.

The Crosby's have a mortgage on their existing property. It they didn't want to convolute it and have because technically they still own it. I mean they could the daughter could fix the house up. The building department has told me they'll give me a building permit. I'm saying I don't that doesn't help me because we need to we need to divide it up so the daughter can have a separate

parcel of property that she can get a mortgage on. So, I talked to other Crosby about doing um some estate planning and they want that house to go to their daughter now and if something happens to them, they have a son. They have two children and the son will get the other property. Um so it it so you know just un until unless we can split it, they're going they're going to have

to get one mortgage which is going to convolute things because Mr. and Mrs.

Crosby don't want to be encumbered by a 30-year mortgage on on their property with their daughter. So um so at chapter in chapter 48 section 7 it is stated that if real property has been improved by the erection or alteration of one or more structures and the structures or alterations have been in existence for a period of at least 10 years and no notice of or an action of a suit has

been filed. Basically it says they deemed for zoning purposes to be legally non-conforming structures. So, I talked to the building commissioner and and he agreed. I said there's nothing that the building department or townama can do to have them remove that building. But, um and he agreed to give me a building permit, you know, and to have him fix it up. But, like I said, that doesn't that

doesn't uh that doesn't finalize the situation for the Crosby. Well, I I think what it means is that it doesn't necessarily create a violation of a structure that was constructed, but it doesn't it doesn't absolve you from still continued compliance with zoning regulations.

Oh, no. They have they they're going to have to comply with all the building regulations to fix it. But the exterior zoning regulations, pardon me. Yeah. And zoning. But um so the uh the bu that building has water and sewer up to it. one of the one of the town boards and I'm not sure I think it maybe it was uh DPW that the other the other structure it needs to have

water and has town water and sewer connected up to it. Um and they have a septic there. They're going to they're going to do that pending what hap you know depending what happens here.

You're saying they have a septic now on on on the old house on the 1760 house.

Yes.

So that has a septic that they're connected to and the new house actually has town water and town sewer connected. Okay.

Well, that's important to know. So, it's kind of odd that the house that they don't use has the, you know, Well, it certainly goes It certainly goes to show the intent of what they were trying to do back in 1965, which is well over 50 years ago.

Yeah. 60 years.

60 years.

Yeah. So, 60 years. It's been sitting there for 60 years. And And if Mr.

Crosby at one point in time it it was a financial issue and then the other point in time it's uh now they're looking it it's it's perfect timing it for their daughter Sarah. But so she's going to end up with that house going to get a construction loan and she's going to and she's going to finish it off. I mean pending what happens here.

Well, she wouldn't be able to probably get a construction loan if it has two two two dwellings on the same pro on the same parcel.

Yeah, it it's it's complicated.

Yeah, it's complicated. And and and the Crosby's have a have a have a loan on their parcel, too. Yes.

Y and if they if they could they could technically put a put a you know that property could be condo and they could have one mortgage on the you know it would be it would just be problematic.

So um I so my thought is granting the variance isn't going to deriggate from the intent of the current zoning bylaws because it's it's a house.

It's been here and every neighbor knows there's a house here. If you talk to if you talk to a neighbor, they're not saying that's an accessory structure.

They go, "That's a house." But and some people I I didn't even when first time I went there, I fought thought that's where everyone lived as opposed to the the uh the 1700 house. Um so it it's it's that building by by granting this, it's going to still be in harmony with all the other houses in that zoning district as it has been for the last, you know, 60 years. So my my my my

contention is approval of this variance um request will will will not affect the uh the the general don zoning district where the houses are. But a little enforcement of the provisions of the um uh of the ordinance would it it actually creates a hardship on Mr. and Mrs.

Crosby because they're getting taxed.

they they can't use the house and they're basically getting tax, you know, you know, for for basically for a house.

So, um I all the neighbors got notice. I we sent out numerous the the town required to have numerous uh notices sent out. Um and I don't know if anyone here is opposed or not, but we'll get to that.

But that's part of my job.

Yes.

All right. Um, members, uh, any questions of the petitioner at this point?

Do you have an understanding of what transpired here or do you have some questions?

I just have a question. The the family lives in the house that was built in 1780.

And the house that was built in 1965, there is no one living there.

No one living there.

It's not completely finished on the interior.

Ah, but if I was living in the house, the 1780 house, and I had a problem with my septic, I would go next door because that septic's So, the house, it doesn't have a septic. It's town town sewer.

It is.

But the one they're living in has a septic system.

Correct.

Okay. And and that that tends that lends to me to think that when they put that up that the building department is a new house that they required him to do that, you know, as opposed to trying to tie into an existing septic on the same law.

Well, we can correct that. We can make it so as a condition and I think that that's what the health department is actually trying to seek of us is that it one of the conditions to the variance or to the occupancy.

We'll just say the condition to the well, we'll say condition to occupancy of the new home is that they have to tie in the 1780 home into town water and town sewer and and they're in agreement to that and and they've already priced it out. So, um you know, they're well on their way uh to to having it done.

This is a unique situation if I've ever seen one, right? Oh, because clearly, you know, at first when I looked at this, I was like, did these people pull the wool over the eyes of the people in town in 1965? But when you look at this, the plans that were submitted, they were tie-ins for water and sewer, DPW knew about that.

So, something had to be requested. It was all done. Uh, obviously, and and if the and if the uh building department doesn't have records, you know, in their defense, these things are 60 years old.

So I don't know how much of this is they had something but yes it's a structure.

It's a structure and had it been built prior to 1953 they wouldn't even be here under 81L they're allowed to actually just create the the subdivision. There's some questions as to whether or not it's in compliance with zoning but the plan can still be the plan can still be approved by the by the uh uh planning board.

Right. Am I that was not my question.

Next. If are you planning to remodel or reconstruct the house within the same footprint?

Correct. They're not going to because if you obviously, you know, if it doesn't meet the setback, then you have to meet the setbacks and all.

It technically doesn't meet the setback requirements under the current zoning.

So, they couldn't extend they couldn't improve or build on either structure.

Yes.

But it's pre-existing non-conforming.

It is on one lot.

They can do, right? But this is different uh at Chenny Medeiros. I think it just want to make it clear to the public that because we you know our position on creating non-conforming lots but this is different. This is not that you have a lot with one house on it and then you're creating you're subdividing into another lot and making a lot nonconforming or creating two non-conforming lots to build another

house on it. This is This already has the two structures and I think we had a case if I remember and Lake uh uh we've had a couple of not like exactly like I think it had two houses that was a very small lot that had two unit two houses on it and it was the same thing for insuranceances and mortgages they had to subdivide that was Nate Lake Road

near Lake What was it? name Mishaw. He came to the uh but it was off of Reed Road, wasn't it?

Off road.

Yeah. Nick Lake Noach.

That's what it was, right? Yeah, that was one of them.

Yes.

But there was another one, too.

And then there was another one recently, not too long ago. I think it was uh Right. They had two structures on. I can't remember that one now. But I just want to make sure that we make it clear that we're not we're not creating non-conforming lots to be constructed on with new dwellings that because we always has had, you know, the the position that we don't we don't create non-conforming lots, you know. So, uh,

if if the Crosby's were coming in here with one house and they think they had enough land to put another house on, if it wasn't enough, that's a completely different situation. This is why we wanted to make we have a long we have a long-standing position on that and just as a board in general, you know, but I've done in Damoth and other towns subdivision plans under that

sit case as long as it was it was it was done before zoning, it's kind of like an automatic deal. And uh but I looked at it and I was like, hey, we we missed by a few years here. But obviously obviously they if they they're not going to connect up sewer and water to a house that they're not even in. Someone made them do that and and I would assume I

know it is I think I think there's someone dropped the ball somewhere along the line but they there is a set of plans that the building department has in the file. So obviously they submitted it. Obviously they put the house up and it's in a in location. It's not like you're in the back of woods and the the building inspector comes back there 20 10 years later and it's a house.

Everyone can see it on on Russell Smith's road.

Plus, I've driven by here hundreds of times. I I didn't live that far many years ago. Um when you drive by it looks like two separate houses, right? They just When I looked at it, I thought that was the house that they were talking about and the old one was something that that they were, you know, trying to fix.

Two separate houses with the driveway that they shared. So, obviously, this is a public hearing. Um people have an opportunity to be heard. So I have to allow people an opportunity. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak either in favor or in opposition to this petition?

If you can just come up and if you're either in favor in opposition, you can come up.

Favor. Yeah.

Well, if you're the pet if you're the petitioner, I don't need she's not the I know the petitioners were going to come up, but that's her daughter, but she's obviously got I take your representations on that.

She's got a vested interest in office.

All right. So I have a just I have one concern. My concern here is obviously we understand what the intentions are and we take them at face value. That's what they are today. But you know things change and when I look at this I don't really see a designated area for any parking of vehicles on the lot one or for the house that was built in 1965.

So, I would ask that there be a designation on this plan of where there could park two cars because, you know, today it's owned by family, but tomorrow it's not and it may not be. Right.

A chair. He's got a driveway ft deep.

He does to the left, but it's on the other property. It's not property.

No, he's got an existing existing driveway.

Oh, I didn't see that.

I think Rich Rehu factored that in.

That's what he did. I did not see that.

And and there's no cars that will be out in the street or behind them. I think behind them is the condo project.

See, I didn't see that when I first looked at this.

Mhm.

Yeah. See, because the line they have a line with dimension line that that makes me feel a lot better about this.

Mhm.

Okay.

So, there's designated part so that if there is ever a division between these two parcels, then they would have their own access point. So, why do we have this proposed access easement here?

What's the purpose of that? Is that so that they can access the rear of their property?

You know what it is? They It's gonna part of that's going to be owned by I think by each and then they just have a there's going to be a right for either one of those units to go to to pass and replace.

But they want to utilize the driveway.

The other can utilize the driveway and they can access the property from the rear right up to where that retaining wall is. Is that what you're saying? Saying um I'd have to look at that but I'd have to maybe sh in fine print.

Excuse me. I said, uh, yeah, the intent was to to be able to, uh, I mean, they're short on space there. So, there is a section that's going to be for for either one. And depending and when they do sell it to transfer it to the daughter, I'll do the I'll do the required easements needed that would run with the land.

Okay.

All right. Well, I didn't prepare anything on this, so I'm going to ask Well, let me ask you this. Is there anyone else? Is there any other comments? Attorney Fry, do you have any comments about this?

No.

Attorney?

No. No.

All right. Um, believe it's something that the board would understand that the plight that these people find themselves in and potentially grant relief.

Well, I mean, certainly this is a unique situation here where uh what you have two existing structures on one lot. you know that was built uh one is what over 100 years and one is like uh you know even with the time limitation I think the I drive by those houses daily and I thought it was two separate houses and I think that's why there aren't any neighbors here in opposition to this

because these things have always have existed for quite some time um actually both of them before I was born so the thing is is I don't I have not prepared a decision, but typically when we have council, it's not unusual for us to ask council to put together a proposed decision. You can speak to Michelle.

She'll give you the template of what we use and we use that as a guidance for us to then draft and utilize whatever we feel needs to be put in there. But obviously you got the four-prong test that we want you to address and also the findings that you believe that we as a board with quai judicial that we as a board should f should find that would support um your analysis for the

four-prong test of the Okay, I can do that.

Climate of a variance.

I've done that before.

Great. But I was going to ask and part of the fact that why I didn't do anything on this was because I didn't see a driveway. had I and I was wondering I was going to suggest if you wanted us to move forward on this that there be a designated area for the parking but it's already here and initially I gave I gave um Michelle copies that were like 8 and 1 half by 11

and you it's like microf film you know something that's what I had that's what I went off of it was an 8 and 1 half by 11 but the thing is you know I should be still be able to see it that's not an excuse I think what happened is I was completely focused on the easement area believing that they were shar sharing that common driveway for both properties and they may be but there's this

alternate which is I consider the primary I consider the primary access which is the one to the south of of the property southwest quadrant of the property so to speak.

All right.

There is an existing garage shown on the plane.

I did see that. But is it intended for parking cars?

Yes.

Yeah. But it remains as part of the other parcel for the house from 1780 shared. That was your question. That was I thought this is probably what they in the garage could be.

Hold on. Hold on. You got to come up.

You got to come up to the podium. You got identified. Please state your name and address.

My name is Jackie Crosby. My address oops, sorry, is 484 Russell Mills Road.

There is a garage that's attached to the 488 that we call the red house.

There is there is a garage there that that driveway leads right into that garage. It is on the southwest quadrant as you just discussed. And then the garages that you see when you come up the driveway, the main driveway, there's six stalls there. Um, those have been part of the property when it was a farm back when the Macka family had it in the 1900s. So, those are used as

garages also. But the red house as we affectionately call it at 4884 garage 484.

Yes, we use the the garages that are at the end of the driveway part of 484.

Yes. It's not attached to the house.

I understand that.

But it's part of the property.

But is the intention to use the 488 to use the garages also if they if I mean we're family.

What's the intention of the common driveway? That's what we're trying to figure out.

The common driveway would be for ease and access to the back of their property if they wanted to use it, but as you see, there's a driveway that leads right to that main garage that's attached to their house that I would see them using that probably 90% of the time.

So, you're saying at 48 there's an actual onecar garage. Is there a one?

Because this plan shows one, but in the photos, I don't see an actual garage based on the perspective of the photo.

You you only see a side view.

No, I see that.

Yeah, but it looks like it, but I don't know if that was actually built that way.

Yeah, it looks like the footprint was done that way. Yes.

Um perhaps it'd be best This is my husband, Richard. He has lived at that house since he was a child, so he might be able to answer some of those questions a little bit better.

Identify yourself, sir.

Richard Crosby, 484 Russell Mills Road.

Um the 488 which is the house that was built in 1965 has two it has a attached garage on the western side of the house and it also has a drive-in basement parking garage underneath which is optional. That was that and access to the backyard was the reason for um the right of way of the main of the driveway primarily for 484.

That explains All right.

And you access from back the basement.

Exactly. There is a drive-in basement with a California door.

Okay.

So there's a big difference in elevation there. You can do that.

Exactly.

Okay. The that makes sense. 488. The footprint of 488 was where the barn sat um when it was a farm. Um the building was painted red as homage to the fact that it was a barn. Um but it was a new structure that was built in 1965. So the lower level of it in the back at one point was just lower. So because the manure came out, I was going to say the manure placement

stall underneath. So, that's been that has been filled in over the years with the exception of one uh driveway that goes into the back of the house.

Thank you for the explanation, sir.

Sure. Thank you.

Williams, so to give you time to put together a decision, um obviously your parent your clients have owned this for a long time.

Um it would there be any objection to continuing this to September to our first September hearing date given that our August 13 date is going to be very much congested.

Are there a lot there are a lot of local matters on the 13th or not? There are.

Yeah. So when what's the first date?

Well, we don't know what the date is because we haven't picked one yet, right?

What So let's look at what do we have on for the 13th for the local stuff? How many?

Two.

We have two. Which which are I have five. at five. Yeah.

I mean, it's just a matter of just a matter of the decision shouldn't be a problem.

Do you think you'd have that to us by the 13th of August?

Potentially the um West Port Road.

Oh, West Port Road. But we might continue that one anyway if we're highly congested to move on because they've asked us for three continuouses. They can grant us one more.

Okay.

Is is August 13th going to give you enough time to put together the the proposed uh draft decision?

Yeah.

Okay.

Gentlemen, I'll enterain I'll entertain a motion and you'll sign acknowledging that the matter is being continued August 13th.

Say that again.

You'll sign an extension acknowledging it's being continued to August 13th.

Yeah, sure.

All right. Well, we don't we really don't need it because we're we're within the a lot of time.

We are.

This is the first time this is on, but I'll send it to you tomorrow along with the template.

Okay, I'm good.

All right, gentlemen. I'll entertain a motion.

I make a motion that we continue variance ZAV26-5 to August 13, 2026.

Second that motion.

All in favor?

I I I The eyes have it. See you on August 13th.

You're welcome.

Moving on.

Moving on.

We're still in the 5:00 session of tonight's meeting. The next case we have is a variance case and it's ZAV26-6.

I don't want to go much further on this because I have a conflict and I therefore cannot sit in on this matter.

So I also will be stepping away this evening because I have another commitment that I must attend to this evening. So um I'm going to we're going to take a short recess. Uh before we take a short recess uh the um we have two um public hearings for the well one we closed the hearing on uh no actually we have we haven't closed either one the two public hearings for 6:00

6:00 uh we um we just did they ask for continuance on this one?

Well, they've agreed to a we're going to continue both of them.

Okay. Yeah. There's no need to vote or anything on this one. We just have to It's just a continuence. Uh there have already been signatures. I've already signed Okay.

the extensions to both of those dates.

Correct.

Right. But do you have to Yeah. You you've already signed.

Yeah.

I don't know.

So obviously we'll we'll open each one just for the purposes of announcing, right? Why don't we do that, Mr. Chair, for the two and then we'll you can leave and then I'll do this the six o'clock hour. That's the only thing.

Oh, that's right. Uh well, it's continued. They don't have They're just continuences.

I mean, do we have to wait till 6?

You should wait till 6 then.

But I don't need to be here to to No.

Well, I mean, we have three members anyways. Just But we don't need to.

That's why and and attorney Far will be sitting in.

We'll be happy here. So, um the zoning board will be in recess to reconvene shortly.

The ZBA is back in session. Um, just for the audience who's watching this on on at home, um, attorney Medeiros has a conflict with the next case. So, I'll be chairing the the board tonight and also attorney Faria and Attorney would be voting members on this case. Uh, our next case on the public hearing agenda is

I thought I had my Is this mine?

Yeah. Okay, it is okay. It's ZAV26-6 and the petitioner applicant is Lydia Ainera. Owner is Nicholas Pereira.

Subject property is located at 38 Bliss Street. It's identified as map 139, lot 97-1.

It's located in the general residence district. And this matter was advertised on July 9th, 2026 and July 15, 2026.

I make a motion we wave the reading of the abuter's list.

Second that.

All in favor?

I.

I. So we we're waving the reading of the abs list but we do have a butters list available at the ZBA office. If anybody wishes to look at the list they can contact Miss Vieiraa and uh they can she can make it available. Uh so the um the in this case the petitioner is seeking a variance to install a new driveway 52.5 ft from an intersection of streets encroaching on the required 55

ft. This application was denied under the following sections of the Dartmouth zoning bylaws section 375-10.4G5 4G5 and I already mentioned that the property is located at 38 Bliss Street. I do have couple of um letters here that we usually read into the record. I think the first one would be from the building commissioner and it's a denial letter and basically it says this was addressed to to the

applicant. says, "I have reviewed your application. At this time, your proposal cannot be approved due to non-compliance with current zoning regulations.

Applicant proposing to install a new driveway 52.5 ft from intersection of streets encroaching on the required 55 foot. And this is per section 375-10.4 4 G5 and a um uh a variance is required.

Again, we do have another uh comments from DPW and it says that the board of public works approved the street disturbance to construct a driveway apron curb cut at their meeting on June 4th, 2026. So, they already approved the curb cut on this prior to getting approved by the zoning board of appeal. H Okay.

Yeah. Well, that's not how we do business, but it's okay. Uh so, u is there anyone here tonight representing the applicant?

Please state your name and uh address for the records and present your case.

Hi, my name is Antonio Dilva from 403 Rockdale Avenue, New Bethford, Massachusetts. Uh, my company is TD Design and Development Corp. I'm actually here representing the applicant which is Lee, Mr. Lee Azanera, who is out of the country today uh and the owner of uh Mr. Nicholas Por Poria of 38 Blissry of Dartmouth, Massachusetts for this variance. We are here today to request a variance based on Dartmouth's

zoning bylaws chapter 33 375 article 10.4G5 de development standards requiring driveways to be at least 55 ft from a tangible road corner radius.

The proposed driveway at the intersection of Bliss Street and Hemlock Street is 52.5 ft away, requiring a 2.5 ft of relief.

Meeting the 55- ft setback requirements would require to locate the proposed driveway to Hemlock Street side. This would require to raise the proposed structure approximately 4 feet from the existing grade. removing removing approximately 30 ft of advertisees that currently is there and creating a larger curb cut. This would be intrusive to the neighborhood, reduce off- streetet parking on Hemlock Street side and

require additional fill that would create grading issues for existing structures on said property and the abutters. Currently, the owner of 38 Bliss Street parks his vehicle in the same location as the proposed driveway entry to the property for the proposed ADU with garage structure.

We request that a 2.5 ft of relief from the zoning board of appeals allows the proposed 52.5 ft distance as shown in the SK Engineering site plan instead of the 55 to be approved.

Okay. Thank you.

Um any uh questions from the board members?

I don't have any. I looked at the plan.

Thought it was a good good plan. Well thought out. It saves all the abies on Hemlock Street.

I I have no questions.

No questions. Okay. Uh well, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience here either in in uh support or opposition of this case? Please come to the podium and and state your case.

Um I don't see anyone here. So uh we have some proposed findings and conditions before we uh render hearings uh render a decision. So we can look at this and u if you want to keep the uh public hearing open just in case we have to communicate with the uh with the applicant um we can keep it open or if you'd like to close it either way I don't have any preference if you want to

keep it open.

Keep it open.

Okay we'll keep it open. So, uh, we can go through the findings and discussions and see if we need to make any, uh, changes.

Uh, the, uh, subject property is located at 31 West Bliss Street, Dartmouth, and also known as map 139, lot 97-1 on town of Dartmouth, assesses map. The property is located in the general residence district.

Uh, and measures, it is not West Street. Uh, yeah, you're right. Thank you. It's 31 Bliss Street.

No, West Bliss Street. We just take the West. So, it's 31 Bliss Street, Darmmouth. And is 30 38 36 Oh, 38.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

Well, thank you. That's why we keep the uh the public hearing open.

That's right.

Okay. So, it's 38 uh Bliss Street.

Uh, I do have the the map and the lot number correct though, right? Yes. Okay.

Uh, the property is located in a general residence district and measures 10,000 I believe 10,130 square ft. I looked that up on right now on the assessor's map. I didn't I couldn't see on the survey for some reason, but if you don't mind, Michelle, we can double check on that. Um, so it's 10,130 ft² where 15,000 ft² is required for a single family residence and 20,000 square ft for a two family residence.

The property is a corner lot with frontages on both Bliss Street and hem hemlock street. The property has been owned by Nicholas Pawera since May 2013.

That's what I have. And Michelle, if you don't mind, just double check on that, please. Currently, there is a two family structure on the property. The owner of the property is proposing to construct a new accessory dwelling unit in the southwest corner of the property.

The petitioner is seeking a variance per article 375-10.4G5 to install a new driveway 52.5 ft from an intersection of streets where 55 ft is required.

The board finds that the requested relief is minor and reasonable as it it deviates from the 55 uh foot requirement by only 2.5 ft.

If gentlemen, if you're in agreement or if you don't just uh if you don't have if you have anything just let me know.

There's no changes to the existing two family structure on the property. The board finds that the construction of the new driver 52.5 ft from street intersection is not more detrimental to the neighborhood and would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning vital. So this is this is a variance. Those are the findings. I don't know if you want to add anything of you think this is fine.

I think that's so you know this is a variance. We have to go through the uh the statutory requirements for granting a variance.

The first one is there are circumstances related to soil shape and topography that especially affect the subject property that do not generally affect the zoning district in which the structure or land is located.

Given the location of the existing two family structure, the proposed Bliss Street driveway must remain as shown on the plan. It has been placed as far from the intersection as the site permits with no visible alternative on that frontage. feasible with no feasible alternative on that frontage. Now to the due to the existing topography and great changes access from the hemlock street

frontage would require raising the structure by 4T removing approximately 30 ft of abuite and installing a large curb cut. This approach would be more disruptive to the neighbor neighborhood and would decrease off streetet parking.

So there is a topography and a shape because of the existing structure. You know, you can't place the driveway where you want to place it. You're not going to move this structure to move the driveway a couple of feet, right? So uh second one is little enforcement of the provision of the bylaw would involve substantial hardship financial or otherwise to the petitioner. The location of the proposed driveway as

shown is the optimal location given the con constraints of the property. A literal enforcement of the provisions of the bylaw would involve substantial financial hardship to the petitioner.

Uh desirable relief may be granted without detriment to the public good.

The requested relief is minor and reasonable as it deviates from the 55 ft requirement by only 2.5 ft. Granting of the requested relief will not be detrimental to the neighborhood or the public good.

The variance. Last one. The variance will not nullify or substantially dergate from the intent or purpose of the bylaw. The property is located in a general resident district and the proposed driveway will provide necessary and practical access to the residential structures on the lot. The requested relief is reasonable and addresses sight specific constraints. granting of the requested variance will not nullify or

substantially dergate or dergate from the intent or or purpose of the bylaw.

Uh again the conditions will be the standard conditions that the the owner or petitioner must secure all the necessary permits and approvals from the applicable board and agencies. They already have a curbcut permit. the uh the board uh site plans. I think you we have the site plans with the dates on the architectural.

Um I don't see anything else. Gentlemen, I have nothing.

I have nothing to add.

So, we need we need a a motion to close the public hearing.

I make a motion that we close the public hearing on variance zav-26-6.

I'll second that motion.

All in favor?

I I Okay, so the public hearing is closed.

make a motion that we approve the the variance for ZAV-26-6 as stated by the proposed findings and conditions.

I'll second that motion.

All in favor?

I I Okay, good luck. Thank you.

Uh it's almost 6 o'clock so I think uh maybe we can take a recess for a couple of minutes or we just I think we can go right. Okay. Yeah. By the time we read the um our uh next on the agenda uh the 6:00 uh meeting and the first item is the um Thank you. I don't know what happened to mine.

Uh the um this is not a public hearing.

Uh the first one because if you remember gentlemen, we closed the public hearing on this case uh Z CMP 25-2 and this was for deliberation regarding the the comprehensive permit. So it was going to be just a discussion between the board members. Um, I don't think we need the motion to continue at this hearing, but I think the the applicant is asking for to continue that deliberation. Correct.

Correct. Yeah.

Yeah. We don't have a date.

August 13th.

Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, I didn't read it.

Okay. So, till August 13th. Okay. So, that would be continue to I have a question. Applicant is asking.

Actually, it was um the town that asked.

Oh, okay.

That's what I thought.

So, I'll take that back. So we we're just moving this to for discussion to August 13th meeting. I was told that Susan, a family member of Susan's passed away.

Oh, yeah. I didn't know.

And that's the reason for these the continuences.

I didn't see.

Oh, you weren't told that.

No.

Oh, you weren't told that?

I was told.

Oh, I mean Yeah. I mean, it's not public. Yeah.

Yeah. It's not I didn't think it was right relevant to requested that. Yeah. Someone very close.

Yeah.

Huh?

Oh, okay. Sorry to hear that. Okay, so we're we're on time. That's good.

So, 6:00. Uh, so our next uh matter on is the uh public hearing for comprehensive permit ZCMP25-3.

And this hearing was continued from June 29 2026.

Uh I think the petitioner uh was there a request for the petitioner on this one to same to move to August 13th. Okay. So this was requested by the by the applicant to it was but requested by the town they had by the Oh the same reason. Okay. Because the couldn't be here. Okay.

Again. Sorry. So but this will have to vote. uh we we would need to vote on this one because this is a public hearing and um I don't think anybody's here from the public. So, you know, uh I make a motion I make a motion that we continue the public hearing on comprehensive permit ZCMP-25-3 to August 13, 2026.

I'll second that motion.

All in favor?

I Thank you.

Is that on for six o'clock? That's for six o'clock. Yeah. Yeah. Both. Uh well, yeah, this one for six o'clock.

Uh I don't uh I think we're going to defer the uh the minutes for the next hearing. I don't think we need to vote on this. We just uh defer that. Um any uh other business that we need to discuss or uh I you know, we're good. If we're good, I need a motion to adjourn. Better discuss where Alvin's going for dinner first.

You want to chair?

We're going to have a vote on that.

Anybody in the public object to uh making a motion to close?

I make a motion that we adjourn.

Second that motion.

All in favor?

I I thank you.

Can I have two seconds?