Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting - July 9, 2026

Thursday, July 9th, 2026.

Um, at this point, I'd like to announce that this matter, this hearing is being recorded by Dartmouth Community Media. I usually take this out of order, but um, we're going to stand and pledge allegiance to the flag.

We'll 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 and especially those that are in the Middle East in harm's way.

Thank you.

All right.

Next meeting is a 40B hearing which is scheduled for July 30th at 6:00 p.m.

here at room 304.

And I believe that that's all the announcements we have. We do have another meeting at 6:00 which is the uh Sherik Farms 40B project. That'll be yes that'll be in about 45 minutes from now.

The first matter that we have in the public hearings portion of tonight's meeting is special permit ZSP25-6.

The petitioner is Jenny Reynolds. The owner is Tracy Nunan, manager of the 8 Bono Court LLC. The subject property is located at Aon 8 Bono Court, also known as map 121 lot 19. It's located in the general residence district and it was legally advertised. We already waved the reading of the abutters list. the petitioner petitioner Tracy Nunan who is seeking a special permit proposing to construct a 576

square 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 and the front yard setback of 20 ft.

The addition is proposed to be built 11.9 ft from the street and they're seeking relief under article 10 section 375-10.4D3.

4 D3B setbacks and section 375-6.2B2 non-conforming structures.

All right. So, this was a matter that was continued at least once before that I can recall. Um, I think it was actually they brought it initially as a variance. I think that we dismissed it as a failure for them to have shown at one point. And am I to understand that I don't see a petition here, but I'm going to call upon a petitioner. the petitioner can come forward and state their case.

I can report to the viewers at home that we have several of the neighbors in the general area of this project or site and there's no one else other than the press in the uh in the room.

So to you were there any phone calls or was there any correspondence that was sent from either the petitioner or Mr.

Christian Christian Farland was the one who was handling this, correct?

Yeah.

Yes. Mr. Farland. Nothing.

Okay. Um.

All righty.

Well, it is a public meeting. I don't necessarily need to hear from the tenants. I mean, the tenants from the uh neighbors at this point. I think I'd rather hear from you gentlemen. Um given that the petitioner is not here, uh they haven't when we last when we last met with the petitioner y uh we offered him we we went through a group discussion and the the it was clear that we were not going to approve

Bono court.

Not based on how it was presented.

Not based on how it was presented.

Correct. So you offered him the opportunity to withdraw his petition um while the alternative we would take a vote on his petition and he rest requested a twoe continuence so that he could speak to the owner. That was my impression. That's right. Speak to the owner.

I think he did indicate that. That's right. He did ask for an extension or we offered we told him that we given the given the pulse of what we were conveying that we give always give the applicants an opportunity to withdraw.

Yes.

All right. You remember that? Um Haleem.

Yeah. The same thing.

I that's my All right. So that's your recollection of what transpired. Good gentlemen. Is there anything else? Oh Sean, good to see you.

Good to see you, too.

All right. Do you remember being here the last time?

I do.

All right. So all I can tell you is that as a matter of practice, what we've allowed in the past is when someone comes before us and they're not present, we usually give them a continuence just out of courtesy. We've done that. But uh in this case a little bit different because it's already been before us once before. Um and we made it abundantly clear to the gentleman that if that if

he wanted to come back to us, he could do so. um either with a different petition or different some modifications to the proposal or um with an opportunity to withdraw it again if he wanted to, but he's not here. So, um we don't do this too often. We don't usually vote against the project. Um sure.

Yes, he did sign a continuence agreement back on June 18th.

which continued it to today.

So gentlemen, what's your pleasure?

What are the options, Mr. Chair? If we don't, we don't He's not here tonight to extend. So we have to make a decision. I believe either way, um because of the time sensitivity of it at this point, uh given how many time given the number of days that have transpired since the application, we don't want it to be constructively allowed.

Exactly. Um, so and then they're not here to request or consent to a continuence or ask us to approve a continuance or to present a different plan that what we asked or so so at this point I guess um I myself would feel comfortable in adopting um a vote or a motion for a vote um denying the petition as request.

Well, I guess I gentlemen, I can't make the vote. I mean, I can't make the motion to be voted on.

Looking to me, I make a motion that we deny special permit ZSP-25-6 for 8 Bono Court. Uh the petitioner did not appear for the scheduled hearing and the uh it's my opinion uh as part of this vote that the project would be more detrimental to the neighborhood.

Second.

All in favor?

I I I have it.

We still need to write a decision on this one though.

Oh yeah, we'll write a decision.

Absolutely. We're going to write a decision.

Put that together.

Okay, folks.

It was easy.

No yays.

All right. So, we're going to take a actually we're going to take a recess and rejourn at 6:00.

Yes.

All right.

We will recess till 6. Court of Appeals is back in session.

At this time, I'm going to recall comprehensive permit ZCMP25-2, which was continued from June 8th, 2026.

The petitioner is Robert Lincoln. The owner is Sherbrook Farms LLC. The subject property is located at 498 O Westport Road, also known as map 48, lot 29. It's located in the single residence B district and the matter has been legally advertised prior to and the w we've waved the reading of the abutters list. The petitioner is seeking a comprehensive permit pursuant to mass general law

chapter 40b and the comprehensive permit guidelines 760 CMR56 from the Massachusetts general laws and zoning bylaw regulations. The petitioner applicant is proposing a development on approximately 81.8 8 acres to be known as Sherbrook Farms to be located at 498 O Westport Road. The development will have a total of 156 units of rental housing. I think that's been changed to 152, but we'll clarify

that as we progress, including 39 affordable units, the petitioner/applicants requesting waiverss from the following zoning bylaws. We're not going to read those by right now because we're going to be reading them soon as we go through them.

All right. So, um I'm going to turn to our legal counsel. What can you tell us?

Sure. I'm going to give you just some updates. So, at the um last hearing on June 8th, um the board had there was a few things the board had discussed with the applicant. Maybe reconfiguring some of the parking space layout and all that to try to accommodate more islands and some more landscaping and some open space areas.

Um in addition there had been a list of um kind of questions that I had prepared in a memo uh many of which um had been kind of provided by the planning director who couldn't be at the last hearing. And so there's been a number of submissions that came in uh were dated June 25th, posted June 26th. Um I believe the board has them in front of you. It includes a updated full plan

set, an updated landscaping plan, and then a I think a visual graphic overview which um which you know shows kind of wetlands, open space, that type of thing. What the applicant will walk through for you with the board. There were also um four letters all from Kico.

Um uh one is one is a cover letter that speaks to some of the draft conditions for the project that um you know I'd like to walk through with the board and the applicant. Um there's a response to the memo the this one's called re special town council's memorandum. So um we can that one we can probably go through pretty quickly. Um there's responses to the DPW director's review comments. Um and the DPW director is

here and we can kind of give you an update on those responses as well as a response to um to Nich's um proposed um plan changes. And then again, I don't think there's a lot that needs to be talked about there. I can give you we can go in whatever order the board would like. And then there is an updated um waiver list. So um there's also an update related to on the conditions

related to sewer which um the applicant and Mr. Barber are prepared to speak to.

So, um, you know, I don't there's so that's a it sounds like a lot, but I think there's only probably a handful of of kind of specific open issues or issues to be reviewed based on last hearings discussion um that are kind of most important for tonight with the most important um thing being that um the board is required to close the hearing tonight. The applicant has given the board I think at least two or three

extensions and so it's scheduled tonight to be closed and then the board will have 40 days um in which you we can schedule another meeting. I think there's one tenatively on the calendar.

We can talk about that at the end where the board would meet just as a public meeting, not a public hearing, no new information, but just to kind of look at an updated draft of the conditions um and potentially vote within the next 40 days after tonight's hearing. So, that's that's the update. So, however the board would like to proceed, whatever, I don't know if there's a topic you want to start with.

I would just like them to give us an update as to what they've changed on the plan since the last time we were here. I know that Haleem had some concerns about the landscaping on this project.

Um, so if you could just give us that and whatever else been changed. So, I do know that with regard to the units, is it a definite 152 units at this point?

Correct.

Okay.

Great. Um, so good evening. Damian Demetri, Konico engineers and scientists for First Street Bridgewater, Massachusetts, here on behalf of Trevor Farms LLC. Um, for the project at 498 Old Westport Road in Dartmouth. Um, so just what I'm going to go through over here, uh, quick highlight, more critical components. Um, you know, work through my whole presentation. Uh, I just want to give that overview. Um, you

know, and once we're through it, I maybe we can dive into the individual items.

I, you know, I just want to maybe highlight the different documents that I have and the changes in order and then, you know, the additional questions as they come up, I can dive more into it.

So um the first I think is um had brought been brought up in the landscaping kind of the easiest to resolve and talk about. So this is the new proposed um site layout simplified with um the parking just kind of um defined more and the land the islands.

So, um, what we ended up doing was throughout the project is, you know, we previously had the, uh, 10x20 parking spaces. And so, throughout here, you can see we actually we reduced spaces throughout, not all of the parking spaces, just within certain aisles and rows so that we could then add in landscaped islands and re increase some landscaped islands generally to um, you know, give more landscaping space as

requested by the board. Um I think another notable would be um you know so those are some examples of the you know nine foot aisles right so say here this is 9 foot aisles wide this 10 foot wide aisles just there was no additional effort or you know the area given you know um by reducing those you know we could have made the end aisle but we didn't gain an additional landscaped diamond so again trying to

maintain with what the bylaw is, but then also asking for, you know, we needed a waiver for those sizes. Um, and then, uh, the other additional kind of, um, critical location with a label going through nowhere is these parking spaces.

Um, we actually reduced the length of these to 18. So, they're 9 by8 spaces.

And that allowed this central aisle to be wider and and really give a little bit more of that green space there. I believe it was 7 feet wide. Um it has now jumped to I I wish there was a label for it here but I believe probably uh 10 10 feet wide. Um you know so or yeah it would have been seven and a half. It would have jumped up two feet on either

side. Um so you know again just per the request of the board. Um we're now requesting a waiver from the parking space size which is the 10 x 20. Um but to kind of go forward with that and now these long stretches in these areas here um now uh have landscaped islands break up that you know long it was I think a 24 foot you know 24 space uh area there.

So um that was the original request of the board. Uh with that we created um this second plan which I think is you know will be much more useful for conversations tonight. It's the proposed design with the um aerial imposed behind it and then some hatching to really highlight some landscaped areas. So, you know, as this is the current condition with the parking areas, um I didn't hatch the parking just so it kind of

gives reference to what is behind the aerial and what is being replaced. Um, but I think one of the the more pertinent or important items to kind of highlight here is the idea of outdoor amenity space um that could be used by the uh uh the the property or the the tenant uh tenants of the facility. So right here it's two flattened and the contours aren't showing up great here. two flattened areas um you know

over behind the facility and then with a a sloped walking path down to the existing paths uh that are within the the property throughout the um you know the extents of the entire property. So, you know, you can see the kind of the the property limits here. We have this large pond. Um, property lines are here and you can kind, you know, roughly see existing, you know, paths from the

previous use, uh, through the wooded areas out in into that landscaped area.

And then this is a, you know, a landscaped, you know, picnic area, you know, benches, just just grass area. Um, you know, didn't want to put anything extensive in there. Again, just open space, right? you know that that was an additional request by the board. Um so with that comes the revised landscaping plans uh which do show the contours there. Um so again uh a couple of trees mostly

grass landscaped area some picnic batches proposed now right this is you know um those can are obviously movable and then you can see the the gradual slope walk down um you know down to the paths there so to to make it you know reasonably accessible for for um you know walking um and then similar over here this is a little bit tighter um smaller area again Just wanted to make sure we had enough walking area. We

didn't want to overextend these areas um as again where these um the buffer zones for the wetlands um are behind the facilities as well. Um you know there's a 25 foot no touch setback um and then there's the you know um a 50- foot setback just to give reference kind of that's where we were trying to kind of keep work outside of you know just to avoid those impacts the best we could.

Um here it was just we wanted to bring the slope all the way down to that existing path but keep it outside of the 20 foot um 25 foot I apologize. Um so those are the major and then again with the new landscaping plans um we were able to you know add additional trees buffers um in areas as requested. Um again these areas um we're hoping to maintain existing trees to the greatest

extent practical um but we'll you know have proposed some you know um additional plantings there just to really ensure um that there is that visual buffer from from the facility. Um so I think that covers the landscaping um and the uh aerial graphic there. Um, so then with that, you know, I think we could probably dive into more of the intent actual conditions um and and anything, you know, anything

specifically that the board would like to talk through. Um, Susan has already kind of taken up much of my uh my discussion points and I don't want to waste the board's time.

Um, I'm pointing at you. I I I couldn't remember if it was about the this the parking and the landscaping. I I'd spoken to both Mr. Giosa and Mr. Barber yesterday um to kind of walk through all of this new this information that had come in.

And I know Mr. Did you had some comments, but I couldn't remember. Was it on the parking and the landscaping or not yet? Should we can wait till we get to the waivers? Okay. All right. Sorry.

Just trying to keep track of it all. So, do you you want us we can walk through the letters um these various letters and then we can touch on those if really I I thought I was going to go through the the waiverss and the conditions. I mean if we hear well there but the letters kind of speak to the condition the conditions so um that's why and the way we can do but we can do

which one you want to start with first um well why don't I do this the simple the simplest ones first um so if you there's one that it's they're all dated June 25th but one of them the reline is DPW director peerreview comments Um, so what we had done in the original kind of draft conditions is in incorporate kind of all of the comments from the DPW director. Um, they've provided a

response letter. I I don't know. Um, Mr.

Barber, you don't have to read through everyone, but do you want to just speak to whether they've responded to your um Sure. Uh good evening, Tim Barber, director of public works. So based on our last round of comments on the plan, uh the applicant has revise the plans uh and responded in in uh in a letter form. So most of their re revisions in included uh basically like some notations and and limited limited items

where some of the some of the technical design comments. Um they had they had responded that they would uh work on those revisions in the future post approval.

So I think that's that's about the miss. So with respect to those um as far as moving forward on a revised draft of the conditions to the extent that they've already addressed some of the comments from Mr. Barber's original memo. Um we can you know modify those draft conditions accordingly. And there's some that will be post permit and may stay there. So, I I think um you know, you don't need to the board

doesn't necessarily need to kind of read through each of these. I think it looks like they've accepted and in fact already incorporated most of Mr.

Barber's comments on the plans. Can we include the date of the and say to comply with those in rather than list them individually or is that with the conditions the draft conditions already include all of these. So now we yeah it's just in fact we might be able to take out okay you know sounds a number of conditions and make the decision a little shorter. Um so that's that's on the the DPW um comments. Um

on um the next one they they did a um what had happened is uh niche engineering civil engineer um had provided a list of recommendations and similar to Mr. barbers. I had taken his recommended conditions and incorporated them into the draft. But again, they've updated they've updated the plans a number of um for almost all of these. So, um I guess the only question that I had and

I don't know I think Mr. Goa, this might be a question for you is on so number on page two on number five. I think we we were a little unclear on that response about the updates on that. So I don't know. I'll let Mr. Giosa speak to the question on that one.

Good evening everyone. Dan Giosa, planning director here in town. Is I can't really see it. Is that for the lighting? So this no this is the one here I can do you want.

So five is shown five was revise the plans on the consolidation. So the their response was that the plans have been revised to include the recommended updates to include the entire commonly owned parcels for site plan calculations and the aquafer protection overlay district.

Correct. I believe those were all updated to reflect that as a you were comfortable with those. Okay.

What was the There were a few. There was one for the lighting plan that was set up to be a condition for post approval. Um, which which which is agreeable. However, looking through the plan set, there was actually a light detail on the detail sheet that showed a max height of 30, which per the bylaw would be 25. We were under the assumption that would be all be included on the lighting plan. So,

that was put on there. So, one of two things would happen. Either take that off the plan set and put it on the lighting plan at the required height or that would have to be added um as a requested waiver.

Yeah, we're comfortable with just shortening the light to meet the That's what I figured. I figured it was just a a standard detail that was included as a separate But if all those lighting requirements are are put in as a condition of approval to comply with a section of article 24, that would be an agreeable condition of approval.

I I um Mr. Chairman if through you I did I did have one other item that was kind of on a requested letter prior that what didn't fall cleanly into any of the letters you have before you. Um it was clarification on the waiverss for the setbacks from the parking facilities.

Okay. There was some discrepancies between the waiver request the table on sheet seven and the actual dimensions on the plan.

So can we can we I'm sorry I didn't interrupt you. Can we talk about that when we get to the waiver list?

Okay.

This was something outside of that while he had the plan. So that's why I wanted to Is that the one about 15 and 9.7? Is that where that at?

Yeah. The the table on the sheet and then the what's on the plan and then the the waiver. So I figured while he has the plan if we could take a look at that.

Yeah. 15 9.7. There it is.

So you see on the parking table for the setback from the street it's requested as 77.8.

The waiver request is 31.9. And as we talked um in our discussion on the plans itself, it's 17.5. So that's just a Yeah, that that looks like it was a Let me go here because I believe Yeah, that that um and I think that in the waiver list we use the right numbers correct?

No, on the waiver list it's 31.9 on waiver number nine. We can get to that when we get to the waivers.

We'll get to that when we get to that.

But just just just so just so on the plans you can see what what we're referring to while you have the plans up on the screen. I just wanted to to call that out.

Yeah.

What I I want to make sure that anything that's a waiver that the board may grant that it's correct in the waiver on the waiverss tonight and then it can be, you know, if there needs to be an update of a table that can just get thrown into the conditions. So that'll be easier. I just want to make sure that the numbers are right in the actual waiver requests.

Yeah. So this is the distance that we have here.

17. That's that's that's what I assume.

So when we get to the when we get to the waiver list, we'll refer it back to that.

Numbers, correct?

17.5.

Is that 17.5 or 17.8?

17.5 for the front yard and then the sideyard should be 17.7 at its closest spot was for the fire access. Um that's you have a dimension all the way to the east side of the property and it's not on the sheet. It was on the sheet seven for the latest one that was submitted shows 17.7. So, I believe that should be the correct waiver request on that.

You know what? I'm actually I might be in the wrong folder here.

No, I think that's right because I have the your plan set right here. It was 17.5.

Okay.

Okay. So that was the um the one that was called peerreview letter. Um so that one's in good shape. They've kind of responded to and agreed to kind of all of these um updates and in fact may have made them already which would reduce the number of conditions in the draft conditions.

Um, okay. In the one that's the um special town council memorandum. So that's their response. I I had um shared a memo right before the last hearing on June 8th. A lot of it was just clarifications to make sure that So this is the one the re special town council memorandum.

I don't have that one.

Do you not have that one?

I don't have that one.

Wait here. Pass it down. Michael, do you have it? I got one.

All right.

Thank you.

Um, a lot of this was just clarification so that the references in the you know any draft decision will be um updated. Um there's I think part of what um Mr.

Giosa was just speaking to uh was in number eight at the bot on page two.

This was the parking setbacks, right?

The inconsistencies between sheet seven and waiverss um nine and 10. So, it kind of showed up here too where it says, you know, they've been the the setback distance have been shown on the plan, which they have. And you said the waiver was has been updated, but there's still some but we'll get it all we'll get it all sorted out. Um then on the other so then we get into landscaping which is on page three.

Um and there was a list of landscaping. So, um I guess the question here is this was all all this landscaping calculations were put on sheet seven as opposed to on the landscaping plan. I don't know if you have a recommendation on that. Um ju just I would just add it to the landscaping plan just makes it clear for the requirements can stay on sheet seven as well but just I I know it's a

different person that's doing your landscape person. So as a condition that could be okay I'll add in that that would be a simple simple ad.

Okay. And then the last one but I think you spoke to it already um on the last page was the lighting was the 30 ft versus the 25 ft. So that it was in this letter.

Okay. keep track of which letter we were talking about. Um so for the most part um everything's been addressed. There'll be a few um kind of minor conditions just related to the information shown that it needs to be updated and shown on the plans.

So if the board doesn't have any questions about that letter.

Okay. So the next one is kind of the more if you go to the letter that has bold in the RE4B comprehensive permit application revision 4.

One is the crosswalks and I don't know do you have a plan that shows I just want to give them an overview and then we can go back through the letter.

What are you trying to look at the plan? the crosswalks between the project and Lucy Little.

Yeah.

So, one of one of the you know, and this this were also recommendations that came from the traffic consultant. Mhm.

So they're proposing crosswalks on from their project entrance across the street to the corners of Lucy Little because that's the side of the street of Old Westport where there is a sidewalk.

So no one who's leave walking from this project say in the direction of UMass Dartmouth if they're going to use a sidewalk they have to cross the street.

The those all those crosswalks require by state accessibility laws to be handicap accessible ramps, accessible ramps. And the recommendation is in for the condition is that the applicant be responsible because they're the ones bringing all those people across the street to Lucy Little that they update that all of the you know all of those four corners to make them accessible.

Um so that's that's the first one. We'll talk about that more in a second.

Can I ask a question?

Yeah. Isn't there a sidewalk right outside their property going towards UMass?

But just it's going to be short, right?

It's not going to Does it end?

No, the the main property So the main sidewalk to Dartmouth is on our our development side.

It's I thought that sidewalk was on the southerntherly side.

No, I don't think so.

No, no it's Where's the picture?

Mr. Barber.

I thought there was an issue about not wanting to continue the sidewalks all the way down.

On the Oh, in the westerly direction.

Westerly direction is what I read.

Yes.

All right. So, I have I have my information upside down. There's a there's a sidewalk that runs right down here. Now, I don't know how far it goes, but the other sidewalk kind of stops here. There's no sidewalk here, I don't think. But I've I've driven by there, but I don't remember.

All right. I might need Mr. Barber's assistance here. So, as obviously I'm getting my information upside down.

Mr. Barbara, can you speak to the Yes. So, Lucy Little and the crosswalks.

Director of public works. The There are sidewalks on both sides of the road.

Okay.

Okay. And but they do terminate on the north side of the road west of the entrance.

Right.

And which side of the street is UMass Dartmouth, isn't it? On the on the south side. On the south side of the road. So if people are crossing the street at some point to get to UMass Dartmouth.

Okay. From so and they're on the north side. So to get to UMass Dartmouth, you have to go over to the south side. Okay.

So that part I got correct.

The location of the sidewalk on the north side is what I was confused about the So but I just want to give the the board. So that that that's the first kind of mitigation. The second one has to do with doing a safety audit of the roadways um in this vicinity and then if there's any from the safety audit and we can talk about what the location of the safety audit is putting in maybe some

street paint markings or safety signage etc.

The applicant does not want to be responsible for putting any safety markings or additional signs in there, be responsible for the cost of doing any of those recommended like painting and signage. They don't want to be responsible for that cost.

And then the third one, which will also speak to in more detail, I'm just kind of giving you all three of them so you have a bigger picture context of what the mitigation that's being requested for the project. The third one has to do with impacts on the um on the Junior Street um pump station. So those are the three types of mitigation that are being requested. Um and that and so I I just

wanted you to have those three in a context, but maybe we can now, you know, start with the with the crosswalks. So, if you look at um on page two of this letter that we were talking about at the bottom of the letter, the proposed condition said in addition to putting in the crosswalks, which is basically paint, um it was a including installation of new pedestrian ramps at the termini, you

know, of all the crosswalks and they've deleted that and have said they don't believe that they should be responsible for those ramps.

So, I don't know if the board has questions, if Mr. Barber has any input, but I just wanted you to be aware that they are objecting to that request.

Let's hear from the engineer.

Exactly.

Um, what item was this?

So, this is at the bottom of page two, number E6, just about where your arrow was.

E6 right here. Yeah.

racks provided shall be provided from east to west across loosely little road that provides pedestrian uh continuity on the south side of old old westport road um including the instation of new pedestrian ramps at the crosswalk termini and design of submitt of the DPW. The applicant does not believe in adjusting the existing town ramp. So um I think the confusion here is we are proposing

ramps. Let me get to my proper sheet here. We are proposing ADA pedestrian ramps at this location, this location, this location, and across the street.

So, anyone that would be traveling from our development, those new proposed ramps where we are proposing new crosswalks, we are very much willing to install ADA compliant ramps. That's the those are as shown on the plan. Um where we um you know there was a you know we believe that you know we we shouldn't be uh held um you know to the standard of having to do that is the existing ramps that are

on Lucy Little Road that is across Lucy Little Road in the roadway which I can actually pull them up here for Lucy Little.

This hopefully loads quickly.

there is an existing ADA ramp and we just don't want to replace an existing ramp that is town owned. So, you know, and that's we'll put in the crosswalk in that area. Um, but it it is the existing ramps that that, you know, aren't necessarily something, you know, which we would prefer um to not have to install a new additional ramp thing.

That doesn't meet current day standards for ADA ramps, does it? I think downtown they've got these mats with all these types of uh surfaces and whatever else.

Yeah, I'll defer I'll defer to that.

Yeah, the conditions. Yeah, we would we would have to check the the the slope of of the sidewalk and the ramp to confirm whether or not it it does comply with 88.

Okay.

So, it's basically just as long as the slope is satisfied, then you're you're you're okay with that.

The slope, the uh the the slope, the width, uh and the uh the landing area as well. So, there are multiple components to a to an ADA ramp that need compliance.

You you don't know whether or not those are compliant the way they stand?

I don't.

So if they're not compliant, what's the I mean it should be included in part of the improvements. I think that was recommended by the traffic engineer too.

And also I think you've you've already committed to that to prior hearings I believe. Right.

Yeah. uh you know again from our understanding and what I I have presented was no I I understand but I mean still it's not your in front of your project but still within the vicinity I mean this is not no you know it's it's not a big deal. No, we're amendable to it as as we're reviewing the conditions and you know, we have had issues where taking an existing ramp and revising it

on a property across the street from us, we get into other issues with the accessibility, you know, where does the end of our responsibility occur?

Correct. Um, and you know, as you know, okay, those ADA ramps aren't, you know, do they have the proper width? Are we now widening the sidewalk? Are we now adding additional things to that extent to to make all of that compliant? Right.

You're talking very small areas. If you have to widen it by a foot or two or chase the slope another couple of feet, I don't think we're talking about reconstructing the sidewalks on Lucy Little, you know, for 2,000 ft. So, I think this should be part of the intersection and it's very reasonable to ask for this. you know, we'll I think we'll be part of the condition that, you know, first want to make sure they

comply. If they comply, you're good. If they don't comply, we just have to modify them, you know. So, I don't think you're you're I don't think you're opposed to that. So, yeah. No, you know, we're amendable. If if you know again our preference for design is to to not be on the hook for that but it is understanding that the board you know we will uh it's an amendable condition by our

okay and if I if I may um along with the installation of a crosswalk there are also requirements for installation of signs for crosswalk signs and crosswalk ahead signs. So I think if I don't I recall that was a recommendation from the traffic engineer to revisit Lucy Little just to make sure you know if we need to do any additional striping or add maybe safety you know like we're not talking about adding you

know like 600 signs you probably like you know maybe few signs for sharp curve or something or maybe you know warning signs that I think it was part of the traffic recommendation and I thought you already agreed to that.

Yeah, I so I think we jumped on away from the conversation on Lucy Little specifically and the crosswalks there which was defined in this um section E.

Um what would be the um number that we're uh so if you go to associated with the um yeah complete um yeah we're going out of order. So one two three on the fourth page of the letter um it says I construction and inspections at the top but we're going down below.

If you see number um six, six is um for a kind of a. So if you look at 6A, this is this is language right from the draft conditions that he's kind of restated here. So the applicant shall undertake a comprehensive review of signs and pavement markings between Old Westport and UMass um at the project entrance right to UMass. So it's about 1,200 feet and from Lucy Little Road between Old

Westport and Chase. So kind of going straight across onto Lucy Little. And then the proposed condition was that they'll replace or install signs or pavement markings. So those these are signs or pavement markings that would be recommended from this kind of review of signs and pavement markments. kind of like this safety audit and they they only want to be responsible if they've somehow damaged an existing

sign or pavement marking. So, I I don't know. And again, unfortunately, um we didn't bring everybody here tonight um because we weren't sure we were going to need them. But I think he's prepared to respond to that.

Yep.

Yeah. So I think this is just a misunderstanding and clarification associated with it. Um you know if you know that this line item that we were damaged um in construction activities what we didn't want to be on the hook was for the replacement and installation of all signs which is how that was read to us when we went through it. Right.

The applicant shall replace and install signs and pavement markings.

Just clearcut right there is what we saw. if we can maybe revise this language to say per the recommendations of that along with the you're right as required per safety improvements that what I think that's what we were you know are we on the hook for the entirety of all signs and pavement markings replaced even if they're the ones that were damaged and previously existing that like are still functional but but

like not by our project right you know like we didn't want to be on the hook for the entirety of those roadway lengths which are substantial right?

Um, you know, and having to prepare in place everything that wasn't necessarily associated with our project. I and I don't know if this I'm just I'm saying this from past hearings so I don't know if this is accurate but there was maybe a discussion of potentially having like I don't know one of those kind of solar flashing stop signs at the end of Lucy Little just to make sure cars realized

that they were hitting Old Westport and they didn't just try to drive straight across or something like that that would increase the safety at the intersection I think is the kind of stuff that they were I think it's for us it's within reason and you know assume safety that was associated with that. The the line that was there was um associated with um you know and that that's what we wrote you

know applicant not believe it necessarily replace all signs and pavement markings regarding a list of their condition um you know through the roadway and that that's how it was perceived from us and how that was written. If we could just add additional language to clarify that it you know per you know um the recommendations of this traffic study or something and kind of tie it to you know safety

and that kind of thing. All right. So, this is language we can sort out.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yep.

I I think that's that's really helpful.

Um, hold on one second. We do have a couple people here, and I know that this lady's pretty much impacted by this, I believe.

Um, is it was it you? If you want to come up, is this some comment that you'd like to make? I don't know how you feel about a flashing light, a stop sign. All right.

Well, no, I'm not saying that would happen.

I'm not saying that would happen.

If you want to come on up, let me come on up. Just state your name.

I'm just giving I was giving an example.

I know we're concerned about the curvature there. I know that there were some discussions about that. Most of that is immediately a budding property.

So, Sagy 489 Old Westport Road immediately across the street on the corner.

Um, and as I identified, the corner is part of it. It was taken over by the town at some point. I don't know when, but on that corner. So, I cannot provide any type of privacy that is all picture windows into the living room. So if you put a flashing light on the corner, it's going to reflect off my TV. I mean, it's that close. I'm not trying to be silly by any means, but

No, no, no. It was just an example of the house.

There's a tra we're trying to make it safe, but there is also a trade-off on this collaboration.

I think that's what I believe Mr. Barber when you spoke at the last hearing and said that he would meet with you out there and try to figure out what the town pretty much what I took from that. It was it would be my expense to get permission to pay town people to put things on their property on the town's property. So it would be an added expense to me

to pay your town to put things on your property. Am I correct? I not sure I understand.

I I could not put up any kind of brush or anything because it's town property and the only one that would be approved is a contracted p landscaper by the town and I'd have to pay for this stuff.

I see. So, you're saying to create an additional sort of buffer there between your house and that corner, you'd like to put some vegetation. Now, I don't know what the restrictions are, but that is a corner that they need some sort of visibility, sight distance visibility.

I understand that. I get that. It's not 100% accurate, but it's pretty close.

But yeah, this that's pretty accurate.

Yeah, I haven't been able to do anything on that side of the house whatsoever.

Yeah. as far as Oh, or I mean we've mowed it for 75 years going back to my great-grandparents. But there you go. So now we got Well, I'm hopeful there's some happy medium that you I mean, I'd gladly take it over, pay taxes.

I mean, I think that the key was that at the time that they start working on the project, they have to go to Mr. Barber.

Hope Mr. Barber, I believe, said he would meet with you. Is that right? Am I putting Yes, he's nodding.

And try to sort that all out.

Is that something that would have to be resolved prior? Like if it would be at their expense, that would be the DPW.

Okay.

He's actually not a bad guy to deal with.

No, he was very nice about it. I was just I'm sure he'll work with you.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

And thank you for asking me to come.

Continue.

Okay. So, um I before we get So, I don't want to jump to sewer right now. I think if we stick like to the letter because and then we can just there's a few other things in here and go back to the letter. Um so if we go back to the second page the first the first one was D. Um and and I think I can talk to you I understand that there's a number of

um provisions and I think Mr. Giosa may want to speak to this one. I think at a minimum what we need here to address your concern is to obviously carve out anything that's been waved. That should be a carve out from the condition. But I think I think this is a simpler condition than maybe you interpreted it at. And yes, again, Dan Giosa, planning director, this this only thing missing

from here which we spoke about was just basically a pavement detail of what the pavement in the property in the parking facility was. you know, basically just showing gravel, whatever you're doing, just to make sure it complies with the 24.3F that it's a a surface acceptable for a parking facility. So, that's basically all we were looking for is just a detail of the parking facility.

You had some for the transition from the road to the parking lot, the transition point, but just something that shows the detail of the pavement in the parking facility itself.

Something like that.

Where you looking?

That's the emergency vehicle. Yeah.

Specifically for the emergency vehicle access something. But basically that that for the just saying that's what's going to be in the parking facility.

Some of Yeah, that's that's all that's all that was.

No, this is typical roadway section.

Yeah, it it just nothing was labeled as correctly.

Yes. So that that's all that's just clarification on that.

So then we just we did E6 we talked about that um on Okay. So let's school top of the next page number eight the school buses um the project unless you don't you're not going to allow any school age children which I'm assuming is not the case. It's not a 55 and over.

If there's one school child there, a bus is going to have to stop somewhere at your entrance to get there. And so then the question becomes, where is a any child who has to get on a school bus going to safely stand to catch the school bus? So that's what this condition is speaking to. So I guess you know when I was talking to Mr. Barbara and uh yesterday we were kind of confused as to

kind of the objection to providing kind of a designated school bus area. Not it doesn't have to be anything fancy. It doesn't have to be an enclosure. It or like a camp, you know what I mean? All it needs is here's enough spot. Here's a safe spot that's not going to be in the driveway in Old Westport Road. here's a safe spot that a child can stand and catch the bus. So

that's that's the intent there. And I guess I Can you explain kind of what the Yeah.

concern is?

Yeah. I mean, again, I think we're we're willing to um from my discussions with our peer review on traffic for the design of this is that the transit authority associated either with UMass or the public transit and or a school bus, they're going to make that determination. They're going to make that determination and they'll have to they're the ones that put in their bus stops. They could not, you

know, if it's one kid, there might be a bus stop on little Lucy that the kid will already travel to. There might be a bus stop somewhere else along that like that's where kids are picked up in the area. We're not here. What I'm trying to do or avoid with this is to impose a specific on the site related to what another authority has jurisdiction over.

So, you know, if they need to put a bus stop in at the front entry or like we'll work with them, right? willing to work with the sk school department and public safety officials to identify appropriate location for the bus stop. Um but again, it's working through like that final plan. Um you know, us providing that bus drop entrance, where that's going to be, how that works out with it. Like they're not

going to know how many kids they want there, how big it's going to be, any of that stuff until it actually gets used. Right. this this as a a a facility close to UMass Dartmouth, it's probably going to be mostly people using, you know, attending that college, not as many families with children. I'm not saying that there's not going to be any families with there, but we're trying to kind of leave that

to the transit authority to make that determination on where they would want those kids, right? If there if that spot's already on Little Lucy, right, then that's where those kids will have to walk to to get to the bus, right? you know, I walked, you know, we've all walked distances to get to the bus stop, right?

So, with respect to the transit authority, this doesn't cover that at all. So, it's only speaking to school.

Yeah. So, so for like children, school children who go through high school to Dartmouth public schools, right?

So, I consider the school busing system the transit a transit authority.

Okay.

Yeah. But not specifically like the local transit authority.

Yeah. it I mean the notwithstanding the crosswalks which will be great particularly for the adults it's not typical in my kind of years of representing municipalities that the school that they want children running across to the other side of the street they'll usually have buses will go in both directions and not so I mean if does this work does the first sentence work if it is qualified you know if you know

required by or requested by the school department like if it's qualified I mean the thing is every other project is providing the school bus area okay for and so um you know if if it's the children coming out of your development. There needs to be a safe spot that public safety and the school department has determined is safe for those children to stand and they're only going to be there because

your project exists. So, you kind of have to have some responsibility for that designation amendable to a condition. you know, I guess there's just the language and ma making sure that that gets worked out and and that was the, you know, intent of this cover letter was to kind of, you know, come up with locations where we saw some vagueness and wanted to kind of clarify that we had

That's fair. I mean, does the board have any questions?

Similar to what we did with the with the Hutton right?

Yeah, it's the same language.

Send them a copy. Is that the same language?

It's the same exact language from Hawthorne.

Yeah. So, they're willing to work. same language any other project is going to have. So, but obviously um obviously if it's not to say you shall provide it, then they say, "Oh, no. Well, we don't even need it there or want it there."

Then why you're creating it for nothing is your point. So, maybe we qualify it because obviously it's not up to this board either where the bus stop goes.

Yeah.

They just need to kind of have a make sure that you don't have kids hanging out in the street kind of situation waiting for the bus. Um Okay.

Um I am going to skip F for a minute. Um because this is the the the wa the sewer. Um and okay, G6 is okay. We're going to talk about the waiverss on the next page.

So can you can you talk so this one has to do again with the landscaping both along the frontage. So this is the existing landscaping that's the buffer for the neighbors across the street and then the easterly along but and you already talked a little bit about the landscaping but can you just uh speak to this this condition as drafted says they have to replace any of the existing

trees that are the current buffer and they're asking for a modification that they're going to protect and maintain.

Um but can you just clarify what what what I was trying to get across?

What you're trying to get across.

So, you know, we're going to try and protect the main train trees along that existing buffer to the greatest extent practical. It's within our, you know, um, what we would like for the site anyway. We want to have those existing trees. It we it will help us reduce the amount there. So, um, what in, you know, in the design of the site here, right, we have a 10-ft tall retaining wall in

this location. there are tiebacks associated with that retaining wall to maintain its structural uh you know integrity. We can go with big block we can go with other things but we're we're proposing trees to show just to show the greatest extent that we want to keep these trees but there is a condition where you know tiebacks or whatever structure you know during the construction those trees are removed so

we want to protect them to the greatest extent practical um and maintain that buffer. So again, it's just clarification on the language. I think I think we're heading in the same direction for, you know, what um is wanted. Um you know, visual screen, you know, a visual buffer screening shall be maintained along the frontage of the property along the frontage and the eastern property line. Um that, you

know, those were the two locations. If trees to remain necessary are removed uh or damaged during construction, the planning director shall be modified.

replacement for the visual trees are subject to. And so like and then that's where we're concluding that, you know, if there's some damage, we're gonna work with the planning director to say, you know, okay, we're gonna add these trees in here and all of that, you know, to like not necessarily like replace them in kind, right? The existing large trees, we don't want to also in the

front to to we destroy one tree, but now planting a couple of other trees, redestroy it. we just, you know, add a little bit of um relief to kind of make it work the best we can to to provide that buffer and and work with the planner, you know, kind of as we get closer to those construction documents.

I I think the revised language works.

Are you comfortable with it? I know I know the board had landscaping questions, so I just want to make sure you were comfortable with it. Okay. Um All right.

Sure.

aa planning director. I would just request that we add the tree warden to that as well.

That works for the tree warden.

Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. That's Mr. Barber. He's it's a stat it's a statutory thing. It's a statutory position in the town.

Yeah.

That's all one stop.

Yeah. I guess I guess if there Okay. Are you comfortable with that?

It's Mr. It's Mr.

It's Mr. Barber. So, if anything falls within the layout, it's her it's his jurisdiction. So, it just it just covers for where it is.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Dragging Mr. Barber in with them.

I got a tree to cut at my back. Yeah.

Maybe come help tree warden.

Okay.

Yeah, there there's a comment about there's some post construction conditions that ended up in the preconstruction sections and we'll clean that up for the revised draft.

Um on the next page a J right here the yeah on the Yes. Well, no.

So above K. So I think we're on page one two three four five.

So if you keep going I think right there you have a like. So this that's just some clean up in the conditions. So that's fine. That's Yeah, that's the post condition.

Yeah. Well, I'll I'll clean up the draft and then it'll be shared with the applicant team.

I want to say it was the conditions for occupant.

Yeah. Yeah.

Oh, and then my response here.

Yeah, your response. So I acknowledge your response. I'm just acknowledging your response. Okay.

Okay. Thank you. Um, okay. So, the next one on that page, so this is on page five. It's we're almost done with this one. It's K3. So, this was included in the draft. So, because at the time that I was preparing the draft to share with the board and the applicant, we didn't have clarification on what type of amenities were going to be provided. So, for example, there's one of the projects one like proposed

putting in like a pickle ball court and we know that that creates potentially more noise issues.

Um, they're they're talking about just some outdoor Can you describe your amenities again?

An outdoor patio area. Um, so I think it's best seen on the new landscaping plan.

Right. So, it it's around this amenity area. And again, this is a amendable to how the the board likes the condition.

We just want to kind of um work the best we can here. There's a fire pit. Um there's a just a patio area. It's off of the amenity building, this lawn area. Uh so, with our proposed condition, you know, it was limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 700 p.m. Um you know, just extending that, you know, um Sunday through Thursday, that seemed reasonable, and then extending those hours, um you know, during weekend

times. And and like they said, it's mostly just a fire pit and the 7 PM was more geared towards the project that had a pickle ball court. So I don't you know it it's fine if if you're okay with those hours. Okay.

Yeah. So that that's where that came from just so you know we didn't know what the amenities were going to be at the time.

Um okay that is okay. So the last one is on the last page.

The the 40B regulations provide for a lapse after three years. So that's where that comes from. It's in the regulations.

So that's why at any time the applicant can come back to the board and say for whatever reason. Plus the legislature seems to like to pass a permit extension act every other year which may make this moot anyway. Yeah.

Right. Um, but I would recommend keeping it consistent with the regulations which limit it to three years.

That's reasonable and we're amendable to that. You know, again, and in my experience with these developments, they do take time. Um, you know, we still have to go in front of the conservation commission. We, you know, there's other hurdles to be had.

Three years, we typically end up asking for an extension, right? But this is just to like get a shovel in the ground. Once you get a shovel in the ground, you don't you don't need it. That's all it's all it is. So, but if you need more time, the legislature may have taken care of it for you by that time anyway. But, um, isn't it when they filed though, right?

When not the shovel in the ground, right? I mean, when if they file before the three years, right, they'll be fine.

Um, so it says unless it's been recorded and construction has uh substantially commenced. I see. So if they start site work on the project, they'll have you'll have exercised your right under the permit and you'll be okay. I mean, if for some reason there's a you know, something happens that you can't start in three years and the legislature hasn't fixed that for you.

I mean, I think it's they're pretty reasonable. might not necessarily just did one.

What?

We just did one.

What?

An extension.

Yeah.

So, um, we have to go back to the other one that you wanted to leave behind.

Oh, yeah. So, let's talk about about sewer. Um, I don't know if Mr. Barber's turn again.

um to just talk about kind of where the this conversations are between the applicant and DPW on this is section G.

So yeah, this is um no this is F F two. So this is sorry the one it's on the third page F2 sewer infrastructure and flow data is the one with fees.

So, we we've met with with with the applicant and and with Damian um as well as with with Stantech and discussed what Stantech needed to do uh additional evaluation. Um, we're not at that point.

I we were we they have not designed the on-site pump stations and we need some of that additional data to evaluate the impacts on the existing pump station that they're planning on pumping into.

Um, these pump stations are again they're neighborhood pump stations so they're smaller. Um so um you know we will need additional time with with Stantech to do the evaluation and finalize uh the impact report and any recommendations for for any upgrades that may be needed for those stations.

And so what the conversation that Mr.

Barber was having with the applicant um and the engineer earlier was you know in other projects there's been there was there was the ability before the board voted to say okay we know we have an estimate what's it's going to cost this is the dollar amount that they might be willing to contribute etc. Um and so the question was going to be is the applicant willing to make a contribution

once it's determined like and they try to then they work that out directly with DPW what the contribution will be and I don't know if you want to speak for the applicant. I don't want to speak for your client.

Yeah. So you know we're willing to you know uh work out a fee or calculation within reason. um with the DPW director for you know any the um required improvements to the town sewer um associated with our project. Um you know we want that to be within reason of what the you know flow rates are and you know what's associated with our project. Um you know I had previously proposed uh

this language again. So the cross out for two on the original conditions that was just a note for discussion. So, you know, I just figured this would be the location that it would be. Um, this was the initial language. Uh, this is based off of the town's standard um, uh, utility calculation, uh, service, right? It basically just says that we're going to play those uh, prior to the commencement of construction um, or

we're going to request it prior to the commencement. Fee calculation will be included with um, and then, you know, the fees will the fees will be paid prior to any occupancy. So um if there's additional language that we need to add in for improvements or to the such right um you know the submission was this was that you know it would be kind of a negotiation or conversation about what

we'll we'll come upon as agreed fit. So you know um per conversations I think we'll continue that um with the applicant and you know Tim Barber and you know to to kind of come up with a potential conditions that uh make sense u moving forward and we'll go from there. So that so if it's okay with the board, what would happen is they will in addition to the fees which they've kind

of stated here that kind of all those standard fees that they will pay. And I'm going to work on some language review it with, you know, Mr. Barber and their council, but I just wanted to all get on the record for tonight before the hearing closed so that they are willing to make a contribution to fair contribution.

Yeah, fair contribution. Let me ask you.

So, let's assume because fair could mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

Let's assume they can't reach an agreement.

They're going to be back in front of you and then they'll and then Mr. Barber will make his case and they'll make it their case and then you guys are the arbiter of I mean I have a question paying three other fees, right? The INI fee, the sewing fee and the water.

Yeah, this is different because there it's a as Mr. Barber said it's a much smaller pump station and so the amount of flow that they're bringing to it is significant compared to it's not like the north pump station where it might be a fraction a very small fraction might be a much bigger is this pump station in relation to this project the one that's um so if you head down Lucy little road uh maybe

half a mile on the left Junior Street is a paper street and It it it collects most it collects the sewer from Alden Avenue and Lucy Little Road and a couple houses on Old West Road and then it pumps it directly to the sewage treatment plant.

No, it pumps it into the force main that was installed by the Cedars Assisted Living the size of that the force main I believe it's a 4 inch 4 in. Yeah. So are you Yeah. Yeah.

Are you tying by gravity to a line on uh from your project. You must have your daily flow, right? Calculated based on title five.

Yep.

So you know your volume kind of right.

Yep. And that was supplied.

Okay.

So I mean you should probably have a rough idea what this is going to be if based on his daily flow, right? The improvement.

We we have a rough idea. Yeah.

Absolutely. Yep.

But Santex's got to work on the final calculations.

Yes. Yeah, it's probably better to put the money into the pump station.

Yes. So bas I do the same.

But unfortunately, so um so that's that's where that is. So that brings us to the waiver list.

Okay.

Um at the at the prior meeting we had um already the board had already walked through or we had walked the board through the waiver list. Um so not going to repeat um any of the ones that were discussed already. You'll see the ones that are highlighted in gray.

I see those are new or there's a little bit of green shading which is just kind of up. Oh no that's my green shading. Sorry. Never mind that that stuff updated in in gray.

Sorry, that's my green highlighter tie.

Long day. Um so, um Mr. Diosa, can we borrow you

on so just so you can give your recommendations? I mean, I think some of them are straightforward. the the um number five but I don't think that this has really changed right it's the same is this the same waiver right from two spaces per unit to 1.76 right that has not changed is that that the parking ratio has remained what it was in an abundance of caution we have added additional waivers um we

originally didn't feel like this section of the bylaw applied to our project um but just to make sure we added the waiver Okay.

Okay. And do you, Mr. Chairman, that's that the underlying zoning district had a separate parking requirement. So that's why we're asking for waiverss.

Single residents B district.

Correct.

Okay.

Okay. So that one has already been covered. So on the next page, um, number seven. So is this one? Is this can you?

It's a same situation. site plan review of the majority of the waiverss they were requesting from article 24 have a certain parking size under single residence B they have a parking requirement basically parking spaces in a garage and a driveway so it's just like like he said just make sure what he's covering all his bases for the proper um relief to ask for the waiverss from both sections of the bylaw

so the but the reduction from 19 ft to 18 ft is just for the ones you showed like some of them were shortened some weren't So, these are going to be kind of kind of per the plan. And I'm not typically a fan of plan waivers, but I think we can they're shown on the plan and you're asking for the specific waiver.

Um, nine and 10. These are these are the ones that we'd like to try to make sure these are we get the numbers right on these. So, this is the in my review. I believe number nine should be a request from 40 to 17.5 and number 10 should be from 30. It can be 17.5 but the plan says 17.7. So I mean it gives you a couple tents to play with

if you want to stick with that. But just just for clarification with what's shown on the parking table, what's shown on the dimensions on the plan and what the waiver requests are. Just want to make sure we're just repeat those numbers again.

So on the plan it shows for the front street setback plan dimension shows 17.5 waiver shows 31.9.

The table on that sheet set seven of the plan set shows 77.8.

So I believe you're looking for a reduction from 40 feet to 17.5. Okay.

Yep. That those are the numbers. So it's that one the front set back and then I got with 10 um is that so that's for nine and then um the numbers got shifted here. So then correct again the parking table shows 20.4 four the waiver is 17.5 the plan dimension is 17.7 are okay are you comfortable with those numbers uh I got to I assume he's correct and that the error was on our behalf on the

that well you know what we'll vet the waiver I'm going to be circulating a red line of the conditions and the waiverss and then you guys will have a another chance to kind of eyeball them again. You don't have to you don't have to agree to it tonight. We just get it in the ballpark. Okay.

Yeah. Just a um typos miscalculations.

All right. And then number 12. Is this the parking requirements per article 24? So it's just a clarification that they need relief from both sections of the bylaw.

Okay.

All right.

I'm okay with that.

Mhm.

Yep.

Let's move on.

All right. Um number number 14 this is um curbing is required to be 6 in in height. They are asking to use Cape Cod Burm.

When you're forming Cape Cod Burm it only forms at 4 in. So that's why they're asking for the for the relief from the six to the four. It's a common practice in other areas of parking facilities. Okay.

Next.

Okay. Um 16.

So, this was already on the plans. The my note to myself here is that this was already shown on the plans to be asphalt. You just hadn't included the waiver. So, this is has been on the plans from the beginning that they're going to have the internal sidewalks be asphalt.

Okay.

Um, I'm just going to keep going unless the board stops me. Um on 17 and 18 these are also side sidewalk. Are there any concerns for these Dan?

Not anything specific. I mean we got couch all these saying no concerns based on the fact that we're saying if the waiverss weren't granted, right?

The state would probably determine that the need for housing would outweigh our concerns with giving the waivers.

Okay. Um but you're not pointing out a major local concern. There's not a significant local concern here. Okay.

Um on 20 it just looks like there's an update here.

I don't know. Tim, did you want to talk on that? I know you had started. This is the one with the 40 foot width.

Oh, this is this the width of the entrance drive?

Yeah. Okay.

That's number 20.

That's number 20. That was the one with the 40 foot width as opposed.

Why is that a problem?

No, it's wider than 30.

It's wider. It can't exceed 30.

Probably it needs it for the for the fire access. And yeah, typically typically a max uh of a 30 foot wide opening. Uh so we don't typically see a 40 foot wide opening and we you know some safety concerns based on you know Lucy Little coming into Westport and then crossing over and having that wide opening.

someone might, you know, perceive that it's a continuation of the road. Um the I I understand that the the waiver request is due to this I believe the reduced setbacks from the frontage and the maneuverability of of a larger vehicle to make the turn once they get into the site. Uh if you can is that correct?

Yeah. Yeah. I pulled up on the plan.

This is just an example of one of the turning analysis um for the entrance. Um you know per per state code the the vehicle has to maintain on uh the appropriate side of the road and you know shouldn't be crossing over. Um and then additionally with the turn into the entrance um we want to make sure that you know we have that it's a T right there. So you know again making sure

that the vehicle can perform its complete turn. uh making sure the entrance is wide enough, you know, so that those vehicles can get through appropriately.

Is that the fire apparatus or this is a WB60 or something?

This would be the pumper fire truck in Dartmouth that that we received from the fire department.

So I I think Mr. Barber is just it. So if you see if you're coming up Lucy Little, that's why making sure there's some safety markings of some sort. Even if it's paint, whatever it is, something to signal to people coming up Lucy Little that they need to stop and not just think that it's going straight like that Lucy Little is extending straight across the road. So that was that's all just stop sign, right?

There's a I might not dropped this guy in the right spot.

Maybe you can add a warning sign, pedestrian crossing or something before the stop sign. That's, you know, would be part of the improvement.

So, there's a stop sign. So, hopefully, and you can see that the the the width of the the driveway opening is about is double this the width of Lucy Little Road.

Yeah.

So, it's very Okay.

Any more any qu other questions about that?

No. We're getting We're almost done. Um All right. The next one is Oh, LMAN mulch.

Mulch.

I laugh too.

It's really Are you this tight with money?

Hey. Yeah. There was a question whether the town of Dartmouth uses this much and it and it may not.

Oh, I see.

Use six inches of four four inches of mulch.

Um the next one.

Okay. So this is this is just an update right to reflect the changes in made in the parking lot.

Yeah. So that we actually have a less of a waiverly shown. I think it was 7.5 previously if I recall correctly. Now our thinnest landscaped island is 9 ft.

Mhm.

Okay. So this is one of the questions you had had.

Right. You're better. You're good with it. What did you have before?

I believe 7.5 if I recall correctly.

And you added one I think on one of the locations. I we added many landscaping islands through to to reduce the the lengths of unlandscaped areas.

Okay, that sounds good.

Okay. And so then that's the that's the same with um the next one um through you, Mr. Chairman. just just for this one just for some clarification. I know this was brought up for the landscaping requirements and other ones. Um so the standard per article 24 is one tree and 10 shrubs per island. You they varied. So basically this waiver is is saying per what they designing for the plan. Um there's one

island in the back of the center building that doesn't have any um landscaping on it. There's islands with one tree and no shrubs. M there's islands with six trees. I mean, excuse me, six shrubs and no trees. I'm assuming the ones that are just shrubs and no trees are because they're over your underground infiltration and you won't you don't want root intrusion. So, I I understand those. Um I know the

board's concerns was just to provide more greenery on some of those islands.

So, um, I leave that up to the board to determine if you are comfortably acceptable to the as a plan shown.

What do you think?

I I think if the island is wide enough, they should provide a tree. You know, if you have an island 5T and wider probably, you know, but like if you have especially like in the one in the middle where you have 12 parking spaces and Right.

No, go back. Yeah.

Go back the way. See, there's one in the middle that doesn't have any landscaping on it.

Yep.

Maybe it's like a drafting or something.

There's a proposed fire hydrant in that location. So, that's why we don't have a a tree planted in that location specifically as highlighted here. Um, as um noted as well, we tried to show underneath these are the underground infiltration chamber systems. Um, so root intrusion, right? There's shrubbery proposed over those. And then in that large central island here there are trees proposed um you know through that

you know again to kind of work with you know as designed by a landscape architect to you know okay shrubs per the per the regulation.

Yeah, you know you can add a few shrubs.

Yeah the these these plans are Yeah.

Um is that the landscape plan?

Yes. Landscaping plan correct.

Um you have Yeah. I So to that question about adding some shrubs along that long, is it just that one? Is there one on the other side, too? Or is it just this one?

That I mean, it's only All right, it's only that.

That's the only long one.

We can I can definitely make sure we get some shrubs out.

And that What side are we on? We're on the easterly the easterly north south um island. Is that what that is?

Do those buildings have excuse me through you, Mr. Chairman. Do those buildings have numbers just to reference? I don't I don't think they're shown on this plan.

Uh, we got building three and four.

That would be the island between three and four.

The middle main island, whatever.

Yeah. So, the easterly north south island between buildings three and four.

So, just add a few shrubs. Add some shrubs. Shrubs. Okay.

All right.

Okay. Um All right. The next one. 24.

Can you just um show where the dumpsters are proposed?

So, yeah, in the back, right?

Yeah, we have there's these two back here at the rear of the facility.

Um there's one right here additionally in that area. And then I believe that there's also one in this area.

So, the bylaw requires not just that they be fenced, but there also be landscaping around them. So I don't know if what I from what I remember and you can correct me if I'm wrong there there is screening in the fencing correct there's some Yeah. Yeah. I think it was so so you're so you're not seeing the dumpsters it is fence. So that way request would be accepted.

Yeah. I thought there was no fencing at all. So it's not like does not include screening at the Oh screening at the dumpster. Okay. I see.

Yeah.

So, you don't have a visit. Okay, I got you.

There should be Here we go. dumpster pad enclosure, right? So, we're proposing a fence around it. We just landscaping in those areas is tight. We have the retaining walls, everything like that. You know, adding some trees and shrubbery for screening.

Then the landscape section.

Yeah.

TW 26.

Um um so I I think the only comment that came in so this is about you know the the caliber of the trees and so who was this Mr. Barber responded to this. I'm just going to Okay, just you don't have to get up again. So Mr.

Barber looked at this one because they're going from two and a half inch caliber to one and a half. Um, and I believe he's comfortable with this as long as there's a clear condition that they have to like maintain them and replace if they die within a year.

A year or more? I think it's two now places or Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I I've seen a year.

I've seen two years. Um, we're amendable to a condition of such, right? We're going to maintain it. Um, it is a Well, it's for your benefit to h to have the trees and the buffers there. Um, and it is just some particularly smaller trees that they don't get to, you know, they're um significantly tall heights in the first place. Um, so it's just, you know, they're more difficult and challenging

just, you know, when we get to them and actually getting them in the ground and everything like that. So, you know, my landscape architect recommended that we we we ask for.

So, what is that's the plant list as shown on the plant list. I'm just going to reference the plant. I'll just reference the plant list, not the specific Yeah. plants but just reference the plants and no I don't I'm talking No, I have copies. I mean for the in the in the waiver itself if we could just reference that it'll be per the one and a half as for those species that are shown on the

plant list or something like that. I just want to so that all of a sudden we don't all drop down to one. Okay.

It says one and a half to two. Right. I think our planning director wants to say something just just on that regard too. Um, one of the conditions for having those trees is that they're supposed to reach a height of 50 ft. So you're saying she did smaller ones so they have less height.

They're supposed to reach a minimum of 50 height, 50 foot height. So that can either just be what what what uh provision of the bylaw is that?

Um I believe it's in that same section.

I can double check.

Still in D4. So he's asking for the waiver per for the tree for the tree size. But some of those trees don't reach a height of 50 ft.

But if they're still under D4, then wrap it all into the same waiver.

Yeah, he's only asking for the waiver for the for the caliper. So if he wants to add Okay.

the trees as shown or however the board's comfortable with addressing that.

And you said two two years. Is that what you want?

Yeah, two years reasonable. I mean, it's more than reasonable. Yeah.

Okay. Well, they we we were discussing one year, but I don't know if the board has a preference.

Go to two.

Okay.

I'm sure they will take care of it, but just in case. Yeah.

20 um 27.

This You want to speak to that one, Mr.

G?

I just simply say I don't think that's a concern.

Okay. It's not a He's good with number 27. Um, so 28. So this one actually kind of shows an improvement. This was the amount of shade coverage in the parking lot. And I think this is what prompted the whole conversation. They were originally at 11. Is that 11% or something?

That's what the last and now they're up to 23. So they they've gotten much closer. Okay. All right.

And then we're on the last page.

So these are new. So um and there is an email that just got distributed to you.

Um testing testing.

So So do you want to speak to these these two? So, as you may recall, there was an originally in a question that came from DPW about are they going to use put in or irrigation and use kind of coming out of the pipes from public water supply. And the applicant responded at the last hearing, "No, we're not going to do that. We're going to put in irrigation only wells just for

landscaping." Is that and so they have added two proposed new waiverss which um was shared with Chris Misho from the board of health and he responded with a response about testing. So can you just clarify do you need do are you still requesting both of them? Do you need both of them? Why do you think you need them? It would just be helpful.

Yeah. Um so again um the waiverss associated with the potable water supply um in the town um the irrigation well as stated it you know is not for human consumption it's for irrigation throughout the site. So um you know we are initially requesting a waiver from um the the regulations as you know basically specifically that definition and then would kind of therefore nullify a majority of the of the rest of the

regulations there. Um in addition to that, you know, the the main that would potentially stop any irrigation on site um would be the second waiver request, which is this while requires that no potable private water supply uh shall be installed upon any property that has access to a public water supply and it is either listed in a site or investigation area. So the site is a listed site on the EPA. We've already

discussed um how that will be cleaned up and taken care of. We're already in the works with the D um you know for getting those you know those measures you know implemented in the future kind of upon approval of the uh of the project. Um but you know so it would become unlisted but you know in all scenarios the the the bylaw there says that you know we can't connect or we can't install a well

if there's potable water in front of the site. We don't want to pull from the town uh water. We'd rather if for irrigation, we'd rather have um an on-site irrigation well. So that that's why I waver is that just again as an overly cautious to just you know make sure that we can install a well for irrigation.

So the it seems like the only concern that Chris Misho kind of raised is just a testing. Is that a subsection?

I don't have the board of health regs I don't think in front of me. Is that a subsection to just test the wells to confirm that there's nothing?

Yeah, there are testing requirements um within there. Um I did speak with our LSP um about the testing. Um it the you know standard testing procedures um again um amendable to what what the board conditions. Um you know, we're just trying to make sure that we can cover ourselves to to install the well.

So if if these were waved subject to condition X for that section that just required the testing.

Yeah, we we can we can work out some final language in the condition that seemed to Mr. Barber. I don't know what you think. I this is outside. I was not familiar with this until today. So yes, that'd be amendable to that. And also we also require basically the language that says that you can't install part of a well where the water supply want to make sure that the water division is informed and and and

approves the well insulation and they know that it's there so that so they know that it's not going to be connected and there won't be any cross connections for contamination.

Okay. So, so, so we'll tie it to a con to notify the water division um and no cross connections, something like that, and we'll share the language and you can take a look at it. How's that sound?

Yeah.

Work through a condition.

Yep.

I mean, when he files with the board of health, I'm assuming it goes to the water department, too, for review, right?

Absolutely it does.

You're going to get it anyway.

Okay.

All right. I'll look at that provision of the health regulations and so just so I can understand it and then I'll suggest some language.

Um that is it like that's that's all. Um no um I don't know I believe we've covered everything you submitted. Do did I we miss anything?

No.

No we haven't missed we haven't missed a thing. It does. I don't know if the board your department heads or if you want to open it to public if there's anything else.

I'm going to open up. Is there anyone in the public that would like to come forward and speak about any of the concerns about the project specifically would be what we discussed here tonight.

It doesn't appear to be anyone coming forward. Gentlemen, is there any other questions that you may have of any of I don't, Mr. Chair. I think we covered everything and u I'm feeling comfortable that we can close the hearing tonight on this one. So, Mr. Human, no, I have nothing to add or any questions.

Mr. Rodri, I have nothing at this time.

Right, gentlemen. Um, I think we've covered it quite a bit.

I'm always worried about closing the hearing just in case there's some other information, but I would like to think that if our council needs to clarify something, they still have the ability to speak to their counsel or their professional in order to uh solicit whatever needs to be solicited just for clarification purpose. Not that it's new testimony or evidence, but just to clarify points

that we had because I'd rather have something written correctly than than not. And we're guessing. Yeah, that's the intention and that's how the other 40bs were handled as well.

All right.

Is that after you did kind of this walkthrough of all their kind of comments and all of that that you know we went back and re fine-tuned it.

All right. So before we close, let me ask you, it's my understanding that we have to actually vote and sign uh within 40 days.

40 days.

You have to vote before we close like to make sure that our schedules can coincide to get that done. And I know there are a lot of holidays coming up. Susan, is 40 days going to be enough time for you to actually put this together?

Yes. And I think that there may be a date that Michelle had previously cleared with you guys. I don't know if it still works.

I think she was tenatively trying to lock us into a date, but I don't think that actually happened. So what date were you throwing out there, Michelle?

So when the 40th from today, so today is the 9th. So the deadline is the 18th of August. Mhm.

Okay.

Right.

Yeah.

No, that's a filing. That's not a How about August 17th?

Talking about the 10th.

17th cuz I'm not going to be around.

I'm gone the 16th.

Can we go on the 10th?

No, Michael's not here.

I'm not here on the 10th.

You're gone the entire week? You're gone the entire And you're gone the entire week of the 10th.

Is that true? Michael's gone from the 6th to the 11th and Alvin is gone from the 16th to the 23rd.

What about 3:45?

I can do three.

I'm not available at 3:45.

We can vote.

Anybody available on a Friday?

Uh, what day?

Seven. Nope.

I mean, we could do it during the day, but I know you both have day jobs as well. Wait, so you said the 6th through the 11th? You're away.

Michael is going the 6th through the 11th, right? So what about the 13th?

I can do the 13th.

Okay, I can do the 13th.

I can do the 13th.

Oh, Charlton. Wait a minute. Yeah, that's the 12. Charlton. I don't have anything on 13. Yeah.

13, right? 40 days from today, I believe, is August 18th. I hope it Mike, can you please check that for me?

Days.

No, just days.

Days. Okay.

Um, let me ask this.

Is July 30th?

Well, July 30th for you because you got to put a lot of stuff together. That's not Well, July 30th, you do have another hearing. You have Hathaway that night. And I just feel like it's a lot to do both together.

That's what I asked. Yeah. Okay.

I mean, that's the only I mean, I don't know. Do are you going to have any hearings at five that night?

Yes.

That might be a lot to try to do your five o'clock hearings. Do this is the 13th of Oh, you don't have any cases yet for the for the 367. The continuence one 36 Westport Road.

Old Westport Road.

The barn.

That was the Oh, yeah. It was like a five minute thing. But well, we could always I mean, you know, if the board wanted to just What is that? That's in three weeks.

I mean, it'd be tight because I'm going to take some days off next week. But there's not I don't think we have a lot to do. If the board would rather do that rather than add another meeting and do it at, you know, in the five do it in the five o'clock hour.

Yeah.

Before, but it's up to right. I mean, we don't need more than an hour for this.

I mean, I think if if if we're able to sort out the language, which because I don't think there's a lot here and then it'll just be coming to a board giving an update and at what you want to say five five o'clock probably be 5:30, but they have another application.

5:15, but five o'clock could be here at 5. So, five on the on the 30 of July 30th.

Michelle, when did you say you're away?

What week?

I'm away. The 20th to the 24th and then of August.

Of August. Okay. Not in July.

Nothing in July.

Okay. Okay. So, that's fine because then we can get that done and filed in plenty of time.

We can't present information anyway. So, it doesn't present. It's just going to be No, it'll it'll just be um talking through the red line. Yeah.

From the original draft with the board.

We can't say anything.

Yeah. Well Well, yeah. I mean, I mean, you can't add any new information, but All right. So, I'll entertain a motion, gentlemen.

Just for the public hearing.

Um Okay. Uh, you make a motion that we continue comprehensive.

No, no, no. Close the public hearing.

Oh, whoa. Yeah, that's right. Oh my gosh, that was automatic. I know.

Yes.

Okay. Um, I make a motion that we close the public hearing for comprehensive permit ZCMP25-2.

Second that motion.

All in favor?

I I The eyes have it.

Public hearing has been closed. You don't you don't need to do anything for the 30th because it's just a public meeting. So, we don't need a motion for that.

We don't need a motion. Okay.

I mean, it's just a public meeting. If for some reason the 30th didn't come together, you could always reschedule it. It doesn't require any That's why I thought maybe if we have the 30th as as a possibility, you know, if something happens, we have another week or so, you know. So, we have on tonight's agenda the administrative portion is one matter. It's a comprehensive permit minutes dated May 21st, 2026.

It's for 970 Tucker Road.

Just move up.

I have no comments, Mr. Chair. Comments, Mr. Chair.

I only have one comment. I already addressed. Any comments, Mr. Rogers?

No comments, gentlemen.

I make a motion that we approve the minutes for comprehensive permit uh ZCMP-25-1 dated May 21st, 2026 as written.

Second.

All in favor?

I I The eyes have it.

All right, gentlemen. That pretty much concludes tonight's meeting. Is there any other business that anyone would like to discuss? Any old business, new business?

Uh nothing, Mr. Chair. Nothing.

All right. I'll entertain a motion.

I make a motion that we adjourn. Second.

All in favor?

I I The eyes have it. We are adjourned.