Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting - June 11, 2026

Good evening and welcome to the zoning board of appeals meeting of Thursday, June 11, 2026.

At this time, I'm going to call upon everyone so we can stand and pledge allegiance to the flag.

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

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

Thank you.

All right. So, I have a couple of announcements to make. First, this meeting is being recorded by Dartmouth Community Media, and that the next 40B hearing will be heard this evening at 6:00 here in this room, and it's for the Hathaway Project on Hathaway Road. And the the other scheduled uh 40B hearing is the Sherbrook Farms, which is Old Westport Road, which is scheduled for, as we

stand, July 9th of 2026 at 6:00 p.m.

here in room 304.

So, moving on to the public hearings portion of tonight's meeting, we have a public hearing for special permit ZSP5-6.

This was actually a continued matter.

The petition of the applicant in this case is Jenny Reynolds. The owner is Tracy Nuno Nunan, manager of 8 Bono Court LLC. The subject property is located at 8 Bono Court, also known as map 121, lot 19. The property is located in the general resident zoning district and it was legally advertised on January 22nd and January 29th of this year.

We've already waved the reading of the abutters list prior to tonight and the petitioner in this case uh is seeking a special permit proposing to construct a 57 foot square excuse me 576 square foot addition to a non-conforming structure built in 1950 which is required to increase to non the non-conformity of the structure. The current structure meets 110 ft required yard setback and the front yard setback

at 20 ft. The addition is proposed to be built 11.9 ft from the street. They're seeking relief under article 10 section 375-10.4D3B setbacks and section 375-6.2B2 non-conforming structures. The property is located at A Bono Court in the general residence district and identified as CES map 121 lot 19.

All right. So, we've already read into the record the uh the letter from the building inspector. We've also heard from numerous of the surrounding neighbors and abutters. But since the last time, we've had a plan, a new plan submitted um and it was submitted by Farland Corp, which we'll get to at some point.

And I did receive a letter and it's dated June 11th and it came from Ashan Redern and it's directed to the zoning board of appeals and it says, "Dear chair and members of the board, as a registered architect in the state of Massachusetts, I formally object to the requested special permit for front yard dimensional relief at 8.0 Court. Special permits must be strict exceptions reserved for projects that demonstrate

true necessity and safeguard the public good. In my opinion, the applicant fails to meet this standard by proposing an 8.1 foot extension into the required 20 foot front yard setback on a substandard lot under 5,000 square ft in the general residence district. The applicant offers no valid justification for this encroachment. The fundamental question that we should be asking is this is

could this project be built within the town's existing zoning rules? The applicant's floor plans present oversized spaces that serve as a luxury rather than meeting a functional necessity. On the main level, the applicant proposes a 350 square ft bedroom without demonstrating any functional need or hardship that justifies zoning relief for this scale.

At the upper floor, the applicant proposes a 350 foot artist studio equipped with a walk-in closet and full bathroom. Both a modestsiz bedroom and artist studio can be fully accommodated within the allowable building area of the lot, buildable area of the lot, leading me to question the actual need for relief. A special permit should not be used as an easy pass to bypass the standard zoning layout rules for

oversized designs. Nor should it substitute for the mere stringent or excuse me, for the more stringent variance required by the town zoning bylaws. As a practicing architect, I know firsthand that the highest quality designs do not come from unchecked expansion. They come from working with within constraints. Standard zoning limits challenge designers to think critically about building layout,

massing, efficiency, and overall harmony with the site. Allowing the applicant to circumvent these regulations discourages thoughtful design and promotes excessive development, ignoring the precise spatial limitations enacted by the town.

As a direct neighbor to 8 Bono Court, I am especially asking the board to deny the request for a special permit for front yard setback relief. Leaving a buffer of only 11.9 ft from the private right away means this structure will sit much closer to the road than any of the neighboring homes on Bono Court. To qualify for relief on the article 45, the applicant must demonstrate that the

project aligns with the town's zoning laws and will not adversely affect the community. I believe this proposal fails that test on the following accounts.

One, it threatens neighborhood character. Introducing an oversized addition into the building setback requirement severely impacts neighborhood character. The proposed oversized structure will cause visual overcrowding, disrupt the streetscape uniformity, block light, and restrict air flow, setting a detrimental precedent for the neighborhood. These adverse impacts will inevitably compromise the open character of our

neighborhood while also diminishing the value of our properties. Two, public safety. The proposed encroachment poses a threat to public safety on Bono Court.

Setbacks exist to prevent the spread of structure fires, narrowing the setback requirements, creates a direct safety hazard, and restricts emergency access for fighting fires. The encroachment also blocks critical sight lines for pedestrian access to the water along the private way and risk damaging both the town sewer infrastructure and private roadway during construction. Three, it weakens the town of Donna Zoning

bylaws. Granting relief when a fully compliant design is possible directly undermines the integrity, strength, and effectiveness of the town of Dimensional bylaws. Approving exceptions for non-essential spaces render setback rules meaningless and unfairly prioritizes the applicant's private preferences and financial gain over the town's established density protections for for the neighborhood. The applicant

has failed to establish a unique hardship or land use requirement that justifies exceeding the standard buildable area because the proposed encroachment worsens existing lot non-conformities specifically regarding to lot coverage and front yard setbacks.

It directly conflicts with article 33 of the Dartmouth zoning bylaws. Under article 33, setbacks are strictly intended to lessen congestion and promote community safety. Approving the special permit would directly subvert th those local regulations. Upholding our local zoning bylaws is essential to preserving our neighborhood's character because the cumulative impact of this addition is significantly more

detrimental than both the existing non-conforming structure and what is permitted by right. This special permit should be denied. I respectfully request that the board reject the application instruct the applicant to redesign the project within the site's lawful buildable footprint and in compliance with the state building code. Thank you for your time, leadership, and continued service to our town. Sincerely, Sean

Redford.

All right.

So, can I get a motion to um introduce to place this on file part of the record?

Sure.

I make a motion that we accept the letter dated June 11th, 2026 from Shan Red Firm and make it part of the record.

Second.

All in favor?

I I The eyes have it.

All right. So, we've also got some plans which I'm sure that the applicant's representative is going to explain to us at this point in time. Any questions, gentlemen? I call upon the applicant's representative.

No. Uh I just I believe from the last time we asked the applicant, we continued the hearing because you wanted to stake the addition out. So, did you happen to go by?

I did. I did go by the And how about you, Mr.

I did, but it hadn't been staked out.

Okay. But you got a sense of what the neighborhood was like?

Yes, I did.

Okay. Um, it was like driving on a driveway.

Okay.

Um, so obviously you've been there because sort of my sense it was scary.

Okay. But anyway, um, gentlemen, do you have any questions at this point in time?

Uh, this time.

All right, great. So, I'm going to call upon the petitioner's representative. I see Mr. Fallen. He's here. Please state your name and state your case.

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

here tonight representing the applicant.

Um, at the last meeting, uh, the board and I thought it would be a good idea for the board members to visit the site, uh, to get a really good idea of this.

Um, and I think that was important with this, especially this property.

I agree.

Um, we did we did stake the property as requested. Um we also filed a site plan that the only difference on that site plan is that it shows the proposed deck towards the water. The architectural plans had had the deck but um previous plan by prime didn't show the deck. So we wanted to make sure that was part of the record. And also um we added another dimension to the

setback. Um, so the closest set back to the front is is 12 ft and the other corner is actually another it's a foot of 1.2 ft away. Uh, 13.2 ft just to give you an idea. Um, if you had a chance to go out to the site, um, you I think it's pretty it's pretty clear that this project indeed fits within the character of the of the neighborhood specifically with the director butter right to the

south. Um that house is just as close.

Um the neighbor to the east is side step back is closer than it's about 4t away from from the property. Um and majority of the butters here although they're not in front of you tonight for in addition off their house majority of the houses are within the side setbacks and front yard setbacks. Um so I think that's that's the critical point. um tonight and which I made at the last meeting

which I did go over and provide you know factual evidence of you know aerial photos. Um and as far as you know the addition I I think it's a very modest addition. It's 24x 24. Um we're not looking to go any larger than that. the the house itself is 12 1,296 ft, which again is within same sizes as the houses within the neighborhood. Um, some of them are larger, some of them are a

little smaller, but I think it's very very consistent. Um, that's that's all I had tonight. And I think again, we're here for a special permit. And I think the key issue is whether or not the proposal is not more detrimental to the neighborhood. I certainly don't think don't think it is.

Um certainly there's no impacts to the to the sewer line during construction.

Um yes during construction it'll be a little hectic. That's a very hectic area. I mean drive just driving in your car down here is hectic. But certainly we've done projects on um Cuddy Hunk Island um that we got to take a barge over. We got to you got to have a mini. You can't get get a large truck to the site. you got to have a mini come within a mile away and and

walk the mini in. So there's means and methods to construction. Um and those are temporary. Um so yeah, there will be a little impact temporarily to the neighborhood, but I think at the end of the day, this will be a project that fits within the character of the project and I I hope you agree and can vote on this project tonight.

Thank you.

All right. Um, anyone have any questions of the petitioner's representative, Mr.

Farland?

Not at this time.

Not at this time.

Gentlemen, any questions of Mr. Farland?

No, not at this time.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Farland.

Thank you.

All right. So, obviously there has consistently and I can see the f familiar faces. Uh there has consistently been people who have been present here who are of the neighborhood and also just other people in town who have concern about this uh particular proposal. So I'm going to give you an opportunity. Um it is a public hearing.

We have read the letter into the record from Mr. Redford. I think he's here.

Um the standard of review, he touches upon it, right? It's not a variance. It's a special permit. So it's definitely a lesser standard of review uh than a variance. Uh, so we just have to find whether or not it's less detrimental to the neighborhood. Um, that's basically the standard of review for us.

Uh, and I'm looking for the buzzword.

So, I actually was looking through my phone, see if I could find the actual statute because I left my my code book, which is only about this thick. I left it back at the office, but uh, because I just wanted to read it line by line and at some point I'm going to read it into the record. I will locate it, but I will give people an opportunity if they want

to come forward. Um, I I do know this that the letter certainly sets forth, I think, the arguments that you collectively would hold as property owners in that general area. Uh, so if anyone would like to come up and explain to us if there's anything different than the last time of what we've heard or if you want to just uh just reinforce some particular point, I will give you the opportunity.

My name is Gary Smith. I am one of the owners of nine Bono Court.

Um I've been asked to speak um tonight on behalf of all the Bono Court neighbors that are here. Uh first off, we just wanted to thank the board for the time you've taken over the last three meetings to listen to our concerns regarding this matter. Um we'd like to also thank those of you who took the time to come and look at the property um to see firsthand that our neighborhood

is unique and differs from any other neighborhoods in in Dartmouth. We understand the applicant has a right to request a building permit to construct an addition that complies with the current zoning regulations for properties within the general resident district, including the required 20ft setback for the property line. We don't dispute this right. Our objection is specifically to the request for a spec a

special permit that would reduce the setback to only 11.9 ft from the property um instead of the required 20 ft. This request reflects a preference by the applicant and not a necessity as the applicant can still build a substantial addition while remaining fully compliant with the existing building regulations. Um, granting this special permit would be a detriment based on what Mr. Redford mentioned in

his letter. Um, for these reasons, we respectfully ask the board to take our consider our concern into consideration and deny the applicant's request for a special permit. Um, thank you again for your time, your consideration, and your willingness to listen to our concerns um of our neighborhood. Thank you.

Come on up.

Sean Redford, five bono court. Um, I just wanted to add that um your decision today, if you were to um agree on the special permit, is going to set precedent for our neighborhood and in the future when other people on Bono Court decide they want to come um and and build a bigger house structure on their property, you've now set a precedent for them. So, um I want you to to think about that in when you're

making your decision because it um it is a very very detrimental to the rest of us uh in the neighborhood, excuse me, the neighborhood. Um and then else I could just as well flip that. I could say that if we were to vote against this that we've set precedent that any one of you that come before us for any type of an addition that any of any significance, there's likely to be a denial as well.

There there could be. Yes.

Okay.

As long as everyone knows, um, I I I don't think we would all if we were if we were a if we were all on board with accepting you granting a special permit, I don't think we would all be here objecting to it. Um, I also wanted to ask the board, um, the drawings that have been submitted to you all, um, for the record, um, don't don't they need to specifically go through conservation

before you guys can actually approve them? No, they can decide where they want to go first. Um, I think quite frankly many times strategically an applicant comes to us because it's probably the more difficult of the approvals to obtain and if they can't get it here there's no use in going any further.

So just strategically I think most applicants come before is that pretty much your understanding as well gentlemen? I think most applicants just as a matter of course feel it's best come here first. So they would still obviously have to go to concom maybe board of health. That's obviously not directly within our purview. So Okay.

But they would have to do that.

No, they did.

They did.

They did, but with the old with the old draw with the foundation design. I'm not sure if they have to go back, but they already I think the line was approved with the the limit of disturbance. It was approved by Kcon. They had a notice of intent.

Yes.

They did. I if I saw it I don't recall but it's really not something that really impacts my decision. So as a board right we have to collectively find and this is the legal standard. I want to read it into the record. We have to find that the proposal to grant it that the proposal is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning bylaw and ensures it will not cause substantial detriment to the

neighborhood. If we feel that it meets those requirements, then we have an obligation individually to vote independently as to whether or not we feel it meets that requirement.

Okay?

And we've done that in the past, Mr.

Chair.

And we have done it in the past.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right. And I'm not trying to take away from your argument. I'm just explaining. And it wasn't just directed towards you. That's directed towards everyone here who's an immediate abuter and all the viewers at home as to basically what we're charged with statutoily as a board in order to act either in favor or right to decline.

No, I I I realize that it's um it's an interpretation. you you guys are being asked to interpret the code and and I think we're interpreting in in a way and then you're interpreting it in a way and we're just No, I get it. Make sure that I will say this of I've been here 12 years. I will say that this group of neighbors has certainly put forth a very very good position, very strong

arguments to support what your concerns are. And kudos to you guys for that.

You've done a very very good job doing it. Um, and it just it's inspiring to me to think that we still have that level of community within our town.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Yes.

Hi there. I apologize I didn't come up at when the meeting started and announced that I am not here.

I took it as a save.

There was a continuation.

A just in a butter. So, um, we forwarded letters to you from Katie Payatt from the, um, flood pain management specialist through FEMA. There were two emails. I had sent one and then Katie had actually reached out yesterday and so I sent it again. And so the the question or concern that we're raising that I'm raising is because we fall into that uh, V she figures it's a V17 flood

zone. So when we've looked at the the pictures of what this is going to look like, it has shown a straight the addition being straight from the current elevation.

Uh but in fact that um addition would be raised significantly higher than the current um addition which is not it's not um depicted on any of the uh plans that we've seen.

So is that something that um is picked up when they go to the building department? I mean what is that? He could answer that answer that better than me. I think this is something that came up before and I think I might have I wasn't sold on that completely that if your improvements is less than 50% of the value of the house or the structure or if you're less than

50% of the entire I think it says it in the regulations of the the foundation or the perimeter that you don't have to comply with regulations but I believe I personally believe that this is over the 50% Right. Um and but again it's it's building department and he had to demonstrate to the building commissioner prior to obtain a building permit that he is not improving over 50% of the

value of the structure or or the the new addition or alter alterations is not more than 50% of the of the parameter of the foundation or the structure itself.

Okay. So another thing that we had found out and discussed is that if they propose to do this in phases then they get away from the well this f this one floor is not 50% and then they come back another time and say well now we're going to do this other floor. Um once they pass through you tonight, the only recourse is through the building department and the building department doesn't have

a structure like this where the abuters can can talk about their concerns.

21.

That may be true, but that's just the way the system's designed.

Okay. I'm just I know I get confirming. Well, we we have a lot of that stuff in mind. Okay.

Bruce Brooks 3.0 Cordona. Um, the one thing she she didn't have I had I had the conversation and also she sent that email and she sent me the state building codes. And if you read it, it says lateral. Any lateral addition does not fall under the 50% rule. It has to be at 21 feet. The 3 feet above the 17 the flood level. the property actually touches 18 and if it touches enough then

they'll make it go to 22 and that's to the first floor. Okay. And that is a lateral that does not affect the 50% rule. The 50% rule can only affect what she's going vertical. And if you we sent we sent you the uh the code and her opinion on that or she mentioned that.

So I just wanted to be clear on that.

And then he also stated that the property south of the lane is closer to this. It is not. We had an engineer out there also and it was a little over 15 ft. So just for clarity. Thank you.

Uh I think the property line goes away from the structure. So it's it's definitely more. I'm not sure what the distance is.

What he what he's saying is yeah between the 11.9 and the 12. The 11.9 was one corner, but it's tilted. But the neighbor itself is 15 15 point something. I They actually have the numbers. Um it was over 15 ft from the engineering for the property south of the laneway on the opposite side.

Okay.

Um he said it was closer to it and than what he's proposing and it's not. Thank you.

Look, I can say this. I I think I've heard enough.

Okay. I think I've heard enough and I'm just going to express my opinion and I'm only one person.

So I have visited this site and if there if there's ever a site that's unique, there's ever a unique a neighborhood that's unique, this is it.

Um it's in essence a small community of neighbors within a larger community.

I don't think I've ever denied a special permit before. But when I look at this and I look how it's served and even my fellow brother to the far right says, "Well, it's a driveway." Yeah, it's actually a very My driveway is much bigger than that thing. This is a very narrow driveway that serves several homes. I don't know the exact number, but I counted a few. I understand the petitioner. I understand what they're

trying to do here. And I appreciate the fact that, you know, they they went out and I I appreciate that they spent money and coming forward. They hired a professional. the man's made a good presentation for them, right? It's an engineer's done a very good presentation for them. But quite frankly, I don't feel comfortable in finding that this meets the standard of a special permit when you look at what this will do to

that neighborhood, that very small neighborhood of undersized lots with significant homes on them. And this is a this is a we're not talking just a 10- foot addition, you know, we're talking a significant it's almost it's more than 50% of the existing structure in square footage. So to say that that doesn't have an impact on on the neighborhood, um I think I'd be remissed if I if I

didn't find that way. So that's just my sort of my feel on this. Obviously, there's two other gentleman's two other gentlemen here who are going to make a decision. I I ex I I ask you if there's anything you'd like to say, what your concerns are, and if you think that, you know, I'm I'm not actually placing my my my determination on this correctly, I'm willing to hear, right? I can be persuaded.

Not that it's your job to do so.

Mr. Human, you have anything you'd like to say?

Yeah. When this first be came before the board and I looked at it and said, "Oh, it's a special permit." and he's just putting a small addition on. I was in favor after having seen the property and driven down there. I'm not in favor. Uh I it was like I I went down there, drove down there with my wife. Uh we live on Beachwood Drive, so it's like three

miles from there. And uh it was like we could first we couldn't find Bono Court.

I was looking for a road and then I said, "Oh my god, there's the roadside."

And we I drove down there and I said, "Please, nobody come out. Nobody come out." Because there's no place to go.

It's a tight tight area. And then when I looked at the piece of property down there, I thought to myself, why aren't they building up? Then we wouldn't even have to be here. Um, and then when the information came in about the flood zone, uh, that convinced me that this is not a proper addition to put on a piece of property down in that area. So, I would vote against, uh, I think it's

more detrimental to the neighborhood.

Mr. Schuba, well, I think you're right. This is this is a special permit. It's not a variance. It's it's the the standards are less uh stringent but and we've granted special permits before and uh not until I drove I mean from the first meeting I had a feeling that the addition is not in place and I and I mentioned to the to the applicant if they can go back and be a little

creative I mean being an engineer I've done a lot of uh architectural plans and with with tight spaces and I think tweaking the plans a little bit. Just maybe moving the bathroom to where the closet is and, you know, cutting the the depth of that room by five, six feet will give him the the the the space that he needs and and you wouldn't have to deal with the special permit. And I

always encourage people to be creative before they come to the board with variances because we've seen people coming here sometimes for two foot or three foot setbacks and where they can just make simple adjustment to the plans. But that's not the I mean the size of the addition being in a flood those things and on top of this the the the setting of the the the like you said

I went down with my car I said I had hard time turning and I have a small car you know trying to so I don't I can't picture the the impact during construction trying to get a backho there or or a machine or you know definitely I can't say there'll be no impact or will be less detrimental. It's got to be more detrimental. That's the key. And this is a special permit. I

can't say, "Yeah, I can I can approve this as a special permit with And again, you know, to be fair, I looked at some of the houses there. They're big houses, too, on those small lots, you know, but they're there. I'm not gonna go up there and say, you know, you know, with but not having the road being so narrow and with the curves, you know, if it was a little bit more spread out, different

neighborhoods, we we approved uh a 12 foot uh setback on a 20 and we would sometimes we give 8 foot setback on a 20 done many times before, you know. So it's not unusual but it is the special setting on that area and again like a special permit like like a variance we look at case by case basis and and on this case I don't think I a special permit is is a um warranted for

this uh this application or it's not definitely it's going to be more detrimental to the neighborhood. So so Mr. Far if you could come up for a second.

So, it's always been the practice of this board when the members have sort of vocalized that they wouldn't support the project in order to ensure that the property doesn't necessarily carry a taint of a denial that we've always given the person an opportunity to withdraw the application without prejudice. without prejudice. So that if there was something else or some other means in which you wanted to come

forward on that it wouldn't necessarily be docketed if you will as being a denial for either a variance or a special permit. Now we do this and we've done before I sat on this board. We've always extended that courtesy to applicants and I want to extend your that courtesy to your client as well.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, um we did continue the last meeting. Um, I would like to continue this meeting um, in order for me to give time to my client to discuss maybe reducing the addition.

Um, I think that would be a valid since we did give the the board time to go out to the site.

Let me just say this, all right, and I'm not trying to shy away from this and I'm not I'm only one person. They want to grant they put forth a motion. The other ones put forth they want to put forth a motion, we can absolutely do that. I'm of the mindset that almost any addition to this project, even one that is allowed as a matter of right just by applying to the building inspector that

they can get that your client can get. I think that that's detrimental to the neighborhood, but that's outside my purview that doesn't ever come before this board. That's just my personal opinion. This is so unique of a neighborhood. I'm sure you've been there. um and anything done there even if these people and I've made it known right indict so to speak that's how judges indict I've made it known that

we've set precedent here today possibly that even though there may not be a denial but the fact that we didn't we didn't act upon and maybe you withdraw or you're continuing to withdraw another date that there's dicta here that if they come before us for something else it's likely we're not going to grant it to them as well even if they have letters in support by their neighbors possibly again this is only me this is

dicta let's call it that for whatever for whatever it's And and that's another reason why I would I would ask for a continuence because the applicant may want you to vote on this and deny it. That might be something that they could appeal or they maybe they want to set precedents in the neighborhood themselves if if that's what if that's what they want. So gentlemen, either way, um, are we

willing to entertain a continuence on the case so that he can discuss it with his client and they can decide whether or not they want to come before us and that either we make an actual vote, take an actual vote, or we allow them to withdraw it without prejudice. Is that pretty much your understanding?

Yes.

All right.

All right. What do you think you're going to add to this? Come on up.

Don't tell me you've been here many times and it's you come from a different area and all that, right? Is that what you're going to tell me?

I'm not.

Okay.

All right. Tell me.

Um um just to complete the thought, um the applicant could have attended today.

There are many um meetings that we've been here for. The applicant could easily have attended today. So I would just ask you to take that into consideration.

All right. Thank you. Um so gentlemen share your thoughts with me.

Uh my thought is uh Mr. Farland comes before us regularly and and as a courtesy I would have no problem uh extending giving him a continuence to determine whether we're going to actual issue a written denial or whether we're going to let him withdraw.

Mr. Cuba I think and this is not going to make a difference. So you already made it clear there will be no extension expansion into the setback lines not even one foot. So I I don't see why you know I mean if he comes back but okay but the only reason is if we he may want us to actually vote on it so that maybe they could appeal it.

Okay. If this is a case then yeah I always want to make sure they can they they they're allowed to preserve their rights.

Okay.

And I did hear the the other butter who indicated that you know she could have been here but they have a representative here who's here on their behalf.

Okay.

So I'll entertain a motion gentlemen.

Uh what do we motion to to continue allow it continuous? We should pick a date if what do we got for availability Mr. Chairman?

Yes certainly through you before you take the vote on that. I just like, you know, I'm I'm an old man. My memor is not that great, but I remember this case came before this board and nobody showed up for the petitioner.

And our board decided as a convenience, there were other people here. Everybody was here except the petitioner.

And uh I voiced my opinion saying that people have telephones, they have cell phones. Somebody could have called this board and we could have called the butters to tell them that they weren't going to show up.

This board took the action to to not continue the case, which you're going to do, and say, "All right, you're right.

They should have called. They didn't show up." But I also would like to say that uh in all deference to Mr. Fin, he's he's a great engineer. This is the second engineer they've had. We've had This isn't the first meeting, isn't the second meeting, but what really bothers me about this case, I'd like to echo what the board said, the uniqueness of the residential area, but it really

bothers me that this petitioner filed the petition before this board has never been to one meeting.

And I haven't been to a meeting on this board. I know I I'm, you know, a new member, but people show up to answer questions like the question we just asked Mr. Vin, "What does your client want to do?" He said, "It's not his fault." Well, let's continue the case so I can talk to her. Well, why isn't she here tonight so he could talk to her and we could make a decision here that helps

everybody in the neighborhood, not just the petitioner, to come back again? I think that the way this petition is handled, this not coming here, it's it's it's not right. It really isn't right.

If I filed a petition to the board, and I know she's hired she's hired good engineers, and I respect that, but I think somebody that files for this board wants us to give relief should be here to answer some of the questions like I would have. Is this a a Airbnb? Is the woman living there? There's questions that I've heard that I'd like answers to, but nobody seems to know that

because she's not here. And I would like to point that out to the board. I would like to give Mr. Farin a chance to talk to the client, come back, but I just don't think it's right in this in this set of circumstances. It's not right to this board to be here. And uh Mr.

Chairman, you've said a few times, we don't make any money coming here.

Actually, this is the second meeting this week.

So, we're here for nothing. And yet the petitioner who wants us to continue continue and continue the case to help her give her relief is not even here.

It's just not right.

And in in deference to Mr. Finland, I don't want I don't want to hurt his case and I don't want him to come back. But that's really not what we should be concerned about.

Well, I thank you for that attorney fire. But the only thing is that there is no legal requirement that the petitioner needs to be I know that. How many cases have we impose that it it just seems a little bit I find it and I I respect your position and and I you know we've known each other for a long time and I I do respect your opinion on this but it's

just that I don't want to set a situation where for the first time ever we're not necessarily extending the courtesy to a petitioner and Mr. and I'm not here for argue for Mr. finally he he's he's he's a a very good advocate for his client is that he wasn't the initial applicant. He didn't represent the the applicant initially when they came before us and we did we did vote I

at that point I wanted to grant a continuance just to give him more time and there I believe you kind of made an you made a statement that kind of I I think made me change my mind so to speak. Um, so to that extent, yeah, we I listened, but I knew they were going to come back and I did state that publicly they're probably going to come back and

they did come back and that's why we're here today. But nonetheless, I thank you for your opinion on that, but I I would just feel myself I would feel more comfortable if we gave him the opportunity. That's just me and I think the other members have sort of shared the same sentiment. So, at this point, if we could just pick a date, what do we got for dates? It can be out

for a while because it give him plenty of time to speak to his client, decide what they want to do. It's going to be mid to late July at this point.

We have the 9th.

What else we have? We We have at 40B on the 9th, right?

What's that?

Sherbrook.

That's at 6. What do we have on at five?

Nothing.

Nothing. All right. So, we'll put on for July 9th. Enough time. Yep.

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

5 p.m.

Yes.

Uh, I make a motion that we continue a special permit ZSP.

Hold on one second, Mr. Fin. One sec. I just need to make sure if there's an extension that needs to be filed because this has been hanging around a bit.

Obviously, this approval is on the condition that you're going to sign an extension because you may be out of the time frame.

Continuence.

I mean, the what did I say? The what?

Approval.

The approval, excuse me. discontinuence that our approval of a continuence will uh be on the condition that you do sign an extension. Okay, great.

Um I make a motion that we continue special permit ZP5-5-6 to July 9th, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. Uh with the understanding that the petitioner will sign an extension on the time limitation.

Second that motion.

All in favor? I I the eyes have it.

Thank you.

I had I had forgotten that this came in here and then disappeared and was brought back.

All right. So, folks, we're still in session.

Gentlemen, we're still in session.

Moving on to the next matter in tonight's meeting and list variant ZAV26-1 petitioner applicant Joseph Depina owners Jon Joseph and Linda Depena the subject prop property is located at 26 West Bliss Street map 138 lot 228 located in the general residence district and the matter was legally advertised on May 21st and May 28th of 2026.

Uh, I make a motion that we wave the reading of the abutters list. Second that.

All in favor? I I the eyes have it. If anyone wants to see the abuters list, it's available at the zoning board of appeals office here on the second floor.

Uh, the petitioner in this case is seeking a use variance to create a condo conversion of two pre-existing dwellings. The primary residence was built in 1967 and the second dwelling, a two-car garage with accessory apartment, was built in 1991 with a variance 1989-72.

The two-car garage with accessory apartment above was then expanded in 1998 with a variance 1998-13.

Parking facilities shall meet the following minimum setbacks. 40 ft from street. Condos are not allowed use. This application is being denied under the following sections of the Dotment zoning bylaw 375-43.3 use variances amended 6-2324 ATM by article 40 approved 910 20224.

The property is located 26 West Bliss Street in the general residence district and identified as CES map 13828.

All right. So, um I must have a letter denial letter from the building inspector.

All right. This letter was addressed to Mr. Joseph Depina was dated April 8th of 2026. I have reviewed your application and at this time your proposal cannot be approved due to non-compliance with current zoning regulations. The applicant proposing to to create a condo conversion of two pre-existing dwellings. The primary residence was built in 1967 and the second dwelling, a two-car garage with accessory apartment

was built in 1991. The two-car garage with accessory apartment above was then expanded in 1998 with a variance. Condos are not allowed not an allowed use per 375-10.2 allowed uses. A use variance is required. And it goes on to state that you need relief on the 375-43.3.

All right. Um, that's that. And we also have some notes from town agencies.

One of them's from the board of health.

It says that the properties on town water and sewer.

That's all they have to indicate. And they say that separate connections.

There's a separate sewer and water connections were performed when second dwelling was constructed back in 1991.

So there might have been some foresight.

Um and also the the usual and ordinary DPW regulations which I'm not going to read into the record the standard regulations that we see on every application.

All right. So at this time this is a public meeting. At this time I'm going to call upon the um petitioner or their representative to come forward and state their case.

Thank you, uh, chairperson. I pretty much described it in my application. Um, you know, granting this a use variance would give me the opportunity to separate the ownership of the two dwellings while um maintaining ownership of of the entire property, which my family's owned since the mid60s. Like um like you stated, I'm a retired senior. I lived in town my entire life. my mother who uh lived at

26 passed away in December of last year just before her 96th birthday.

Her home is currently occupied.

Um that's 26 is the house in the front, the primary residence that did not require any kind of variance. Um the house is currently occupied by my niece, which is my my sister's daughter and her husband and her two children. um they've expressed interest that they want to purchase the home. Um the house has been meticulously maintained for years, but it's very much outdated. You know, it's

got a 1960s kitchen. Um one of the bathroom was redone to make it easier for my mother um to have access to based on her age, but there's a second bathroom that needs to be remodeled. Um it's old home. The oil tank had to be replaced. The roof needed needs to be replaced. And there's things that need to be done um obviously to maintain the property and improvements that my niece

who has, you know, desire to live in the home, she wants to do improvements of her own. You know, she wants to her kitchen a certain way. She mount colors of the bathroom with tile or whatever.

Um and it would give her the opportunity to be able to do that. Um, you know, as you know, the property values in in throughout Massachusetts and even in the town have have skyrocketed over the last few years. And without me being able to separate separate ownership of the dwelling, at some point I would be forced to sell the entire property, a property that we've owned for a number of years and I would

like to keep in my family.

I know that the uh it's called a a use variance. I understand why because it's a residential area, but the use of the property is not going to change. I'm still going to live at 28 with my wife.

My granddaughter is living with us now.

Um, we have the cars that we we drive.

We have where where we keep them on the property. We have a separate driveway.

Um, my niece who's who's lived at 20 26.

She has two children. um you know, she doesn't plan on putting any additions or expansions of the house. She just wants to update the interior of the house. So, even though it's called a use variance, um if this is granted, nothing's going to change within the neighborhood. It's just the responsibility from the of the property will change. They will be responsible for the the home and the

surrounding yard and their driveway is in terms of maintenance and I would be responsible for my portion of the property as well. And then the rest of what would transpire would would uh you know legalities would have to go to an attorney to set up a condo association and set out whatever rules would be established through that. Um, I've, you know, had conversations with my niece and, you know, the only thing we're

look, you know, looking to do is is separate the property taxes and, you know, put put in language that they were responsible for each other's property and and spell that out um in in legal language and um and you know, that's pretty much and the only other thing is is right of first refusal. um if ei e e e e e e e e e e e

e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e either one of us wants to sell the condo, I want to keep the property in the family and I think doing that will ensure that uh that would happen. Um I I've talked to my my niece about this. This is her, you know, you

hear it on the on the uh on the home improvement shows all the time that this is her uh life property.

This is uh her one and only property.

She doesn't plan on relocating. Um, I may have to relocate at one time. Um, as described, my property, um, all the living space is on the second level. My bedroom is in a loft on the third level.

Um, my wife tells me every day I have 13 stairs I have to go up and down to bring groceries to do the laundry. Um, we bathroom is on the second floor. Um, so, you know, we're in bed on the in the loft. We have to go up and down the stairs in middle of the night to go to the bathroom. So, you know, if anyone's going to leave the property, it would

probably be me and my granddaughter's living there now. My grandson would be interested in uh in moving in and it's a situation we we want to keep the property within the family and this would allow us to do that. Um, at one time I wanted to subdivide the property.

After spoking to someone in the building department, I found out that wasn't really wasn't feasible. um the the frontage would not meet the requirements. Um even if we that's one hurdle. The lot size as currently well how I currently had it drawn out would be too small. And then we'd have to widen the driveway in order to make that a lane to give frontage to the rear property which would create a setback

issue. So it was too many hurdles to jump through to try to go through uh a process that was probably not going to be successful. So, it was suggested to me that I try to do the condo route and uh come before the board and see if that would be granted.

Thank you, gentlemen. You have any questions of Mr. Deina?

Uh, I don't have any questions, Mr.

Chair.

I don't have any questions.

I had a statement, too.

Gentlemen, any questions?

I have none.

All right. Thank you.

Um, do you want to make that statement now or you want me to see if I can get the public if there's anyone in the public who wants to be here? You want to hear from the public first?

I don't think.

All right. So, Mr. Deina, as you all know, this is a public hearing and we always give everyone an opportunity to speak either in favor or in opposition. So, if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak either in favor or in opposition to this petition, kindly come forward, state your name, and explain to us what your concerns are.

Right.

Well, I can express to the viewers at home that there's no one in the audience that's raised their hand or has come forward to um speak either in favor or in opposition. So, at this point in time, I'm going to turn to Mr. Schuba. I think he wants to make a statement on this.

Uh yeah. So, it is a use variance and and he Mr.

Pina is correct. you know there's no change or and also I would like to add he's in the general uh residence district and according to our bylaws by right you can have two two family residents in a single if they are touched if they touch within the same building. So even with our bylaws, if the lot is over 20,000 square ft, you you are allowed to have two uh uh family

residents. Uh and you know the the two res the two dwellings that are on they're both legally in existence. One was created as of by right and the other one was by variance by this board long time ago. And uh it's just uh it's just a matter of more like administrative cleaning up.

And again, I looked, you know, this is a unique situation where I don't believe we have two dwellings on the lot. And I I since I've been on this board for almost 20 years, I've never this is the first time that this came up and I'm was looking to see how you know we can come up with with the and I think it's pretty straightforward once we look at the findings.

I don't know if this had come before us for that second structure now if we were granted something like that other than qualifying as an ADU. They no that was I was concerned about that and I see it as that's what I'm concerned too to to not to set a precedent but I checked an ADU according to our bylaws you cannot create condos with the ADU so that was my so because I'm worried of people

circumventing and starting to use this as what I thought so you're saying that you cannot create a condo if it's an ADU no okay all right well this was done a long time ago lucky for Okay. Um, any other comments?

No, I don't have any comments.

Mr. Rodriguez, any comments? Attorney Faria?

I have none.

Doctor, right?

So, um, I think we have some proposed findings on this. We keep the public meeting open in case we have to ask you any questions because once we close the public meeting, then we cannot take any information from you. Okay?

So, we'll keep it open. I ask you just to hang on, stand by just in case we have another question to ask or if we misstate something, I need you to come forward and and let us know. But Michelle just stepped away.

And again, Mr. Chair, before we start uh the with your concerns, if if they come in front of this board with an ADU to create a condo, you this is an existing pre-existing that was created by a variance. So yeah, so we I I thought of the same thing. I don't want to set a precedent, but I don't think this we're setting a precedent.

Well, I think this is somewhat unique to be honest.

It is. It is unique.

Mhm.

We're good.

You got the other board members if

gentlemen these are just a proposed findings. These are basically just a working template.

Thank you.

All right. So gentlemen, as usual, uh, anytime you want to interject, have me stop, we can go over if there's anything that's misstated.

So the findings, this proposed findings, the subject property is located at 26 West Bliss Street, Dartmouth, and is also known as map 138, lot 228 on D of D assessor's map two. The property is located in the general residence district and measures 43,675 square ft where 15,000 ft is required for a single family residence and 20,000 ft for a two family residence. The property has been owned by Joseph Apena since 19

I say probably in the 60s. I didn't have the Well, not him. I think it was by his mom and dad back in the 60s. Right.

Right. My dad.

Well, my mom and dad in Michelle will do you know how long you've owned it?

Have you only owned it since your mother's passing? No, I've owned it um you know for estate planning purposes.

God, I've owned it since Well, how about I just say this? It's been owned by the Pina family since 1967. Is that a fair fair statement?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

Since 1967.

Two family residence.

A two family residence are is allowed in the general residence district if the lot area is greater than 20,000 square feet and the two dwelling units are con contained within the same building footprint.

Yeah.

Okay. Currently there are two detached residential dwellings on the property.

Both dwellings are legally in existence.

The original dwelling 26 West Bliss Street at the front of the property was constructed in 1967. And the second dwelling 28 West Bliss Street over the garage at the rear of the property was built in 1991 by a variance from the Dartmouth zoning board of appeals in 1989 case number 199 1989-72 and expanded in 198 1998 per variance case 1998-13.

Both dwellings on the property in compliance with the Dmouth zoning bylaw setback requirements. Both dwellings on the property are serviced by town water and town sewer connections.

Separate town, excuse me, by separate town water and sewer connections.

The petitioner Joseph Depina is seeking a use variance per article 375-43.3.

Use variance is to create a condominium conversion of the two existing dwellings on the property. Condominiums are not allowed uses in the general residence district per section 375-10.2.

There will be no changes to the appearance or use of the existing dwellings on the property or their relation to abuing parcels. There will be no increase to the density or additional strain placed on existing town utilities and services within the condominium conversion with the condominium conversion. The board finds that a condominium conversion of the two family existing dwellings is not more

detrimental to the neighborhood and will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning bylaw.

The variance, the requested variance meets the statutory requirements for granting a variance pursuant to Mass General law chapter 48 section 10. So here's the four-prong test that we need to satisfy. 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 structural land is located. Currently,

there are two detached residential dwellings on the property. Both dwellings are legally in existence. The original dwelling 26 West Bliss Street at the front of the property was constructed that's not the yes 26, excuse me. The original dwelling 26 West Bl Street at the front of the property was constructed in 1967. The second dwelling 28 West Bliss Street over the garage at the rear of the property was

built in 1991 by a variance expanded by the other variance. The presence of the two existing residential structures on this parcel is a unique circumstance as it is the only parcel within the zoning district with two existing detached dwellings. The property has a rectangular shape with a 4:1 depth with with a 4:1 depth to width ratio. The two detached dwellings and their location in

relation to the lot shape creates a unique situation within this zoning district.

I like it. Two, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the bylaw would involve substantial hardship, financial otherwise to the petitioner. The literal enforcement of the provision would be a substantial hardship to the owner given the current status of the property. The owner is having difficulties with financing, refinancing, and insuring the ensuring the property. Typically that

can happen as well. Um, but I think one of the things is is in an attempt to keep the property still within the family. Correct.

Correct.

All right. I'll put something light to that effect. Is that all right with you?

Yes.

This is really doesn't satisfy a legal standard, but that's just a further explanation. It says as the petitioner seeks to keep the property ownership within the family. Okay.

Correct.

Three. Desirable relief may be granted without detriment to the public good.

The property is located in the general residence district and contains two lawfully existing dwellings. The granting of the relief will not be detrimental to the neighborhood or the public good.

Um and then four, the variance will not nullify or substantially derrigate from the intent or purpose of the bylaw. The property is located in a general residence district and contains two lawfully existing dwellings. Granting the variance will not nullify or substantially derate from the intent or purpose of the bylaw. All right. So that is the legal standard that we need to meet and we believe that we have

rationale that supports that in addition to the findings. Okay. So, given that I've seen some more people come in, is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak either in favor or in opposition to the petition for 26 West Bliss Street in South Dartmouth?

I can report that there's no one here that's raised their hand or come forward. Given that, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

I make a motion that we close the public hearing on 26th West Bliss Street.

Second.

All in favor? I I the eyes have it.

All right, Jo gentlemen, what's your pleasure?

Me? I make a motion that we approve uh the variance request for 26 West Bliss Street with the stated findings and the stated conditions.

Second.

All in favor?

I I The eyes have it. Congratulations and good luck, sir.

Good luck.

Thank you. I appreciate your time. I know you got uh bigger issues than this to take care of and I appreciate your time. Thank you.

They're all important though.

Mhm.

Thank you.

All right. So, we're going to take just a quick recess, gentlemen.

The board stands in recess.

This is the zoning board's back in session.

Moving on to the next matter that's on tonight's agenda. It's comprehensive permit ZCMP-25-3.

The petition is Philip Cado on behalf of the Hathaway Dartmouth LLC. The property is located in a single residence aid district. It's previously been legally advertised on December 18th to December 25th of 2025. And we've waved the reading of the abutters list. The petitioner is seeking a comprehensive permit pursuant to master law chapter 40b sections 20-23, the comprehensive permit guidelines from the Massachusetts

general laws and diamond zoning bylaw regulations. petition is proposing a development on approximately 113 acres to be known as the Hathaway to be located at zero hathaway road in the single residence a district. The development will have a total of 300 residential units. Dr. Agai who's a member of our board um has consistently recused himself at each of the hearings and has asked that I um announce again

that he's recusing himself at tonight's hearing.

Now um so for the people here in the audience and the viewers at home um there are a lot of moving parts to one of these there are a lot of move moving parts to one of these applications and I think a lot has transpired between town board town agencies such as DPW um and some of the experts that they've hired in order to present we call them consultants and also some of our

peerreview consultants. So, I think it probably most prudent tonight that I start with our legal counsel who's probably been privy to a lot of the either the direct communications and if not at least she's informed of what's transpired and she can give us sort of an overview of what's gone on since the last time we were all here.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yours.

Sure. Um and and there was I'm going to reference that there's been submissions by the applicant, but I'm of course going to defer to them to present those submissions to the board. Um so I did um just because so much has happened since May 21st, which is the last hearing, I did prepare for the board, I and I I provided a copy to the applicant just a timeline, which I I think you'll you

should have there. Um, and it's I I tried to break it down by subject matter just for CL just to try to group it because a lot happened. The the um the board had asked that I submit a letter to Mass Housing with the concerns regarding um project el the recommendations for mass housing. So I did submit that letter on June 3rd. um a response was received from Mass Housing

on June 8th in which you know they kind of restated that you know those recommendations are not conditions which we were aware of but that they would um speak with the applicant about the concerns. So I presume that those conversations happened. I don't know. I was not a part of privy to any of those conversations.

Um the um town administrator did share um that uh a resident had reached out or multiple residents had reached out to Senator Montigy. Hope I'm pronouncing that correctly. um and his office uh prepared a letter to Mass Housing which mirrored the same similar concerns that that the letter I had written had um to Mass Housing. So I do not know if their office got a response. The town

administrator was just copied on the letter from the senator's office. Um then related to this um um Allan and Major who's the uh applicants um civil engineers did submit a letter on Tuesday in which they took the planning board. So, the planning board had submitted comments for to Mass Housing before the project eligibility letter was issued and they've submitted a chart in which they go through all of

the comments from the planning board and how they feel they have responded to them. Again, a lot just came in from Tuesday and yesterday that you know everyone's you know the the staff myself have not been able to get through all of this in detail in the last I think that letter came in near the end of the day on Tuesday. Um, on the building height, there is a letter that came in also two days ago

from applicants council and that covers both traffic and building height. With respect to building height, I'm going to let them present it. It does include some new elevations for some of the buildings. I'll let them present that on traffic. There have been some back and forth letters. Howard Stein Hudson and then um Benas who uh is here on behalf of the applicant responded to that also

521 and then um there were more recent that just came in I I I think I failed to list it on here that just came in this week again from Howard Stein Hudson. Um, in addition, the uh the June 9th letter that came in um from council did include a a proposal on medication donation to the town. So, I'll let them present that as well. Um, on Tuesday, we also did just get an updated waiverss

list. It was a brand new chart without any redlinining. So, we have not had time to necessarily put them side by side and try to figure out every change that was made. Uh, we're It looks like there were only additions, no subtractions, but we don't even know if the language of any of the existing waivers have changed. Um, I'll note too if the board gets to the conversation of waivers today that it was discovered um

by some of the planning staff that in addition to the waiver list, there's a whole chart embedded in the plans for the landscaping, which appears to be waivers from almost all of the town's landscaping requirements, but they're not on the waiver list. They're embedded in the plans. So, those have to get addressed. Um they should have been combined uh for ease of the board's review but they were not. Um and then

just yesterday an ANR plan was received which um proposes divide the property into three lots that just came in yesterday has not been reviewed by anyone. Um and then the second page is all wastewater and peer review issues. Um, so I I don't think it's worth rehashing the who said what when. Um, obviously there's an we're going to have to agree to disagree on the timing of all the

conversations and the discussion of the need to have Stantech involved. Um, you know, and then there was concerns raised about peerreview fees. Some peer review fees were received tonight. They did not meet the amount that the town has requested um to cover the staff has requested on behalf of the board in order to cover the fact that there's a deficit right now for civil and traffic

and there's no there had been no funds to date that but it is it is there is a check today. It's just not the full amount that had been requested. Um with respect to the peer review, nothing started yet because there were no funds before this check showed up tonight. Um but I know that um based on this timeline and speaking to uh Mr. Barber that he has initiated conversations both

with Mr. Cardiro from Allen and Major and Mr. Calhoun to try to get that going. Um but it hasn't been started yet. So anyway, a lot a lot in a short amount of time. But um I couldn't I was trying to make sense of it all this morning. So I started mapping out the timeline. I thought it might be helpful to the board. So I put this together.

Thank you for that.

Um so anyway, that's that's what's happened since May 21st.

Right.

Um so I guess at this time we'll call upon the petitioner to bring us up to date as to where they're at with this. I think we're going to want to speak to their uh traffic consultant as well.

David Calhoun, Saxon Partners, the applicant. Uh clarification, Phil Cado is not the applicant. Uh I've mentioned that a couple times, but he's our civil engineer. Uh we corrected that the first hearing, but I I'd like to Who is the applicant?

Saxon Partners/ uh the Hathaway, the LLC.

All right. So have Bill is a civil engineer that have happened when they entered it in the portal.

It says applicant.

It came out in the portal that way.

Right. Right. Okay.

Yeah. It's just he he's the one who physically submitted the application on behalf.

So it came just on the we know that he's not right. For decision purposes.

For decision purpose. It'll it'll be listed as we'll have to make sure we Yeah, it will be but that should be reflected.

Thank you.

Yep. our attorney's here and he's going to um walk you through the June 9th letter because Mark Donghue and Matt Eckle uh felt it would be beneficial for us to prepare a a status of where we think everything is, explain things and a couple of the major things were looked at uh traffic the mitigation uh resolution. Um, one of the big things that the chair has made a very clear that you want us to

look at the height. You want us to look at the height. Uh, and I know it came in relatively late, but it's it's just a concept. We're not changing our submission unless you guys opt to go to it, but we're going to walk you through it. Uh, and that we took a floor off a portion of the building uh, closest to uh, Eisenhower. uh we're maintaining our unit account, but we'll go through all

that in detail. Um but the more important thing I I'd like to clarify is there's been some misrepresentations as to our peerreview fund. Our 53G account does have money in it. You have so far you have awarded two contracts. You awarded one to Mel Engineering. Uh, and off the top of my head, hang on one sec.

HS

off the top of my head, I don't have the exact amount. I believe it's third uh her contract was for $16,000.

Um and her contract is broken down into meetings and then peer review. in our peerreview scope of work. There's a chunk of it that's dedicated to water, sewer, and peer review on site. Uh, in addition, you also issued a contract to Howard Stein Hudson, and again, I'm going off the top of my head in the amount of $8,400.

Uh, the peerreview portion of their study was roughly $6,000.

And then meetings for two meetings was uh $2,400 or 2,200 $2,200.

Uh you have incurred at least and I made three phone calls in the last few days trying to reach them to clarify it. Uh we got a bill the other day uh I believe it was uh Tuesday uh that shows that you spent 18,000 700 and some odd dollars with Howard Stein Hudson alone.

How that happened?

I don't know. They had a contract. Um you know I've received a few responses.

Uh what I'd prefer to do is to get with uh Howard Stein Hudson, review their bill, make sure that they're not billing for another project. It's pretty easy to bill for the Hawthon when you got the Hathaway and figure out what that amount is because you have a this board only awarded a contract for $8,400 uh and to have it be at $187. Anybody would say, "Hold on." Uh we were asked

to put $15,000 into our 53G account via email. We brought with us tonight $20,000 and we've given that to Michelle. Uh we've just been told by Susan that she wants 15 and 15 and the 15 is for Mr. Barber.

Uh and we did talk to uh Tim uh last week uh and again the other day uh and that they were trying to get to resolution on a peerreview study that they were looking to do. Um but based on the meeting of the DPW the other evening, they directed and they engaged Stantech to do a peer review, not this board.

So they're spending money. I I'm not sure how it comes out of a ZBA 53G account when they're engaging somebody to do a different service. And I before this meeting got going, I offered to Susan that I'd like to take it offline and not discuss this in public because there appears to be some things that are messed up. Uh that was declined, but I don't think it's responsible to sit

there and say that a rep very very reputable company that their account is not fully funded and that's delaying review. As you know, when we first came that was the first thing we did. We threw 25 grand in a peerreview account to avoid any such problems like this.

And we have been diligent in reaching out to the town every month to say, "Hey, where's our account stand? What bills have you paid?" And towards the end, that has gotten pretty good. We'll get a notice before something gets spent. But we had no indication as to what was going on with Howard Town Hudson. I believe it could be an error.

would like to deal with that offline independent of the ZPA. And with that, I'd like Matt to take over and give your status.

But before we go there, um I'm obviously you're going to explain to me a little bit about our side of what's transpired here.

Sure.

I thought we had a conversation early on that we were going to designate someone else to make this determination, people within the town, maybe even the town administrator. Yes. To engage these individuals.

And and that's and and that's just my recollection, right? And Mr. Mr. Barber and DPW has not engaged anyone. The town administrator signs all of the um engagement letters, but the water and sewer is under the DPW department. So when it comes to reviewing anything on any project that comes before this board or the planning board related to water and sewer, the DPW director is involved.

So they don't they didn't engage Stantech for review of this project. The the the town administrator signs all of those proposals on behalf of the board. And with respect to other work happening, there's always other work happening with the water and sewer departments. There is always other contracts going on.

There's reports being issued. In fact, there's a report that Mr. Barber has uploaded just so that it's in the record as to capacity issues and that was funded separately by the you know uh committee DPW committee not it's not directly related to this project it relates to all projects in the town but it's information that's relative to the impacts of all projects overall impact overall impact and that was not being

sought to be funded by any money of this applicant that paid entirely by the town. So, so that is that is that is not accurate. Number two, but I am concerned. Right. The last thing I and we had a similar problem with the first one of the first 40bs of last year in that we're not going to be caught holding the bag.

Right. Exactly. I had and I don't want to say I don't want to use the word threatened but I had expressed clearly to that applicant that if we weren't being paid if the money was not in there to cover not only what was incurred but also for future expense that we had an estimate a good estimate as to what that would be that we wouldn't be moving forward because I

didn't want there to be a situation in which that would not that would happen in which the town would have a bill outstanding not being paid for by and under 40b the board is the town is not required to the board is not required to move forward with a 40B if if peerreview funds are not paid. With respect to Howard Stein Hudson and also with Merrill, both of their contracts are crystal clear that those were

estimates. It says right in there that they're estimates. They were based on assumptions of how many review letters they needed to write, how many meetings they needed to attend.

and Howard Stein Hudson has had to respond to more than the number they estimated and both per if you may recall at this we there was a plan at the second hearing say okay this is what's going to be discussed but the applicant has decided at each hearing that they're going to talk about any topics they want to talk about and it was leaving the board without your experts here so the

board was in a position that if you didn't have your consult consultants here the applicant would be have their experts talking about topics and you'd have no expert here. So it was at the point where both of your experts were coming to the hearings because otherwise the board would be left without your consultant or your peerreview expert to respond. Okay.

So that resulted in um Mr. Finley having to come to more meetings than he might have if the applicant had been willing to stick to we're talking about this on this day that on that day which is what we uh the board has done with the other 40bs determine this is the only people are coming this is the only topic of conversation but that's not how the flow of this hearing has gone and those both

of those are estimates and there is no ability of the of the this uh Howard Stein Hudson is only working on this 40B, no other 40B or other project in Dartmouth. So, he's not accidentally billing for any other project.

Okay, Mr. Chair.

Sure.

Just a couple quick questions. The position that my mismanagement, my request for professionals to be here uh was wrong.

Uh your consultant and your attorney is stating no that the reason why this ran over was because of meetings. Uh Steve Feldman, I believe, is here.

This is his third time here.

Am I correct, Steve?

Well, whatever it is, it But but it is, but it's not the meeting that blew it up.

You're the one that's asking for the relief. You're asking for the relief.

This is a big boy's game.

I'm not asking for relief.

Of course you are.

No, I'm not.

So, a comprehensive permit is not a formal relief.

A comprehensive permit is not a form of relief.

It is. It It is because we achieve an affordable requirement. So you're all I'm saying sir is our recommendation was that this discussion happen with the proper people.

All right. So you can still you can still do that. That's we can still do that and the only thing that we ask is we just put another 20 grand in our account more than is needed right now.

I don't know. You say it's more than it's needed. I'm not convinced it's more than you haven't issued any other contracts nor is the town administrator. The contract that you're talking about with Stantech was discussed, voted, and approved under the line item of 40B Stantech on the June 4th hearing of the DPW. They discussed it. They said what they wanted to do. They wanted a capacity both for sewer and water to be

done. We already have a willserve letter. We already have um a um analysis of the water flows. It was prepared for one of the other applicants that there was sufficient water for us. you know, we're we're not trying to scapegoat anything, but because the DPW wants to do a study, and the exact reason why they want to do the study is to see if they can create a moratorum to prevent projects like ours. They're

spending the money, not us. We're not going to fund a study to stop us.

Well, I understand that.

That's the thing, but that's not accurate.

We'll have we'll have Mr. um Barbara come up and he can explain a little bit more on that. But I do agree you could handle that offline to determine what the cost is and when you're but the only thing is I I am really concerned that they're going to be payment for this. So let me ask you there's 20 grand right there right now that was that's not enough from understanding that's not enough for what the

outstanding bills is that enough to pay what's outstanding for the outstanding bills. Yes.

Okay. For the outstanding bills but for future billing it's not.

Yes it is. not based on the um the estimates particularly with respect to water and waste water.

Let me ask you this as a condition before we were to grant anything if the board were to grant this as a condition we can make it so that all payments have to be made for all the pre-review consultants prior to the issuance of the permit. Correct?

Absolutely.

Yeah. And and and 4DB regulations provide that if sufficient funds are not deposited that you can deny the permit outright. Mr. Chair, if option if it's basically you act at your peril whether or not you pay the bill or not.

We paid the bill.

All right. Well, you pay the one that's been submitted up to this point. Maybe there has been no new bills. You would have to vote and decide to engage another subcontractor to perform more services.

You haven't brought on another contractor. You haven't hired anyone else. The DPW did.

Okay.

Again, Mr. Chair, I can I can go back and review the original meetings, but Stantech has been discussed since meeting one. Myself and Mr. Barber stood right there and spoke to Mr. Calhoun about Stantex's engagement right after the first hearing. So, you know, I will I will confirm, but you know what? I would ask the board right now to take a to um ratify the fact that Stant Tech, you know, was to be engaged or was

intended to be engaged and I would ask the board to take that vote right now as a and ratify that understanding.

Right. I just like rather hear from at from Mr. Tim Barber before we do that.

Keep that in mind before I before we adjourn tonight. Okay.

Yep.

All right. So, I think the attorney Oh, Mr. Barbara wants to come up. Take care of it now. So explain to me this distinction of what you guys who you've engaged Stanton to do. Stantech is it?

Stantech.

Stantech. Yes.

Okay. Tim Barber uh Department of Public Works director. Um so we the based on a number of developments being proposed in town, 40Bs and non-40BS. uh the board of public works has requested that uh a flowing loading study be done with all the cumulative data. So so this was funded through the the sewer enterprise fund. This is not funded by the any of the applicants. The the applicants uh

fund the peer reviews of their on-site and direct impact of offsite.

Um but they prepared a report for you. They have.

Is that how you derive that memorandum on another case that you presented to us on Monday night?

Was it based on some of that information?

Yes.

Okay. Yes.

Fair enough. That's absolutely. And that's not coming from this petitioner's funds.

No.

All right.

N was funded solely through the sewer enterprise fund, right?

And that was requested by the board members for a cumulative impact study.

So, and and flow and loading study of existing and and future flows.

And so Stantech has not been engaged by you to do anything as far as independent review of this project. And when I say you, the DPW board.

Yeah. So we have discussed this project.

They have uh submitted a number of scopes and fees and we've worked with them. The initial cost was pretty high. So we work worked with them a number of times to reduce the fee and and cost for this uh project.

Has that been sent over to the petitioner?

It has on May 21st. on May 21st of September. And did they respond to you about any of those bills that was those estimates that were sent over?

Um, not directly.

They responded to me. I I received Well, the board received a letter from the applicants council, which I was copied on. It was It's It's probably in your pile. There's a lot that's come in. It's one It's one Yes, it's one of those letters that I have in the timeline. And initially um their council said that they were rejecting the proposal and I that's the letter. Okay.

And I responded and said under chapter 40B regulations you do not have the ability to reject a peer reviewer unless they are not competent to do the job which is not the case for this peer reviewer. And failure to pay um the peerreview funds may result in a denial of the permit. And that was the exchange, the extent of the exchange on that.

That was back in May, late May.

Well, that was May 21st is when they got it. I believe it was the beginning of June, maybe a week or so ago that the letter came in.

Look, I do know that, you know, Stantech doesn't seem to be the least expensive of the peer reviewers for this area. And I just seen that the you know the DPW seems to enjoy engaging or the town seems to find that Stantech is probably I don't know if they're the best but if they're the best then they they ought to justify it some way somehow. Um because it's not just them it's been everyone

along the way and there are other people who I I know of who are seeking this and they're complaining about what that price may be.

Correct. So I I can say that we you know we have a history with Stantech and and formerly Faith Spafford and Thornike. So as Faith Spa and Thornike they designed our wastewater treatment facility and I'd say about 75% of all of the sewer infrastructure that's been constructed in the town. So, and then you know they were bought out by Stantech and kept the same staff and continued to work for the

town for many of the sewer projects. So, they have a lot of the data in in history of our wastewater treatment facility.

There's no incentive to be reasonable in pricing, right?

Just I just ask you keep that in mind.

And I'm not saying you have the power that be to make that decision, but absolutely keep that in mind.

Yeah. And the town administrator's been involved in those. I have not been involved, but the town administrator's been involved in those conversations with Mr. Barber and Stant. And as he stated, the proposal that came in for this 40B was a significantly lower price than on the two prior 40Bs. And and again, those were just estimates. And the actual amounts that were buil by Stantech for those two projects were

significantly less than what was in their estimate. So again, they're estimates. They might be lower lower, they may be higher, but um the town has been um actively working on that.

And in his uh attorney market has stated that we have uh had discussions with the applicant and his engineer and they have agreed to fund uh a portion to to uh move forward with the with the work you know verbally. Uh we had requested and and discussed that $20,000 would would get us going on this for both the water and the sewer.

Did that did not conclude the civil and the traffic. So that's fine.

Okay.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

We don't want to be the devil.

You need a vote. Um but don't our goal is not to like you to take a vote to ratify. Let me just hear from our goal is not to do this first, but um what we'd suggest is the DPW has studies they want to do that as far as our 53G account and when you're looking to us to pay a bill. We only ask that this board actually engages the party, takes a vote, we want

to hire XYZ, we have a proposal from them for whatever dollar amount is. And then as you go through that contract and spend that money, this board because if other town boards are looking to do studies that's not within the jurisdiction of a 40B, but he already made it clear that that's not something that you're footing the bill on.

We are.

No, you're not. We are not. He just said the only study. That's the only study that can be that needs to be done. The scope of work for our on-site work is already in Mel's contract and she's only build 67% of the contract.

She is not doing that review. She has stated in multiple peerreview letters.

She has stated it to your engineer that she is she is not doing that review. She has stated it in writing and on the phone to your consultant. She is not doing that review.

She's not doing it, but it's in her contract. But she's not doing it.

If she's not doing it, she's not going to bill you for it because it's an estimate.

But if you've hired a certain person to do it and it's only hiring someone else, if it's only going to cost four or $5,000 from that professional, why are we spending 20? That 20 is for a different scope. It's not the same.

Mr. Chair, there's two again. I I had explained this.

I explained this at the last hearing.

Yes, we are. We I explained this at the last hearing and I'll explain it again.

There are two parts to this. There's the review of the on-site layout infrastructure, etc. for the water and sewer. And then there are the off-site impacts. For example, on another 40B, there was a pipe that was too narrow for the amount of water they needed for the site. That's an off-site impact, but they were not going to have water pressure for their homes or fire without that looking at that off-site pipe. This

is done in every project. 40B, not 40B.

You look at the flow has to get from the project to the treatment plant. The infrastructure has to be there to cover the flow from 435 bedrooms. Thus the Stantech scope is both the on-site infrastructure and looking at the off-site impact. That's something Mel would never do ever anyway. So for this board, so um it is not correct that this is a a scope that's a you know $20,000 for looking at pipes in the ground on

site. That's not accurate. But both of them are directly related to both the design of the site and the impacts of the site.

Okay.

And this is the proposal that I'm recommending that the board vote to confirm and ratify that look at it probably during the break.

Sure.

Let's uh move on. I think the attorney council wants to come forward.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, my name is Matt Eckle. I'm an attorney with Fletcher Tilton on behalf of the applicant.

Okay.

Sorry to interrupt. Uh my name is Jack Leel. I represent the applicant as well through the chair. Can I present some information for you to review during this conversation?

Sure. Is this stuff that was already previously submitted?

Yes.

We might have it already, but it's just physical copies. Look through it.

Take a quick look at it.

Okay.

on the slideshow, too.

Can you give that one to Michelle, please? Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

As mentioned, we have our our full team here before you tonight to answer any questions the board may have. Uh, as mentioned a couple of times since our last hearing, there have been a lot of updates and emails and correspondents as well as some submissions. Uh so we did draft a letter kind of highlighting uh the high points of that and what I'd like to do is just walk through that

letter. It was submitted and is up on the portal. Uh but not knowing who has had an opportunity to review it uh or fully comprehend it, we just want to kind of walk through really three main points um relating to traffic, the height of the development and landscaping. And then again, we have a bunch of supporting uh plans and images and and our consultants here who can walk you in greater through that in

greater detail. Um, but first and foremost, we'll we'll talk about traffic. Obviously, there's been extensive conversation and as evidenced by the the bills, lots of back and forth relating to to traffic with both our uh traffic consultant as well as the board's peerreview consultant. Uh we believe these exchanges have demonstrated the consensus that this this project itself is not going to

result in significant negative effects on the traffic conditions at the nearby intersections. Although there are uh current deficiencies uh which this obviously will not improve but will not greatly negatively impact. Um therefore we also talked about a fair share based on a common formula uh to calculate what the fair share of our mitigation would be related to traffic. I believe this

was discussed at the May 21st hearing.

Uh as a result of hearing that the the board and the constituents thought more was needed. We are looking to and prepared to make a $30,000 contribution at the issuance of the first building permit in connection with this project uh to a traffic improvement fund managed by the town. Ideally, this would go to direct uh improvements right in this neighborhood or right at this uh you

know some of the major intersections.

However, that would be at the town's discretion if that makes the most sense to fund it for those purposes and use it for those purposes or if it would be looked at in some wider range uh planning uh initiatives.

The second major issue is the height of the building. Uh we have obviously heard from from the board as well as some of the abutters that the height remains an issue. Uh although we did highlight a number of changes that were made prior to even submitting with the zoning board which included moving the buildings uh re relocating some of the amenities to the opposite side uh making sure we

comply with all sideyard setbacks so that we're pulled as far away as possible from the sideyard. Uh we did look and and study the plans and are proposing now uh and I don't know if we can pull up any of the images and certainly Clay can go through them in further detail. Uh but we're proposing that the northerly component of the three buildings which are closest to Eisenhower Street will be partially

reduced so that the height on that kind of far end or the far right side of the buildings uh would appear to be three stories within the walkout terraces on two of the three buildings. second. Do you have a a means by which you can put that on the big screen?

I think we're trying to do that. I think it's All right, we're going to we're going to just pause you for a second. I want the people who are here in the audience to be able to see some of this and even the viewers at home.

Absolutely, Mr. Chair.

Architect walk you through the changes.

Okay.

So you can really see him.

Well, we can just put him up now. So we got the point of reference.

No no.

We know that's um one of his colleagues by a lawyer.

Yes. In his office.

Great. Thanks, Jack. So on this image here, you can see uh closest to the red numbers and arrows, the three buildings on the right side of the property. Uh the front one is is currently um four stories and the back ones are four with a terrace, a walkout terrace. So they could read as four or five depending on which direction you're looking at them.

So it'll be a little bit easier to see once we get to the elevations, but you can see on each building essentially a dotted line. uh two of them creating kind of Tetris-l like pieces and the other is a traditional rectangle. So we're proposing to scale back the upper floor on that level which will provide some more relief and scaled back massing to the Eisenhower streets. Um so again this will read as a um fourstory

building, excuse me, threetory building on the far right side with the walkout terrace for those two back buildings and then a three-story building for the front building. Uh Jack, if you can go to the next the elevations. So, here's just a better idea of of what the buildings would look like. Again, there's that massing, but it's set back, pulled pulled back, and Clay can give you more details on how far it is. Uh,

but again, just to add some uh more relief and and reduce the overall massing of the prop the project closest to the properties along Eisenhower. Um, so that is a reduction in the height to those three buildings for a portion of it. Um, and then we'll hold on height here and bring Clay back up in a minute.

But uh the final topic that was mentioned in our letter was related to landscaping. Although we're keeping a lot of the landscaping on our side to create that natural buffer between us and the properties on Eisenhower Street.

Uh we know there's been some discussion and realized that uh further measures could likely be taken uh to help with any kind of screening whether it was fencing uh plantings or or any kind of uh screening and buffering. Um, so what we're offering is those six properties on Eisenhower Street in the event that they elect to make uh any improvements on their side of the property to provide

some screening, uh, we would set aside $5,000 per property and if those improvements were made, uh, they would be compensated for those uh, improvements. So, we believe this is a good faith effort to uh, address the three major issues of traffic, height, and a landscaping buffer. Um, so again, our whole team's here. We'd like to walk through uh perhaps the height with Clay a little bit further and then take any

questions from the board on any of these items or any other open items. Thank you.

Good evening. Uh Clay Smoo with Smoo Architecture. Uh I've presented here before. Um thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk some more. Uh we're actually pretty excited about this um this version of the plan that we've been investigating really has to do with pulling back the scale of the buildings from the Eisenhower properties. As we mentioned, uh the first building that's

closest to Hathaway, which sits on a fairly flat site, which is four stories tall, we're proposing to step down approximately the 45 ft as you move towards uh the Eisenhower. It steps down to three stories. And I'm going to take you through some of the heights. It's 33 ft there. And as you move back to the buildings where there are four stories with a walk out, uh those are set back

on the longest leg, 57 ft. So what we're really starting to do is break the massing down and step it down to the neighborhood. So if you go to the next slide, this is pretty interesting because we took this image from I believe it's called Sher Sherbrook which was Sherbrook Village which I believe was uh mentioned in one of the meetings by either someone on the board or somebody in the audience. We looked at

that. What's really interesting there is at the cornis line that's the top the very top of the vertical plane of the wall on that project you're at 31 ft.

And what we're proposing now is there's building B right next to it. Our building is going to be 33 feet tall.

It's going to be three stories. That that piece of massing as it steps towards Eisenhower is going to be 33 feet tall, which is fitting within the scale of that neighborhood. And what we're doing is we're pushing that fourth story far back about 45 ft back ostensibly doing something similar which which Sher uh Sherbrook did which is again it was 31 ft. It has a fairly significant roof but

that roof falls away and by pushing that attic story back we're sort of allowing sort of the visual plane as you look up it falls far further back. Another thing that we did and still staying on the center image is we've worked with the mechanical, electrical and plumbing um really looking at the placement of the um rooftop units. And what we've done is we've identified a zone in the center of

the building roughly 18 to 20 ft wide.

And you can see at the very top where there's a 3-foot screen wall that we've created there. And that would happen on on all the roofs. But we've sort of redesigned the building because that screen wall originally was part of the massing and we had it all the way forward to the front of the building. So we really broke the massing down another 3 ft. So again 33 feet to the top of the

roof at that projected piece on the center and then further back where it's four stories it is 44 feet. Now moving to stay on this slide but moving to the right image. Now, this is the fourstory 3/4story with the walkout. It's the nature of this site. I mean, we've all seen residential homes where they're built on sites where they're sloping and they're two-story buildings and they

have a walk out below. We've seen it many, many times. And it's no different here. So, what we have here is, and as the attorney called it, that Tetris piece, the piece that has a a block that pushes forward even more. You've got a three-story mass of the building with a walk out obviously on the east side and it's projecting out. But on that block that's at the far

right if if if you can follow with me here is actually 57 feet back until you get to that that further mass. So you can see the the mass of it breaking down. So when we go to what does this mean on the next slide when we start to look well here's just a section before we go to the looking at the um looking at the Eisenhower side this is

this is Hathaway on the left the site obviously terrace is down we created that red datam line because what's really interesting is again we're at that we're at 44T and as you move again if you move your the visual plane further to Eisenhower we'll be at 33 feet which I'll show you in a minute, but we're at 44 ft. And you can see the way the buildings it's fairly similar between the building

B and the next building in the center because it only goes down about a foot.

But as you go down to the next building, that fourstory building just drops. It's it's makes sense from the topography standpoint. Now, we want to look at a a couple of images, next slide, that take a look again at those houses. and and what you're seeing here is really significantly first of all you start to see the elevation of the entire building on the left you can see in this image

and um this is the furthest image down so this is this is if you look where the red line is at the top that's the furthest building down at the end it's called building F I believe and you can see that 57 ft roughly that's threetory building it almost looks like a three-story townhouse you You can see that again that um that roof screen projected further back. But you really

start to see you can imagine with your eye from that yellow existing house drawing sort of a diagonal at roughly about 30° that the building is literally setting back similar like it would if it had a pitched roof on it. The next image looks a little bit further up the slope I believe. Yep. Now we're at building D.

That's the middle building. similar effect looking at the yellow existing building at um on Eisenhower our building on the far left again at a very very even even more gentler slope because the distance is even greater on this section you're seeing sort of the view and again the building setting back and then finally moving closest which is called building B at Hathaway this is

that uh house that has the large columns on it has sort of a plantation feel to it Again, we've taken that upper story off the last 46 47 ft uh of the building and dropped it down. And it actually works very well with the architecture that we created to begin with because the design of the building is broken down to feel like a series of town houses. And part of that is really

breaking up the visual impact of the vertical wall so that it fits within the scale of those uh of those homes.

Do you mind going back to the elevation?

Sure.

highest point on that other project.

Highest point.

Right. So, going back to the slide that has Okay, so again getting back to the Sherbrook Village again, we're at 31 ft at that cornis line, but the top of the ridge line is actually I believe it's does that say 47 1/2 ft?

Exactly. So, we're that the top of that ridge line is at 47 1/2 ft. Our building is 44T uh to the top of that fourstory. It won't be any higher than that. Of course, there is that set setback um roughly 18 to 20 ft from the edge of the building of course is that screen wall to maintain uh some uh screening of the mechanical units. But in in short, the

height of our building and the height of that ridge are roughly the same. We're actually a few feet lower.

I'm listening to you, but it's not very persuasive because the elevation between the road on O Westport Road and the base of where the buildings are going to be built for Sherbrook is about a 15t difference. Minimum 15t difference in elevation. When you drive by, the perspective is completely different from what this is going to look like. But I'm listening.

Mhm. Okay.

I'm not buying, but I'm listening. Well, well, I think that this is an appropriate level. If you go back, just go forward a couple of more times. Uh just there there's a good example of it.

I think we're gesturing down to the neighborhood. We're we're breaking the scale of the building down appropriately given given the gap between the end of that building and what I'm calling the the the White Plantation building. I think that drops down very very well.

And again, even as you move further to the left, it's perceived as a four-story building. It is a four-story building.

That's the view from Hathaway.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Phil Cordiero Allen and Major Associates. I was hoping not to speak tonight, but I did just want to uh hearing the point that you actually just brought up about the change in grade for Sherbrook Sherbrook Farms. We actually have a fairly similar situation because of the way Hathaway Road. Could you go back to just a site plan, please, Jack?

Uh if if we were to take a grade elevation generally in this corner of property line, we're about 118 120 along Hathaway Road and this building elevation is set down 107. So we actually have that 13 14 ft delta as you walk in from Hathaway into that first building and then it continues to go down back from the roadway. Does it start to have that difference in elevation?

Say again, sir. I'm sorry. How far back from the roadway does that elevation actually have that much of a distinction?

Uh so we have, you know, along the front of the road through here, we have approximately 20 ft uh with the retaining wall and the decorative screening that we'll have in here. And then there's a 62 ft tray with the parking. So if I added all of those up, say off the cuff, 85 ft or so. And what's the elevation difference between the road? Well, that's the road at the

highest point. Why don't you go down the road on the other lower point on the far left? Sure.

Of where your thing is and see what the difference in elevation of that.

Sure. Between those two.

Sure. No, absolutely. No, you're correct to note that in that we know Haway Road runs down through here and it's steeply sloped this way, it's steeply sloped that way. When you jump to the other corner of the land, we have generally Hathaway is at about 101 102 in here and our pool is about 101 a half. So it certainly levels out as you continue going down Hathaway Road. You know, the

messaging that I just wanted to jump in is to just grab some of that elevation difference that we've talked about throughout the hearings and how it actually ties to the architecture that uh Mr. Smoo just laid out.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Who's next?

Just a couple of things, Mr. Chair. Um during previous meetings, there was um a question was raised about what happened from the project eligibility letter to where we are today. Uh and that were we responsive to the comments that were made by the planning board in the PEL uh process. Uh so we asked Allan and Major to prepare and in that packet you'll see it and it was submitted through the

portal and it was also submitted to you guys. Uh it's a June 9th letter from Allen and Major and he put it in their normal response format where it shows a comment from the planning board actions taken to date.

Um, the next item that I just want to bring to your attention is the summary uh that Allen and Major prepared as far as our response to requests as it relates to sewer and water capacity. You'll see there's a letter dated June 11th with a great deal of detail of when things happened, what was submitted, what was provided, everything from uh addressing some capacity issues to water analysis

issues. Um and also we have not submitted into to my knowledge I believe it's here we have uh dating back over a year uh we worked in conjunction with the DPW Mr. Harbor and looking at, you know, improvements in Haway Road, whether they were ours or the towns. Uh we also looked at a pump station that we may partially um have a benefit from improving and in conjunction with uh Tim

Barber's office. Um they went out for bids on what it would cost to upgrade that plant. Uh what it would cost to put in new uh larger lines if we decided we wanted them. Uh and as mentioned at the last meeting uh those uh independent estimates of the cost of the work are a fraction of the impact fees uh that we uh are required to pay as part of our water and sewer connection. Um, also in

your packet, um, just for your convenience, um, in the blue, you'll see we provided a, uh, June 1st revision number two, uh, waiver list. Um, earlier, I don't know if, uh, Phil is here yet, but Susan mentioned that there was a waiver list embedded in the landscape plan. Uh would you mind explaining that real quick?

Sure.

Um again, Phil Cordado, Allen, and Major. Just touching upon the waivers um that attorney Murphy had pointed out. Uh we did submit obviously revision two which captured two waivers just for clarity. We're happy to provide a redlinined version. Uh I apologize for not doing that. I should have done that.

uh just so you can track along in terms of what we've done. But the change uh that's in front of you is really only two waiverss. And then to Mr. Calhoun's point and then attorney Murphy's point um on our landscaping plan, it does appear we do have a couple of notes in our zoning table where we don't have quite enough plants to be fully compliant with the bylaw. So I will make

certain that those get captured in the waiver. So you're reviewing it uh comprehensively.

Thank you.

Uh other than the waiver list, um one of the items uh that we have discussed um we're very very fortunate and that we have such a large site. Um and our intention is to uh at the end of the day when this process is complete is to uh donate a good portion of that. Uh we've talked to several groups that would be the beneficiaries of it. Uh and in addition to that um we also provided uh

a conceptual ANR plan which you'll see and what we're looking at we would be dividing the property into three separate parcels and the reason why there's three if you look at the blow up in the lower leftand corner and a gentleman actually before the hearing was mentioning some of the parking constraints that the church has next door. Uh the church currently has a license to park on our property uh and

encroach on our property and that's been there uh and that gets renewed, but it's at the discretion of the land owner. Uh what we wanted to do to clean this up and we reached back out to uh Pastor Derek and what we're looking to do is the property which they typically license from us, we're looking to donate that to them because it makes it cleaner and safer for them. So, no one could

ever extinguish that license and they'd actually have a parking constraint. Uh, so that's an item. You can see it in the uh blowup. Uh, which is something that we're looking to do with them. Uh, the rest of this uh is land that u we would propose to finalize with the right group that's going to get a true benefit out of it. Uh, we're trying to find a group that would actually see some passive use

with it. uh which might be access for them to for people to walk, walking trails, etc. uh and uh at the right time when we determine that we don't have any issues that we have to adjust for that we'd come back and file an ANR uh for that final plan. But that's there uh for you to review. It's conceptual. It's not final. All right. Thank you.

All right.

Mr. Chair, I think certainly Yep. I think at this Hold on. Do any of the members have any any members have any questions? Mr.

Human, I don't have any questions, Mr.

Not at this time, but I Gentlemen, any questions?

Not this time.

All right. Um, I'm a little concerned about a couple things. So, obviously they they've addressed the height.

Um, sure.

Well, they've addressed what they believe they've addressed, the height.

Uh so so I think the biggest issue I have right now in addition to height is probably the traffic in some of the intersections, but they do have their they do have their expert here today.

Hold on, Mr. Calhoun.

So, there's there's a few things and I don't I don't know what order the board wants to. So, they made the presentation, but there's some they start questions. I don't So, which I don't know whatever order the board wants.

They went traffic, height, and and landscaping.

Landscape. So um right and so and the water wastewater which is not there's not any information yet in order to address that. So um I don't know what order you do want to go in start with traffic.

Okay that's concerning too. So they have an expert I think Mr. Calhoun wanted to say something else. So just one clarification um and Matt briefly explained it. Um when we came to conclusion and I spoke to the um your member who was designated the person to talk about uh traffic and the uh fair share and what we're supposed to contribute to because when you look at the fair share analysis you go down it

and you're like these guys are putting pennies towards things. The fair share program is a known engineering practice where you determine what the improvements are that you want. you put together a value on them and then a calculation is made by the traffic engineers as to what responsibility you should step up on based on what you're doing to that intersection. Uh and when you total up everything that we were

supposed to be contributing for based on the fair share, it was only $5,700.

And we felt that it would be best served that you know if you look at some of the items on that list some of them are pretty simple and cheap regardless of who owns responsibility for them. So, we said, "Okay, the amount we have, we're going to jump that up to $30,000 and we're going to put that into a fund which we don't control that the town controls and then they can decide they

want to hit some of these quick items without having to go for other funding or they want to take it. But one of the things we looked at that we've done with a lot of time towns and Jack will share it with you is um our recommendation would be that you take the funds and we engage jointly um Jeff Durk's firm to do a grant stud a grant application and we really feel that the grant

application uh it's going to cost about $27,000 their proposal to do it. You could go for a grant application and because of the unique situation that you have some stuff over in New Bedford that the grant application would go in for two towns. So you with the their expertise you could create a pretty significant grant probably I'm not going to say the amount but a very very strong number and it

would be embraced most likely by the Commonwealth because it's housing related and you're addressing concerns in two towns. uh and that 27,000 $30,000 could easily turn into a very very big multiple of that and give you resources to do all kinds of things unrelated to our project.

Thank you.

Sure.

Come on up.

Thank you.

Has has this been submitted before or is this No, this is new.

Okay.

That's just a grant application proposal.

Thank you.

Are you going to have I think we should have their consultant come forward. I like I probably have a few questions.

I'm sure the board members have some questions.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman.

Yes. So, I do know you speak English, but when I listen to you, I try anyways.

It's like you guys speak. When I say you guys, meaning the traffic, it's like you guys speak in circles to me. Um, and I don't know where you got that training, but it's pretty damn good. So I want to break this down so that I can understand it and everyone in the audience can understand as if I'm in third grade.

When I look at this, based on the information I've been able to gather from your presentation, from his presentation, from the documents that I've reviewed, the hotspots of traffic concern seem to be the intersection of Route 6 and Sloum Road and also the two intersections on 140 North and 140 South on Hathaway Road.

Correct. I I would also add in the Burger King driveway. If you had to rank those, and I I just brought out those three, but if there's another, if you had to rank them from the most serious impact that this particular project has in adding additional strain for traffic in those areas, how would you rank them?

So I would if I had to kind of rank them in terms of numbering that it's the um 140 Hathaway interchange um is where most of the traffic is concentrated up there. So if you look at impacts relating to the project that's where we have more concentrated traffic at at that interchange which is in New Bedford.

All right. And you treat north and south as the same subject area because we have a heavy northbound and when they come back they're going southbound. So the traffic is going to use both of those um intersections equally.

So you're you're of the mindset or it's your opinion that that intersection there of the north and south on 140 is actually going to have this project will have a greater impact there than it will have on Route 6 and Haway Road.

That's correct.

Hold on. Hold on. That's not how this works right?

And you arrive at that basis or that opinion. How?

based on the directionality of the traffic associated with the project in that when you look at where the traffic wants to go for employment centers most of that traffic is using the interchange now most of it you know 50 60% of it it's going there the rest of it will be going through those other locations but also I think the other important point in looking at that is where is the

commonwealth or others currently focused on improvements and have slated ed scheduled and committed funding for improvements. Where you see that happening is on Route 6. There's a project at the Burger King driveway and we've talked about that. There's a project at the Sloum Road intersection with Route 6. There are no projects at the Route 140 interchange. Zero. So when you look at where if you're spending

money, the Commonwealth is spending money on Route 6. They've already have projects committed on that section of road. they have not committed money to the Route 140 interchange. So we have a concentrated impact there without others beyond the project committed to making improvements. And so that's why I rank it higher because we have more traffic going through those interchanges. But there's also no commitment for

improvements by anyone else.

But the commitment to improvements, that's that's bothersome for me because I've been on this board for a long time.

I've been hearing about these improvements since at least five, six years and I haven't seen a single thing happen in these areas and when I look at this project, I look at it as an additional contributor to an already ongoing significant problem in our town.

Correct.

And I don't know how in good conscience I can actually vote on something that's going to worsen that situation, significantly worsen that situation. So, what can you tell me that's going to persuade me to think that there's something that I can assess against this developer that will lessen that problem and the cost will probably be x number of dollars. So, there's a couple things.

So, when money is allocated for physical improvements at interchanges or intersections, the state allocates the money. They have physically dedicated money. And this is different than a transportation bond bill, which you may be familiar with. the transportation bond bill. The legislature just says these are this is the universe of projects. They're not funded. The difference is what's happening on Route

6 is these are funded committed projects. Each of the metropolitan planning areas within the state lists their projects and they commit funding.

It's fiscally constrained.

They have committed funding for Route 6 at the They've committed funding for Route Six at the Burger King driveway intersection. It's committed. Not only is it committed, it has been listed on the transportation improvement program to your point every se every single year.

Projects come off that list. This has not come off that list. This is still on the list to start construction in the spring of next year. So, yes, has it been kicked down the road? It is. As far as we're all concerned and as far as the Commonwealth is concerned, there's a project there and they committed funding to it and it's still there. So, we know that that work is going to happen. Route

six at Slokum Road is another phase of that project. That's different. There isn't funding committed to that. It's listed as a future project, but there's not on the tip as a physically fiscally constrained project.

Route 6 at Sloan Road, we've identified improvements at that intersection. We've listed them. We provided them to your consultant. Your consultant has reviewed that list and has agreed that this is a list of improvements that can be done.

But with all due respect, I don't see that as a big problem. I don't see that intersection Route 6 and Sloum Road as a significant problem or that this will be a significant contributor to an ongoing problem in that area. I I'm sorry I misunderstood what you had said.

Route six and Haway Road.

Correct. That is a committed project and we've talked about this several times and I understand what you're saying.

this when you say committed, what is your understanding of the level of improvements that they're going that they're committed to and how much is that going to lessen the amount of traffic in that area versus how much this project is going to contribute and where will the end result be?

So, the end result will be an intersection that is a signalized intersection with dedicated turn lanes.

We have we have fully analyzed that intersection as a part of our analysis.

Your consultant has reviewed that with those committed improvements which are scheduled for construction next year and our project, not only our project, all of the other projects that this board has reviewed in the town added to that intersection plus background growth.

That intersection operates at an acceptable level of service. It's going to be significantly improved, safer, and delays will go down substantially. Our impact is minimal at that intersection with those improvements. And again, it's committed. So that that's again a location where we've already analyzed it. We've assessed the impact of this project and said that it's going to operate at an acceptable level with

minimal impact with those improvements in place with the signal that is committed to being done by the state and is fully funded and is scheduled to start construction next year.

All right. I want to open it up to public hearing. I promise we're going to close at 8. But I wanted to listen to this gentleman.

Um Mr. Chair, did you want to add something?

Yeah. I I just want to so I'm I look at obviously I'm not a traffic engineer so I'm looking at it as I need to advise the board if you get to a decision if the decision moves towards if the board were to consider approving it how how do how do you kind of articulate this in the decision right what's happening and I see it and the traffic engineers may

correct me in in three buckets right so you have the state road projects where there's a reasonable expectation, committed funds, those are going to move forward and they're in Dartmouth. Then you have the local roads in Dartmouth that DPW may control have control over, be able to do some improvements to because they don't have to get permission from the state or whatever.

And then you have the New Bedford situation where these are. So if and I'm just I'm just doing a hypothetical here. I don't I don't know where the board's going to go with it, but if it was to say, okay, you know, the money's there as Mr. Durk is saying, um, you know, hopefully they're going to start the construction the beginning of next year. They're saying, you know, all right, if if the board can get

comfortable with that, again, I don't know if you will or not, then that's one. Then we're talking about improvements needed, you know, on the local roads at this point. And then there's New Bedford and the proposal is to make a payment to the town of $30,000. whether or not the $30,000 how far that goes for addressing the local roads that DPW can control. I I'm not qualified to answer that

question. And then there's New Bedford.

For anything to happen in New Bedford, you need the buyin of New Bedford. And they they did do some work here, um which is, you know, helpful on, you know, a kind of proposed contract, right, to put the grant together. If I heard Mr. count correctly and I may not have. He's saying, "Oh, but you should take the 30,000 we're offering the town and you should help us pay for this

grant as opposed to that money going to the town to be used as town roads." And so I I think um you know those I would recommend to the board that that's kind of are you know are you comfortable with what's going to happen with the state on Route 6 in Dartmouth? Are you comfortable with $30,000? And should that $30,000 be kept in Dartmouth to be used on Dartmouth roads? And who's responsible for taking the lead,

drafting grant applications, doing the outreach to New Bedford because that's where Mr.

Durk has said the majority of their impact is going to be. So should they be taking the lead responsible for the cost of doing that application and the outreach and including the appropriate town officials? So that's how I when I see a potential way to frame this in a decision is just something I just wanted to share with the board to think about.

Not again not sure where the board is on it, but I just I just wanted to break it down into its component parts because that's those are the questions that I would have for the board when if we get to a drafting stage. I I don't know if that was made sense.

Let me ask you this.

Yeah.

What if we condition the project until such time as these improvements on Route Six and Haway Road are completed?

Thank you.

Can you do that legally? that I would need to look into that and get back to you on that one.

Just something to just thinking out loud. That's all.

All right. Absolutely.

I mean, we're on a traffic. So, so it's a 40B project and traffic obviously is a is an issue everywhere, every town. We know that, right? And from the what's what's the what's their obligation towards a 40B application for traffic?

So, we hired a traffic consultant, right? He's a traffic expert. We all agree he's probably one of the best in the state. And we also hired another peer reviewer, probably one of the best in the states. Are we accepting what this traffic is telling us? There's an impact. He's he's not saying there's no impact there. There is an impact, but this impact is going to be this and this and this at every intersection. Maybe

there'll be two more cars during peak hour on turning or maybe there just a number. Hey, uh five cars or 10 cars, whatever the number is. And we had a peer review who looked at the traffic.

Are they in agreement? And then if they are, what is their fair share? If we're increasing by two cars, is there a formula that say two cars over 50,000 or 500? This is our share. And they came up with 5700. I said we're going to give you 30,000. Now we can say no, we want half a million. Can we do that? We want the intersection. We want to build a

traffic light at Would be nice to have a traffic light. I agree. Are we Can we do that? This is my question.

as a 40B application.

Well, I guess the first question is is that's what they've presented. Have those numbers been tested, questioned?

Who came up with those numbers? How did they decide it's 5,000 versus 30,000?

That's what I'm saying.

Right. Well, that that has that has not I don't think been moving into next.

That's why we have our expert for it.

Mr. Durk has already placed, you know, explained his position on it. But as I understand it, the reason, and Mr. Finland, you're going to have to ask him because better, he'll know better than me. Um, the reason they're saying that the traffic won't be as bad as it might be is because if you know, because Route 6 improvements are going to happen and if these improvements are made at 140. So

the question is if those improvements never no let's let's assume that the state stays on track whether it's 2027 2028 for the committed funds I I mean I have worked on projects that have committed funds I understand what Mr.

Durk is saying, I understand they get pushed back, but having the funds on the tip is tip is a big deal for knowing that it's likely to move forward. So, let's assume that happens, but there's no there's no projects, no funds for 140.

The question, what happens if those those improvements at 140 never happen or don't happen for 10 20 years? What does that do to the impact of this project? And I that's you know what I mean? I don't know if that's what I'm saying. What's the impact on 140 and what's the impact? Let's say they don't build they don't build that signal for another 10 years for some reason, you know.

Yep.

Within that 10 years, what's the impact of this particular development on Route Six and and Haway Road?

Well, that's what you want. This is No, they they have it.

They they have it.

Maybe you can explain it to me.

Right. And then they tell you this is our fair. this is what we're going to do. Is that 30,000? What's the 30,000 kind of the improvement for Route Six uh and and Haway? Is it for striping? There certainly there's no realignment of the intersection or adding another lane or is it going to be just signage and is it going is this going to solve any is it going to make the uh the level of

service the same as it is now or is it going to be worse? And what's the delay?

I think we went through this before, right? But just if you can just recap like quickly I just don't let can we can we start with it from this perspective start with it from the 140 north and halfway road if the project is built with the 300 units with x number of bedrooms how much additional traffic can you quantify for that intersection?

How much additional traffic is the project going to add to that intersection?

Is it an unfair question?

Oh, it's absolutely not. But it's something that I have to look at. I've got to look at these networks and and then I've got to add all the numbers up.

So, we're going to go through each of the intersections. It would be good to know now because I've got to add all the numbers up on these because it's not typically the way that we do this. So, happy to answer the question. I don't know that it's fair to ask me to do this right now. I'd have to put a chart together for you and it's probably going to it probably if I was sitting in the

office, it would be probably about an hour's worth of work to put that together. So, and I want to be fair. I want to be fair to you. So I think you have crunched some of these numbers before we have all of the numbers.

You've given us charts and I've seen some of this but but I think you know you know back to where I think we started with the discussion and not to digress too far we've produced a a traffic study as well as four four response to comments to the peer reviewer. Your peer reviewers issued three comments. I think what's very important and not to digress too far is to say that we have a we have a

letter from your consultant dated June 4th that very clearly says there are no zero technical issues outstanding relative to the transportation analysis that your consultant agrees that we've fully analyzed the project they agree upon what the impact is and the outstanding item to be discussed is exactly what I think you've been collectively discussing now which is we've provided the fair share amount,

which we all know is extremely low. And so the applicant has made an offer of the $30,000. The question is, is the $30,000 acceptable? And I think what that comes back down to is conversation with your consultant as as well as with DPW to figure out, you know, what is it that the town sees as infrastructure needs within the town and is the $30,000 as it relates to the project sufficient to accomplish that? That's the

conversation. the conversation as it relates to impacts and again you know you obviously you ask all the questions and we will answer every single one of them is really come down to the mitigation and is the $30,000 acceptable going back to what the impact is of the project itself and it's similar to the water and sewer discussion which is that if we have intersections that have a capacity issue this applicant's not

responsible for addressing it that's very clear if you want to know what's happening at the interchange with Route 140 the movements coming off, especially left turn movements, are failing, and we've documented that they're over capacity. The fix is to install traffic signals at both of those ramps. That's over a million dollars worth of work to be done at that interchange for capacity. And that that just like water

and sewer is not the responsibility of the project as it relates to chapter 40B. What the applicant's responsibility is safety and then a fair share cost towards addressing capacity. That's it.

That's it. Fair share is what we provided to you. And we're saying we're going to do more than that.

So if it's a million dollars, your clients offering us $30,000 to actually fix that area.

That's correct. Because that is that their fair share calculation, which is all they're responsible for under 40b.

If we went to the disc where I don't know where that is. Okay.

Well, that's why this man's going to come up.

Can you explain the fair share concept?

Correct. So what the fair share concept is exactly what the chair had asked which is that tell us how much additional traffic you're adding to this intersection. It's the percent increase in additional traffic that the correct exactly right right. So what you see is a lot of traffic going through each of one of these intersections large volume. Our percent increase at each of those

intersections is very small. And that's that's why when you look at something where you have $590,000 to do geometric improvements at a signal and we have a 1% increase in traffic there, we're responsible for 1% of the cost of the improvement. And so that's where the numbers come from. And what you're describing is what every traffic engineer in the United States would use to calculate fair share.

That's that is the way that it's typ traditionally done. That's correct. It's no different and it's done on all projects that we work on.

Right. But the question I have for the board is how many projects that you've come in front of the board that have come in front of you for otherwise? And I can speak to the ones when I sat on a planning board for 11 years plus my 35 years as council. How many has someone said, "Well, our fair share is 1%, so we're going to give you $5,000."

It's it's it's one way it's tackled, but it's not the only way or the most common way that it's tackled.

Okay.

So, the question is when they're saying $30,000, but then they're saying, but then take your $30,000 and put it towards working with New Bedford on an application, that means there's no money to do anything in Dartmouth. So I again I don't know if you want to so there's some discussion it needs to have with that but I'm going to ask our consultant to come up. Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

All right. So you heard sort of the conversation that I've had with Mr. Durk and also my fe fellow members of the board. What can you provide us that would give us more guidance in making a determination as to one whether or not their percentage allocation of increased traffic is either correct or incorrect.

I presume you're going to say it's correct based on whatever calculations are utilized because you guys use the same math. And then whether or not you feel 30% based on your level of experience and training in this 30,000% 30 $30,000 would adequately address or even if we have the mean because maybe the money won't fix it. Even if they give us 300, we don't have there's no ability with

the 300 to really address it anyway. So the number I don't know how good the number is. So, I'm relying on you to give me some guidance.

I'll do my best. Um, for the record, my name is Steven Finland from Howard Stein Hudson. We were retained by the town to do a peer review of the traffic study.

Um, so you had those two. I just want to take a step back if I can. Sure.

Just about the um the ramps. I mean, I'm sorry, the um the intersection at the Burger King.

Yes.

And the whole discussion about the masdot project. So the applicant's consultant is correct. You know that is a program project and the way that they looked at it when they did all their analysis it was assuming that this project would be in place you know so the analysis and things like that.

So their analysis of minimal percentage increase is already taking into consideration the improvement.

Correct.

Yeah. So and is that an accurate means by which to actually gauge this? So if you you know you look at that table that talks about the the improvements you don't see that location listed because in their in the applicant's mind is that's being fixed by mass dot.

Okay. So, you know, the table that we're referring to, you don't see those. You don't see that Route Six at Hathaway listed, if that makes sense. Because, you know, as they analyze it, they said, you know, with the improvements that they're proposing, Massdot is proposing, there will be acceptable levels of service under that design, which my understanding and what we've heard is

that's currently programmed for the 2026 TIP transportation improvement plan. and scheduled for construction in the spring. So, it's a real project. Like I said, you know, to Mr. Durk's point is, you know, there are projects that are on the tip that get shuffled around based on funding. This is still there. So, that's a good thing. So, the hope is, you know, that that is going to happen.

But to to attorney um Murphy's point is, you know, I would also suggest that as you're considering conditions, you know, you should be prepared to have language in there saying that if those improvements aren't in place, then what happens? Does the onus go back to the applicant to pay for those improvements?

So, you know what I'm saying? So, so I agree with that might be some, you know, language that should be considered, you know, under your order conditions. Um, and then just going to the the 30,000 um allocation that's been kind of prepared or sent to, you know, we did see the letter um and our June 4th letter um that we submitted, I think, was referenced. We still had a few outstanding issues and you know, the

applicant, you know, Mr. Durk is correct. You know, we've spent a lot of time going back and forth on the technical issues, how things were done, how traffic counts were done. You know, we we've, like I said, we, you know, we just submitted our third response to comment letter. So, there's been a lot of back and forth on that. Um, but it's really going to come down to what we're talking about tonight. And I think

that's kind of leading into where I'm going here. So the way that I understand it is the proposed is, you know, what they've offered is this $30,000 that'll go to the town of Dartmouth, be put in a transportation fund to, you know, address some of the concerns in that table that identified those locations.

Route six, Route 6 at Sloum, which they're proposing, you know, um, timing, signal timings, retimings, no real geometric, you know, sort of thing. and then Haway at Sloum and then Haway at Wilbur. So those are the three locations that are in Dartmouth. So they're kind of looking at that way. Um it doesn't really talk about, you know, New Bedford, you know, and I've heard tonight, I didn't see the letter that

was just distributed tonight, but it sounds like the the applicant and their consultant is going to undertake a grant application for a grant, you know, for with the town of New Bedford as well as, you know, I'm assuming coordination with the town of Dartmouth. Again, that's something that they'll have to submit and get funding for. If that doesn't happen, again, you got to be prepared

either through your conditions or whatever to say, okay, what happens if that grant is not awarded? Does the onus go back to the applicant? Who pays for those improvements? So, just something to keep in mind as you're as we continue through this process. Um, but we've been told that they're only responsible, they're not responsible to fix the existing problem. they're only responsible to in essence abate the

additional traffic that they're going to that they're going to impose at those particular locations.

Yeah, like like I said, I haven't seen this information was, you know, maybe the Mr. Durk can confirm this, but my understanding is a grant application will be prepared to proposed improvements for um installation of signals. Is that correct?

No, don't leave it.

David Kellhoon for the applicant. Um the concept was and I had brief discussion with one of your members. Um when you look at the laundry list of items there, the cost of the different items, one's $60,000, one's 2500, another one's 2500, another one's 2500, one's 590,000, one's 2500. That's the total cost of those specific items. So if you took those, regardless of whose responsibility they

are, they're four items that cost $10,000 that could be implemented tomorrow and could cause some relief regardless of what we're doing. So regardless of the responsibility, our thought was if we give you $30,000, which is six times the amount the fair share calculation comes out that we're obligated to provide, you could take that $30,000 and the DPW, if they wanted, could go and knock out those

four items tomorrow or whenever those funds are available to them. The other option, what we're suggesting is that you could probably get a much bigger bang out of the $30,000 if you use the $30,000 to do a grant application for the town to get funding and you put together a whole laundry list of projects, you tie them to our project. And the only suggestion was as to in joining D uh New

Bedford in the process was that if you could get them to participate in the process, you have a higher likelihood of success of getting a very very big fund that you can do all kinds of improvements is we're not saying we're giving you $30,000 plus we're giving you 275. The only reason why we brought that proposal for the grant application and gave it to you is because when we said when we wanted to make that

recommendation to go pursue a grant, the first question from this board would be how much would that grant application cost? Who would do that? And that's why we're saying here's Jeff Durk's firm.

You could engage him to do it. We'll give you the $30,000. His firm wants 275 to go and undertake that grant writing.

Yes, the town has to participate. The town has to provide some costs, but the heavy lifting would be done and you could get your application in in a very quick fashion and make the next round which I believe closes next June.

Thank you.

Mr. Mr. Chair, I just I have a I have a question because on on this chart um that was prepared with the fair share allocation where it talks about grant applications for signals.

It's again maybe it's just a portion.

It's it's not clear because there's a footnote, but it's showing 2500 and 2500. So that's 5,000 cost to and there's a footnote cost to prepare the grant application. So this is showing $5,000 as cost to prepare the grant application.

Mr. Durk's firm would charge $27,000 to do it. So there doesn't that's why I'm saying I you know the numbers the numbers are estimates and then they don't really line up. So I don't think they suggesting that we use the 30,000 to hire VA.

Yes, that's what he just said. He said if that's what he said.

No, he said you could use it for whatever you want to use it but if you like to get more and get the grants he can. That's the way I understand it.

Okay, good. Let's hear it that way.

He gave it to us more than one app one more than one option. There's a contract here that if we wanted to engage with Right. He's not saying we have to.

No, he's not saying we have to.

Oh, yeah.

But if you don't use the money for that, then who's paying for the grant application?

We're going to pay for it. Well, we can ask him for both.

We can ask him for a lot of things, right?

So, that was a question.

Let's see what this Let's hear what this gentleman has to tell us to give us a little more.

Well, that was the question that I had.

What I just heard tonight was, is it a choice between the two for the 30,000?

Is it to use the 30,000 to fix the issues that are identified in this table?

I'm interpreting that as just an offer.

Okay. I'm interpreting that as an offer.

And I don't know what kind of science you guys work with, but anything that translates the impact on this to fix it for5 or $6,000, the math's got to be flawed.

I just it doesn't make any sense to me.

300 unit project when you calculate it out based on the percentage, you're going to tell me it's $6,000. that that's all they have to offer to the town in order to offset. You might tell me that that's accurate, but I'm just having difficulty believing that there's not a flaw in the math. Meaning, I mean, not the math, the methodology, right? And we had just seen the letter saying we're going to offer $30,000. We

didn't see what that break, you know, what that was attributed like how that was broken down.

Well, well, they're also saying I think one of the offices you could do whatever you want with it. I think we could even ear mark it for something else if you wanted to go fix another intersection.

We got another problem on Fonts Corner and Route 6 if you wanted to use the money there instead of using it on Hathaway Road. I guess that that's what they're telling us as long as they're just looking for us to baptize this thing.

Yeah. And I guess I guess a question I think the attorney Murphy had raised too and I guess maybe through the chair if we can just understand. So you have the 30,000 that's being um given to the town of Dartmouth offered offered to the town of Dartmouth.

Can that be used for the improvements that have been talked about at those three locations or for the grant? I guess is it either or?

I'm not sure yet. I'm not sure.

No, no, you can use it for all.

Just to clarify, we have made based on the requirements by the fair share calculation that our portion of the fair share calculation that we would be obligated is $5,700.

What we said we would do rather than the $5,700 out of good faith on the basis that would be getting a decision with reasonable conditions that we would jump that number to $30,000 and we would put it into a town fund which the town would control 100%. How you spend that is up to the town. If you want to go and fix a a missing stop sign or poorly striped

work and it and you want to do that, great. It's your $30,000 to spend. And at the end of the day, we were only making the recommendation and floating the idea of you could rather than spending your $30,000 on physical things, you could get a grant application which I get the options.

Okay. Now, with the $30,000, what would you recommend we do to maximize the least amount of impact that this prop that this project would have on that roadway?

Well, it's clearly what they've identified in their summary table route six and slum.

Yeah.

Make those but do what to they've they've documented. So, it's basically looking at the intersection.

It's optimizing the signal timings and the phasings trying to make it work better.

And is that because maybe the the system that's there is antiquated and it's not been updated to to have a better, you know, maybe the photo sensorized, if you will, for lack of a better word, so that it maximizes the Q time or minimizes the Q.

It's going to maximize operations of the signal as a whole.

And do you think that that would be money well spent for that particular area? That's, you know, they're saying it's going to cost $60,000 to do that and they're only offering us 30.

No, no, no. That's their portion of the 60,000 whatever it came down to.

Okay. They total cost and they were only responsible for one.

I think we're going off. Let's agree first. Are we in agreement? Do you agree with their uh uh fair share? First of all, is it reasonable? I think that, you know, from what we first saw, the $5,700, you know, to me was insulting for what they're proposing. So, I think that the fact that they've come back and offered $30,000 to address some of the issues that have been, you know,

identified in the improvements is a much better number. So, I think the town, you know, is it's an offer I think that it will allow the town to make these improvements or make other improvements, whatever the town wants to do with that 30,000. However, the issue of the whole ramps is still out there, right? Is this something they have to address?

Well, that was as a 40B application.

This is where we come down to because legal I mean, basically, they might have to appeal whatever or whatever decision we can come up with.

Right. And I I I'm not I can't give you a full answer on that tonight, but I I have a question. I'm going to do something dangerous that lawyers don't do is ask a question I don't know the answer to.

But of of the projects that you are either the primary traffic engineer or the peer reviewer, right?

What percentage of them use this fair share? Because I can tell you my experience in 30 years is I've never seen it before, but I don't I don't do what you do. So, of the number in your career of projects that you've reviewed, what percentage of them come up with a chart that says 1% will give you $5,000?

Well, I can tell you right now that, you know, there's a number of 40B projects that were involved in and one of, you know, a few of them are with Mr. Durk and his firm, too. Fair share has come out on those projects as well.

So, do you see that that's more recent in connection with these 40B projects?

because I've represented other boards in other towns on 40B has never seen a developer before.

I mean, it seems to be more common recently.

Recently.

Yep.

Okay.

So, you know, looking at what the impacts are if if the applicant is not willing to contribute 100% of the improvements, then it gets down to the fair share and, you know, it's documented and it typically where it's looked at is, you know, intersections or locations that are currently maybe not operating great today. And the applicant has made this argument a few times saying, you know, it doesn't work great

today. We're adding minimal traffic.

However, we are willing to contribute to try to help solve the problem. We're not going to completely fun.

Did you look at this fair share chart?

If you you have it in front of you.

Yep.

I don't see Haway and Route Six.

Well, that was what I was saying earlier. So, they haven't identified it as because it's going to be done by the state. Maybe put it on their fair share.

That's correct. Got it. Got it. Yeah.

And they've already calculated the additional traffic that they're going to the additional impact with the improvement in consideration, right?

They're taking the improvement to consideration.

Tony Murphy, I think to answer your question and being on the planning board. And I think this is a 40B. So if this was a special permit for somebody who's coming to build 300 units, we can tell them you're going to put the traffic light on Route 40 and Route 6 and improve half of the town of D.

That's what I'm getting at. what our limitations with 40B that's you know on similar traffic projects obviously it's more limited than if it was a special permit so I can say that what I want to do is look at some decision and look at the best answer to Mr. Chair, I guess maybe I'm missing something. I just want to get it on the record here. A question for you. So, the $30,000,

can that money, you know, are they asking the town to ask the applicant to put that? Is that 27 going to go towards the 30?

No, that's we could that was just an option of what we could do with the 30.

So, they're not earmarking the third.

They're not earmarking the 30 in any way. We could we could put it in the general fund and use it for whatever we want.

So, hopefully I'm just gonna Right. I'm I just want to simplify it. So we go back to the fair share table in you know as whatever you want to say in terms of it being insulting or not that table has a list of mitigation in it and the cost that goes along with it as well as those fair share calculations. I think really the applicants made an offer and it's really

as you said it's write a check for $30,000. You do whatever you want to do with it. Okay. To the extent that that's acceptable.

The purpose of the table was to provide the fair share. But I think what's not in dispute is what we've listed for the improvements. And I think that your consultant, and he can obviously speak for himself, has said we agree that these are the improvements that are needed to fix these intersections. We've quantified what the cost is. We've also quantified our fair share. They've offered 30, the applicant or my client

has offered $30,000. Really the discussion is to look at that list which your consultant has identified and said these are appropriate improvements for the project. We've put the cost. We've said what our fair share is. It's for the board to look at the list and say do you think that that $30,000 in looking at everything that should be done in discussion with your consultant? You

know, is it a is it enough money to fix what you think the major things are that need to be done? And and it's to start that dialogue to happen. That's all that it really is about. It's now a question of with your consultant and your attorney, is it is it acceptable $30,000 or is it a different number? The $30,000 or even the fair share thing, the the methodology is sound and and I do have

to say I have I've peer reviewed hundreds of 40b projects. I've also testified at housing appeals as well as superior court when these get challenged. the fair share calculation your and your attorney can look at this is an accepted practice that housing appeals reviews and superior court when these get challenged. So it's not a novel approach and it's not it's not anything that's unique. Okay, it's done

all the time. In fact, I've had probably 20 or 30 projects just this year where this is an approach that's used. It is the basis of a start of a conversation and it is nothing nothing more than that. It is nothing more than that. The applicant makes an offer. The $30,000 is not you know again it's not something where you just say well that's a typical thing for a 40B project. It's not. And I

think as the member had mentioned it's different. Every project varies and that number in the offer varies and sometimes the board says no based on discussions with your consultant and with council we want you to do this work. that comes back and again it's it's the purpose of this dialogue that happens that ultimately ends up in a decision but I do want to make it clear I've testified

and reviewed and represented boards with the fair share calculation is an accepted practice for traffic engineering and on comprehensive permit projects as well as other projects it is really just the basis of a start of a conversation but and but I just won't follow but you've also worked on 40bs where that concept was not introduced are discussed at all. Is that correct?

It's it's the basis of start of a conversation.

You and I have been in the same room.

Yeah.

On where the cont's different. No, you're 100% right. So that's why I say some applicants.

Well, that's why I asked Mr. Finland the question of how common it is because so I but I appreciate that.

Yeah. But every project's a little bit different in terms of that and and every 40B project's different because of the fact that traffic is it's obviously a very important part, but there's other pieces. We've talked about water and sewer. So ultimately, it's a conversation because the town may say running a new sewer line is more important to us and the applicants agreed to do that. So we're willing to

take a smaller bite at traffic because at the end of the day, it's the entirety of the mitigation package and traffic is a piece of it and it's very important piece, but it's what that package looks like. And so I think that's where this is the basis of a discussion that you get input from. you know, there's offer been made, but I think what's not in dispute is the table, the list of the

mitigation and the cost. It's really a question of then what does the board think is fair to implement what we've listed in the table and all right picking up where you left off.

Uh I think your original two questions, Mr. Chair, was the fair share. I think that's been reviewed and that yeah that's been that's and then I think the 30,000 you had asked about you know to the town of Dart I think that's been vetted as well. So well it's something I think we need to have further discussion between council and you and maybe directly with you about how we're going to handle that.

Right. And I think you know I think in our June 4th letter I think there and this was discussed I believe at the last hearing there was discussion about potentially having a working group discuss this offline. I know that hasn't happened but maybe that's something we revisit.

Okay. Well, actually M Mr. Koon called me, but uh and he went over and I said, you know, it sounds good. I I don't want to I'm not here to make a decision or a commitment. If you can present it to the board, we can discuss it at a at an open, but if you want to further discuss this more details on the next time, I mean, we can discuss it among

themselves. And if you feel like you want me to I'd rather do it here actually because well and I'm just wondering if it was the intention of the board that the applicants just calling a board member directly without anyone else part of that conversation. So it's up to you whether you want council or Mr. Barber or anybody else to be or Mr. Finland to be part of those conversations going forward. Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Well, hold on. The thing is this. I always promise my board we adjourn at 8:00.

Okay.

And I've got people here that want to speak and I've got at least six or seven hands went up and I know you have your back so you don't know and I've been just telling them you know if they could just hold off a little bit. So I got to give people at least 15 minutes to come up and just touch upon some of this.

Now, the other thing we have a concern about is we've got dates that we have to comply with and wondering whether or not you're going to be amendable to another continuence beyond the next date that we're going to have because I don't know if we're going to be able to address it all by the next date. So, I'm not asking for you to say yes or no right now at this moment, but do we have a

gentleman's understanding, if you will, that if we need more time to hash this out, we can do so.

If on the 20 is that next When's our next date?

29th of this Monday. Monday the 29th. Yep.

campsite right around the corner.

If on the 29th we're working towards a good decision and decision positive decision reasonable conditions more than happy but at this point Mr. Chair we haven't we um needed to on the traffic but there's a whole other list of issues that haven't even been touched upon. Um there's questions from all of those materials that just came in in the last two days have not been fully reviewed.

Agree.

There's land landscaping questions.

There's there's a whole bunch of So, you know, there's not going to be a list of conditions ready for the 29th when the board has not even I don't think he suggest I don't think he I thought that's what he was suggesting.

Suggested that we have a list of conditions, but there's not going to be a list of conditions on the 29th.

Mr. Calhoun.

No, what what we're suggesting is if we get to the 29th resolve things.

Well, and and you need additional time in the in the consensus of the board is to work towards offering the decision, a positive decision with reasonable conditions. We would at that point discuss whatever time you need that's reasonable.

Well, I wouldn't do that in bad faith.

So, I don't think anybody on this board would do that. All right. So, look, um, we usually adjourn at 8:00. If there's anyone here that thinks that they've got something that they've not raised before, there's going to be another hearing on the 29th. So, you're all going to be here again then and you have the right to be here. Is there something that you think that we need to know about that we can address with the

traffic consultant um in order to uh address some of those concerns? So, I know this gentleman here has already raised his hand at least three times.

So, I'll let you come up. Come on up.

Tom Bab.

It's Tom Babington, 19 Kennedy Street.

Sure.

So, I've reached out to Mass DOT, the Torton Division.

Taton division.

Yes. You can do this online.

Y and I and I emailed the project manager and we're talking about the Burger King intersection.

The project started in 2014.

2014.

The engineering work is about 75% complete. The co for the Pascet River was a bit of a problem for the for the engineering works that delayed it and they expected it may go out to bid sometime in spring of 2027. That's forbid not start construction.

I don't know what the construction plans are for the Sloum Sloum road and route six what that improvement would look like. I'm not a traffic engineer, but looking through all the weeds of the first traffic study, I don't think the traffic engineers looked at the outflow of the Cumlin Farms parking lot. So when you're lined up on Sloum Road heading south towards the town hall, you end up with three or four cars in

the queue from Cland Farms that sometimes you let them go, other times you don't let them go. That traffic flow gets interrupted by those cars exiting Cummland Farms. That doesn't appear to be in their analysis.

So when you do the modeling, you know, for for how the traffic's going to be when the asbuilt construction is done, if you don't consider the interruption from common farms, the model is not correct. So like I said, I'm not a traffic engineer. I'd like to hear what they have to say if they looked at that.

I think Mr. Finley's taking notes. Are you not?

All right. We'll probably have a better answer for you next time. Okay. And then the the board or or Miss Murphy can also reach out to to Mass DOT to get a little bit more updates on those construction projects and where they're really at or our peer review could do the same. The the project manager is very recept. I got a I got an answer back within 24 hours.

Thank you.

All right. You want to Is there someone else? I'm going to let this gentleman.

He he actually raised his hand before you, but you'll be next.

I got to decide what's going to happen.

I'm going to look at it.

Hi, Dr. James Griffith. I live at 134 Hathaway Road. Um, I had talked previously about uh walking on Hatheraway Road, which I do every day.

Um, but it came up today that um we were at some point, I don't know, ignoring or skipping by the Route 6 Hathaway Road intersection. Whenever that project is done, it is likely to decrease the number of accidents, not the amount of traffic.

And in fact, I think this project that we're talking about is going to increase the amount of traffic because there will be more of a throughway to the southern part of the town. And um there are times of the year, certain days of the week when the traffic from Route 6 is backed up to my driveway, which is north of this project. And I I don't see how adding 300 cars, whether they're

coming or going, it seems like we think they're all going to go to Taton or Boston because we're worried about Route 140. But um they're backed up to my driveway frequently and I I don't see how anything I've heard tonight is going to mitigate any of that at all.

Thank you.

Ron Doolong 2014 Dean Shri heard a lot of lot of talk about um you know all the uh studies and all the stuff they did on the traffic and I'm sure they all went to college. They all got their degrees.

It's a beautiful thing. But the only thing the college doesn't is common sense. They got no common sense. I can tell you that right now. You got 300 units at two cars per unit. And I know this because we got 12 12 houses on Dean Street, two that are uh addressed to uh Haway Road and then 10 on Dean Street.

There's 29 cars in 12 in 12 uh homes.

300 300 units. That's over That's 2.2 cars a unit. They're only going to have 442 parking spots. Where's the 158 going to park on? And that's going to create more traffic. That's 600 cars per day.

Per day coming down Hathaway Road.

That's not going to in fact where where are these people going to go? Like he said, like this gentleman just said, the traffic's already backed past his house.

It's going to be even before it's going all the way to Dean Street and Sloum.

When you try to cut down there, it's going to be jacked up. The whole place is going to be messed up. It It's It's crazy. The parking alone, there's no parking. And if you understand that, we have 442 parking spots for 300 units.

That's 150 units. And he wants the church to park in there. The church, I'll tell you right now, I I'm a member of the church. Pastor Derek is a good friend of mine. He told me he's putting a fence up, six foot fence, so that they can't park in ours. And if they do, he'll be towing them. So is a big problem. He's Pastor Derek is worried about the runoff. He's worried about the

traffic and and he's so worried about the traffic. He said, "Ron, when you get there, ask him about the police detail that we're going to have to have every uh Sunday to get out of the of the of the church. Have you ever been to on Christmas, they have a police detail at H um at Ricardis because there's so much traffic. You imagine 600 more cars per day. It it's it's it's unbelievable. and

and the height of the building. The pastor, he they're going to cut it down to three stories on one on a little bit on uh Eisenhower, but there's five stories facing the church. When we look out at it, we're going to see instead of the beautiful trees, we're going to see fivetory buildings. Hey, come on over to our Come on over to our place. We got the tallest buildings in town. We got a

rooftop deck. We got the best sunset that you'll ever see. And we're not even talking about the visitor parking. Come on over, everybody. Come on over. We had a beautiful sunset. We blocked out all the neighbors. They have no sunset. It's ridiculous. I'm just I'm just saying it.

So, if you let this project go, if all these board if all you board let this project happen the way it's designed to happen, I will have to say this. You guys do not care about Dartmouth at all or the residents in Dartmouth at all.

So, please don't let this happen the way it's going to be happening.

All right. So, I have to warrant.

There's going to be a response to that.

So, if we deny this project, I didn't say deny. You can't. It's a 40 ft.

But you don't have to let it go the same way it's going.

No. No.

We can put conditions on this. Yes.

Right. But there's only so many conditions that we can put on before they decide they're going to going to appeal it. If we deny the project, they can go before the housing commission and they can get what they ask for without the placement of conditions. So, you're all worried about parking. We can put something on there that puts no parking signs and make them pay for it all along

Hathaway Road so that the people if they don't have sufficient parking on site, they're not going to be able to park anywhere near the building, right?

And then they're going to have to find a means to resolve that within the inner workings of that building. If we deny it, that condition would not be placed.

There are going to be numerous conditions. There's possibly going to be 50 to 100 conditions on this project.

However, as they've indicated and as we're required to, they have to be reasonable conditions. They have to be balanced out between the need for housing versus the local concern.

And we can't place the entire burden of improving the problems on Route 6 and Haway Road and Haway Road and 140 or Wilbur Avenue or Sloken Road. We cannot put that all on them. I'd love to be able to do it. Let them write the check, but we can't.

So, no, no, so no, no. So, I want you to understand that because I listen to you. I want you to understand that when you look at it from my perspective because I take it to heart when someone says that I don't care about the community. Every one of these men here, every one of us, even going down there, we get paid this since day when I do it for 12 years. I'm not

asking for anything in return. And I'm not asking it for accolades or anything like that. I'm saying it just to show you that we do care. That's the only reason why we're here. I'm here because I want my children to continue to live here for them to have children so my grandchildren can be here. And I think my my brothers here think the same thing. They're thinking the same thing.

He's got grandchildren and some of his children have difficulty in making the decision. Can they buy in Dartmouth because they can't afford it? He said that publicly before. So we're here for that reason.

All right. So All right. No, no, I already gave you an opportunity. Next time. Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, my name is Douglas Quelloo. I live on 10 Eisenhower Street.

I just got a question. Um, is it general common practice for an applicant to contact a member of the board without, you know, at a zoning hearing?

I don't know what was discussed. If it was something just administrative, but typically it may not be done. I don't know. But I would No, the board. No, I'll answer that. At the last hearing, yes, there was a discussion about there being some working sessions around the traffic mitigation and the board designated a particular board member to speak to with the applicant team and others and

report back to the board. So, in this instance, it was appropriate because the board planned for it and designated for him to do it.

I forgot about that. In addition, he actually has an engineering background.

So I think of all of us he's most qualified to address those concerns.

In addition, I told Mr. uh Cahoun that I will not discuss in details. I the concept is fine. You can present it to the board at the public hearing and that's why he did tonight and that's what I said.

Well, thank you for clarifying.

There's nothing going on in behind the doors. Let it be clear.

So one last thing I just want you guys to know like you guys are members of this community. We're the constituents.

So we're all in this community together.

So, just take that into consideration.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

All right. Come on up, young lady.

Hi, Nancy Almeida of Two Spring Hill Road. Um, where is that in relation to this project?

Right across Wilbur. We're in the middle.

Okay.

Right in the middle. Yep. Um, does anybody know here that New Befford, the city of New Befford is actually having anformational meeting about the Rockdale and Hathaway Road problem that they're having there? It's one of the top five accident uh uh intersections of the city and for some reason that was um not included in the in the first meeting that we had about the traffic. Um it was

included after but that is still a big problem to the city of New Bedford. They did do some mitigation where they painted some lines, they added a bike path, they uh mitigated what they're saying they're going to be doing on some of these streets and it's done nothing.

the problem still exists there and they're actually having this meeting on June 16th which I think maybe I don't know the town should look into or maybe attend or get information as well because that's going to affect our situation as well. Um, also I had a question. Do we have do you does the applicant have a cross-section picture of what this new design looks like from the houses just like the one

you have from the Hathaway road view?

No.

Hold on. You have to direct the questions to me.

I'm sorry.

All right.

Does he So, I don't know if they have one. Um, but what what what do you think that's going to reveal that will assist?

Well, it would be nice to see what this new design is going to look like from the people that it's going to be affecting from the people living on the street versus ha the ha a cross-section of Hathway Road.

Okay. I'm not sure, but I thought they did give they did provide us something to that effect. It's in here. Um, and I'm sure it's on probably on the portal as well, but if I can revises building the side view, it's not a perspective.

Yeah, it is the same perspective of Hathway Road because it shows it from the front. It has the house. You you kind of see the view from what from the house, but not their backyard.

No, this is a north elevation. So, if it's a north elevation, this is what you would see from the backyard of the people on Eisenhower Street.

But they actually see the buildings.

Yeah, that's just a picture, a side view of the actual buildings.

So, I'm not sure what you're asking.

What are you asking for specifically?

So, if they pull up the slide of the picture of the view of Hathaway Road, you see the house in yellow and then you see the buildings. I would like to see one of this new design from the backyard of that area.

Okay.

Um, were any apartments reduced by pushing this line back? Was that just attic space that was in that building?

I don't believe that they were, but I'll ask that question specifically.

Okay.

I'm sure they would have amended that if they had if that resulted in that.

More than likely, they probably reduce the number of number of bedrooms in some of the units possibly in order.

The submission says that they're not going to reduce the number of the units or the number of bedrooms. They're just going to maybe make the bedroom I assume make the units a little smaller and still put in the same number of bedrooms.

Okay. Yeah, cuz I was wondering where did those apartments go? Unless that was just attic space that they were kind of flattening out and pushing back.

The architect can explain that to us.

Okay. And to reiterate again the traffic situation, you can calculate all these numbers, but unless you're driving on these streets, I drive there every day, multiple times a day. My parents live there. There, let's not forget that there's the academy school that's there.

That's uh a major problem. and um not only the speeding situation, but has the board been ad um advised at any time by the state of why this project hasn't gone forward? The project on Route 6 and um Hathway Road?

I don't know. I can't answer.

So, it just keeps getting delayed.

Excuse me.

It just keeps getting delayed or This was pro It's not promised. It was supposed to be a project that was supposed to start back in the early 2023, 2024. At one point it was supposed to start in 2025.

And so who's to say this doesn't take another 10 years for them to do it?

It's very possible.

And who's to say it doesn't get taken off the list because something else happens and they need the monies for something else?

All we know is it's prioritized. That's basically how it's been described to me.

Um All right. I'm going to call upon the architect just maybe he can explain away. I'm going to take comments next next meeting on the 29th. That's gonna be the last comment I'm gonna take and I'm gonna ask there to answer her question. So, we lowered the height on some of the units on the north side of this project.

Exactly.

And how how was that actually done where there we we basically relocated those? I believe it was a total of six units and we relocated that. We had um in building A was the amenities center which was I believe it was about 12,500 square ft which was the fitness leasing and clubhouse and we reduced the size of that down and accommodated those units into that. We basically absorbed those

units um re reallocated them to the first floor of building A.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks.

I didn't know the answer to that.

Thanks.

And in terms of the other view, I'm sure we can provide any views from those neighbors like we had done the last time, which is really looking from their backyards, which is the key. Thank you.

That' be great.

I just have one quick.

All right, come on up. You You'll definitely be the last one.

Thank you. Uh Lori Almeida, 11 Eisenhower Street. This has to pertain to the um elevation of the buildings from the backyards. Um one of the neighbors brought up last meeting about a balloon test. Um what's the situation on that and if possible if that can be done? Thank you Mr. Calhoun.

At this late stage of the hearing process, a balloon test, we've found that they're not that successful because you got to get a day without wind. And then the neighbors typically say, you're you're faking the length of the line. U we did it in another town, spent a whole bunch of money and time on it, and no matter what we did, it was not satisfactory. Uh so to request a balloon

test at this time is you know we can try to schedule one but it's really not protect you know and the trees that are there you know you're going to the balloons will be hidden so you know it's not like we can clear the lot do a balloon test so you can see what's going to happen later. Uh, so I really don't think it's it's gonna benefit the process and it um so I'd

recommend not requesting it.

Well, we could consider that and we could we could relay a message if we had to. All right. So, um, we're on for the 29th correct?

6:00.

6 o' Come on up, Mr. Chair. Just as a matter of housekeeping and Attorney Murphy might be able to help out with this as well.

It's our understanding that a few of the board members term expires at the end of the month. So in anticipation of a potential extension into July if there's any behind the scenes or select board votes or anything that has to happen to allow for a holdover and a commitment.

Me at the end of the month.

I didn't know until No, I didn't know.

Oh wow.

I thought it was a lifetime appointment.

Okay.

Well, I don't know if they're going to want me here, so we'll see.

No, you should bundle it. I'll check on that tomorrow. All right.

And they'll have you win.

Well, thanks for bringing that to my attention.

Apologize for dropping the news, but we just want to make sure if we're here on the 29th and are considering an extension that we have a full board moving forward.

Worst case, we go with two members.

Yeah. Well, that's true. They can do it with two members for a Ford EB, but um hopefully it won't come to that. Um Mr. Chair, Stantech contract.

Stan techch contract. Um, so let's make sure we isolate this. Where where is it again?

I think you gave it back to me. Oh, no.

Or you you handed it down the line to your Did I pass it along and it ended up back in my pile. So, let me find it somewhere in this pile. So gentlemen, that contract is to contract is the contract that is required in order to do assessments of the um scope is in there on the second page or third page based on their experts um information and they need to verify.

Have you have you seen that contract?

Yes, they got it on May 21st.

Okay.

It's right here. It's what kind of Well, I'll get you a copy language.

You want us to say?

Well, I I think I Well, I think it's just the what's the date on the May 21st to accept it to accept the contract.

Yeah. To and to uh request that the town administrator Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we accept the Stantech contract dated May 21 2026 uh sent to Timothy Baba, director of Department of Public Works as written.

Yeah. And authorize the town administrator to enter it onto the board's behalf.

Well, it's dated. There's a proposal with a date. That's that's the proposal.

Well, I think they responded to this. I remember reading a letter that said that you didn't agree with it.

If I'm not responding, we have to hash it out after. So, at this point, we we're going to you're going to formally know that this is what we're going to do and then you can provide us a formal response as there's no response. The board has the board has the right under the regulations to vote to engage the consultants.

Yeah, it's an estimate. As I stated on the other stand contracts, the estimates were much higher. The amounts actually came in significantly lower. This is the proposal.

All right. Fair enough.

That's being proposed to the board.

Can you restate the motion as we're going to have to authorize the town administrator to execute the agreement?

I don't know what it says. It's all awesome.

You have a copy of it from May 21st. It has not changed.

You were Mr. Barber. Did the applicant get provided a copy of this contract dated May 21st?

I believe so.

Yes, because you know how we know we do because um his council sent me sent the board which I have right here an extensive letter rejecting it which they do not have the legal ability to do and I responded to his council to say so. So I'm glad I printed it say so they did receive it.

They did receive it and I did respond and there were critical issues in it that our attorney um Matt can speak to but also Mark Dunn put in the letter.

I'm not going to get into all the specifics of that at this point. Well, there's a couple key elements of it.

Number one, conflict of interest.

Also, Stantech does work for us. Stantech does that.

We can wave that if we want and we have cleared it.

That we can do it. And if we wave it, we wave it.

But the reason why we offered it, sir, because if you go forward with the contract and you hire a peer review and somebody Googles it, Stantech and Saxs and Partners, they'll find that they're working for us. You googled my name in Stantech or Face Buffet in Dick, you'll feel they're the ones that should be concerned about that. Not so much you.

No, but from an appeal standpoint, you open yourself up to an appeal if you haven't discussed it and people haven't disclosed that. Okay, we're comfortable waving it. That's what Mark Donny Hugh's letter is about. Nobody responsible.

So, and and Mr. Mr. Chair, Mr. Arbor spoke at length with Stantech provide and they provided us a summary.

They don't currently particularly the part people who would be involved in reviewing this project are not involved in any work for Saxon partners and it's been fully disclosed and it's been reviewed by the town administrator and there is no conflict that had that that um is of concern or that interferes with the same people at Stantech who may have done work for them. they they gave us they provided a

detail of the work that they've done for Sax and Partners. So again, you know, this is this you know, you know what's frustrating about this? I and I'll just say I stood right there right there next to that podium with Mr. Barber and Mr.

Calhoun on the night of the first hearing and we discussed Stantech and they worked with Stantech prior to this application and submitted information and at no point did Mr. Calhoun before they filed this application or from the day they they filed it until tonight ever mentioned this. So this is a this is an argument of convenience tonight and it is not an issue as as I've reviewed it as m the town

administrators reviewed it and as Mr.

Barber has reviewed it. So I recommend that the board vote it. I will revisit it again. I will re-review Stantex disclosure and if there's a problem then we'll let the board know at the next meeting. But there shouldn't be, you know, at this point. They raised a concern on May 21st that they just got the proposal that they're claiming they haven't seen. Even though he got up and said, "We just

received this proposal." At the last meeting, he got up and said that. His lawyer sent the letter referencing the proposal. He's saying he hasn't seen.

And now it's a, you know, oh, this late and now he's seeking more delay.

There is no reason there is no reason in my opinion for the board to delay a vote to authorize this as happened what the other 40bs when there was questions about scope whether it was traffic civil you recall there were all those questions with the different engineers and the town staff town admin town administrators the department heads all I was on one of the calls and met with

those consultants and said this is what you are permitted to do under 40B and this is what you are not and the town will not pay you using their funds to do work that's not appropriate under 40B.

This is not the town the board's first rodeo. It's not the staff's first rodeo nor mine and at this point it's just seeking delay for the sake of delay in order to keep this review from happening. And I recommend that the board take the vote and allow the staff to administer it as has happened on all the other 40b projects. That's my recommendation.

One quick point, Miss Murphy likes to testify on behalf of other individuals and she made a very grand position that at the first meeting she said that Stantech was uh working with the town.

We had no objection. You didn't hire Stantech then. You hired Merryill Engineered and Howard Stein Hudson. This is the first contract you are moving forward with Stantech and the only point we're trying to bring forward is full disclosure. Did this party so disclosed?

Can I have never mind? You guys make your own decisions. You understand where that you know, Mr. chair, there were concerns by the prior the other 240bs as to the amount of the estimate that Stantech had provided in those projects, which was $50,000.

And Mr. Barber actually with with the town administrator got a proposal early on for this project that was $50,000 and they've been working with Stantech saying that is not appropriate. It needs to be reduced, etc. So, if Mr. Mr.

Calhoun would like to criticize the town for actually diligently working to try to make sure that the cost of the peer review was scaled appropriately and make sure it was a a a um more appropriate amount before the contract was delivered to him. Then um that $50,000 proposal could have been delivered to them earlier and the town has a copy of that $50,000 proposal from March. So,

Mr. as I'll state it one more time, I could stand on the spot. Mr. Calhoun, Mr. Barber, and myself, he's here. He can attest to it. Stantech is going to be involved. Oh, yeah. Great. We talked to Stantech beforehand. We've already had some information. This is all revisionist history. He knew Stantech was being engaged even after the board discussed um Merrill and Howard Stein Hudson. and you know it's it's there's

plenty of documentation and record for it, emails, conversations, etc. So again, I just my recommendation is the board take the vote, allow the staff to administer it, and if there's an issue, we'll certainly bring it back to you.

That's my recommendation.

What's your pleasure, gentlemen?

Well, we need to move, right? I mean, we need to get the this going.

I don't know what your contract is far as $38,000. Is that what it is? I mean, he has a desk, but it's an estimate on May. It's an estimate.

I've been told by Mr. Borrow was here that he said it might be 15,000 if you get 20,000 in your account. I mean, the clarification that we're asking the what are they looking at? What is this for?

We'll give you the contract.

He has the contract. I don't have the cont.

All right. So, fair enough.

Can I have So, he's gonna get one.

Here's the contract.

There you go. So, thank you.

He has in fact I have the letter from his council referring to that exact contract.

Okay.

Okay.

So, gentlemen, what's your pleasure?

Oh, we need the I'm sorry. Can we just refer to it and I'll give it back to you. Thank you.

Apologize for that.

Okay. I make a motion that we approve the Stantra Stant consulting contract dated March 21st, 2026 for peer review of the water and sewer system design associated with the proposed Haway Road development.

Uh contract signed by Isidor Satur and Brian Sheay.

out of order.

Is it out of order?

That's correct.

Second.

All in favor?

I I The eyes have it.

There you go.

All right. So, um, we are on now for June. We already scheduled for June 29th. We have to do a continuation.

It's already on.

You got to vote to continue it.

To continue.

Vote to continue.

I thought it was already scheduled for another date. It was No, but you didn't. You have to vote to continue it to that date. We have it on the calendar, but Okay. But it was never done.

Yeah.

All right. And are we still fine? Are we still fine with the time time constraints? Yes, we are.

Because that would be the last date that we could actually vote on it, right?

Would be the 29th.

6 o'clock, right?

29th. Yeah. 29th. Yeah.

The last date would be the 29th that we could vote on this.

Uh 29th right now. Well, July 7th.

Okay. July 7th. Okay. But 29th, you're not having another meeting between Jul uh June 29th and July 7th. So right now June 29th would be your last day. Well, you would not to vote. Close the hearing. You then have 40 days and you can spend the 40 days crafting conditions that they'll never see.

We're not going to do that. We don't want to do that. All right. So I'll entertain a motion to continue.

I make a motion that we continue comprehensive permit ZCMP25-3 to June 29th at 6 p.m.

All in favor?

I We need a second.

Oh, I second it.

All in favor?

I I The eyes have it.

Folks, you have to be quiet back there.

We're still in session.

That date again. I didn't know.

It's June 29th at 6:00 here in this building.

Okay. And what's on uh July 7th?

Nothing's on July 7th as of yet. That's the deadline for us to actually close the public hearing.

Okay. Thank you.

I thank you.

All right. So, gentlemen, is there any other business that needs to be discussed?

All right. I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn.

Motion to adjurnn. Second that motion.

All in favor?

I I the eyes have it.