Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting March 16, 2026

Monday, March 16th. At this time, I'm going to call upon everyone to stand so we can pledge allegiance to the flag.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I usually ask that we stand for a moment of silence in honor of our soldiers past and present. But this evening, I'm going to ask that we have a moment of silence in honor of our soldiers who are in harm's way in the

conflict of the Middle East.

Thank you.

All right. So, I'm going to Well, before we do that, I have an announcement to make that this meeting is being recorded by Dartmouth Community Media and that our next scheduled meeting is a 40B.

It's scheduled for March 23rd at 6:00 here in this room and it's for the residences at Hawthorne Case. Um, we usually move on to the public hearings portion of tonight's meeting. However, we're going to skip that given that we're having some IT difficulties um with the computer and the screen for the presentation.

I think he's ready.

We're good now.

All right, we're good. So, we don't have to take it out of We're good. All right.

So, the next case that we have is comprehensive. It's actually the next and the only case that we have on for this evening is comprehensive permit ZCMP-25-2.

It was continued from January 8, 2026.

The petitioner is Robert Lincoln and the owner of the property is Sherbrook Farms LLC and the subject property is located at 498 O Westport Road, also known as map 48 lot 29. It's located in the single residence B district and this matter was legally advertised and we've already raved waved the reading of the abutters list. The petitioner in this case is seeking a comprehensive permit

pursuant to Mass General Journal Law Chapter 40B and the comprehensive permit guidelines.

Uh the petitioner is proposing a development on approximately 81.8 acres to be known as Sherbet Farms to be located at 498 O Westport Road. The development will have a total of 156 units of rental housing including 30 39 affordable units. The petitioner is requesting waiverss from the following zoning bylaws. I'm not going to recite all of them. I'm sure we've done most of them. We would we will probably go over

some of these later on in the hearing process. So, um, for anyone in the audience, I'm sure you recall that this matter has previously been open. We've had some comment about traffic, um, and the impacts of traffic with this proposed development. And today, we're going to be discussing um, civil and wastewater or storm water. I'm sorry. I always get those confused. to be discussing storm

water. But before I actually do that, um I want to acknowledge a few letters, gentlemen. And I be I'm going to be asking for a motion um that we uh accept and file the letters that have been submitted. So one letter that was submitted uh which we've read and I'm sure that we've all read uh that this was dated a November 7th of 2025 by Ian McGonagal. There's another letter from a

Jim Costa that was dated November 25th of 2025. We also have a letter from Carol Cabraw that was dated January 8, 2026. And we have a letter from Fred and Kate Dabney that was dated January 21st, 2026. Gentlemen, I'll entertain a motion.

I make a motion that we accept in files the letters that were just stated now.

Second that motion.

All in favor?

I the eyes have it. Now, moving on. So, at this time, I'm going to call upon the petitioners um representative or their their representative so they can give us an update as to what's transpired. Just generally what's transpired. If you could come up here, if you can identify yourself for the record.

Um my name is Mira Kadis uh of Konico Engineer and Scientist. Um I'm here to in behalf of uh um Sher Sherbrook Farms LLC. Um my company located at 41 First Street in Bridgewater, Massachusetts. Um the the project is located at 489 Old Westport Roads, Darmmouth, Massachusetts. H also here with me is Dimeian Dmetri uh of Konico Engineer and uh Rick uh Linklin of Sherbrook uh farms. So I'm going to give you like a

brief um overview of the the project. Uh so our project is like um the owner has like uh he owned like three parcels uh with total of 81 85 acres. uh most likely our disturb uh area or our project going to be just on 10.81 acre.

Um also the project like involves the construction of four buildings main buildings. Each building about like uh 16.2 uh,000 square ft, three stories. Each building has uh 38 units with total of 152 units. uh for the whole sites also the the the project like um has um assoc associated with parking paved access uh drainage stuff like drainage system and also the utilities. Um the drainage

consists of like uh three underground infiltration systems and also two um open uh basins. um those are like to control and treat the the storm water.

So the major revi revision here if you can in the layout. So uh we add so we add location for bicycle parking here here and here. It's about like five location for parking bicycle parkings. Uh also we add two more additional D uh dster pads here and also we revise the auto turn based on those new locations. Um also we extend here the the sidewalk in the street to be all the way to the the west

the eastern side of the property here for the drainage revised. Um so we revised the the drain the the whole like grading to have uh a net balance so we don't have or zero import and export for the for the fillain fill and cut. Erh also uh we grade this area the the northwestern area based on the new grading and also we revised the retaining wall behind here.

Um we add steps and also we add some like uh accessible ramps to the the buildings to the entrance of the buildings of those three buildings to work out with the our grading and we now we use the internal like um drop foundation for the building. Um all the design all the systems worked well with our new design.

Now I'm going to pass the presentation to Demian to like finish it up.

But before you do that, I have a quick question. Is I thought initially this was 156 units. I thought I heard you say 152.

52.

It's It's 152.

So has it been reduced?

Yes.

Okay, fair enough.

If you need to speak from there because your computer's there, I'm more than glad to do that. It's just she didn't require it. I don't think she needed a computer, but if you do, I have no problem with that.

Yeah. Um, it makes it helpful. Uh, okay.

So, yeah, Amy Dmitri, uh, conical engineers and scientists as introduced by Meera, uh, for First Street, uh, here on behalf of Sherbrook Farms. Um, so since the last meeting, um, that was on um, prior to the last meeting, we had received comments from Nich, uh, dated 1210, 2026. Um, we had the meeting on January 22nd. Um during that presentation there was a lot of traffic analysis site civil and um the

environmental discussions. Just as a kind of a summary, traffic analysis concerns were addressed and discussed at that meeting. Um you know, we're not aware of any additional comments that have come from the traffic review um that have been submitted to us. Um so from our understanding that has been resolved with uh the peer review. um environmental um as discussed at the last meeting um those are being worked

out uh with the authority of DP um for mitigation of um cleanup for on-site contamination concerns um associated with the um concrete and uh I believe you know other D concerns that was all presented at the last meeting I won't go into details it's not my perview um there was discussion and then there was the discussions on the site civil um we indicated that we were working on the

revisions per niche's comments that were dated the uh the 1210. Um since then, we resubmitted responses back to them on uh February 13th with revised plans, calculations. Um we then received additional comments dated March 10th, so last week. Um we sub it was three minor comments um associated with the number of apartment units. Uh they just wanted that number to be shown on the cover.

has been added. You um an additional time of concentration line adjustment um which has been uh edited and then a table within the drainage report uh being changed. It it originally called out 80%, they wanted it to be 90%, we met the requirement in the first place.

So all kind of clerical minor uh changes from the last set of comments. Um and then you know um the uh folks at NICH had also indicated um that you know there was other points within the um responses that we would be supplying um you know at later but you know there's no additional comments um from them and I'll let um them discuss you know their review of the plans from there. Um so

with those revised receipts we sent those back um on the 12th so two days after being received. Again, minor comments. Um, we'll we can supply all of those changes in a complete package at a later date um if necessary, but given the turnaround time to this meeting, um, you know, we just wanted to get that information back across as quickly as possible. So, um, you know, from our understanding, there should be no real

site civil outstanding issues um, at this point associated with the layout and the drainage. Um, I'll let again if Nichch had peer review can come in there. Moving forward, we just want to understand any outstanding concerns by the board, anything that needs to be brought up, discussed. Um, you know, hopefully we can address and close the hearing and and move that stuff. Um, but I'll turn it back over to

you guys um for, you know, any additional comments, questions, or housing.

Do you know what the ratio is now from parking spaces to the number of units?

It it is still the 1.76. It I I 1 point what?

1.76.

It was 267.

Here I can we'll go to right now it's 1.76.

Yes.

I thought it was less than that before.

Nope.

Yeah, that that's that's thought it was around 1.5.

No, that was the 1.5 ratio. 1.55 was what the peerreview traffic had used the IT the Institute of Traffic Engineering manual to say that the 85th percentile requirement was 155 uh 1.55 um parking ratio we're a 1.76.

So what are the number of parking spaces there right now total on that plan the revised plan? So, as I zoom into the parking here, we are at uh you can see down here in the corner, we're at 267 spaces.

152 units.

Mhm.

Yeah.

176.

Well, you took the wind out of my sales.

Okay. Um I didn't think it was that's where it was before, but that's okay.

I don't have any questions, gentlemen, at this point in time. Attorney or m Mr.

Schuba, you guys have any questions of the No, I don't have any questions. I mean, they've been working with the peer review and the peer review.

Yeah, we're going to hear from him shortly.

Here, so we can confirm to what? Yeah.

All right. So, we're going to give him the floor at this point. Come on up.

It's Mr. Gabriel, correct?

Yes, sir.

All right.

Thank you, board. My name again, Mark Gabriel. Uh for the record, niche engineering, civil site, uh storm water peer review.

So uh Damian just went through a lot of the dates in the meetings that we had. I was going to say that so I don't need to repeat that. Um but yes, we have been communicating back and forth through this process. Uh and my last peer review on uh the letter I submitted on March 10th. Um basically was going through what they had submitted on February 12th. uh taking a look at the plans and

the updated calculations uh for storm water. Uh and the response from their peerreview letter to us was that that either the comment has been addressed.

So we made sure that that was the case.

Uh that documentation or that documentation would be provided post approval. Um which we understand that and we'll help uh clarify that down the road in a separate letter if needed. and then uh or the requirements requested to be waved and and put on the list of waivers. Um so that's what we had taken a look at. There were a few minor things as he mentioned uh that were just clerical and they have since addressed

those minor items. That's really all I have at this point.

They did say something about a sidewalk there that they've extended.

They did extend the sidewalk. We noticed that on the plans. Correct.

And does that actually meet up with an existing sidewalk that's along O Westport Road? There is an existing sidewalk along there. Yes.

That meets up with it.

That I don't know. I don't believe I saw on the survey the extent of the existing sidewalk over there. I don't know, Damian, if you I'm sorry if we could ask the engineer if that does meet up with that.

Well, it doesn't seem a lot of that it serves a lot of purpose if it's just its own area that has a sidewalk and the rest of it doesn't to get to where they need to get to. If they're heading, it would be east, I would take it.

True. But I I have seen applicants from frontage to frontage provide their sidewalks in front of their parcel, not to extend it down the street in front of other people's parcels.

Okay.

All right. Thank you.

Yes.

So I I just want to make a note because the the traffic engineers are not here tonight. Um and there was a comment that they've been resolved. think that is my understanding but I will go back and review what the traffic engineer peerreview engineer provided that there the there has been response back and forth. My understanding though is that what was left open and maybe this comes

up in the items to be addressed, permit, post quote, post per approval if approved, etc. is um the connection of the crosswalks from the project side across to the other side. and the, you know, handicap accessible ramps, all that type of work was something that the traffic engineer had um called out as something that should be addressed by the applicant, but I don't believe Mr. Gabriel is shown on the project plans.

the bringing the when the side when the crosswalks come over from the project side to the Lucy little side and they meet up there that those that those connections I'm sorry I'm not an engineer those connections have not necessarily upgrades improvements have not been shown correct it's not clearly indicated on the plans some improvements are shown there sorry I am not the traffic

engineer but I'll speak for them briefly uh some improvements have been shown in that area that just looking for some additional clarity on what's going to happen there.

Okay. So, that that that's an item that isn't necessarily closed out. Your traffic engineer has not signed. They haven't signed off on the plan. Not meaning that they have additional comments coming, just that that's a comment that remains outstanding and may have to be addressed in uh conditions if the permits granted. So, that's that's just a note that I had from prior hearing.

Thank you.

All right, this is a public hearing and I have previously opened this up to the public and at this point in time I'm going to do the same this evening. So I notice that there are some people out here.

They're not as many as there were the last time, but of the people that are here, is there anyone that would like to come up and speak either in favor or in opposition or just basically make a statement of some concern that you may have about the project?

Civil.

Um, and today, um, we're limited to civil and storm water.

So, uh, those are the two experts that we have here today. They've presented they've indicated to us that they've they've spoken they've ironed out a lot of the concerns that we had raised at least the last time um the project one thing that's happened is they've reduced the number of units from 156 to 152 and we're at 1.75 parking spaces per unit and from what I understand that seems to

be on the higher end of what the requirements are.

There's anyone come on up. Just please state your you know how it works.

Uh Norman Dilva 5230 Westport Road, Dartmouth, Mass. Um just a couple of questions. I think doing you want to just talk about the storm water and the civil engineering of the property. Okay.

When they changed the entrance, they eliminated, I believe, the brush to the left, any type of protection from the roadway. And I because they said something about it was a sight issue.

I'd like to know why. I wouldn't be in favor of that. I don't see why the board should be in favor of that. We're trying to insulate the residents from the building. I don't see why it should be allowed to have no brush around there or no trees or evergreens.

Okay. Um, obviously we'll have our guy, he's not a traffic guy per se, but I think you might be able to answer that.

I think there, you know, we're always worried about growth of brush. It may be one size today, it's something else in two years and then you're dealing with visibility issues and we always like to on the side of cautioning and making sure that we make the project safer and not with the potential of it becoming unsafe or less safe. But we'll let them discuss as to what that may be. Is there another question?

Yeah. um on the vegetation. Then there was oh the location of the dumpster. Why would you have the dumpster in the front of the building on the left side? Shouldn't the dumpster go in the rear of the building for for because of smell and so forth?

You got the dumpster I believe is located on the what would that be? The uh west side on the corner.

I believe the dumpster should be allowed should be they should be going in the rear of the building.

Obviously traffic and smell and so forth.

All right.

Something else, sir?

Um, well, you just want to stick to the stuff of the engineering stuff. Um Mhm.

I just don't understand whether they're um attempting to get variances on landscape islands and shade and tree variances and that they're not, you know, the list of stuff that's on there.

I just don't know why the board would allow that. Those things are all in in place for a reason.

All right, hold on one second. Let me just clarify something.

The term is a waiver. A variance. No, because it's tough to get a variance and there's some high There's some pretty stringent requirements, statutory requirements in order to get a variance.

Okay, these people, they're coming in on the 40B and our bylaws are basically set aside and they're coming in under a state statute and a mandate that indicates what they can and cannot ask for. And at at this point, all we can do is when they present what they're trying to do, we weigh there's a balancing test between the need for affordable housing and the impact on the local community.

That's sort of the the two interests that you we're weighing out here.

Um so it's not like we're granting we're not definitely granting them a variance per se.

Okay. I'm sorry, not variance, but I just want to make sure you make that clear just because I don't want people thinking we're granting variances alakart here. It's not what it is. But what they do ask for, which it smells a lot like a variance, is they're asking for a waiver, right?

They're asking for waiverss from these requirements, which they can ask for.

They can ask for it. But I'm I'm imploring the board to say, why would you grant any of these things? All these all these um conditions. Uh because here's what happens. If we don't grant them, then they go to the housing commission in Boston and they will grant them to them. So we can put conditions above and beyond what we they probably would get from the housing commission, right?

So it's there's the uncertainty. I don't know exactly what the housing commission would do. I wish I had a better pulse on that.

Yeah.

So that I would know where, you know, we could actually how much we could push in one direction or another. Um I don't know what that is. We have counsel who gives us explanations as to what her experience has been in that.

And believe me, the questions have been asked, right? All right. The questions have been asked. So, um, is there one in particular that bothers you that we could take a look at it?

No, I just I mean, let's put it this way. I I think the I think majority people in the town are against these all three of them. They're against them, but I'm pretty damn sure.

I think that's a fair assessment to make.

Thank you. And one core thing that I'd like to know is and I'm not a politician, but I know that we have um a state rep and we have a senator and I haven't seen their comments about any of this. They supposed to represent the town of Dartmouth and I don't see why you people wouldn't reach out to them and ask them what the heck are you doing to protect us with this? And maybe

they'll tell you nothing, but at least they should come out and say there's nothing we can do. If that's the case, I will I implore the board to go out and go after ask these people, what can you do to help us? Thank you.

I I I I just want to address that comment. We're not a political board.

We're not elected. We're appointed. Um in this state, judges are very non-political. We're not judges, but it's there's an analogy.

The planning board is elected by the members of the community. The zoning board, not so much. That's not how it is. We are appointed and we serve at the pleasure of the select board. We are a very non-political board. I implore the members of the community who have concerns to reach out to their senator and to their local representative. Your point is well taken. It's just a direction a little misplaced. That's all.

So you don't feel it's the board's it's the board's place to uh ask for support.

You're basically you're the team dressed in green and they're the team greased that states the team in red and you're saying that you you shouldn't go after the team. You should just go along. We should just lay down and go listen to both sides. We have to apply the rules that are given to us just like the law with variances. Here is a special permit. Uh it's it's one of the worst

types of permits that I I believe exist.

And I agree with you that you know there ought to be communication that goes upward towards the state house. But I'm not in a position where I think I could I should or even consider doing that.

But I only speak for myself. If my members of the board feel that they personally want to do something, they're allowed to do that. But I implore any one of you out in the audience to speak to them.

Okay. One other thing I was going to ask, um, has there been any, uh, consideration? Is this the most they can develop this property or could they put another 20 units in the back?

That's a good question.

My understanding is it's wet in the back and I think this is the ex Well actually one of the things that we can do as a condition is we can put a condition on there. There's to be no further there's to be no further development on the site beyond what has been proposed.

Right. I agree.

And I'm going to ask that we make a special note on that.

Okay. There was just something on there small thing but they said that the according to their engineers that the uh the noise level would be similar their exact quote was similar to surrounding residential area. I don't see how that can possibly be. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Gabriel.

Yes.

I got two questions for you. I believe one has to do with the brush at the entrance way. I think the gentleman's concerned about ensuring that there's a significant enough buffer to uh screen the vis what this is going to look like um in relation to a view from the roadway onto the premises. So I guess I don't know do you know why the brush was being cut back? the idea. No, I don't

know the exact reason, but I would um venture to guess that you need sight distance and you need to be able to clear that brush on the rightway to be able to have that sight distance. That said, the plan there is a landscaping plan for the project. Uh one that's going to be further developed post approval. And if you would like, I'm sure the engineer could speak to what that landscaping would look like along

the property line in that area.

Do you have that landscaping plan?

Um I do not believe I have the landscaping layout. Um yeah, but your assessment would be that it's probably because of the sight distance for viewing from from the uh the open the uh what is it the driveway of the entrance way to the correct and on a future list of recommendations would have a landscaping plan be updated for that area as well and make sure that the site is landscaped appropriately.

Okay, great. Now, what about the dumpster location? What's your take on that? Is it actually out front there where there's that little rectangle piece? Is that where it is? There's a dumpster out front there. Yeah. By that rectangle piece.

Um, now the thing is is this. I also know that there's significant change in topography between the roadway and this particular site.

I know it's more pronounced to the easterly portion of the site. Is that safe to say?

Um, and the existing topography.

Yes.

Yeah. So, see if I can get it to appear a little bit better here.

So yes, the the eastern portion of the site um there is a drop. Let's see if we can actually this isn't the best view here. Um there is a pretty significant drop in grades um off the back of the site. So we can see um here on my hand um it's a little difficult to see. We got a 115 elevation. You can see over here and then as we enter into the existing site

you see a 193 or a 93 93. Okay.

Yeah. I apologize.

So that's seven and 15. That's 22 difference um from that of the existing roadway down. Right.

Right. So that's the existing roadway to the existing condition.

Yes.

Now where where will be the what will the finish grade be um once the parking area is developed?

Yeah. So once again and these buildings are three stories high right correct.

So the proposed grading in roughly that same area we will be bringing it up to 102 102 and the road is 115.

Uh yes so that there is actually along the front um there is a retaining wall um as we can see here with the top of wall about 113 um with a drop down to 103.

So, actually the top of the first level will be lower than the roadway, correct?

Okay.

Um, now what about the dumpster location? That's something obviously you guys could move it towards the back if need be.

Yeah. Um, that that we we could move it around. Um, you know, we're trying to spread the dumpsters throughout the property, right? You know, if they're all in the same locations.

So, how many are there?

There's four. Um, let me go back to my layout sheet just to get rid of some of this clutter.

screen.

Yeah. And and they're screened.

Yep. Screened, fenced in. Um you know, gate gates out front. You know, they they'll have appropriate they'll be picked up once a week. Um you know, standard dumpster protocol. So, we do have we have one, two, three in the back, and then there's one over here.

Again, you know, mostly servicing, you know, again, trying to just spread so that there's not just one concentrated location, you know, so someone in this corner or this corner of a building don't have, you know, it it just they can they're allowed to have, you know, they have a closer route to a dumpster.

But that's something that could be moved quite rather easily.

Yeah. If requested by the board.

Okay.

All righty. I think that pretty much covers it. No, thank you. question. Mr. Chair, I have a question. Those of us who are not savvy engineers, what you you show on the plan the underground infiltration system.

Yes.

How does that work?

How does it work?

Happy to talk about that. It's one of my favorite things.

Can't wait.

Um, okay. Let's get to the It's actually quite neat.

Yeah.

So, let's see if we can get a good detail here. So, this is a cross-section detail um over here. Um and then here's some plan view details.

Just a quick qu throughout the on the property. There are three separate Y units, right?

Yes.

Okay. I Right.

One, two, three.

Okay. Go ahead.

Okay. Yeah. So, the way that the drainage system works, right? So these little darker black dots, those are catch basins. There's a great shown closer detail there. The water will get collected and and graded to these locations. Um and then drop into a deep subfooted catch basin. Uh I think I explained this in pretty good detail last at the last meeting. I won't go into that too much. From there, it goes

into a manhole which is just a connection structure to collect the water, put it into a larger pipe and direct it. You know, it's more for efficiency of construction. Um and then from there we go into a water quality unit um similar to the catch basins except more advanced there's proprietary there's you know uh case studies done and it basically it has additional oil and um sediment removal from the uh

water you know reduces the total suspended solids within the uh water as it crosses its way into the system. So then um then we get to the infiltration chamber system which is what you um you know requested the discussion be about.

So that's basically their underground um halfpipes, you know, they're cut in half and the bottom of them they they're placed on top of a stone bed um with a geoteexile fabric and what those do is the water is allowed basically it's a it's a volume storage um area creation and the storm water goes and collects into those chamber systems and the water will slowly build up and it you know

similar to a legion it's a you know a time- tested engineering practice the water will build up over time create pressure and it will leech directly into the ground. Um, you know, with those systems, again, there's all those pre-treatment devices that catch oils and greases and everything like that.

Um, prior to being infiltr, you know, prior to making their way to the system, um, we actually have isolation rows, which are, um, one of those upside down pipes, cut in half, has is completely wrapped in filter fabric on top of the additional fabric that is placed at the bottom of the um, at the bottom of the stone. So it you know it it's removing sediment um isolating you know removing

greases and then you know same with a septic system a standard leeching septic system a lot of the pollution is actually uh a lot of the removal of um contamin anything that would be in the storm water is actually removed by the soil below the system. Right? So there's a 4ft separation from the bottom of the system to estimated seasonal high ground water. Typically water's lower than

that. This is the highest that it is estimated to be over a period you know over throughout the year basically you know right now is actually the highest groundwater season March to May. Um so with that the water has to go through that 4T of separation before it hits existing groundwater. The sediment the the soil below the sand actually then additionally treats the ground the storm

water before it enters in. So you know the the chambers themselves are just a storage volume um to then allow the water to build up there. There's a wear outlet on the other side of these. So we show it right here would be a good example. So that is actually a manhole with a weir in it and that's set at a particular elevation so that water can't has to stay within the chambers before

it is released out. Um, I believe for most of these systems, um, they're designed to nearly hold, you know, and infiltrate up to the hundred-year storm.

I I I believe most of the design, um, the lower-end storms, the 2-year storm, the 510, I'm 100% I don't have it in front of me, very little trickles out, um, of the of these systems. Um, because it's good sandy soil out there, it's very easy to infiltrate um, the groundwater. So you're talking about any water that comes off the buildings and any water that comes off the driveways

and any water that comes off the parking spaces.

Yes. Anything that is collected within the drainage system. Um and I and um per storm water standards, no new untreated storm water is allowed to discharge from the site. So the only thing that would you know we wouldn't have to treat um would be walkways or um you know technically like roof does need to be treated but it's a lesser requirement.

Um, and then like other grass areas, other things that don't pollute those types of contaminants, those are allowed to uh run off directly into, you know, off the off the site into the adjacent resource areas.

Thank you.

All right. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to come up and ask any questions or state your opinion as to whether or not you oppose or support this project?

Come on up. Please state your name and address please.

My name is Iris Begley. I live on Cedadell, which is off of Fisher Road.

And I guess my questions and comments are around what we just heard on the infiltration system that is in the aquifer zone. Correct. This this project, this proposed project. So, how is that going to be monitored and tested to be sure that it's not going through? What is the process? I don't know what the process is today even how the town monitors that but then how are they going to monitor this system which

sounds very sophisticated is going to do a pretty good job of you know taking care of this water but how are we going to be sure that it's not going to be contaminating the aquifer and the wells in the area that's what I'd like to have a little bit more discussion around it's a very good question we've heard it before in other projects people ask us but I'll let this gentleman explain

okay um so according According to the stormwater standards, we're in a zone two um re uh wellhead protection zone.

Um per their guidelines, what we have to do is we apply a pre-treatment is a more intensive design practice. So that's why the additional as I had discussed these water quality units that are before the infiltration chamber systems and then additionally the isolation rows. So per the storm water standards we have to get 44% TSS removal in normal storm water guidelines and everything to that extent

um like if we weren't in that zone 2 we would not have needed to install the water quality units and we would not have needed to have the isolation row those were additional factors that played into um you know due to the zone 2 that we are in. So um we are meeting the standards and and going above and beyond um that which is required by the mass D stormwater standards. Um and then

the project itself um within the storm water we have an operation and maintenance guideline plan uh within the report that requires these systems be maintained cleaned out on a regular basis. um you know either depending on the system it's the amount of sediment that builds up if there's any oils gases or g you know seen within them they're supposed to be inspected on you know again depending on the unit and that on

a regular basis. So the idea is that we capture anything that would be infiltrating prior to that it actually entering into the infiltration system and then ideally be able to clean that out on a regular basis. there's an operation and maintenance plan that the um applicant is required to follow um you know perpetually um associated with the um approval of the site.

So, so the town monitors this. Is that correct? And if there's some type of an issue, then what happens?

Well, I'm sure there's enforcement. The thing is, I don't know who directly enforces I don't know if it's the building inspector or DPW or maybe a conjunction of both, but um I've heard that very same explanation at least a couple dozen times. Mhm.

Because this is not new to new construction type proposals. Um, so we we've we've heard that before, but the enforcement of it, I don't know. But I'd like to think that either our building inspector or the DPW um they do periodic reviews because this is not the only there are many sites in town that have these installed.

Sure.

May not be to this extent because of the location that this is in the aquifer district, but we do have I thought it was the board of health at one time.

Was it the board of health? I'm Well, you got the the dire Mr.

Barber.

Barber.

Barbara Tim. Barbara, um I'm sorry. If you could come up and explain who it is that actually monitors these or inspects them and how regularly it may be done.

Good evening, Tim Barbara, director of public works. So, uh the the Department of Public Works does do all the inspections on the on the installation.

Um and then, uh operation and maintenance as the gentleman uh mentioned as is required. And then through our MS4 permit, um w with a with the EPA, we're required to uh also uh report on any any operation and maintenance. So we we would do per periodic checks as well.

So you go door to door on occasion to find out and ensure that they're actually having and following the maintenance plan.

Correct.

Yep. We also do you know uh open air systems as well for detention ponds and and infiltration basins which they have here as well.

Correct.

Okay. So, it's DPW and I would presume that someone who specialized in this signs off that they've gone to the premises and they've checked it and it's working properly and it's properly maintained.

Yes. And we also work alongside with our with our consultant, our storm water consultant as well.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Is there anyone else that would like to come forward and ask any questions or speak as to their position on this uh petition?

All right, Mr. Chair, I just um I've just been tracking as you've been going through the hearing process um any comments that um Mass Housing put in the site eligibility letter for the project.

Okay.

Just to see whether everything's been covered. Um most most for example the traffic studies etc. that's happened the you know civil design. Um there we we already talked there was a comment in here about the applicants encouraged to work um to address concerns providing safe connections to existing sidewalks. So we talked about that earlier. Um, and then there was the applicant should engage with the

municipality's fire department. And I'm I'm sorry if it's it's already posted and maybe I missed it, but I I didn't know if there's if any letters had been obtained from the fire district for the project as far as, you know, the fire trucks making can make their turn.

Yeah, I think there's an exit area.

Maybe you can speak to us about that, right? just see do you have anything in writing from the fire chief from the applicable fire district that they are comfortable with the fire truck circulation all that I just trying to check the box here um yeah I mean I know there has been discussions because there was a conversation about the entrance access here um to this I do not recollect or

recall any specific writing component I don't know um if Rick or Mirror if you guys recall anything specifically that we've received um So, um, that is it.

Yeah, I I do believe there was discussions with Yeah, I I I can't say I guess I I don't have that history.

Is it is it possible so that the board has it for the file to be able to state that the the fire chief for the fire district has reviewed the plans and is is comfortable and if they have any um you know, yeah, I I wouldn't want to speak out of usually fire department. So, we we'll have to confirm that, I guess.

Okay. because sometimes they'll get the letter and they'll say we need a new fire hydrant or you know or it's fine or there's so we just I think that's just one thing that's one of the bullet points here in the site eligibility letter to Yeah. Before we go to the next one, can we just check with our consultant? Did you happen to have any communications with the fire?

No, I didn't reach out directly to the fire department.

Is there anything here that you find that might be somewhat concerning given I don't know given the length of the apparatuses that we may have for that particular district?

I hadn't actually they because they also had the designated uh fire exit lane there. Uh there were numerous truck turning templates as you can see there's one here with the apparatus and there were fire hydrants spread throughout the property. Um but I I do like the comment about just closing it up with a letter from the fire department.

Okay. Okay. And then um and I think these may have all been touched upon, but it's the applicant should be prepared to address municipal comments including detailed plans for snow storage. Did we cover snow storage or they showed on any of the plans?

What kind of storage? I couldn't hear snow storage after this past year. It might be re might not happen for another 10 years, but yeah.

Is there a snow storage plan?

Uh yeah, we do show um what what we like to the way that I often describe is most snow storage will be placed into the adjacent landscaping area. That's what happens for 90% of storms, right? Uh that we we've dealt with. But then we do have years like this um where we do end up with an overburden of snow. Um we what we propose is that you know you can

see I call out here along the frontage right an overburdened snow stockpile area. Okay. Um we do typically try to um include you know those in a couple of other locations. Uh that's a pretty big swath there. Um and then in the storm water management report we also outline that you know snow should be stored in there if it is not allowed to be into the adjacent landscaped areas. Um if it

becomes, you know, that overburdened snow storage area becomes um overpowered by the amount of snow, then it will be trucked off site um and and paid for by the apartment, you know, um as such as needed.

Okay. Then the next item was landscaping, but I think we they mentioned already there'll be a a plan a later plan. Um paving I think was covered. Isn't there one they suggesting post approval a final landscape plan?

I I didn't see was that with the waiver?

I don't remember. Actually, there was another question for uh I have a question for Mr.

Oh, absolutely. Uh so uh I know with other applications there was there were uh waiver requested uh for storm water uh design and for some of the civil that to be provided after the if the project is approved. Uh do you think what's the percentage of the civil plans at this time with with the storm war? You think at the 100% or close to 100% do they need to do anything past

Let's say we voted on this either in in favor or not or do they have to provide more information on the storm water? Do they have to go back for calcs for any additional details that they have to do or you think they're pretty I mean I know with the 40B they don't have to provide 100% plans at this time anyways.

We understand that I just trying to understand what other plans to be coming later. I mean, is it the landscape is one of them or uh the uh I it's one one of them. Landscape.

I was letting you finish. Yeah.

Okay.

Yes, landscaping is is one of them.

Was that a wa I didn't Yeah. And with the waivers I didn't see storm water they asked is there any waivers? I know the town has supplemental um requirements on phosphorus removal. I haven't heard anything about that. Is that is that coming after or this is we have you have it in the in the in the storm water. Okay. So are they done?

The plans are pretty far along. I I will admit that there are um a few things that are required post approval. Uh that sorry that would be recommended to be provided post approval. updated landscaping plan, some site lighting calculations, uh verification on some things, final details for construction, um some grading, snow was a a comment that I had made. Uh they had mentioned exactly what he just said. I would

probably say we want to get some more detailed information on on snow removal during major events post approval.

Um which many facilities have to had to deal with that with 37 inches of snow down here, I'm sure. Um, but in regards to storm water, many uh if not all, I'm flipping through the comments right now have been addressed in in uh resolved.

Uh there was uh a waiver on large caliper trees being shown on the existing conditions plan. Uh but that was uh the only thing that really isn't storm water related per se.

So you feel comfortable basically with the civil and the storm water. They're at good stage right now. Yeah, correct. I will say that um I do, you know, they did it was an easy conversation to be had in regards to meeting the storm water bylaw in town which goes above and beyond the state standards uh and the fact that they were easily able to comply with that requirement.

Okay. Thank you. And and then with respect to the waivers plus so three categories waivers, post approval if approved, submissions and then conditions is um you know if if the board is ready at the next hearing. um could be the topic of the next hearing to walk through those walk through the waiverss list and the staff and peerreview can provide their recommendations as they've done for other projects etc. So that's

something um if the board's ready could be dealt with at the next meeting.

Have we final? I don't think have we finalized all the traffic concerns.

So my understanding on the traffic and I know you're not the traffic engineer, but you work with them. Um but my understanding is all the back and forth has happened. They've gotten as they've gotten to where they are. Um I believe, but I'd have to go back and double check. I didn't have it with me today.

the last set of comments back and forth that there was this open issue about um you know the the connections safe connections to existing sidewalks, crosswalks, etc. Uh we'd have to check I will um I'll have to go back and check the um the last round of peer review comments back and forth between their engineer and your engineer. Um, but I believe that that the recommendations of the traffic

consultant are are in those letters and they agreed to it, I believe. Right.

The recommendation.

Yeah. I I don't want to quote you, but I thought you had said you thought that things were had been closed out in the sense that there had been at least an agreement on where everything is, right? So, not that it's all 100% met.

There were two more points of analysis that they were going to conduct, were they not? They do.

They did that. Yes, they did.

Yeah, they did that.

They already did it.

I think that was discussed at the last hearing that we had the I think it was more some striping and signage on uh Oh, yeah. Little uh Lucy, right? And I think that those I agreed. I think and some, you know, Yeah. We're concerned about no parking signage as well along Lucy Little Road, right?

So, if if you can help Yeah. Yeah. So, um we were amendable to conditions um placed by the board for that those signage. Um again, from what was last dictated over to me, we had sent comments back to Nichch. Um and I again am not the traffic engineer on this. Um but they have not indicated to me that there was any additional comments that came back. I you know, we we would have coordinated and and

resolved a submission together. So, um that's why I uh made that statement.

Again, I'm not the direct traffic engineer. I'm site, drainage, storm water, um, and those components. So, um, we will coordinate with, um, our consultant after this and make sure that they coordinate with niche um, to make sure that everything is resolved there.

Um, you know, I do have the traffic stuff, the again, if the board is amendable, you know, we are the applicant is amendable to adding no parking signage, all of that if you know, conditioned. Um, you know, and and we can work through that. Yeah, those those were concerns that some of the immediate neighbors were had uh especially the people that were south that were south of the project.

Yeah.

So, returning to the site eligibility letter, it um mail mail delivery, is that going to be inside each building or is there one central location or got to be formal here? Uh Rick Lincoln.

So they're in the amenities building is generally where we put them. If there is no amenities building, we'll put them inside each building, but post office kind of likes that one central area. So and and then the one other, it's not in the site eligibility letter, but it's come up on all the projects and maybe it was discussed and I apologize if I'm forgetting is the school bus stop. Is there a school bus stop?

Yeah. Um maiden sir sir during the last uh discussion it was that the you know the school uh the bus will be stopping out in front of the property. Um again I if it's you know a minimum you know if the board would like to condition a bus stop be put within the town right ofway along the frontage of the property um then we or if you tell me right now I will add it to our

plans moving forward. Um, you know, say same thing with if if that that is definitively something the board would like added to the plans, we can um, you know, again, either condition and or, you know, add as requested.

Well, I don't want to add it for the sake of adding it if it's going to cause additional concerns with traffic or with safety. I don't know if there's enough space for the bus to actually veer to the right, stop, you know, have its flashes on, ensure that children can get on and off the bus. Um, and obviously if that were going to happen, we'd have to coordinate it to ensure that it's in

some proximity to the crosswalks if there are any children getting off the bus and going to go south rather than going into the subdivision north.

So, so I don't want to just ask for something for the sake of asking it and it makes things less safe than what they otherwise could be.

Is it something that perhaps the applicant's traffic engineer could look at the locations and propose the safe location for I think Mr. Gabriel wanted to chime in on that. Is there something you have for a suggestion?

Not a suggestion, sir, but uh to to go along with your point. I just heard the idea of a bus uh stop in the rightway and and I echo your concerns there about traffic safety and having a structure in the rightway uh without having proper review by the traffic engineer on that.

I think I like the idea of a condition to review a location for one um whether on the property or adjacent to the property there because sometimes the fact that the bus will stay right in the middle of the roadway and stop traffic is probably the safest way to handle it, right?

But I don't know. I'm not an expert in that.

It's why they have the stop signs on the bus. Exactly. Y Okay. So those I the other items that were in the site eligibility letter like the environmental remediation overview, the applicant did that a few hearing a couple of hearings ago. Um so I believe as far as the comments in the site eligibility letter, it appears that um they've been touched upon by the board in all the hearings and some of them are

going or to be resolved, but they've at least all been discussed or touched upon.

So this one initially seemed to be moving the slowest, but yet it's actually proceeding along.

Unless you go past the traffic and the civil disaster.

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

All right. There not appearing to be anyone. Are there are there any further iterations of the plans that you were planning to submit or you have submitted everything?

Yeah. So I mean we got um those last set of comments last week um which was uh just an initial like change to the cover. I I actually have those you know very just clerical things um we can supply you know given the short period of time from last Thursday to today we didn't want to you know submit hard copies you know given there if there was additional changes um but it it's just

you know three or four sheets uh that would be supplied we can package up and provide a a final full hard copy submission to the town upon request Mr. Chair, I think it would be helpful um for the peer reviewers and the staff that are reviewing the waiverss and proposed conditions to have a full set all with one revision date on it. That could be the set on which they would be

making recommendations to the board. If that makes sense.

That makes sense to me.

Yeah.

Whenever.

Yeah. And we'll we can pull them together.

All right. And you would reference the the approval to that set anyways, you know.

Right. So that's why I think having one one set with one revision date which is everything.

Yeah.

Right.

Okay.

Yeah. We just for ease submitted just the individual sheets that just showed like the number of units on the car and the rest of the set exactly the same. Didn't even confuse.

Base 17 is fine. We don't need to get the full big sets, right?

Yeah. Hold on one second, Mr. Gabriel.

Yeah, just one question comment on that.

If we could if they submit one that last set of plans, if we could just make sure we get a a letter or a statement just what has changed on that plan so that all the engineers don't need to comb through the details again.

That'll save time.

Save money. Um so a as as the um staff and peer reviewers have done on other projects, the thought would be to take the wa the most current waiver list that was submitted the most whatever that most recent is and then similarly add a column where the recommendations of the staff and peer reviewers are inserted and then walk through that with the board at the next hearing. Um, when is the next hearing on this,

Michelle? Is that proposed for April 30th?

Thursday, April 30th.

Okay.

But that would also give time if the board would like to pull together um kind of a a draft of proposed conditions to start discussing as well.

Y and do that on right currently. So from a timing perspective, the applicant had already provided the board with an extension of the date that you're required to close the hearing. That current extended date is Thursday, May 14th. So um absent any further extensions, which um at this point may not be needed, um then the board would be required to close the hearing no later than May 14th. You then under the

regulations have another 40 days to finalize the decision and file it with the town clerk. But during that period of time, they couldn't be public hearing. So you couldn't get input from the applicant or the public or anyone else. So, um I don't know if if if if we're a if we're able to work all pull everything together, meaning myself with your consultants and staff, um to review and discuss all that on April 30th.

And then if the board is able to meet, I don't know what your schedule is for May, on May 14th, then that would be time for the board to review it, give feedback, for the applicant to review, give feedback, and then work through those, you know, questions, concerns, issues on waiverss and conditions May 14th. I'm making that up. If that works for the board, I don't know. Um, you know, so that that that's a proposed

schedule for the week of the 14th, Thursday.

The Thursday.

So anyway, that's just a suggested schedule for the board to consider.

Well, I guess we'll touch upon more of that on the 30th, but I at this point, I'd like to see what the waivers are, all the waivers, and if we can stop putting together and I like the fact that you want some, you know, whatever issues are still there's some suggestions coming from Yeah.

the peer consultants. Uh, I like that.

And then maybe we could already start putting together a draft of conditions, right?

Okay.

I'm going to sort of lean on you for that.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah. I'm going to pull together from all the different Yes.

Okay.

Water and sewer. Is that next? Uh, I'm sorry.

The water and sewer. What is that? Uh, we're having I don't know if Mr. Barber could give an update on that. Sorry, Mr. Barber.

If that's okay, Mr. chair. He would know better than me.

Well, I don't want to put him on the spot, but that's within his purview.

Yes. So, I I can say that uh Stantech had issued a draft u memorandum u for the peer review. Uh so, we had sent it back with some comments and we received it back today. I had sent it to Michelle today. So, um, you know, we it'd be good a good idea, uh, after the the applicant, you know, reviews those comments, uh, we could meet with the with the peer review or consultant and

and go over any any issues. I know there are there are concerns with uh I think three pump stations in the general area um sewer pump stations and uh directly out front is a force main that was installed by the Cedars assisted living uh complex that pumps all the way down to Morton Avenue. Um so that force main is also a concern for capacity as well of our north pump station and uh

wastewater treatment facility. So, you know, all those uh impacts to those facilities would like to be evaluated.

All right.

This is all you could say, right?

That's it. Yep. And uh I on the memo it just states that additional information is is needed for further review for both uh uh domestic and fire flow for water and as well as the sewer flows. Any questions on that, gentlemen?

All right. Thank you.

No, you're welcome.

All right. Um, so representative, you want to come up? Uh, just so that we got to pick another date, right? We already have you penciled in for April 30th. That seem like a good date for you folks.

Works for us, right? Yeah, I think that's that. April 30th. I think we're going to work on getting, you know, a nice list of the waiverss and what they are and I guess from page to page. Is that how they're going to you're going to do them?

Yeah. Um, yeah, I think you guys have been supplied the waiver list. Um, so yeah, on this one.

Yeah, we have we have we have the list.

Another one from another.

They're all merging at this point. I I Yes, it's been Is that all of them?

Yeah, that's all of them.

Um, that that's the complete list. And um I don't I don't think there was anything missed.

Not as bad.

Yeah. Well, I thought I was looking atund and something just this weekend.

So for another site, right?

Right. So that's why saying that hopefully won't take too long for peer review and staff to take a look at. And that's why we may also in because it's a it's a decent amount of time between now and April 30 have to pull together conditions and everything too because it's not too it's not too heavy of a list right compared to the other one that we were looking at.

Okay. So I guess the 30th won't be a problem unless do we have another date that would be available? no case.

Okay. So, we put on for the 30th. Well, they've always been very very cooperative in working with us if something were to come about and whatever else.

So, gentlemen, if we're okay with the 30th, we'll put it on put you on for the 30th for the next hearing date.

I'll entertain a motion. Gentlemen, I make a motion that we continue comprehensive permit ZCMP25-2 to April 30th at 6:00.

Yes. Here in this building, correct?

Yes.

All right.

Second that motion.

All in favor?

I I The eyes have it.

See everyone on the 30th of April.

All right. Moving on to the next portion of tonight's meeting. It's the administrative portion of the meeting.

The first matter we have on is review and approval of administrative minutes of January 8, 2026. Folks, I'd ask if you could just keep the speaking down or the talking to very minimal. We're still in session.

Review and approval administrative minutes of January 8th, 2026. Gentlemen, I have nothing to add.

I have nothing. Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we approve the administrative minutes of January 8th, 2026 as written.

Second.

All in favor? I I You guys have it. Review and approval of special permit minutes 25-5, State Road map 163, lots 31, 32, and 35.

I have nothing to add.

I have nothing, Mr. Chair.

Do I, Gentlemen? I make a motion that we approve the minutes of the special permit ZSP-25-5 for State Road map 163 lots 31 32 and 35 as written.

Second.

All in favor?

I I I the eyes have it. Review and approval of use variant ZAV 25-8 minutes State Road 163 lots 31 32 and 35.

I have nothing, Mr. Chair. I have nothing to add.

Dr. Agai, any any comments?

No. Thank you.

I make a motion we approve the minutes of use varants EAV-25-8 for State Road map 163, lots 31, 32, and 35 as written.

Second.

All in favor?

I I I The eyes have it. Review and approval of variants ZAV2-9 minutes state road 163 lots 31 32 and 35.

I have nothing to add.

I have nothing to say. Neither do I.

Doctor, I make a motion that we approve the minutes for varian zav-25-9 state road map 163 lots. Is this the right one?

Yeah, you did. 31 32 and 35 as written.

Second. All in favor?

I I I the eyes have it. Review and approval of variance zav 25-14 minutes zero state road map 53 lot 12.

I have nothing, Mr. Chair.

I have nothing to add, Mr. Chair.

None. Thank you.

I make a motion that we approve the minutes for Z variance K ZAV-25-140 State Road map 53 lot 12 as written.

Second.

All in favor? Uh I I the eyes have it. Review and approval of variance ZAV 25-12 minutes of 1 Cleveland Street map 117 lot 169.

I have nothing, Mr. Chair.

I have nothing to add.

Neither do I.

I make a motion that we approve the minutes for variance case ZAV-25-12 for one Cleveland Street map 117 lot 169 as written.

Second. All in favor?

I. The eyes have it. Wow.

Next is review and approval of comprehensive permit permit ZCMP-25-1 minutes for 970 Tucker Road.

I have nothing to add.

I have nothing, Mr. Chair.

I make a motion that we approve the minutes of comprehensive permit ZCMP-25-1 for 960 Tekk Road as written.

Second.

All in favor?

I I The eyes have it. Last is review and approval of comprehensive permit ZCMP-25-3 minutes for Zero Hathaway Road.

I have nothing, Mr. Chair.

I have nothing to add.

I make a motion that we approve the minutes for comprehensive permit ZCMP-25-3 minutes zero Hathaway Road as written.

Second. All in favor?

I I I the eyes have it. So, that completes everything we have on tonight's agenda, gentlemen. Uh, is there any other business? Any old business that we'd like to discuss or any new business?

Nothing. I have nothing, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Agai, any old business or new business?

Thank you. All right. There not being any business, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. Gentlemen, I make a motion to adjurnn.

I second that motion. All in favor? I I The eyes have it.