Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting - March 23, 2026

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

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I'd ask that we all remain standing for a moment of silence uh for our soldiers who are in harm's way in the Middle East in honor of their service.

Thank you.

I haven't done it. We'll just make sure we put it up the record.

All right. All right. So, I'd like to announce that our next scheduled meeting is on April 6th um of next month at 6:00 p.m. at here at town hall. And that hearing is for the Hathaway project on Haway Road, which is another 40B project. We will have another hearing on this matter on April 13th.

Um for this the uh the Hawthon 40B project and that's going to be at the high school and that one's going to be um at the high school that one will be at the high school auditorium on April 13th and the reason for that is there's a conflict because the uh select board will be meeting here in this room and the other meeting that we have with the 40B is

Sherbrook Farms and that will be held on April 30th at 6 o'clock here at town hall at room 304.

I also would like to announce that this meeting is being recorded by Dartmouth Community Media. And now moving on to the public hearing portion of tonight's meeting. And we only have one matter on this evening, which is comprehensive permit ZCMP 25-1, which was continued from February 12, 2026.

The petitioner applicant is Paul Cussen.

The owner is Bliss Investors LLC. The subject property is 970 Tucker Road, also known as map 46, lot 2. It's located in the single residence B district and this matter was legally advertised on August 7th and August 14th of 2025.

And we've already waved the reading of the abutters list. In this particular case, the petitioner is seeking a comprehensive permit pursuant to Mass General Law 40B section 20 through30 and the comprehensive permit guideline 760 CMR56 from the Massachusetts General Laws and Damoth zoning bylaws. The petitioner applicants proposing a development on approximately 56.3 acres to be known as the residences at Hawthon

to be located at 970 Tucker Road. The development will have a total of 147 homes units.

I think it's been changed. I think it's 100. Where are we at now?

138.

138. We're 138 units. Some of which will be single family and 30 duplex units. I believe we'll get this has changed as the prog as this uh pro process has moved forward. So they reduced the numbers and I don't know the actual allocation but that'll be brought to us I think very shortly if you ask the uh petitioners. I'm not going to read through all the code sections that they're seeking relief from. Um but just

to we usually start the these hearings by giving the petitioner an opportunity to come forward and bring us up to speed as to what's transpired since the last time um they were before us.

Okay. I can I also give the board an update? Sure. So current tonight you're the board is operating under an extension of the deadline to close the public hearing. Currently that deadline expires tonight. If um a further extension is granted then the meeting on the 13th will be a public hearing. If they do not grant a further extension, the board will still be meeting on or assuming you vote to do so on April

13th, but it will be just a discussion of the board with me to go over the conditions and discuss and debate the conditions amongst yourselves. So, if the public hearing closes tonight, that means there's can be no more peer review input, no more applicant input, no more public input after tonight. If it gets extended, then of course all of those things still apply. Um, so that's that's

the time frame that the board is um working under tonight.

Okay. Well, I think what we have to go over tonight is we're going to have to go over some of the waiverss that they're seeking, right? If I'm not mistaken, and also the conditions that we'd be imposing as well.

Right. So, what's proposed for tonight is, as you know from doing prior 40bs, there's a lot of conditions that may be similar across different projects because they're more general types of conditions, but then there's project specific conditions that are recommended. And so what is suggested to the board for tonight is to walk through the project specific conditions that have been recommended or have come out

of during the public hearings or that the board may have made note of um regarding traffic, civil and storm water um and uh water and sewer. I think those are the major topics and then there were some various other issues um including the emergency assets etc that have been discussed at public hearings and I've summarize those for the board in the um in the outline that you have there. So

that that was the going to be the suggested process for tonight is to walk through all of those and then at your next meeting on April 13th at that time you would have full-blown detail every condition and in advance to be able to read through them all including the general ones. You have a sense if that public hearing is still open the applicant will get a copy in advance. If

it's not they won't. um and and then you know get whatever final feedback from the board. The if the hearing closes tonight, the deadline to file the decision will be May 1st.

So that's the that's 40 days.

So you know it could be discussion tonight of the specific discussion on the 13th of the entire body of conditions and then the board does have a meeting on April 30th. the the decision could be finalized for that meeting to be voted and signed on the 30th and then filed on the 1st.

I think we have another matter on for the 30th though, right? But if the but if if the board was just down to the you will you will have gotten the final version of the decision and if you're just down to voting it, it wouldn't take up too much of the board's time on the 30th.

So just trying to keep work within the meetings you have so that you don't have to try to okay fit in extra meetings. Um, so we don't have an actual working draft of all the conditions that we would need to consider on this right now as we sit here today.

No, at this at tonight it's the just the site specific related to traffic um traffic civil storm water etc. and and we can there um there's a summary in the in the memo and then the letters are here and we have um we have your uh civil peer reviewer Mark Gabriel's here to walk through his letter. Um DPW director Tim Barber is here to talk about the water and the sewer and I was

going to summarize um the traffic the recommended traffic conditions.

Okay.

All right. So, who you suggest I I call upon first?

Like attorney Talerman would like your attention after. Oh, we can we can whichever if do you have a whoever you want to hear from if you want me to sit and we'll start to hear from you. You can bring us up to speed as to what's transpired since the last time you came before us.

Right. So, I don't think from our end as that much has transpired over on Friday.

We we saw in the online portal anyway um two peerreview pieces of information, one from DPW, one from Stantech um and then today NICH provided one as well. We've taken a as much of a look as we can given the shortness of time. They seem more along the lines of the kind of things that you would put as a requirement for us to take care of in final plans. I didn't see any showstoppers or anything in

there. Christian Farland is here to answer questions if there are any technical issues or address those issues. So, it it looked to me that they pro all provided kind of a comprehensive set of recommendations that might form the basis of things we have to take care of in that final plan set. So I don't we don't have any new information based on that and given the shortness of time obviously we didn't prepare a memo

addressing each one of those things. So um we're here just to answer questions or to offer comment or work. We haven't seen any draft conditions or any anything like that. Um so we can't comment on that either. Um we're happy to but we haven't haven't seen those. We think we've provided all the evidence unless there's anything that's unforeseen that requires us to go back and sharpen our pencils. We'd suggest a

closure of the the hearing tonight. But we're open-minded to what happens here tonight. But our position right now would be that we'd close tonight so you you all can get at your deliberation when you get back together again. And I am inclined, but it's just that I I think that it would behoove you folks to consider continuing so that we could have the back and forth dialogue to ensure that you know these conditions

are something that are going to be um that would work for you that would work for us so that we can streamline the process that the next time that we we're here uh which I don't know I guess the next day would probably be the 13th but let's see how far we get tonight to and on that issue and it's always your call as as a board as long as we're not intro

introducing new facts. We could respond to the conditions themselves as to the form of them or the sufficiency. Those aren't new facts. So even after you close the hearing, but that's your call.

The board has every right to not share with us a draft during the deliberation phase, but I leave that to to you and your council. So I think I would rather share a draft.

Right. I my only concern with if if the hearing is closed and well then we can't take any input from any right so then well you know if they if they're here and they're answering questions about the conditions or asking a question about the condition but then does that mean members of the public would not be able to do the same so I which they wouldn't so that's that's the

if by doing it the way Mr. town suggested, which may be legally appropriate, but it would it would mean that members of the public would not be able to engage the same way with the board. And so, you know, that's that's kind of the downside of doing it after, you know, having that conversation after the hearings closed.

All right.

And like I said, that's your call. It's perfectly legal to do it, but I understand it. You get to run your meeting the way you like to run your meeting. As a matter of practice, when we just do regular special permits and variances, when we read in some findings that we're putting together, suggested findings for the board members to to consider and maybe a proposed decision just for suggestive purposes, we always

leave the public hearing open for the very purpose of ensuring that if there's something that because sometimes we make mistakes. We may refer to the wrong parcel or whatever it may be. That gives the applicant an opportunity to actually step up and say something or a neighbor that may have a concern about something to step up and say, "Well, I'm a little concerned about this condition or that

so that maybe we can tweak it that works for you, works for us." So that, you know, we're taking and balancing what we need to do, which is the local concerns versus the need for affordable housing.

And and I think that's an excellent practice. It's part of the reason why we had hoped to maybe receive some draft conditions at this point. We haven't.

No, I mean I get that. But I've worked on a ton of 40B permits, so I'm happy to dodge and we have a volunteer board. There's almost so much time that we have.

No, no, no question.

I dedicated a big chunk of yesterday's rainy afternoon to really go through some of the stuff. We're looking at the waiverss and all of that. So, and I'll speak to my clients, too. Um, but that that's where we are right now.

And I just wanted to be candid about it.

But we're here tonight to help answer any questions that you have and go over any of the issues. I've tried to look as best I can, as has Christian, at the peer review. I've kind of re um looked at some of the stuff on the more legal issues. So, I don't think again there's any showstoppers here, but uh obviously we want to be responsive.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Mr. chair. Um if if it's okay with the board, what I can do is kind of walk through um the outline and then um kind of get to the more specific. So um basically without getting into a lot of detail, it's just a basic outline of how the conditions are going to roll, you know, play out in a decision. There's a regulatory conditions that, you know, require the 25% in perpetu perpetuity.

The board doesn't have to require perpetuity, but as a general rule, boards do because if you're going to bypass zoning um for the purposes of affordable housing, you know, it's usually preferable that they those 25% remain affordable in perpetuity. There is a um local preference, I'm going to talk about that in a little more detail that the board can uh put in a condition in. Um there's a regulatory agreement

that's part of every 40B project. Um the next part is subdivision conditions. So this is this is different than the other two 40Bs that the board's reviewing because this is actually a subdivision of land with new roadways. So the subdivision control law with the which is a state statute and the planning board's rules and regulations come into play. So that there will be a special section that um is the submission of

everything required under the subdivision control law since it's a state law. It does not it's not overridden by 40B. So, there will need to be a definitive subdivision plan. Um, there will need to be assurityity or a guarantee pursuant to the subdivision control law. Um, there's going to be, as we understand it, and this may be questions for the applicant as we go along, it it appears that there's going

to be both a homeowners association and a condo a condo association for the duplexes. So, it might be helpful to understand how those are going to interplay with each other. Um, and then there's the submission of updated complete plans and project materials.

And that's where kind of the technical re review is going to come in with um, Mark Gabriel's here, Tim Barber's here to kind of go through all of the updates and post approval submissions as they've been referred to. Um, and then there's general conditions about prior to construction, during construction, post construction etc.

um that will need to be addressed and then finally there's there's the waiverss. So that's that's how the decision is going to lay out. Um and so the the first topic I don't know we we don't have to go in order um I have here on page three but I have uh roadway traffic and circulation first and I'm happy to just go in order if that is simplest. Okay. So, um, neither of the

traffic peer uh traffic engineers are here tonight, but, um, I did touch base with Jeff Bandini from NICH who provided peer review letter for the board. And what you have is the, um, original transportation impact assessment that was done um, on behalf of the applicant from Vaness Associates um, and the traffic engineer Jeffrey Durk. He on page 28 through 30 had a number of recommendations. Um these it most of

these are being addressed kind of in the other plans but I'll call out some of them. So for example we'll talk about the emergency access in a as a separate conversation. Um there's a couple of there conditions about uh stop signage, stop signs, pavement markings, etc. Uh niche niche engineering's um peerreview letter does make recommendations on conditions for those. So those are where two, you know,

two a couple of things where the traffic engineers are in agreement. Um there's reference in here to the need to have a widened sidewalk area at the entrance for a bus stop. Obviously bus stop was discussed during the hearings as being needs to be accommodated. Um there's also some recommendations here regarding drive aisles etc. Um on the f next page there's you know crosswalks ADA compliant ramps for sidewalks etc.

um you know sign appropriate signage um traffic related signage and then uh dealing with snow accumulations to make sure that there is safe site distances.

So those are the recommendations that came from um the applicants traffic engineer um their their discussion and the board may recall this about you know there's that route six um mass dot potential project etc. You know in their original they had no recommendation for anything offsite.

Um we'll talk about that a little more in niche engineering's letter. And then there's um this is pretty standard um you know currently for all projects is a transportation demand management. It's called a TDM plan and it's when the applicant puts together a package for every new owner on trying to make to make available to them information about how to kind of best use either pedestrian, bicycle, or other public

transportation options to reduce traffic. So there's a number of those that overlap um with the niche engineering letter and um proposed to include in the specific conditions for this project.

the the niche engineering then kind of dug in a little bit on um some of Jeffrey Dirk's and there's a letter dated January 7th, 2026 from Jeff Bandini. Um and his first recommendation is on page three.

Where are you right now?

I'm sorry. So now there's a letter there should have been in your packet a letter from Niche Engineering dated January 7th.

January 7th. the March 23rd one.

So that Yeah, there should be one January 7th and on the right it'll say traffic engineering services.

Let me go have a continue on.

Okay.

It Yeah, it was with the it was with the um one from Jeff Durk. So hopefully but I'll just keep going. Um the first one is um a a recommendation that the applicant perform a comprehensive review of signs, pavement markings, and locations of roadside objects on T Tucker Road between Route 6 and Allen Street and provide recommendations for roadway safety improvements. Um and this is something

that the applicant had committed to in their responses to NICH. Um, this is this is a kind of traffic safety review that the board could require be done before it could be done before building permits are issued for the first unit or at some point before the first CFO etc.

But it's basically to identify potential signage striping etc.

in the existing public way and then work with, you know, DPW um to see if those any of those safety um matters can be implemented in a way to make the travel on the roadway a little clearer and safer for the public.

I'd like to adopt that.

Okay.

Um so when you you're going to draft these um conditions for us, correct?

Yeah. So you're and you're going to take you're going to list all of the ones that have been addressed by all of the peer reviewers that that we've engaged to make the suggestions right?

And then we will review those and see whether or not we think that they're necessary or not necessary and also get input from the petitioner as to what their concerns would be about those cuz like one of the things that comes to mind for me is Tucker Road is a very windy road. Maybe there ought to be bigger or better signage to indicate that there is a curve coming up with better reflective material or whatever

that could be to make the road a safer roadway because of the additional burden that may be placed with the traffic for that serves this particular purpose.

And that's what the purpose of a traffic safety audit is.

Okay. So um but that's only one example of right okay if I may miss I think all the gentlemen just come in. So whatever that uh concerns or issues they're not they were not addressed so far I think there's a lot of things that to be done with the future you know it would be included as as uh with the with the conditions as the uh special conditions.

Yeah. And right so and I think at this hearing we can probably hear from the petitioner which they indicated they have no issues. I'm I'm sure they've seen the peer review. They've seen the DPW review and they they know what the outstanding issues or or concerns that they have to address. Right.

Right. For the most fairness to them they only got this stuff on prior. No, no, I understand.

Some some of them some of them came in and that's part of the reason why we don't have kind of a whole document with them all fully written out is that we knew that there was some final comments coming in from peer review and we wanted to make sure all of that could come in um and so that you know the actual conditions can be as complete as possible. Um okay. Um,

emergency access comes up again in the niche. Well, we will be talking about that separately. Um, again, a lot of a lot of the recommendations in niche are talking about looking at traffic on Tucker Road and Wayey. So for example on page six of their letter there's a recommendation about safety enhancements to regarding speed reduction particularly in the vicinity of friends academy.

So that's on on page six at the bottom there's no numbers on this.

Yeah it's on the top on the top left there should be page numbers.

Got it.

So on the bottom recommend that the town condition the applicant implement speed reduction measures and mobility improvements near friends academy if necessary. Again these are all because it's in the public way. It would have to be in coordination with um DPW, but that's would also be part first identified during a traffic safety audit of these areas and then um you know what working on the implementation.

Continue on. I'm just reading what you what you had just I just wanted to make sure I read it for myself. Thank you.

Yeah, sure. Um, so the the next one is on page eight. Um, the niche follow-up response and this is and this is one of the ones I spoke to Jeff Bandini about today. So this is talking about doing monitoring um for 12 months post occupancy. He he didn't specify in here. So I called him today for clarification. If if we do have an extension the hearing, we can get it

from him in writing. But I did confirm with him by phone today that it would be um after the first phase so that get a sense of once traffic is coming in and out of this intersection. It's not really so much the volume as much as the interaction of the cars coming out of the development with on with traffic on Tucker Road. um and get a sense of you know what other again uh signage,

pedestrian traffic signal timing, those types of things should happen in order to improve the flow particularly right at the project entrance.

So there's a number you'll see this is this is a a response number six um to question to item number six. You'll see as we go through that Niche refers back to that response a number of times. Um the the the the comment on the top of page nine just has to do with having adequate parking around the um the uh the kind of the clubhouse main building.

at this point they're acknowledging they're saying that there is sufficient parking um and they're just um recommending that that parking be maintained um and so that if there's going to be changes or reductions in parking that that should be um reviewed by the town.

Um question when it says that we recommend the town condition that any modifications to the parking supply be documented and presented to the town for approval. when when they say the town for approval, does that mean it's going to come back before us? Does that mean it's before DPW?

Well, it I mean at this he's for this project, most of the parking is going to be at each of the individual homes. So earlier in that section, it's mostly talking about around the clubhouse. Um, so I think there's just a concern that it not be reduced so much that there's not enough parking around the clubhouse or near the mail and then you would have potentially cars parking all over the side street.

I just don't I don't know what it means by town for approval.

Yeah. So for the for the most part, so the way works for modifications, if the applicant wishes to modify the plans post approval, they have to submit a notice to the board and then the board makes a determination. that determination is done at a meeting, not a hearing, as to whether or not the change is substantial or in insubstantial insificant.

Um if it's insubstantial, then you know it can just get dealt with at that public meeting or just allowed. So um if it's something that's deemed substantial, then they would have to come back in. It would be a public hearing. It would be noticed. So um you know, I think that it would be handled.

Um, and I think I think Jeff's wording is just um kind of more a general wording, not necessarily the way you would word it for 40B, but it would be a you know determination of Well, if it says the board for approval, I would understand that. But when it says the town, I don't know which agency.

Yeah, because it may it may it could be the planning director or it could be DV building inspector DPW.

You get to we'll we'll propose it in the conditions something like that. you might want to, particularly where this is is um predominantly a subdivision, you might want it to be submitted to the planning director because he he's most familiar with subdivisions.

Okay.

Okay. On page 11, this is the periodic trimming um on land control to the applicant. This is mainly to just make sure that the the you know plants, trees, etc. are not growing out of control so that it blocks the view for sight distance etc. It's just a safety safety thing. Um the next is on pages 13 to 14 and I I highlighted a little bit on page 14 because to your

point uh Mr. chair. It's talking about the geometry along Tucker Road. Um, and it's it's talking about the safety mitigation. So, that there is a a proposed condition. And the the issue really here is about trying to identify again the signs, pavements, you know, markings, etc. to try to improve information on the road.

signage, etc. Markings for the public traveling on Tucker Road to see if there's some safety and that sa some safety um I'm sorry I'm blanking on the word, but some modification safety modifications as far as signage, etc. That that might be helpful. Um, and so that's that's really again you'll see that it's a there's a lot of um repeat thoughts throughout this and it's all about is is there way are there ways to

improve just the driver experience on Tucker Road to make it clearer and safer is really what the gist of most of these are. Um the the one on that same page where it says see response number six that has to do with the uh 12 the monitoring for the 12 month after 12 months. Um and then you'll see there it's going to start having a number of repeats. Um on page 16

this is where it's talking about the mass.root Route six corridor improvement project because there's potential depending on the timing of this project and given that the route se Route 6 um improved corridor project the timing of this construction may be happening around the same time depending on when they start and so there's a recommendation that there be coordination I would suggest maybe

through the police department on because typically the police department will be involved in all of the traffic mitigation um you know mitigation of dealing with conflicts between con roadway constructions and the PE and the public trying to get to and from where they need to go. So there's just a recommendation of coordination um between construction projects on timing.

All right. Um the next one on 17 again is a um you know kind of a looking again at the post occupancy cons uh condition and seeing whether traffic signal timing at Sloum Road and Allen Street should be adjusted. Again that would be something that would happen after there was already traffic being generated and seeing what the impact on the traffic signals uh would be and that's again

would have to be coordinated with DPW.

Um On page 18, again, this is this is part of the 12-month monitoring. So, you'll start seeing a number of of um kind of references back to items that should be monitored moving forward. Same on page 19.

Um the on page 20 when it's saying see niche response number 18 a couple of times that again is coordinating um construction schedules between you know multiple projects that may be happening at the same time within the town.

On page 21 at the bottom there is a there's a a kind of a request for painting.

You you may have seen it in some intersections. I don't know if how many if they have any of these in Dartmouth, but sometimes you'll have intersections where it'll actually be painted, cross-hatch, do not block to try to keep the uh public from blocking intersections so that you don't end up with gridlock at a four-way. So this is that's what's recommended here is some again would have to be approved through

or you know um kind of coordinated through DPW.

Um I'm hoping that's not going to be necessary.

Yeah, I mean it's a recommendation to try to help prevent certain conditions from occurring. So it's a little proactive, but it's again it's going to be up to um DPW um whether or not to allow that.

the um on page 23 again it's just this selective trimming for safety purposes and um for sight distances and then finally on page um 24 um there was a request by the department police department that two radar speed feedback signs be placed along Tucker Road north and south of the project um for a period of 6 weeks after occupancy.

Um my my recommendation on this is to we can uh check with the um police department as to whether they want that after it's fully built out whether they would want that after phase one. Um we just it's just a matter of timing cuz because it's 138 homes and or units and the applicant indicated they may phase it. So, um we'll just have to confirm whether or not that should be done after

the first phase. There will be in the um in the kind of general construction conditions a requirement that they submit if they're going to do phasing that they submit a phasing plan. Um and there'll be need to be conditions about what which of the infrastructure would need to be completed, you know, with phase one. So, for example, often storm water has to go in at the beginning regardless of how many houses that

you're you're going to be building. So, those those are the um traffic recommendations at this point. And as you can see, for the most part, um, they have to do with trying to manage and improve to the extent possible just the the flow of traffic and safety of traffic on along Tucker Road around the project site.

All right.

All right. So, holding on.

Yep. Um the next is going to be civil storm water and subdivision and um if it's if it's okay with the board then Mr. Gabriel can come up and walk through his letter.

Right. Come on up sir.

Bring this up to speed.

Evening. Mark Gabriel, Niche Engineering, Civil Sight, uh, and storm water peer reviewer. So, um, you have a letter of recommended conditions from us dated, um, March 23rd today.

Yes.

Uh, in here it's about six pages, about 33 recommended conditions.

uh in a second you can let me know how you want to go through it, but basically these conditions pull from our peerreview letter and the response from that letter back uh from uh back in January 7th where uh the applicant stated, you know, that thank you for the comment. We'll address this post approval. So, a lot of those items that were in there are all been, you know, rewritten into this letter as a

condition because it was stated it would be done post approval. Uh what else there is? Um Mr. Gabri, if you could just speak a little bit louder for me, please.

Sure.

Thank you.

Yep. Through here or are you?

No.

Uh and then there is uh other recommended conditions in here uh based on uh discussions as well with the town.

And um so basically a lot of these conditions here you've either uh heard seen one way or another just all written into one neat clean letter here.

Okay.

Can you go over some of them for us?

Some of them.

Yes. Major ones that you feel of most concern.

Um so the it's broken into three parts. It starts with uh part A which is just the plan recommendations. Um these are just highle parts. Part B is more of uh civil recommendations and part C is more storm water recommendations. plan recommendations are more um you know you'll see those more uh administrative type pro processes such as you know uh comment uh A2 or the the second one uh

just submitting for records state and federal permits that the project's required to obtain. Uh again we had that in our peer review letter. They stated that they would do that. Uh so more administrative there. Um, so getting to things that are a little bit more um, let's see, in regards to subdivision regulations on page two of six, uh, there's, you know, comment number recommendation number eight and nine and

10 and so on. They're basically just bringing the plans up to more of a definitive subdivision uh plan that is uh following more of the administrative procedures uh that are written in the subdivision regulations. Uh so explicitly talking about those different sections that are called out in each of those comments. All right. uh when we get beyond those general plan requirements and get into civil

recommendations. Um I think that this was touched on briefly already. Uh I think it's important you know uh number 18 under part B just in regards to soil and erosion and sediment control. Uh this is a large uh will be a large active construction site. Uh the applicant has talked about uh providing construction phasing uh both temporary and permit erosion sediment control measures uh when doing such land

disturbance activities. Those are important to have in place uh and they've talked about providing more information on that. Uh as well as a storm water pollution prevention plan which is a federal requirement from the EPA.

All right.

Uh there is also comment number 19 about additional geotechnical investigations that are recommended uh regarding doing some test pits and borings in uh areas of significant cut and fills uh along the roadway and utility corridors. Again uh already talked to with the applicant about doing that in the uh in regards to the peer review letter I provided previously.

Uh let's see. Um heading into storm water, staying on the same vein, comment number 26 on page four, just doing additional test bits within each of the storm water basins on the project. Uh that is highlighted in here as well. They have done some uh test bits uh but they need to do more uh and they again aware of that in their response to us on January 7th. Um let's

see the uh page five of six uh basically revisions to storm water report and providing design revisions as needed. Uh and this is in regards to uh their um hydra hydraologic and hydraulic analysis uh uh updating their calculations uh for their catch basins and inlet grade capacity uh which was both called out in our previous peer review letter but also uh kind of discussed in the town's storm water regulations.

All right. And that's more uh comment 29 if I didn't say that already. Um, in regards to comment number 29, we did get into the uh local storm water regulations, the Dartmouth regulations, talking about meeting certain sections of those regulations. Um, you know, 29 uh F is an example and narrative on the thermal requirements of meeting those storm water regulations sections of, you

know, 6C5 as written in here. uh as well as pollutant removal standards uh in the regulations under 6D1 as another example. Uh again written in my previous peer reviewview letter as well.

And then heading to the end here uh comment number 30 on page six talking about the operation and maintenance plan providing some clarity on the homeowners association and who's doing what. uh schedules on non-rine maintenance uh and estimated costs for this maintenance.

And then heading down into uh comment number 31 about just easements on these parcels. There are uh storm water conveyance swells that reside on residential lots and those should have easements so that they can be maintenanced properly uh because they are a component of the drainage system.

And uh just getting to the end comment number 33 about the storm water basin that's located um adjacent to the uh North Dartmouth intercepting sewer easement and just having that uh pulled outside of the easements. There was conversations on that at past meetings.

So there's more than that just here, but that's just some of the highlights.

Okay.

All right.

So the Well, actually the question for attorney Murphy um in the uh special conditions or specific conditions. Are you going to list every single recommendation that or you going to reference the uh I'd rather list each list each recommendation.

Okay. Yeah.

Cuz otherwise it's going back and forth.

I tried to do that yesterday and I was like I got to give up on this.

Right. And and so and that and that's why we um we had asked Mr. Gabriel to to put this together.

Okay.

Um because it there was so much detail and in addition to just the peerreview letters and the responses back and forth um as he mentioned and and um if if the board wants to look at the waiver list, we can talk about the updated waiver list at the end. There were a number of items that were on the on the waiver list that you reviewed at the last hearing that all said they weren't

necessarily requests for waivers. They were just said we'll we'll submit these post approval. And so what Mr. Gabriel did was, as he mentioned, pull those all out of there and put them in in this letter, which then I can now take and put into uh into uh decision form for the board. So, I don't have a great deal of of experience in plan approvals, but obviously there are a lot of neighbors

here with concerns. Neighbors to the north, neighbors to the east, and neighbors to the south. And they're all I'm sure many of them are concerned about shedding water onto their properties. There's no condition here to that effect. I presume that there not there possibly because the plan has been put forth in a manner where any water from this particular site is kept on this property and not necessarily

shedding. But I I I rely on you to give me a further explanation on that. And I'm sure there are going to be a lot of ears that are waiting to hear this from you.

Sure. Uh that's that's correct. And I I feel you've mentioned it too in the past. The state storm water regulations don't allow for that increase of flow off the property. their current design shows that they are meeting those requirements on those different watersheds that they have uh delineated on their property. Um I don't feel that is uh needed to be written into the conditions because it is currently meets

that and down the road they are required to meet that per state law.

So based on the way the plans have been presented by the petitioner they accommodate all the water and do not increase any water shedding onto adjoining properties.

That's what we've seen. Yes.

That's what you've seen.

Correct. And the most recent plan that you've seen was dated when?

Oh, I want to say that was a part of the January 7th response to comments.

So obviously if we if one of the conditions is that we approving that particular plan, then that's what they have to adhere to.

Yes. And in addition, there's going to be a condition um that requires them to comply with all of the it goes without saying, but it's standard to include a condition that they comply with all of the state storm water guidelines. And as Mr. Gabriel said, that does not allow them to have water from their site going onto their neighbors property.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

All right.

Okay. So, so the the plan um as we just discussed would be to take um Mr.

Gabriel's proposed conditions and work them into the in the traffic and work them into the decision based on that outline I gave you in the appropriate locations that they the topics that they would cover.

So that outline you provide us is pretty much a framework of what we're going to be working with going forward.

Yes. And that was that was a great starting point utilize.

I thank you for that.

Okay. So the next is um water and sewer and uh Mr. Barber is here um and and what what the board received.

So there was there was a letter from Stantech that was originally received on January 7th. Um the letter that was just received on Friday that states on March 20th, it's it it's almost it's the same letter with a few additions to it. So, it supersedes the January 7th letter.

Um, and um, you know, there's there's a couple there's a lot of background obviously of their analysis, but then there's a few sections with their recommendations. Um, and then there's a letter, a memo from um, Mr. Barber himself that's also March 20th. and I will turn it over to do you want I don't know if you want to start with like just section 2.2.

Good evening. Tim Barber, public works director.

So Stantech um so I kind of reiterate I I had uh issued a letter with comments and some of the some of the comments are from Stant's previous letter that were also on my letter just to make sure that we had it in in time because we didn't get this letter from Stantech until Friday. So um but there's there are identical comments on both letters. Um so in Stantex's uh letter basically

there was some you know detailed technical uh information where on section 2.2 uh on sheet 2.1 they mentioned some clarity on on the drawings that it was difficult to to read some of the uh information from some of the sewer manhole connections uh connecting to the intercepting sewer in the easement. Um I'm sorry, Mr. Barber. I'll just interrupt you for a second. Sure. If if the board there's the letter, the

Stantech letter dated um March 20th. Um Mr. Barber is looking at page four.

Yeah. So he's on page four of that letter. Okay. I'm sorry.

Page four. Sorry. Two. Second.

The comments that he had are in this letter as well, right? And I presume the bullet points that you're going to speak about are the ones that are in your letter.

Yes.

Okay. Y which I have your letter here.

Okay.

and they'll be part of the condition again. Well, obviously we're not going to be duplicitous. We're just going to extract, you know, the ones that you put in here along the ones from Stan. All of them. There you go.

Does your I'm sorry I didn't Does your letter include the new the new items that were coming?

It does not. I sent my letter before we received this letter.

Okay.

But but some of the the comments like you mentioned are the same as the previous letter. Um so you know most of them are technical based on um infrastructure placement uh pipe slopes um for you know recommended pipe slopes from different sewer manholes invert elevations so they so they meet um into the intercepting sewer correctly matching crowns rather than at the invert location at the bottom of the

pipe so there's no uh flow disturbance.

Um also making sure confirming that you know the the details in the in the all the materials conform with uh Department of Public Works specifications.

Um also the you know the storm water basins that do encroach on the the existing north dat sewer intercepting sewer easement are you know you know moved the infrastructure is moved out of the easement and you know any encroachment is is approved by by the DPW by me uh within that sewer easement to make sure that the the access is maintained. But on the plan, if I remember correctly, they had already

moved everything away from that easement. Is that not accurate to say?

No.

There been a slight encroachment at one point, but I think that they've retracted from that.

It's mostly grading.

Just grading, but it was like a what 3 to1 slope that they were putting there.

Correct. Yeah.

Is that something you're in agreement with?

No. No. If there's not an existing 3:1 slope, you don't, you know, say it's an existing, you know, shallower slope and you you now you bring in a 3:1 slope, it it may prohibit access. So basically, they can't make it any worse than it is. Uh they can keep it the same or improve.

What's the natural slope there now?

Uh it varies.

So the the proposed condition is that because as a matter of law, which is kind of outside of permitting, you can't um en encroach or interfere with an existing easement. And so um you know, what's being proposed by Mr. Barber is a condition that to the extent that they want to affect or modify the grades that it would have to be approved um through the DPW director. And I think that would

be appropriate because the board does not have the ability to alter, you know, the town's rights in an easement like no regardless whether it was a 40B, a special permit, it, you know, variance doesn't it doesn't matter because it's a legal right that the town holds and and we met with the applicant's engineer and and they seem amendable to that as well. So, okay. Also u you know when you ask what

the existing uh slope is you know the the existing topography isn't 100% accurate on the site. I know that there are some inconsistencies. So I think in niche's letter as well they they noted on that to uh you know to bring in those those correct contours and uh with a you know a topographical field survey.

And on the water side, which if we if we go to that for them is a showstopper.

Right.

Right. I don't think anything here is a a showstopper.

Uh recommendations for the wateride on uh section 3.5 in the Stantex report. Um they were requesting a fire hydrant at the intersection of of Tucker Road um near the the entrance. um additional hydrants on the the water main loop within the site. Um details on their connections to the to the water main in Tucker Road. Um evaluating uh measures to improve reliability in Fireflow.

Um there's a recommendation to in uh upgrade a section about 300 ft of water man existing 8 in cast iron water man to a 12-in ductal line water man to improve the volume and pressure at this site. I think the the existing 12 inch ends at the C uh Country Club Boulevard intersection currently.

And so the Stantex explanation or uh rationale for why that is needed um in connection with this project is if you look at section 3.5 on page nine, it's the last bullet. There's two paragraphs there.

One second. I get that. All right.

So it's it it it's discuss it discusses the the existing condition but then the the second um the second paragraph talks about the I don't know if Mr. bar if you want to speak to that. The second paragraph talking about the hydraulic modeling indicates yeah that I think it's in the second line the 100 gallon for so they they ran a hydraulic model for this improvement and it it resulted in a

significant improvement in available fireflow capacity throughout the development. Um in in the fireflow availability chart on the previous page, uh there was one one road road B dead end uh which had a a below 1,000 gallon per minute um available fire flow at 20 PSI. Um so this would improve that. And additionally um the the peak flows and demands that were uh calculated for this development

were based on the the development of the residential dwellings and the uh the clubhouse and didn't include any additional uh demands which is which could be during peak times for like irrigation. Um, so that would further, you know, decrease the volume and and uh, you know, pressure availability where the the additional 12-in main would would prevent would, you know, increase that that capacity and volume.

So other other technical uh requested information uh for detailed uh water main utility design call outs for all their infrastructure um confirmation on water man piping services valves hydrants um on the plans fireflow requirements uh written confirmation from the fire department for hydrant spacing for fire hydrant spacing. And then the the last the last item confirms the uh the demand uh including any any

possible irrigation.

So then in that pretty much ends the recommendations for Stantex letter.

If we go to to my memo, I also, you know, speak on some of the technical uh aspects um including including the access easements. So, so we request that a supply an access easement to the town uh to the north intersecting sewer easement for for additional maintenance and and uh repair access through the site once it's developed. You know, there'll be ample ways to access the easement through their site.

Have you spoken to the applicant's engineer about that?

I have. Yeah.

And what was his position?

Uh they were amendable to it.

Okay. We haven't we haven't seen anything on plans or or you know in response in writing yet. So may I ask a question Mr. Chair? So I and I don't I don't want to put attorney on the spot but given that it would involve so given the layout of the design. I don't know if you're aware of this issue because of the north the north dorf intercepting sewer easement runs across

the back of the site. That's what they were just talking about, changes of grade for the drainage basins, etc. But with the layout of all the houses, it's going to affect the town's ability to access that easement. And and Mr.

Farland's aware we spoke at had some other but because it's would be the applicant or the owner granting an easement to the town which doesn't currently exist. It if if the applicant or the owner is amendable to that it would be helpful to get that on the record because obviously it's not a condition the board can just impose that the owner grant an easement. So yeah, I mean subject to physical like

possibility as long as it can be done.

We have like no objection to a condition that says any necessary easements for infrastructure utilities, you know, whether it's DPW or public safety or anything making that a condition and also making it making those easements subject to town councils or special counsel's approval. I mean that that's pretty standard fair. I mean we would expect that if there's a necess a necessity for you to get for the town

to get somewhere on this site or even in a pinch or even have that reflected in any of our association documents that right that's all standard fair. We'd be perfectly accepting of that.

I appreciate that. But you you understand like the board couldn't just start demand right demanding e we just wanted to get it confirmed on the record. So we appreciate your comments. Yeah, these are the kinds of things that you and I both do all the time and kind of grit our teeth a little bit making sure it's okay because you can't like impose those things unilaterally but the project if it's necessary for the

project of course we would. Yeah.

Thank you.

you know, additionally uh same with any of the storm water easements to access and and uh maintain uh the operation of any of the the the storm water basins and swelles and I I think you know Mr.

Gabriel also spoke about that and we did speak about that with the applicants engineer and they also seemed amendable to that.

All right.

Um just another thing you know exist any existing utilities that are that are on site currently. Um, you know, everything should be shown on the on the existing conditions plan and then any any existing utilities that are planned to be abandoned uh will need to be abandoned back to the main and uh per department of public works specifications and those should be also shown on the plan to you know where they

they plan to abandon those.

Is that current building now tied into tile town sewer?

I believe so. Yeah. Yes. And water.

Yeah.

Water.

And and I believe fire supply as well.

All right. Let's see on the second page.

Um same thing. You know, I talk about confirming to subdivision standards uh for utility locations like water main locations, you know, specific locations whether on the west side or the, you know, or the north side depending on how the roads are running. That conforms with subdivision uh for consistency.

Um

and con confirming that uh all utility construction conforms with Department of Public Works specifications, rules and regulations of uh installation and connection to building sewers and for the rules and policies of the water division and and that all proposed Utility plans shall be submitted for approval through the Department of Public Works.

All connection fees uh and inspection fees shall be uh either paid for or agreed upon u before any construction of utilities.

And lastly, you know, we do request additional funding for for mitigation and in II uh as this is a this is a large development. It'll be a concentrated sewer flow that's not expected from this area which does impact uh you know treatment both both flows and treatment for for the wastewater. Um so just you know we look at any any additional funding that we can acquire for towards some of these projects.

All right. I pretty much on both letters.

Yeah.

Sewer and water. Yeah.

Sew and water.

Sewer and water.

Sewer and water.

Before before um I I think we're probably well, we're going to I think before I would recommend maybe just going to the next section and saving the waiverss for last if that's okay with the board.

So in in the next section what um what I did and I reviewed them also with a planning director um Mr. Giosa um is went through the um notes and minutes from the the hearings to date just to call out specific items that were either questions asked by the board or questions asked for the public. um and and kind of touch and some of them may have been touched upon already because

of how um you know extensive the um the review was by all of your experts. But the first one was and this came up the first hearing was whether or not there would be local preference. Um the board can require that the applicant apply for local preference for up to 70% of the affordable units. Um, at the end of the day, the state agency executive office of housing and livable communities has

to review that application and approve the local preference and also the percentage of units that could be local preference. But it is something that's important to a lot of communities so that if affordable housing opportunities are created that it does um to a large degree benefit people with ties to the community. I did include for the board the four bullet points that are in the state um policy regarding local

preferences. So obviously it's current residents of the town um municipal employees so anyone who works at town hall, police, fire, school teachers, etc. Um employees of local businesses that are located in Dartmouth or households that have children attending.

So, for example, if there were any METCO students from Boston who live here, their families would have an opportunity to to go into the lottery for the local preference units. So, um this was something that the board had asked about. Um so, I I will include a condition regarding local preference if the board would like that. Okay.

Um okay. So, the the next one is the emergency egress. um which has gotten a lot of conversation at I think almost every one of the hearings. Um as you know the current plans show an emergency access drive that would be built and come out onto Fairway Drive. The applicant has submitted um kind of attorneys uh opinion with um deeds etc. plans and putting forth their u position that the title shows a

reservation of a right to access fairway drive. The abutters also have counsel who has submitted to the board um um I think one or two letters and also de deeds relative in some case the same deeds but with a u a different interpretation of whether or not those rights were actually properly reserved.

Um you know there's there's there's uh this is where the the 40b aspects of this play in. So there is law that if this was just a subdivision and this was in front of the planning board, the pla planning board could require that there be kind of definitive uh confirmation of what those rights are. There's case law to that effect. However, in the 40B context, it's this is goes into whether

whether the applicant controls the site or controls easements needed for access or utilities, etc. That all falls under what is known as site control under the 40B uh regulations.

Site control has to be determined by the applicant to the subsidizing agency who issues the project eligibility letter.

In this case, Mass Housing Finance Agency known as Mass Housing is a subsidizing agency. Now, they may and I assume just from reading the site eligibility letter, the application for site eligibility, there wasn't really a discussion of whether or not there was access to Fairway Drive or whether or not Fairway Drive was a private way that that or not. So, um, but there are 40B cases that state that

if if a third party challenges and it not the board, but a third party challenges whether or not an applicant has site control over any aspect of the site, whether it's where they're building the houses, where they're putting their utilities, where they're putting their emergency access, that those third parties have to exercise their legal rights separate and apart from the permitting process. So, um, as I've

mentioned at an earlier hearing, I did have a similar situation come up in a 40B project in another community and it was handled through the courts separate from parallel tracks with the permitting. Um and what the board did there is what I recommending to the board here which is that the board acknowledge in the decision and a condition that this is what's proposed on the plans. This is

what the applicant has asserted.

However, a butterers to the property have you know also made a you know arguments that the access is not there and that the bottom line is there must be because it's a fire department. the fire chief has said it's necessary, there must be emergency secondary access. In the event it is determined by the applicant or by a court of competent jurisdiction that that access to Fairway Drive does not

exist, then they will have to come back to the board with an alternate design that addresses it. And so that's my recommendation to the board.

Okay.

I'm sure at some point we're going to hear some comments from the people that lie, but we can go through the rest of it and I'm sure that that's one of contention.

Okay. Um, let me just ask a question.

This the this contention that we have right now about emergency access or egress.

That's nothing we can do anything about other than put something into the decision that it has somebody has to look at it.

Well, that it's required. It's it that it's required.

If we require it, then someone has to look at it in a court of law, not us. The town doesn't do it.

The local people have to decide whether they want to do something about it.

And and that is because of the chapter 40 decisions, including the appeals court of Massachusetts, okay, has issued decisions to that effect. the people who are complaining about access, the emergency access, it's their responsibility to do something about it.

Under chapter 40B, that is what the current law is in Massachusetts.

Okay. And I read that case and I agree with and there's a case supporting that as well.

Correct. I read it. I read that case.

Okay.

Okay. Um phases, as we mentioned, um the the applicant had mentioned they plan to do this in phases. Could I can I ask Mr.

Farland is that is that probably the case that the project would be done in phases?

Yes.

Yes. Okay. So, there would be a condition regarding um you know a phasing plans etc. Um I already mentioned the homeowners association and the and the duplex condominium. Um Mr.

Mr. Chair, would this do you want to wait till the very end or maybe the applicant can speak to Would it be helpful in crafting the conditions to understand how they plan on managing the duplexes versus the subdivision?

Maybe we should hear from them as to what it is that they want to do.

Council.

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

the uh the duplex development itself is is almost its own little entity. So there will be an overall HOA for the entire development and then within that little duplex area they'll have their own little separate HOA um because in that area there's certainly there's a lot more easements going on. So that we envision that as being one one larger parcel um versus each individual lot for

a single family will have. So there will be two basically two and those documents will have the attorneys will draft up prior to any building permits being pulled.

So I have a question. So then would the kind of the condominium parcel that association or condominium assoc be then a member of the bigger association is that how director almost like okay all right that's that I didn't really understand how those were playing until I was looking at it last week. So I appreciate the clarification. No problem.

Thanks.

Okay. Um the the site eligibility letter recommendations um included a requirement uh regarding landscape plans for additional screening towards existing homes. Um I believe that kind of a full landscape plan is one of the plans that will be submitted post approval. Um, you know, there's there's the and I'm I I'm losing my sense of direction. So, I know on the two ends the two on either side, right?

If you're on Tucker Road facing it, left and right, right, there's Fairway Drive and then there's the smaller condominium right there along Fairway Drive and then there's some homes on the other side. So just as far the the site eligibility letter had talked about um screening for those neighbors. Um also there was there was a request at the first hearing to get a breakdown of all the individual lot sizes. That in

fact is a requirement under the subdivision rules and regulations and I believe it's on Mr. Gabriel's list that once the definitive subdivision plan is done, they will know everything a lot and the square footage of everything a lot and there should be a chart or of some sort um that will but who's going to ultimately approve this? Are we going to put this upon the planning director?

No. So, the definitive subdivision plan will come back to the board.

Okay. So, it'll come back to us after we've already granted the Yeah. So this will be somewhere down the road because they have they still have to go to conservation commission do their additional testing all the every that Mr. Gabriel talked about. So I think you know after they finalize let's assume for the moment that we don't feel just hypothetical we don't feel that the screening is sufficient

and that plan comes before us and we have some concerns about that we can speak to the applicant but if there's a stalemate between us and the applicant we've already granted the permit at that point but there hasn't been a definitive plan that was finally approved by us so something like so that's why I have to think about the wording of that condition and it would probably be helpful. Oh, Mr. Farland can speak to

it. Thank you, Mr. Farland. Better than me.

Um, there is a landscaping plan that we have proposed. Um, so if there's any comments in regards to that landscaping plan, we provided full screening along the entire property boundary. Um, those are Leland Cyprus, every spaced every 10 ft apart. Um, along the south side and east side, along every side that has residential um, abutters along it. and the plans, you have the plan. So, if there's

anything different, I would be glad to go over it, but there is a plan of record is my point I wanted to tell you.

This isn't something that would be post.

Okay. Thank you.

Um, the things that would be post would be maybe a beautified landscaping plan around the community building. Those details haven't been finalized yet, but as far as screening goes, you have everything. All right. I'll take another look at that.

Mr. Mr. Gabriel could also speak to it if you'd like.

Sure.

Yes. So, just back to uh my letter um if you still have it in front of you on sheet page 30 of six uh number 17 is just regards revising the plans and details to meet the landscape requirements of the subdivision regulations section 33 3.307 307 uh except where the waiver for a grass strip is requested. Uh revise the plans to include detailed landscape design for parcel A, the amenities location that he

just mentioned, lot 64, the duplex buildings, uh and the roundabout, and then we talk about snow storage in there as well. So, in regards to uh if the landscaping, you know, what do you have to say to say that this landscaping meets your needs? It's written in the subdivision regulations for you there.

And does it meet 3.307?

No. There. That's why it's a recommended condition that they need to update the landscaping plan to meet those requirements. And okay. Um school bus. Oh, sorry.

um the school school bus stop. Um the recommended condition is going to be that they work with the school department and DPW to determine a safe location for bus stop. Um we already went through all the traffic recommendations.

Um and then the site eligibility letter.

Um these are all notes from the 92525 hearing was just um again traffic, water and sewer capacity landscape. we've touched about on all of those tonight.

Um and then the traffic impacts. So again, a lot of what So the 925 hearing was the hearing where you talked about traffic. So a lot of those were already discussed tonight. Um the next hearings were 10:23 and 124. Um there was the discussion about um requiring that the roadways remain um private and um the homeowner association. I had a question here. Discuss this and then this is a

question I have and and I don't know if Mr. Farland or Mr. Gabriel can help out.

Is it was whether or not the street roadway that is serving the duplex is that a subdivision road or is that a drive like a driveway to the condominium? I don't know, Mr. Farland if you've if that's been determined yet.

I could It was laid out differently. It doesn't have like the full layout the way the other roadways do. So, we weren't sure if it was a full layout like a subdivision road or it's just a driveway off of the new subdivision road into the Yeah, it was designed as a full It's not. Okay. It's more like a driveway into It's a full It's a full design. Same width as the uh entire roadway. Oh,

okay. So, it would be part of the subdivision road.

Would be part of the private roadway.

Okay.

Maybe. So, are you talking about the the portion of any roadway that goes into the condo area or Yes, that's what I'm talking about.

Right. So, and I think that I just want to make sure cuz it can be kind of apples and oranges on this. So, we're not looking for I've always been a little wary about saying all roads should ever be private cuz these folks could be citizens and could petition for a layout, whatever. I don't want to prevent that. But certainly if it's a condo thing that is not, you know, uh,

uh, individual lots, I think that would be a driveway, it might still be required by this board for us to meet the the construction standards there, but you know, I would never say that that's part of a a subdivision road that could get accepted. So to the extent and I would fully expect and you know the it's intended that these roads be private and obviously because there's certain waiverss with respect to the

roadways they may never get get accepted anyway but to the extent that it was presented to the select board or to town meeting for acceptance I if if I were town council or you if you were town council will say well I can't do a driveway as part of the roadway. way, right?

So, the things that are along the the subdivision roadway forming that basis, those are roadways. Whether they're accepted or not, I don't know.

The things that go into the condo are going to be considered driveways. Even if they regardless of how they're constructed legally, they're not roadways. They're driveways. we would expect that you'd require the same standards of construction across the whole development. But if you're preparing a condition that that talks about the future of these roadways, I certainly wouldn't mind you saying like,

well, there's all this stuff over here where there's individual lots, but in this condo area, that's if you want to characterize that as a driveway, that's fine.

Yep. Okay, that's helpful.

Chair, is that clear as mud on that? Yes, exactly. I got to look at the plan again and see what we're really dealing with.

It's kind of I haven't looked at the plan lately.

Yep.

Okay. Um snow storage um to be shown on the plans. Um Mr. Gabriel will mention that conservation commission approval obviously will be needed. Um there was discussion at these hearings uh in October and December about the need to any uh secure any detention basins uh potentially with fences to the extent that there's any drops or safety for children in the um in the development.

Um we already talked about the need to um comply with applicable subdivision control law provisions and then on the next page um the storm water was discussed at length in January. Mr. Gabriel um spoke to that today. retaining walls were discussed and it was the same issue that if there are going to be walls that are drop offs as opposed to raised like any any wall and I'm not sure I know we talked about

this back in January I have to recheck my notes um any of the retaining walls that might involve a drop off where a child or someone could go off the side might need uh would require fencing um water and sewer we discussed the sewer easement was discussed.

So, um, the next thing we can go through is the waiverss. Do you want to do that first? I didn't know if the, you know, and then we can see if there were any other conditions that the board members felt hadn't been touched upon and then um, but want to talk about the waivers.

I'm sure there are some people that would like to they've probably got some comments. I'd like to give an opportunity to state that.

Do you want to do that before you want to do the waivers first?

What is it?

you want us to how how long do you think the waiverss are going to be?

I I think it'll only take us like 10 10 minutes. All right. Cuz most of them they're they've already Yeah, it's already been addressed. We're just going to talk about what's I know it's been dwindling over time.

How many are left that are still at issue?

Well, there's not there's there were a couple that had questions, but currently the number of waiverss that are being requested and this is not including let's see I'm going to take out a few for headings would reduce the number.

I'd say we're probably at around 53 somewhere around that.

That's what we have now.

Y we went from 110 from 110 to 53.

They eliminated some of the and and at this point I believe that there is only um a couple that were left. So So what you have you have two chart the board received two charts. The first one is um one Mr. Farland provided. So this is the multicolored one. Um and so what this is showing and he provided the color codes up at the top. The um the blue anything that's blue or

change to a Okay. Anything that's blue or purple is a post approval submission.

So and these were these were the ones that Mr. Gabriel mentioned. He went through this list, lifted all of these letter. So if anything's blue or purple, it's not a waiver request.

And anything that's in red is they're they're removing that request. So they've they're reducing their requests for waiverss.

Um so that leaves you with um really the green and the yellow. So anything that's anything that's green is Anything that's green is an existing and anything and then there was a couple of questions left on the yellow which is the the yellow ones were the ones we were going to go over tonight. So basically when you if you take um Mr. Farland's chart.

What I did was I took anything that was a post approval submission, I took it out. And then anything that was red where he said we're no longer asking for a waiver, those were taken out. And then that reduces it down to this this chart that you have.

Good.

Um so that pretty much cut the list in half um of waiverss. And so what we're we're down to and and there may be some questions for Mr. for Mr. Farland here um is are let's see one two I think that there's only I think there's only three I think there may only be three questions um left.

Well 22 you already addressed right? Well, so um yes, that one we just that one we just addressed. That was the question about the difference between the roads and the duplex and the single family homes. Um so now that we have kind of the answer for that, then I can go and talk to Mr.

Giosa couldn't be here tonight because he he has a planning board meeting um happening um simultaneously, but I can go back and talk ask him about that one.

Um the the the one I I think that might be you might want to discuss with the um Mr.

Farland is this issue of having so you have the right of way and usually the center line is goes down the middle.

Mhm. What this regulation provides is that if you have a sidewalk on right, you have a 40 foot rightway, 22 foot roadway.

If you have a sidewalk, then the rightway is going to shift right to the side. There'll be an offset to put the sidewalk in. Um, typically or the regulations require that there be a space between the roadway and the sidewalk, right? So, it's kind of a safety if some a car jumps the curb, someone's not right there on the sidewalk. They're proposing to put the sidewalk right up against the

burm or the and then put say a green space and tree over here. And that was a question that Mr. Giosa had as to why are they not putting the green strip between the sidewalk and the roadway for safety purposes? And I I don't know if Mr. Farland could and Dan would have been here tonight, but he has his own meeting. We have we have no problem with doing a green. Basically, you got your pavement.

It's 22 ft. So, it leaves 18 ft. So, you got 9 ft on each side. So, right now, we have the 5ft strip of the walkway and then a 4ft grass strip. We can flop it.

So, you have four foot.

4 foot. Okay.

3T then 5T and then an extra foot.

So, we would have no problem doing that.

That's okay. So, a threeoot green strip. Is that what you think?

Three foot would be good. It leaves a foot room. Sorry, Mr.

What did you It said four or three. I mean, you got 9 ft left over.

So, five.

So, the issue you run into is then you have the street trees, right? So, street trees, ideally, we would want to put those um the pler board regulations may have them somewhere else, but ideally we kind of want to put those almost right along the front property line. um cuz we don't want them too close to the sidewalk otherwise the roots are going to rip up the sidewalks and we don't want to put

it within that 3ft strip because again the roots are going to it's not enough room.

Okay.

So if as long as the um and I can talk to Dan about this, we have no problem putting the street trees within the within the property. Um we can put a we can have a street tree easement. We've done that plenty of times.

Okay.

Um it just makes the most sense to do that.

Okay. So it would be 20 foot 20 foot 22 foot wide street three foot green strip sidewalk is five five foot I think we have five foot sidewalks on there and then you'll put the street trees and a street treesman or something like that. Okay. All right. That's helpful.

Um there was um I'm I'm just going to go there's you'll see that there's some those these were the questions. There were a couple of changes that are in in blue here. Um there was a request to allow four-way intersections. The the recommendation um when I was speaking to So again, when I make these recommendations, they're not coming from me. These are coming from um Mr. Giosa. So um where are you right now?

I'm I'm in line 20.

Okay.

Um there was a request to allow four-way intersection. Um there was an that that provision is order in order to make sure that there's proper sight distances. So the recommendation is to grant that waiver provided that minimum sight distance standards are met at all the intersections. So Mr. Farland is nodding. Um okay on the next one is line 30. Um there's a a proposal to have a sidewalk

only on one side inside the duplex area.

Um and Mr. Gios's recommendation was that that that would be okay cuz that's a small kind of isolated area. So a a sidewalk on one side in the duplex.

All right. Um on line 44 the first correction to the the section name. So in the final this is minimum lot area. So right now the um I have the plan somewhere but there is a um the the first sheet of the plan set has minimum lot size and I think it's somewhere around 7,300 square ft more or less right but it's not defined. So Mr. Giosa was uh proposing that it be that no

house lot be less than 7,000 square feet is and we just want is that acceptable? Yeah. Okay.

7,000.

Um and then the that same dimensional chart um oh says uh has a minimum frontage of 50 ft. Mr. Jo is fine with that. We're just suggesting that it be specific in the grant of the waiver.

Where are you looking now? I'm on line 45.

Okay. So, the next one is line um 47 and this probably should have been yellow.

Um so, there's there's number retaining walls. Um and so I I think the comment from Mr.

Farland was that the retaining walls are probably going where there there's going to be easements to deal with them if they cross property lines between lots.

I think the question that Mr. Giosa had is if there's retaining walls near a structure like near a house or near and a butter property line that there should be some setback of the wall from an a butter like a offsite boundary line or from a house. so that you don't have a house placed kind of too close to and and so I don't but again not knowing exactly where the retaining walls are

going to go I don't know if there's you know some minimum setback that for it to have so that a a house or a neighbor is not too close to a wall I don't know if you can yeah so I think with the slope of this the topography of this land some of the some of the retaining walls may have to go perpendicular to the property lines of the new lots.

Okay.

So, we didn't want to have any setbacks from property lines obviously, right?

For that reason. In regards to the abuing properties, there's been many projects in the town of Dartmouth where I've done uh proposed retaining walls right along right along the property line. Um, and if it's needed, it's as long as we have enough room to construct it. Um, I don't think there should be the zoning board should put any restrictions on that.

Um, can I ask you a question? Would the would they be looking at the wall or would they the wall would be on the other side and it would Yeah. So it's not as if it would be the opposite.

Okay. So it's not as if this is my house and now I'm looking at an 8ft retaining wall. Would it would be that it would be a drop off. So there would be a fence or something. Okay.

Correct. Mr. Farland, if my memory serves it correctly, the only area in which there were retaining walls was on the north side of the property. Is that correct? Or is there along the abunding property?

On the north side.

On the north side. Correct. And technically it wasn't the abunding property because the town has a 50ft structure an entire easement that sort of serves as a buffer there between the Yeah.

the people with homes and where this property is located.

Correct.

So if there were going to be retaining walls installed, they actually be a budding town property and not neighbors.

Correct.

Okay. Is that all right? That I Yeah.

Just just wanted to understand that one.

So that unless they're somewhere else, please let me know cuz I'm just This is off recollection. If there if there are retaining walls somewhere else then obviously it's more concern they're not east side not on the property right now just on the north okay all right um those those were that that was a summary of how the paper list has changed and the few open items um from that is nothing to be concerned about.

You know what? I think that that might be one that got changed. So, we're um um number asked a question about number nine. Um oh, wait. I just it was a different number on this one. Section 11, storm water res number regs number 11. Hold on a second. Oh, actually that was remove that was removed. So, that should come out.

All right. Does that finish off the waiverss? That does.

All right. I need to take a quick recess, a short recess, and we come back on the record.

The zoning board is back in session and we're back on the record.

So, at this point in time, I'm going to open up the matter for public comment.

So, obviously, I'm sure some people have some concerns. Um, I'd ask that if the concerns have already been addressed at prior meetings, um, that they not be raised unless we haven't brought them up in tonight because we are going to take all most of what we discussed here today is in preparation of putting together the actual permit that would be granted to the applicant with stated conditions.

Um, and as I think there's going to be hundreds of conditions that are going to be imposed on this project. It's going to be quite voluminous. That lady on the end there is going to have a lot of work to do over the next few weeks. Um, but I think most of the conditions that we've spoken about tonight, most of them address a lot of the concerns that the abutters and the people in in our

community have raised about the project.

So, if there's anyone out out in the audience tonight that would like to come forward, I know that attorney Perry was here earlier.

He left.

Oh, he left. Okay.

Um, if there's anyone in the audience that would like to come forward and address any concerns, come on up. As usual, address the comments to me. You can identify yourself by name and address.

My name is Chuck Resc. I live at 48 Green Drive. Uh, and I'm on the board of directors of the Mil Valley Farms uh, HOA, which is the smallest little HOA uh, down there at the bottom of Fairway Drive. I just would like I'm not sure I fully understand what the process would be if you folks go ahead and approve the subdivision and then we would have the residents on

and off Fairway Drive would be the would be required to then go to court and we would bring the case to report to to try to stop access to Fairway Drive as the emergency uh means of egress. Is that correct?

That's correct, sir.

Okay, that's all I wanted clarified.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Come on up.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Robert Almey. I live at uh 307 Smith Neck Road. I'm here tonight as a member of the public. Um I have degrees in geology training at the US Geological Survey National Training Center in water, groundwater, and groundwater surface water.

50 years experience in land use planning and water resources. And in addition, I taught environmental impact assessment at the University of California while I held a full-time job. I've seen a lot of project applications.

Um, I have reviewed most of the application materials on your website. Um, and I've reviewed most of the comments of the town and your residents.

My biggest concern with the application is the lack of information provided to the town throughout this process. Um, I got to tell you, I'm disappointed in the applicant's team. They put entirely too much work on the town and the town's professional staff and have taken that professional staff away from other necessary project uh, responsibilities.

Let me give you an example. Um the storm water runoff calculations indicate that there will be quote less the greater than 75% of grass on 51 acres. Okay, that's 39 acres or 38 acres of turf.

My experience indicates water demand estimates provided by the applicant show indoor water use of approximately 50,000 gallons a day.

Only indoor use is provided.

No estimate is provided for irrigation use. Uh typical recommended water application for turf is an inch of applied water per week. This would result in 147,000 gallons per day if the irrigation demand was spread evenly throughout the week.

This is nearly three times the estimated water demand for the project because the demand this overall demand is woefully underestimated.

So is the estimated pressure drop in the system and so is the connection to the town's system.

One other thing, outdoor water use would occur mostly during the summer when the town's other supplies are reduced and we water users in the town pay for more expensive water from New Bedford. All of the existing water users would pay for the incremental increase of cost for bringing in more water from New Bedford.

And I point out that the differential in cost is roughly 10 times between the water that the town produces and the water it purchases from New Bedford.

It seems only fair that the public should be made of these increased costs even if the ZBA and the town can't do anything about it. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like to make come on up?

Uh just really quick um name and address please.

Oh I'm sorry. Roy Burlado One Country Club Boulevard. Can you quickly just explain to us what happens if you deny the applicant? What's the next step? I mean, I've heard all kinds of things.

I've heard your hands are tied, you deny it, all kinds of things. Go to court.

Can you just quickly explain that to us?

I could provide you an explanation, but I'm going to defer. No, I want you to stand there. I want to defer to this lady here at the end. She will tell you what would happen if we deny this application.

And I have considered that, sir. Believe me when I tell you.

So under chapter 40B and the regulations that were adopted by the state agency executive office of housing and li livable communities, this is how the process works. Um if an application is denied, then the applicant presumably would appeal that. Their appeal would go first to a state judicial review. It's kind of a re judicial review board. It's not a court. It's called the housing appeals

commission. And there's it's a three member commission. And they have in effect what looks like a mini trial, but then they have all of the experts that you saw on both sides, the applicant, the the board's peer reviewers.

um would all submit their testimony and the board would you know state its reasons why it denied it and as um as the chair has stated number of these meetings and he's talked about there's a balancing act between the need that local concerns and the need for affordable housing and the housing fields committee would listen to all of the town's experts um kind defend the reasons why they the board

felt that feels that the um application that the local concerns whatever it may be and the board obviously has not made its decision yet but say it's traffic or it's the water or the sewer or storm water whatever the topic is lay out their reasons why they think that local concern outweighs the need for affordable housing and then this three member panel will decide ide who they um credit

um whose testimony they believe to give more weight to.

if they were to decide that the applicants has made the case that the need for affordable housing outweighs the local concerns and that um you know what they're proposing would mitigate all of these concerns that the board raises in its denial, then the housing appeals committee has the authority to issue the decision, kind of bypass the board, issue the decision, impose whatever pre-

written boilerplate conditions that the housing appeals committee attaches to any permit that they issue and those would be the only conditions that the project would be subject to. Now, the town could try to appeal that to the land court and the appeals court and even the SJC, but ultimately if the town does not prevail, then the project goes ahead and it doesn't have the 25 pages of conditions

that the board might impose. It has maybe one page of conditions that the housing appeals committee imposes. So that is that is the risk to the board for to the town if the board denied the permit. Now, it's not for me to say I'm not the board whether or not there's any facts in this 40B application or any of the other 40B applications before it.

That leads the board to feel strongly that it has the evidence from its experts that there is a local concern that cannot be overcome by overcome by imposing um good conditions on the project. I that's the board's job. Um but you know that's that's a the poss you know the possible outcome um of what could happen.

Thank you.

I will start off on the left then I'll work my way over the right.

Robert Saltzman 966 Tucker Road. Mr.

Chairman, can I just continue with the attorney then? Then what happens if the board approves it but attaches the 25 pages of conditions?

Okay.

I didn't understand the question, sir.

Did you understand the question?

No.

She uh the attorney had said what would happen if you said no. But she said if you had if you approved it and she said there there were 25 pages of conditions.

Well, that was just a number that she I get that. I I'm saying but following the I'm asking for the next alternative if you approve it with a lot of conditions.

That's correct.

What can happen that the applicant doesn't like but you have approved it conditionally.

Okay.

What happens?

All right. Well, either the applicant, even if they don't love all the conditions, will say, "We would like to move forward with this project and not have further delay." And they'll work with the town and they'll move forward with the project and comply with the conditions. So, that's option A. Option B is they could appeal to the same housing appeals committee and um they could they could claim that a condition um

renders the project there's it's all terms that are defined in the regulations. So I don't want to get too legalistic on you everybody but there's a a term that it would render the project uneconomic. So that's one thing they can claim, well these conditions make this project so expensive, it's uneconomic for us to build it, so therefore the conditions go too far. Or they could claim conditions are outside

the purview of the board and therefore are not appropriate. So they could challenge them on from v various different aspects. Um, and then the same little mini trial would happen where the experts would provide the evidence and the and the housing appeals commission would decide um which way it would go.

Um, you know, and I I I just I just finished a a long litigation over 40B in another community. The housing appeals committee upheld some of the board's conditions and said, you know, developer, we don't agree with you.

we're going to keep those in place. And then they disagreed with the board on some and they threw some of the conditions out. But um you know there was there was that same balancing of the local concerns and the need for affordable housing and what the actual impact might be on the developer. Um and then at the end the permit there's there's a final permit. So that's what that process is.

I think you're next. Hi, Nancy Theodo, a country club boulevard.

I have a couple of questions. Um, one that you were just saying about um this litigation and all that stuff. If they if they um throw out some of the the important um things that you've put as you know has to be done on this these projects if they conditions conditions if they have to follow them.

If we put them there, they have to follow them or they appeal them.

Right. But if if they if that little trial that she's talking about, the appeal trial thing that she's talking about, if you go uph to them and then they get rid of it and stuff like that, and those things cause a problem where you people had already decided that that should have been part of the project, can't can't we go after after the these people, the state or whatever, whoever,

you know, said it was okay and make them pay for the the wrongdoing on it. I mean, somebody's got to answer to something. This is ridiculous.

I I do not believe that once the whether it's the housing appeals commission or a state court makes a decision they make their decision if there is impacts from that that adversely affect private property then there may be a case that a private property owner can bring against the developer for nuisance or damage to their property etc. But there's never recourse against the judge.

Okay. Now the my other question, how long does 40B because everything's 40B 40B and it gives all these stipulations, okay, to our community. How long does 40B last? Like when when there's 40B housing, how long do they have to keep it 40B? Is there a time limit on it?

We are at 7.8% I believe right now of affordable housing. Once we attain 10% then developers can no longer utilize 40b against our community.

Okay. So like these other communities they I mean like a cushion at Westport all them like they don't they don't deal with this.

Some of them are more than 10%. Others are not. It's just that the there's some that are under that surrounding area.

The developers have decided to utilize these parcels. They they make the determination if they're going to utilize 40V. And then how long though does that housing have to stay affordable housing in these projects? In this case, we're going to make it in perpetuity.

Forever. That's one of the conditions.

That's one of the conditions we're going to And that's what we should do from now on in this town because then this baloney would stop. We would make make our quota.

Ma'am, I've only been here 12 years.

There's only been one other I love you for saying that. There's only been one other 40b project that we've granted and we require that that also be in perpetuity 25%. And that's not that's under construction. And that hasn't been done yet.

Uhhuh.

And that's on Route 6.

That's what we need to look into. We need to put that stipulation in from now on so that we can we have the last one we did. This is the second one that I've been involved in.

It'll be on this one as well.

I'm not against affordable housing, believe me. I'm just against them using it to get all these these these things passed through and then us as a town people, our water bills, our taxes, the schools, everything. our police department, I mean the fire department, everything is maxed out and they could care less and I'm tired of it. And I was police officer for 38 and 1/2 years in

this town. So to be honest with you, the traffic study is baloney and that is a that's that that is going to be a nightmare. Going to be a nightmare.

There's been so many deaths on that road and I take every death very very seriously cuz I investigated some of them. And I'm going to tell you something right now. It's no joke when you lose a family member to crazy driving. And I'll tell you right now, coming out of a Country Club Boulevard, it's a nightmare. Unless it's at night, you can see headlights coming cuz I don't know if they think it's a a

racetrack when they leave that stop sign there at the bottom of Allen Street.

They are flying around that curve. And you've got a house there that I've already they've already taken care of at one time, but it's grown again. It's got some ivite vites that blocks your view when you can't see cars coming in the daylight. Very, very, very dangerous.

There's going to be so many accidents and we're going to lose more innocent people to to that that road's so narrow.

We've got I mean, we've just got too much on that road. There's too too much on that road to have this much traffic added to it. I'm sorry, but I just had to say my piece.

Thank you.

Thank you. Michael, this guy over there, but I was starting from the left, working my way over to the right, then we'll go back.

Fred Dabney, 82 Fairway Drive.

Uh, to follow up on Mr. Almy's comments, um, you have 340B housing applications before you, I believe. And given the extraordinary amount of water that is going to be required for this application alone um is going to cost the town an enormous amount of money.

But when you combine it with the others, I do not see why that does not constitute a tremendous unfair balance for the town, a tremendous burden for the town that it is going to it doesn't have the resources to afford. And that's just for water. The sewage component is equally at close to capacity. And we have no idea what the other developments are going to require. So I don't quite understand why you don't have the

grounds already to reject this because of those additional requirements.

Uh secondly, they're they've proposed putting in uh those street trees landscaping. How long do they have a maintenance requirement for those trees?

Is that all automatically irrigated?

Is there any question that that's part of their um proposal?

I don't know whether or not there's an irrigation plan, sir. But if water's a concern, we can state that they're not going to irrigate the the that particular area. We could put that as a restriction, but then we're left with we're left with burnt and brown areas throughout this entire subdivision. If they develop it and make it asphalt, then it doesn't have any impervious surface. So

yeah, but you're situation town with all of the excessive water usage that's being required because we have to keep buying expensive water from New Bedford.

Sir, we're going to have more students in schools and those are concerns that we can't utilize as a means to deny this. you but I thought we heard that you could deny it if it constituted an unfair applic burden on the town.

Can you explain that to to this gentleman?

Yeah. Um so the balancing as as the chair has mentioned is local concerns versus the need for affordable housing. And um the issue that's come up and it's it's been debated in every town that's facing 40B since 40B came in in the 1970s is the impact the financial impacts on the town whether it's the schools whether it's as you're saying water and sewer and where you know and this hasn't

just been that housing appeals committee these these um questions have gone all the way up to the Supreme Judicial Court which is the highest court in Massachusetts and where it's come down is that even though these projects are typically much larger than what would otherwise ever be built under zoning, they can't be treated differently from other projects that aren't 40B projects.

Um, and they can't be held responsible for existing conditions or existing deficiencies in the town system. So the school's not we don't have enough classrooms, the classroom size is too big or the water is too expensive from New Bedford. And so if the town is approving smaller projects there, you know, you approve a house gets an ANR lot with one house here, two houses there, or a commercial store gets built

or, you know, a fast food store gets approved. All everything else is getting approved. No one's saying, "Well, they're going to use water and we have to get it from New Bedford, but you're saying it for the 40bs." And that's what the law doesn't allow. It doesn't allow the 40bs to be treated differently, even though they're much larger with larger impacts than anything else. Um and so

you know unfortunately eventually with the wastewater treatment plant if it hits its capacity and D says that's it no more connections well it's not going to matter whether it's this 40B or a project that the zoning board approved at its last hearing or the planning board no one's going to get a connection. So that's the risk like these permit these projects can get permitted but if the weight wastewater

treatment plant hits its limit and I I'm not the expert on this obviously um uh you know DPW knows better than I about how it will work but at a certain point no one's going to get a connection and it will be across the board and it won't matter what type of project it is. Um so and unfortunately um for the concerns that you're raising, they're not they're not um real they are real

concerns. They're legitimate concerns, but it's 40B does not allow the town to impose um those concerns on a 40B project differently than it does on any other project in the town.

So basically, we can't control the cost of our tax rate in town if we're forced to put in projects that are going to cost us more money than we have and we can't do anything about it.

I mean, so there there's a there's a there's a lot I can respond to this, but I want to kind of stick within the context of the hearing. I mean, the state a couple of years ago passed a huge bond bill with all these funding for grants for communities, for infrastructure. It's all things that your town officials are looking at to defer to defay the cost of these infrastructure issues that you're

having, etc. But, you know, right now that's how the state's proposing is the towns are going to keep letting all this building happening and then they can come to the state and ask for some money to help them pay for the costs of a wastewater treatment plant or whatever it is. But, and like I said, I don't want to get too much in the weeds, but that's that's how all I can speak to is

how the state has is adopting the laws today. And that's happening at the state house. And it's not happening in Dartmouth. is not under the control of Dartmouth.

I understand that. I wish we could amend 40p, but thank you for your time.

All right. Um I think there was somebody down this way. Sir, I'm going to work my way back over to the right. Come on over.

Uh Eric Dart, 940 Tucker Road. Just had a question about um is there going to be restrictions on construction time and days because um my wife works nights and stuff like that. Yeah. Okay. So, like no Sundays and like certain hours and stuff like that because I know with building homes I'm in construction.

That's a standard condition that we're going to have and that has Well, not everybody follows it though.

That's the thing. Yeah.

Next next week, we're going to be going over conditions. Uh not next week. I think it's the 13th. We're going to still talk to the petitioner about that extending this to the 13th, but we'll have a list of conditions and one of the conditions will be obviously the days of the week, which will be Monday through Friday, how early in the morning the operation can start and when it ends in the afternoon.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right.

Okay. Next, I'll work my way to the right.

Hi, Dennis Manor, 54 Hyest Drive. My question is uh the easement if it goes to court does that what kind of an effect does it have on the board? You say the easement which easement you talking about? The one to access Fairway Drive.

The access to Fairway Drive. If it goes to court does if it goes to court it'll be to it'll be the private property owners who own or have a right to Fairway Drive. They would probably bring an action against the developer and however that turns out is going to be determinative of what happens with that particular area. And if if it's denied, then they're going to have to come back before us. I would

suspect they're going to have to come back before us with a new plan showing another form of egress.

So, you can't do anything until it comes out of the court.

Well, I don't I don't even know if it's going to go to court. Neither do I.

I'm making an assumption that I'm going to push that it does, but if it does, I want to know what kind of an impact that it has on the board. Do you still make a decision? Do you wait for the outcome of uh the courts?

We have to wait. If the if the court makes a decision and the court denies them access to Fairway Drive, then they have to come back before us.

You're not really listening. If it if it takes a year, do you do you sit on that for a year? If it drags through the courts, we we've granted if we grant the permit, if we grant the permit, then I would believe if there's going to be an action that's going to be brought by the neighbors, then it would go through the court system.

Right. So, what happens when it's in court? You've already granted something.

Does it cease until you get something back from the court saying one way or the other?

Well, it depends on whether or not that's what the petitioners ask for. If the if the neighbors asked for there to be an injunction to be placed during the period of time in which the courts determining it, then maybe that's what would happen.

It's not a question we should but no, it's really not. But look, it's not a question for the board.

Correct.

How about how about to the the attorney?

It's not a question for her either.

I was trying to I was trying to address it, but you know something? It's really not something we should answer.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Movement.

Someone over here had raised their hands.

Hey, 82 Fairway Drive. Um I know earlier this evening, I can't remember what the issue was that came up, but you said if you granted approval and it was not about the the emergency egress. Um and then something was not approved um before you approve it. What is the protection for those people? And I think that's what people are trying to get at.

What is our protection as a butters? If you approve this, yes, we got a lawyer, we go ahead. But if they deny on our part, they deny us and they still get it. Where that's the end of it. But if we deny it and they've already started construction, where does that leave it?

Well, you're going to have to hire a lawyer at that point. But again, I think this stems from the similar question to what he has. But whose responsibility is that point if they've begun construction and they aren't going to have egress?

Well, I don't think Well, one of the conditions we're going to require is that they're going to have to have egress. Egress to the premises that is approved. We have some language that we put together as one of the condition.

Okay. So, that has to be approved basically before they can start constructing is what you're saying that.

Okay. That was my question for that. Um, I have a question which I'm gonna ask you, but it is actually of Mr. McFarland because we Mr.

Farland, we were not able to ask questions at the meeting where he showed the west side of the property where the storm where the drainage was all going to end up. And at that meeting, I think there was a question about how to access any of that if there was ever a problem with it. And we never saw that or got an answer to that question. And I would like to bring

that up again because I think that drainage the access I don't believe could be from Country Club Road.

No. No. And I don't actually Mr. Barber spoke about that.

There have been communications between himself and uh the engineer, Mr. Farland about creating an easement from this particular location, this this lot onto the easement area that's on the western side of the property.

That's not on the plan as of yet. That's something that they're going to work towards.

But it would have to be off of their property. They would not be using any of nothing off Fairway Drive. No or abuing the Fairway Drive behind those properties.

No, it's going to be from their property accessing the easement area. Is that your understanding, Mr. Barber? Yes.

Thank you. Thank you. My third point is just that the problem from the very beginning from my point of view on this, whether it goes or it doesn't go, is the density. We could have 50 houses in there that were all affordable housing and this would not be happening. This would not be happening.

It's greed and density.

Thank you. All right. Is there anyone else on this side who would like to come forward?

Karen Everett, um 66 Fairway Drive. Um been a resident of Dartmouth for 50 years, lived off Fairway Drive for 27 years, and I have a lot of interest in what's going on with the 40B project.

One of the questions that uh coming up tonight was the the project they're presenting is it um going to be in the form of a town approved um subdivision where you'll be where there'll eventually be approved roads, sidewalks, lighting and and so forth.

We're actually doing all that now. this under 40B the board this board serves as not only the zoning board but we serve as the planning board as well and all of that is coming before us now we're approving that with certain conditions um so the width of the roadway is something that we're approving or we're allowing a waiver to we're also doing the sidewalks with Cape Cod Burm those

are the things that we're approving um obviously with certain conditions I want to thank the board for listening to um your ne our neighbors and um I hope that you can make um the right decision for for the town.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else on this side that would like to speak?

I'm going to go back over to the left again.

Should you hear from All right, wake up. Oh, he's getting up.

Um so um attorney Murphy and I discussed we will um agree to I assume that if we continue to the next session that is going to be dominated by just us talking about the the decision. So we I've spoken with Christian and with our client. We're willing to agree to an extension and a continuence to that 13th of April to the 13th of April for the purposes of working.

Yeah, Miss Vieira has a form. If if she can fill in the date and sign it tonight, that would be great.

That's fine.

Um now, do we know But before we do that, obviously they're going to want a copy of whatever that is. I'm going to want a copy of it, obviously. And this is going to be voluminous. It's not something I can just read in a night and be able to understand what it is. And I don't want to put a lot of pressure on you. I want to put a lot of pressure on.

It's my job.

All right.

So the Monday, next Monday is the 30th.

The Monday after that is the 6th and the Monday after that is the third. So that's roughly three weeks for the 13th.

So, Mr. Chair, if I So, with the extension, then I have the ability to kind of make sure that um there can be some conversations.

There may be some questions that say Mr.

Farland, Mr. Barber, Mr. Yosa need to talk about etc. Those types of things happening for clarification. So, if if I um was able to get it to everyone by at the latest, April 6th, which would be a full week, would that be acceptable to the board? Okay. So, that will be my last date. If there's any way I could get it out, say even the Friday before, and give the board another weekend, I

will I will do that.

No, no, we did. We But there's still, you know, now you got to write them and make sure the verbiage is good and all that. But we've we've got a precursor of what these things are going to be, right? But they're just going to be a lot more elaborate elaborate in the sense of what's going to be.

Yeah, we we talked about it at at the break, too. I mean, we probably both have our styles of drafting these things, but it's not like anyone's reinventing the wheel. We expect it to be a voluminous decision and between myself on the legal side and and Christian and the rest of the team on the technical side, I'm sure we'll get a good set of comments back and be prepared to um hammer out any

differences that we have. I mean, I'm I'm confident that we can and and I would say, Mr. Chair, just so again to not reinvent the wheel, like you said, I might have a little different stylistic, but there's a high school. Yeah, it's going to be at the high school.

Yeah, there's a um so I want to make sure No, there's a there's so for there there's the decision you issued in the for the preserve that has a number of the standard, you know, conditions, right, that are not specific to the site, which for consistency, I might tweak them a little bit as my style, but I think that that if you look at that, you'll see that a lot of the standard non project specific.

If you could send that to me, that would be great.

It's it's link it's on the website.

If you search Dartmouth Mass, the 40B decision is on their website. So I mean to give you a preview, those are the types of kind of standard conditions. I'll probably be try to use those for the boilerplate isn't going to be the issue and I'm sure there's a huge amount of boilerplate.

It's it'll be some of more of the technical things, but we'll we'll work it out.

All right. So, for the audience, we're going to be taking a vote to continue this matter until April 13th. At the next hearing, it's going to be at the town. It's going to be at the high school. It's going to be at Dartmouth High School in the auditorium.

It'll be at the Dartmouth High School auditorium. Um, our goal then is to be going over all the conditions that we're putting on the project. And the reason for the conditions is to lessen the impact that it will have in the community in general to the immediate abutters um to wastewater things of that nature. So we'll be discussing those and we'll be going over them basically line

by line. I expect there probably going to be a couple hundred of them that we're going to have to go over and discuss. Many of them are boilerplate.

We'll probably go over those rather quickly. Um, obviously I'm still it's still a public meeting, so there'll still be possibly some some limited public comment on any of the concerns about uh the conditions, but obviously um that's something that we'll we'll take on on on a case-byase basis, so to speak, on whoever has concerns. I guess there's still a gentleman that would like to speak. I'll give him an

opportunity, but um if you could just step back just for one minute. He's asked come forward.

This is pretty simple. Will the conditions be available to the public before the meeting?

It's it's up to the board. Um, you know, if you want Michelle can post them to the public site.

The only thing is if they I just want them to be labeled in very bold print.

Draft that draft, right? Yes. And for discussion purposes only.

Yep.

So that way they'll be every page should have that on it. Okay.

Then we'll have it posted probably on the 6th as well. Okay. You're very welcome. All right. So, at this time, I guess I I'll entertain Oh, you want to sign this one?

Oh, yeah. Is there something for me to sign?

Yeah.

Yeah, I'll sign it right after, but he's already indicated on his representation.

Uh, I'll entertain a vote, gentlemen.

Um, I make a motion that we continue comprehensive permit ZCMP25-1 to April 13th at the 6:00 at the Dartmouth High School Auditorium.

I second that motion.

All in favor? I I I the eyes have it. All right, gentlemen. Is there any other business that we need to discuss? Any past business? Any new business? Nope.

I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn.

Motion to adjurnn.

I second that motion.

All in favor?

I didn't get any.

I The eyes have it.