Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting May 21, 2026

Good evening and welcome to the zoning board of appeals meeting of Thursday, May 21st, 2026.

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

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

Thank you.

I've got a few announcements. First, I have to start off by stating that this meeting is being recorded by Dartmouth Community Media and that our next 40B meeting will be heard on well, today is May 21st. That's for today. Actually, the next one is the Sherbrook Farms 40B hearing, which will be heard on June 8th, 2026 at 6 o'clock PM. But we do have another 40B meeting.

Uh, one that's scheduled for today at 5:30. That's the Hawthon 40B. And we have another one that's scheduled for tonight at 6:00, same room, and that is the Hathaway uh 40B hearing.

So, the first matter we have is an administrative matter. It's request.

It's a request by First Dartmouth LLC.

Actually, this is the one that we're going to need some assistance with our council on this, the 40B council, Attorney Murphy. So, with your permission, gentlemen, I'm going to take that one out of order and we'll move on to the uh public portions public hearings portion of tonight's meeting, which is variance case ZAV26-3.

The petitioner applicant is Cody Santos.

The owner is Mark and Lisa Santos. The subject property is located at 367 O Westport Road. The property is located in a single residence B district. This case was legally advertised on April 30th and May 7th of 2026.

Uh I make a motion that we wave the reading of the abs list.

Second that motion.

All in favor?

Second that motion. I Okay.

Um we have in this particular case

they're seeking a variance. A petitioner is seeking a vance to construct a 30 foot x 50 foot barn located with setbacks of 30.6 ft from the street and 11.4 ft from the side boundary of the property. The lot was expanded to include parcel A in the OSRD subdivision recorded in December 2012 at the registry of deeds plan book 170 page 11.

The planning board issued a special permit to allow a reduction in sideyard setbacks of 15 ft but maintained a 60oot setback from the street. A variance is required to reduce the front and sideyard setbacks and they need relief under 375-24.3C2 parking facility setbacks. The property is located at 367 O Westport Road in single residence P district and identified as CES map 49 lot 23-3.

Information is on file on the in the office of the board of health and may be seen upon request. There's also a concern with this with regards to it's located in the Aquafer district. Is that correct? And there's also a percentage of uh of density that we need to have examined which is not on here but obviously we'll and we'll explore that when we get the petitioner to come forward. So at this point in time I

before I ask the petitioner to come up I actually have to read some comments that we have from town departments.

Building commissioner.

Oh yeah. Where's the building commissioner letter? Let's start with that one. It's usually where I start.

I looked I saw it last night.

This is a letter to Cody Sanders and it's addressed to 3670 Westport Road and it says, "I've reviewed your application and at this time your proposal cannot be approved due to non-compliance with current zoning regulations. Applicant proposing to build a 30 foot x 50ft barn located with setbacks of 30.6 from the street and 11.5 from the side boundary of the property. The lot was expanded to

include parcel A in the OSRD subdivision recorded in 2012 at the registry of deeds book 170 page 11.

The planning board issued a special permit to allow a reduction in sideyard setbacks of 15 ft by maintaining but maintained the 60-oot setback from the street. Variances required to reduce the front and sideyard setbacks. Please see attached. Your application is being denied under the following sections of the department zoning zoning bylaw and the subject property is located in a

single residence B district. So that's that letter. Then we have some comments.

Aquifer.

Well, there's no aquifer. There's no notation.

Zone zone 2 aquifer.

Hold on. What does it say? Is it Oh, there it is. The subject property is located in the single residence B zone 2 aquifer district. That's right. Thank you.

planning department. Per the subdivision plan of King Meadow Preserve, the subject lot map 49 lots 23-3 was intended to be combined with a budding land of Diane St. Pierre, map 49, lot 22. Please see note four on the approved plan that was recorded at the New Befford registry of deeds in plan book 170, page 11. I've attached a copy of this plan to the portal. This may impact the requested zoning relief. Board of

health. As per the description, no town utilities are proposed into this structure. Any proposed connections of this structure to town water in the future will require the prior written consent of the Dartmouth Board of Health due to the need for on-site wastewater disposal. DPW compliance with the following DPW regulations and specifications will be required but not limited to and this is the typical stuff

that they have with regard to and one of them most important with this is the aside from the storm water management is the aquifer protection overlay district and DPW's completion of this step does not imply compliance with other town bylaws. Okay, we understand that. Um and zoning approval does not imply compliance with any DPW policies or regulations.

All right. So, gentlemen, you think is there anything else that I need to read into the record at this point in time?

So, there being nothing else for me to read into the record, I'm going to call upon the petitioner or their representative to come forward and state their case.

Good evening. I'm Cody.

So, I got a message from Tim Barber about the 15 ft. Um, do you have the plan in front of you or No. Yes, I do have a I do have a plan.

Originally, I was asking for that 11 something feet from the boundary line from the neighbor.

Yeah. So, according according to this plan, um it's 30.6 ft from O Westport Road from the front setback and the sideyard setback is 11.4 ft.

So, if we just turn the garage and make it parallel with the fence, we can abide by that 15 ft. So, that would only need that 30 the 30 point from the street. Well, but does that change this corner here by doing that? What is that? What is that measurement?

I would make that 15 ft.

Okay. So, I understand you're going to make 15 ft here. Okay. But what about the dimension from here to here?

That would be 30 ft.

But it's 30 ft here. At this point, it's 30.6.

You're further back from it. So, it's not going to be 30 ft. It's going to be more than 30 ft. then whatever it needs to be. But the 60 ft's too much.

This this probably too scale. That's what I needed to do. Okay. This is a fully scale.

No, it's not too scary.

Okay. Uh that's fine. I just So I'll just pass it along. So your attorney wants to see it as well.

But All right. So explain to us what it is that you're trying to do here. Um I obviously trying to build something, right? But garage.

It's a It's a garage.

A barn. Pole Barn. Pole Barn is technically what it's going to be.

All right. So, I saw some plans that showed it like a sheet metal type building.

So, is that what it's going to be? It's going to be a sheet metal style metal on the outside. Yes. It has wooden structure and then metal on the for the walls.

Sorry.

You have to identify. So, you're Cody Santos.

I'm Cody Santos.

Cody Santos. Mark Santos. This is Lisa Santos.

Okay. Great.

Okay. So, I tried this through town hall. Come closer. I tried this through town hall.

I got a big runaround. So I had him go through all the channels and try to do this, you know, the right way. So no one could give us an answer on what size building that we could put there. So this is the size that we want. So they said we had to go, you know, it had to go before the the zoning board. So it went before there. They denied it. Now

we're at you where you guys are.

There's certain criteria that you need to meet in order to get the desired relief that you're asking for. And it's basically a fourprongong. It's a four-part test that you need to show to us that you satisfy. I don't see any of that here, but I'm not, you know, many times people have come before us and they don't necessarily have a a great explanation as to why it is that they're able to meet the requirements of a

variance.

But before we get there, I think we've got a couple of issues. Um, and I'll let you address a few.

No, before we get there, Mr. Chair, I think we need to address the the uh the parcel a being portion of because that affects this the setback lines and the lot coverage too. So you got to explain, you know.

So the thing is is this my understanding is that this parcel on this plan it shows us as two separate parcels and we get two separate tax bills.

And when I purchased this from from Donald King years ago, I specifically said to the lawyer because he wanted you want to combine this and I said, "No, I don't want to combine it. I want to keep it a separate parcel. So, it was kept as a separate parcel and there are two different line and page. If you look in the deeds, there are two. It's two combined.

It's but you combined it with no one else's approval.

No, you have the right to your deed combined.

Absolutely.

How does that do it?

Well, there was a requirement that it be combined when this was approved. This subdivision was approved because what in essence you're trying to do is you're trying to create another lot that's buildable and it's not a buildable lot on its own. So, and and we have a plan that was dated back in 2012 that specifically said in one of the notations of the plan, it specifically said, and I'm going to read it.

Actually, I think our planning director submitted it here. It says, "Per the subdivision plan of King Meadow Preserve, the subject lot, lot 4923-3, was intended to be combined with the budding land of Diane St. Pierre, which is 4922.

Please see note four on the approved plan that was recorded at the new befford registry of deeds in plan book 170 page 11 and the date on that that it was approved was November 19th 2012 it was approved that's one of the dates of the approval and it says I've attached a copy of this plan to the portal this may impact the requested zoning relief I agree with with our planning director that it does

impact because you're coming to us showing it as a separate lot when it supposed to have been combined as one lot and that plan shows it as one lot.

So, so this not this lot is not buildable.

Excuse me.

Are you saying this lot is not buildable?

What I'm saying is I'm not saying that this land is not buildable. What I'm saying is this is a separate lot. I think we have concerns. Am I fair to say that as a separate lot that we have concerns about its buildability when you treat it in a manner that you've presented it?

We presented it that way because that's what we understood.

Correct. desk. Okay.

We were never we we never we were never issued a that paper you have in front of you. We were never issued that paper saying that they were only one at a time. One at a time. We'll all have an opportunity. So, cuz look, we're here to work with you folks, okay?

And we're not saying no. We're just saying that as it's presented, it needs to probably be changed. But explain to me why it is that you think it needed to be presented this way.

Because that's we we were told that it was a separate law. You were told it was a separate law when we purchased it.

Okay. And and the reason you also believe it's a separate law is because I think she has two tax bills there.

Correct.

And I think one of them is going to say lot 23-3 and the other one's going to say lot 22. Is that what you want to tell me, Mrs. Santos?

Well, what I wanted to tell you is that these were the last quarter taxes.

Okay. But this wasn't from 2012. These are Okay. So, they're and they treating it.

We thought up until just recently those were two separate plans.

I'm confused. What is to say?

We never saw a bigger plan or got he just recently got the email that we were on we got.

Now they can be treated separately for tax purposes but for buildability p purposes they're merged. Okay. So one merger happens sometimes by operation of law meaning some someone owns one lot and then they buy the one next to it and the one next to it undersized is undersized. So now they merge and become one lot. Even though there's two tax bills, it could still it's still treated as one lot for our purposes.

Okay. Well, we had no idea about that.

I listen, I understand that and I'm not I'm not faulting you.

I'm just saying, you know, while you I'm not No, no, I'm not faulting you.

No, listen. We're here to work with you.

Okay.

But there's only so much that we can do based on the information that we're provided.

So, um, and I'm only one person here, right? There's three people here. I don't make their only decision. You know, they gave me this title here, but it doesn't mean anything. So I just obviously gentlemen if you have some concerns but there's another before we go there there's another issue here is that there's nothing here that explains what's going to what percentage of lot coverage is going to be altered because

that's another concern and that's additional relief that you need to seek that you didn't ask for.

I didn't know I needed it.

But now you're telling me I've done everything I've been told up until this meeting.

The only thing is this. I I get that.

But the letters now, but we talking about one lot.

Well, technically because now you say they have to be combined.

Yes. That actually puts you in a better position. That'll help you on that second issue.

I'm just saying now so now it would be the coverage of the the entire property, not just the sideyard.

Correct.

Okay.

Yeah. And it's going to help that.

No, I understand.

And the other thing is is this. Now that you've altered that plan, right, you've altered it a little bit. you're actually going to be seeking less relief as far as setback from the front lot lot line.

It's going to be less in the sense of right now you're asking for 30.6. Is that what it is? 30.6.

Yeah.

But you're probably closer to 35 maybe 40.

I know you're not at the 60. I get that.

Um and the other thing is is that given that if they're going to be merged, what's your concern about even pushing it further back? One of the things that we when we look at this and it it was actually brought just to my attention I and I saw only because I saw him doing it is he started drawing it out and looking at it and he's ob got a lot more expertise in

this than I think most people in the room started drawing it and turning a building a little bit where you could probably meet the 60 ft if you just pushed it back a little bit and you wouldn't have to come before us except maybe for the lot coverage for the lot coverage requirement you still have to come but that's a special permit that's not a variance that's not as difficult to obtain

when we walked it out to 60 ft. It was close to that other garage. So, we're trying to keep as much distance from the other building as we could.

Plus, we have a tree line and a wall. It's hard to tell on paper, but the yard it it it the hill goes down into that separate plot where I want to put it. There's a stone wall and there's trees. So, that closer to the street we could get it, the less clearing out and manicuring we'd have to do. Well, topography is one of the things that is a criteria that many people can't meet

as a means as to why they need a variance.

You may have it. Um I think we could put it back that far.

We were just trying to I didn't I also have a question now. So now if we're combining the two lots, don't we go back to the bylaw from 367 Westport Road? If we're combining the the the locks, you don't go to those bylaws for for zoning forage 15 and 60.

And you're going to meet the 15 just based on the fact that you twisted the building a little bit.

And you may may and you may meet the 60 and you may meet the 60. But I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to keep it so that there's some distance between the existing structure that's there and this new barn for whatever clearance purposes of me moving, you know, maybe some equipment or whatever it may be. I don't know, farming equipment. It is a farming area. Um, I I just have some difficulty with the

plan. So, I would ask that this plan, if you're going to resubmit it, it'd be submitted as one law.

All right. And I'd have to go through the survey again, one law, and then have them plot out this building in the manner that you want it or maybe even further back if you could try to twist it around a little bit. Because sometimes when these gentlemen do this, they only do what they're asked to do. I want this here, so they put it there.

Yeah. rather than sometimes saying, "How can you make this work without me having to go and jump through all these hoops and meet these people I don't need to meet in town hall?"

Well, my concern now, if you would require that, it's already cost him $2,000 to stand here in front of you and ask this.

How much more money are we going to spend and possibly get denied?

Ma'am, well, the thing is is this.

That's something that everyone that comes before us faces that risk.

Everyone that does.

I'm not asking to build the barn. You are. I'm only here to follow the rules.

I was just asking you, do we need a whole set of new plans? It's going to cost all that money.

Well, I don't know if it's a whole new set of plans. It's sometimes all you're going to do, if you're going to redo a line, it's not that big of a cost.

Plus, we can't act on an incorrect plan.

It's not that something that Well, you know, we've got answers anyway. The other thing is too, the the coverage of the lot. Would we be able to put a a a 30 by 50 barn on that property if we were to to move it?

I think it's 2500 2500 or over the 10% whichever is whichever is greater.

Right.

Right. I don't think they're going to be over the 10% but I think I don't know if it's ever they won't be over the 10% that's for sure.

No, but the building is 30 by what?

50. No, but the lot is is what?

Two acres.

Second shift. That's that's 3500. So that's I don't know.

Um I'd like to know before I continue.

Who could answer? Cody answer that question.

I'm not an engineer. I can't give you that information. I can't look at this and tell you that that's what it's going to be. That's not my jobs.

So if I may, I wish I was told about this.

Yes, certainly.

We're trying to help you here. Right. So if the if the two lots are combined, you don't have to meet the setback on the common lot where the garage is. I don't know. I think I don't have a scale here.

This plan is not to scale, so I can't really tell. But it looks like you have at least 10 ft from the garage. If you rotate, so this here's your option. You can rotate the structure and to be parallel to the lot line. You meet the 15t setback now. It's up to you. I think you can push it back to 60 ft. You don't need a variance. You understand?

All this is you don't need a variance.

Done. Now, if you comply with the lot coverage, you don't need to be here either. You can go to the building department, talk to the building commissioner and explain what you're trying to do. Now, if you think that you need a special permit because you're over the lot coverage and you're coming back here, it's up to you if you want to ask for a variance, but you know, variance is a different ballgame than

than the special permit, you know.

Can you explain the lot coverage to me?

It's how big the acreage is to how much how well normally the impervious areas they they count the uh what you have on the lot in terms of pavement or concrete roof buildings and you divide that by the lot area of the lot. So in this building can tell us well we're not your your your surveyor can do it. All we need is two lines table on on on the plan saying

this is the existing. That's the lot coverage with the existing building and the garage and you're adding the the 30 by 50, right?

And this is the proposed if you're over I believe 10% or 2500 I'm not sure whichever is greater. So, if you're um I think you might be okay because the lot is large because when you combine the two, this is helping you because you're not only taking parcel A and you're applying a 30 by 50 to it, you know. So, uh so there's a there's a chance that you won't have to be here.

Okay. And that's something I would talk to my survey about that these Yeah. And I think I you should go talk to the building commissioner. All right.

Explain what's going on and uh but have some numbers first. So because the building commissioner needs to look at this and they have that because we don't have what you have on record at the registry of deeds.

Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. They have No, they you can take this one. I'll give you this one.

But I just before you leave, I just want you to understand one thing. I just don't want there to be a misconception.

You keep wondering, you know, who can tell us in town hall. you.

Unfortunately, the way this process works, you're the one that needs to engage the professional to determine what you need and then they come to us or you come to us and you persuade us.

You need to persuade us that even though you don't meet the requirements, this is why we should be granted the relief.

That's really how it works. It's not like we're going to tell you what it is that you have or don't have. We don't know that. Some professional puts that together for you. We deal with this, you know, two nights, two nights a month and it's every most of the time they have lawyers here or they have engineers here and they present everything to us and they're telling us what relief they need, why they need it.

Well, we've never done this before.

I get that. I get that. I get that.

Understandable. And we have to have this conversation every now and then. I get that. And I'm I just I invite you to speak to the person that put that together. Who's is that Romanelli? Is that who was that?

Yeah, I think Romanelli. Yeah.

Yeah. Z. Oh, these guys are very competent. speak to those guys and they will they will direct you. They know exactly what they need to do. Okay.

All right. But if we were told this before coming here, we would have never submitted this to you.

That's on him. That could have been But they I don't know how much information they had before they actually put this plan together. I don't know if they had it all.

So, here's what we're willing to do for you because we're not saying no. We just can't say yes today. Okay? We're not saying no. We're just saying that we're going to give you some time to go forth, relook at this plan, see if there's a way that you can get what you need without having come to see us. And if you still need to come before us, maybe it's just going to be for for lot

coverage. That's okay. That's a special permit. That's a much lower threshold than a variance. And I invite you just to type in do a quick Google about what a variance, what are the factors or the variables of a variance. And you'll read what those requirements are. Then you'll get a sense as to what we need to do.

It's kind of boring stuff, but that's what we do. Okay. So, I ask you to go back with your professional engineer or the register land survey or whoever it was that put that together. See what you can do and then you can come back to us.

What do you guys want to do? Another month for them to come back. That should be enough time.

What do they need?

I don't know. Well, I'm not sure they know exactly how much time they're going to require.

It all depends on the engineering company because it took them a year to do this plan.

They have most of the the work done.

Most of it now is done on a computer and not necessarily field work, right? They had a lot of fieldwork to plot all this out.

Now it's just a matter of twisting things. All right. Um, so we'll give you 30 days for now and then Oh, my secretary's running. We'll give you 30 days for now and uh if you need more time, just let us know. Just write us a letter beforehand and then we'll grant you a little more time. Okay.

Who would I write the letter to? To You can write it to Michelle.

To Michelle?

Yeah. It's supposed to be directed to me, but you write it to Michelle. Okay.

Thanks.

Thank you, gentlemen. Um, we need to continue, but we need a date.

Yes, we need a date first.

You want to get a date?

I'm going to give him 30 days.

So, it's going to be June.

So, what do we have for June now?

We have the 8th, we have sheriff, the 11th, we have halfway.

No, I'm I'm in the 20s right now. You are in the 20s.

How's June 25th?

So, gentlemen, are you are you going to want to stay with Thursday for now? Okay.

Until we make some adjustments.

How's June 25th, gentlemen? It's a Thursday.

We don't have it on uh I have 18th and the We don't have one. We're going to set one up.

We'll set one.

Well, we have one for the 18th now.

No.

How about the 11th? We have one.

We got Sherbick for the 18th.

If we have to for the I got Sherb the 18th. deliberate and vote on decision.

We meet the zoning.

Hold on. So, we got something.

You don't want to have a meeting here on the 18th. That is eighth grade graduation and they use the stadium.

All right. So, we're back to the 25th.

Okay.

Okay.

I show a meeting for the 18th. I do, too. Right now you have meetings penciled in for June 18th probably 25 deadline right okay so we're going to go for the 25th you have meetings on the June 11th and June 29th right now 29th 29th yeah I have it that's a Monday I have the 29th yeah let's put on the 29th 29th yeah 29th I have to wait until the 29th okay Yeah.

Okay.

See at 5:00 meeting. Yes.

June 29th.

June 29th at 5:00 p.m.

Thank you.

June 29th to make a motion.

Gentlemen, I'll entertain a motion.

Uh I make a motion that we continue variance ZAV-26-3 to June 29th at 5:00.

I get a second.

Oh yes. Second.

All in favor?

I The eyes have it. All right. Moving on. So, we took the matter out of order.

Um, we can Yeah, we'll go back to the administrative portion of tonight's meeting. This is a request by First Dartmouth LLC for a determination of an insubstantial change in connection with the comprehensive permit case number 28-208-8 issued March 11, 2021 for the project known as the preserve at Dartmouth located off of State Road and Reed Road.

All right, gentlemen. So, this is one that was on for the last time that we were here. Um, and we had a letter that was put forth by attorney Babrowski, I believe.

Okay. I got a fine line. Oh, yeah.

And Attorney Murphy, are you wanting me to read this into the record?

You You don't need to read his whole letter into the record. I I can give a Oh, yeah. I can give a quick over.

That'd be great.

Which is So, this was a project.

Hold on a sec. Excuse me. I'm sorry. I I can't hear. Thank you. It was a a project that was approved by the board in 2021, but it's it's been kind of delayed, but is now in under construction. Um, they had they had paid some fees to the town. Um, and then which are based on the town's current building permit fees and then said, "Oh, well, wait a minute. The fees were less

back then, so we should probably be paying lower fees." So, there was a lot of discussion back and forth and there was an agreement made with the town um that they would get the benefit of the older fees going forward, but that they weren't going to seek reimbursement of the fees they've already paid. So, that was the compromise that was made. And so, the vote the rec the recommended

vote for the board is the bold language at the uh bottom of um the two page one. Yeah. So it says where it says the applicant requests the zoning board to consider the following amended request for insubstantial change to insert a new condition A26. So if the board were so inclined, it would be a motion uh to insert into the original case to 201818 permit uh the following condition A26. And then you would read this.

That's that's what the request is. And I've I worked with um Attorney Barbowski directly on this language. He couldn't be here today because he's out of town.

Um but he submitted this after um after we discussed it and reviewed it together.

All right. And you're you're fine with the way it's drafted.

Okay. Great.

So gentlemen, um we need a vote to uh to accept the proposed um how should we refer to it?

To include the new condition 826.

Yes. Yeah.

Do we have to read it or just uh just just reference the condition 826? Well, we can read it.

Whichever you want because then Michelle, you have it before you. If you reference this, Michelle can then just copy it into the minutes, but if whatever the board prefers.

Well, it's in essence a motion to approve the amendment, right? The amendment to the comprehensive substantial change in the letter of May 18th. Yes. All right. That's gives you a reference point. Okay.

Yep.

And then with your permission, I'll sign it.

Okay, I'll make a motion that we um uh amend the uh conditions for case 2018-18 by inserting a new condition A26 as as submitted by attorney Babrowski.

I think it's and this is an insubstantial change to the uh uh to the comprehensive permit approval.

I think it's 825 826. It's to insert a new condition 826.

It says at 25.

Oh, it's down here.

Yeah.

All right. I second that motion.

All in favor?

I I The eyes have it.

Um, Mr. Chair, if you would sign that second page there and just hand it to Michelle, then she can file it tomorrow.

Grabbing the pen.

Okay. Thank you.

That one. So, that's that.

Okay.

All right. So, what else have we got on here tonight? Oh, what did I forget?

We have moving on and it's the comprehensive permit ZCMP25-1 which was continued from January 8th, 2026.

Thank you.

The petitioner applicants Paul Cussen.

The owner is Bliss Investors LLC. The subject property is 970 Tucker Road, map 46, lot 2. It's located in a single residence B district. It was already advertised. We waved the reading of the abutters list and they're seeking to construct um this says 147, but I thought it was actually 138 units. 138. Correct.

It's down to 138 units. Okay.

I think we already I think we've gone over this numerous times. It's not a matter. It's not open to the public.

The the hearing is closed. This is a just a public meeting, not a public hearing.

That's right. and it's the deliberation of the board um with respect to the um decision and a potential vote tonight um on the decision the filing deadline for is tomorrow.

So if uh the board takes no action tonight then it it will be constructively approved. Um, so what I thought I would do is, um, just to give you an update, the last hearing, which was April 13th, and is the night that the board closed the hearing, um, just to recap, the board had walked through u, attorney uh, Talerman is here, I believe, for the applicant. And, um, Mr.

Attorney Talerman had submitted comments. Uh, the DPW director had submitted comments on behalf of the public the board of public public works.

Um, of course there was public comment, etc. And the board had walked through kind of all the different comments and questions about various proposed conditions. There's some members of the public had uh spoken as well. And so since that hearing, what has happened is there were um notes that I took during that meeting um of what aspects of attorney's comments would be incorporated. uh for the most part the

majority of his comments have been incorporated with some tweaks. In particular, there were uh questions that the engineers had um about storm water.

Those were found in section G of the conditions G2, G3. And the peer reviewer Mark Gabriel worked with um engineer uh Mr. Farland and with your DPW director uh Mr. barber and worked out language that would be acceptable to both um the American and to uh the uh board of public works. Um that included adding an additional waiver to the waiver list. Um so and then there were um questions

about how to manage the water and that was discussed and has been you know in case there's additional water demand. So those those were all incorporated. What you have in front of you is a full decision um that I have drafted. The board had gotten a preliminary draft that just had the background etc. Um and this document you'll see has the track changes in it. Um, but if you go to page five of the draft decision,

you'll see some of these some of these changes are just cleanup like I did a full read through fixed up fix the uh typographical errors, those types of things.

So, um, if you go for example, um, you know, when starting on page seven, you'll see a change to B2. That was a suggested change. Um I may I believe it may have been one of attorney's and those have all been incorporated. I'll just I just want to point out in particular the more substantive changes on page 11.

Um attorney had suggested some um clearer language regarding the shity that's required under subdivision control law. His language um you know I thought worked well. So, we incorporated his language. Um, and you'll see changes on page 12 were changes that were requested um from the uh board of public works.

Um, let's see. On page 13 about the architectural drawings, again, attorney had requested those changes. Page 14 is clarification about how to determine the proper bus stop of working with the appropriate town officials. When you get to the ba bottom of page 14 and then you'll get to page 15 and 16. Those are there's a lot of changes there. Those are that is all the language that was

worked out between uh Mark Gabriel and Mr. Farland and Mr. Barber in order to address the storm water questions.

Um, and let's see.

Keep flipping flipping. I'm just trying to point out anything that's substantive to the board. Um, at the bottom of page 19, um, it talks about the INI contribution and I and I do want to talk about that in a minute um, about some of the fees.

So, let me just see if there's anything else um that is of significant.

There were some other changes just language timing of when uh landscaping would be planted so that you know in connection with phases of the project etc.

So, um, we can talk about any any of these that the board would like, but I would like to raise for the board and it was in the cover email that Michelle shared with you um that the applicant submitted um, and if you have this email from this morning and it starts at the bottom. So there's a breakdown here of uh water fees and sewer fees when you have new connections. So for a single family

home, as I understand it from Mr.

Barber, with a one-inch line singer, a one-inch water line, the water connection fee is $2,000.

And then the sewer connection fee is $3,000. And then there's additional sewer. There's an INI fee of $500 per home and then there's a mitigation fee that's $12 um a gallon per day and the numbers are provided based on how many bedrooms in the house and I believe that those are based on kind of title five flows. Yes. Okay. Yep. Um, so if these were all added up, that is5,5500 for a threebedroom,

it's about somewhere between 9 and $10,000 for a three-bedroom home in water and sewer fees. Um, that's kind of picking a three-bedroom home. It's a little less for two-bedroom, more for fourbedroom based on the gallons per day mitigation fee. The request from the applicant is that the affordable units, and there's 35 of them in the project, have a flat total fee of $2,500 for all

like all of these fees together might add up to$9 or $10,000.

The applicant is asking that the 35 affordable units only be charged a flat fee of $2,500 each.

Um, so that's the ask to the board. Um, obviously not a legal question. It's a decision for the board. Mr. Barber is here if you have any questions for him.

And as I mentioned, uh, attorney Talerman is here for the applicant.

So, let me just ask you as a question, right? Part of me says right off the right off the rip when looking at this, why should we reduce any of the fees, they're going to impose some significant impediments or future issues that we're going to be confronted with for water, for sewer, and there's not a lot that they're giving us in return for the amount of development that they're imposing upon

us. That's the first my first thought, right? Then my second thought is, well, how often do these requests come about?

You have a lot more experience in this than most of us here. How often do you see these things? And what do other boards normally do?

I I think it's it's very townsp specific. I think applicants, 40B applicants are always, you know, are always asking um and hoping to be able to get reductions. Um, I think, you know, their their reason their reasoning is is that the affordable units are capped, you know, as to what they can be sold for. So, you know, kind of like they say in the supermarket business, the stuff at the

end of the aisle that's on deep discount is is, you know, the lost leaders, right? It probably costs the supermarket more to put those on the shelves and to sell them, but they're trying to draw into the store to buy a million other things, right? So um the cost of building the affordable units is often kind of more close to or more than what they can sell it from for for um you

know they are getting full market price on the other 75%.

But I think you know because of the cost of building the affordable units and the fact that they can't sell them at the higher prices they look to offset them.

You know, the other side of that is they're getting 75% of the units which are, you know, they're getting 138 units where they probably would have been able to build a much smaller number, not for EB. So, they're make maybe making money on that side. So, there's the pros and cons. I I think that it's hard to compare it to what any other community may do because I think, you know, you

need to look at what is appropriate for Dartmouth under the circumstances that, you know, Dartmouth is is in and any policies that Dartmouth may or may not have about, you know, giving, you know, discounts on fees for affordability or anything. I I know that the board has not I don't believe the board has been asked. I don't believe on the preserve there was no discounts and the fees given um but

and we have two other right so we don't want to set a precedent kind of or if we do we have to be care you know something to think about right well we got to I think we got to make that decision tonight they want to know um what are your thoughts Mr. human if you want to share anything you can pass.

Well, I think that the cost to the town for whatever installations take place at the affordables and the nonaffordables, it's the same. So, what why would the town why would we give a discount? It's going to cost the town the same amount of money to put the water and sewer into the affordable housing as it is to put it into the other units that are they can sell for full market value.

So I I I'm not in favor of it.

They're building the underwater.

It's not the town actually. But all right. It's the fee that we thought.

I mean, is it really going to make that huge of a difference between and overall?

I don't even know if I want to do the math, you know.

Well, all I can say is this at this point, and I know you tried to explain it to us. Thank you very much. But you didn't persuade me.

Well, I I was just trying to get both sides of it.

Myself, I'm not voting for it. All right. I'm not voting for anybody.

Well, and I wasn't I wasn't trying to persuade a position on this entire community. All right. And it's not just them. We've got two more coming. So, I and I wasn't trying to persuade. I was just I the the applicant made the request. It's my responsibility to pass the request on to the board. I wasn't advocating for or against. I was giving the board trying to give the board both

sides of the of the coin. And like I said, it's very personal to this community. Um, and so whatever decision the board makes, it's not the board is not legally obligated under 40B, okay, to wave the fees.

So what else do we have to consider?

Okay. So I guess if if the board has moved on from that I don't know if Mr.

Attorney do you want to hear from attorney I can say that much.

Do you want I I don't know if you attorney came tonight sure on behalf do you want to Well I thought the public meeting was closed but this we could communicate but you can this this was an outstanding request that they made before the hearing closed.

Oh it was and and the board at the last meeting had kind of left it open to kind of Yes.

Yes.

But as long as nothing substantial that's going to change.

Yeah. They they're not submitting any new information. It's the same request that they made prior to the hearing closure.

No new information and I'm not going to burn you with any extensive advocacy on the the fee issue.

I'll state anecdotally in the towns that I represent.

This this is about 50% of all projects request some relief from fees on the um for the affordable units. And there's a mix of approvals or not approvals. We'd rather put that money back into the project to make it awesome, but I'm not going to advocate one way or the other strongly for it. I think that the the fees are pretty significant here in in town. And I don't think there's going to

be any loss in opportunity for doing things like INI. There won't be any loss in getting things connected to sewer and water. But I'm going we're going to respect the board's decision on that. We put it out there because we think it it helps the project overall.

Otherwise, I just wanted to state for the record that we really appreciate uh everything you did, everything that Susan did in terms of the draft. She was great in terms of giving us an opportunity to comment. We've gone through everything. The conditions that you're seeing now are fine with us. Um I thought it was a great job. Tim Barber working with Christian on it. I thought worked out really well. We had a couple

questions as of yesterday and Susan answered those. Um Christian checked in on a couple things where there was variance between what we had suggested when you that last night of the public hearing and what the final version was and it's all fine with us. So I just wanted to note for the record that we're comfortable with with this decision um here and we're we're happy to move forward with it. Obviously, we we feel

that there's some room to give us some relief for the affordable units, which we will absolutely take a loss on every single one of which they'll probably be a wash with the equal amount of market rate units. So, it's really we draw our any profit on 50% of the units because the other 50% kind of wash out with each other. But that's your call. We're going to respect it. We're not going to I'm

not going to sit here and argue for it or present any kind of facts or other argument there. Um and we're appreciative of the board's effort. We know you it's been uh a lot of 40bs uh in front of you lately. So, we appreciate the attention.

Thank you.

Welcome.

All right.

All right. So, um if does the do any of the board members have any questions about the decisions or the waiver list?

No, I do remember about there was concern about the school bus and I saw some of the language that was suggested for that.

I'm hoping I don't know how they're going to be able to work it out exactly, but we've got a you know long-standing sort of rule or policy.

It's on page 14.

School buses. Yeah.

Yep. Page 14 of your red line where the school buses don't come onto subdivisions that people that basically wait out front. Um, but given the nature of the roadway that Tucker Road is, um, and its inherent, you know, uh, risk with that roadway, I don't know, hopefully they can find something they can create, I don't know if they want to create an exception for this project just for the for the purpose of the

safety of children.

Yeah, I saw the language. I don't know how much better it could be written. To be honest with you, I don't think it can given the circumstances and the fact that we don't have control over it. They don't have control over it. there's another third party here that needs to consider how that's going to be done, right? But I I think, you know, the the idea was with the school, they don't

want to go down like uh side streets on every, you know, go have two miles to pick up two kids maybe or something like that. That's but if you have a project at this size and your turnaround is very close to the entrance where you can come in this the the school bus can go around a culde-sac or something and leave. I don't think it's a big deal.

Well, I think they kind of designed it with that in mind.

Yeah. And I think it works in keep the kids safe and you don't have to travel miles, you know. I think it's reasonable. Sometimes there are there are other forces as to what leads people to make certain decisions and I don't know what the school what the school board or the school committee wants to do but they'll make that determination.

I so and I have one other note. Um there had been a member of the public who spoke before the hearing closed at the last hearing um who is a resident on Fairway Drive who indicated that they do not agree with the applicant's position on the ability to use Fairway Drive for emergency egress. A letter did come in from those neighbors, but it came in after the hearing closed. So, it has not

been provided to the board because it would be new information outside of the hearing. Um but I as um the board's aware on condition F1 on page 13 of the decision which has been in here it was in here on April 13th before the hearing closed does require a emergency access road acknowledges that there is a dispute and states that if there is a dispute and the applicants on does not

prevail that the applicant will have to make other accommodations. for an emer would have to come to the board with a alternative um accommodation. So I believe that the decision acknowledges the the concern of the abutters um but it's outside of the board's you know purview to make that legal determination correctly. Some of them made it abundantly clear that they're going to be filing suit. I understand

right as that as was stated at your meeting at the on the 13th they indicated that but I just wanted to note that that the the decision does um recognize that there's a dispute and kind of says you know once that if once that gets sorted out either they can use it or they can't and if they can't they'll have to come back to the board.

Okay.

All right. Um if the if so the the next steps is if the board is ready to do so there is recommended vote language on the back side of that. Um and then what would happen is we have a signature page for the chair to sign. Um Michelle and I would just fill in the blanks. There's a few blanks as to who made the motion, who second it, etc. Those would get

filled in. the waiver list would get attached as an exhibit and Michelle would take the decision and file it tomorrow with the town clerk. Um, so if the board is ready to proceed, there is a vote on the back of that email that you have. You can email.

You just had it in front of you a second ago.

I did.

Yeah, we were looking at it. It had the fees on it, the sewer fees on it.

Oh, yeah. Yeah. I made notes on it. What do I do with it?

Stuck it up here.

Obviously,

we're relying on you that you've cross referenced all this stuff and it's all pretty much I reread it from start to finish this morning to make sure I read it clean.

And attorney Calman will tell you I sent him a revised draft with lots of typos fixed and cross references fixed. So hopefully I've caught them all.

Okay. Is that But you gentlemen, if you've read the proposed language and you're in agreement with it, then I'll entertain a motion.

Um, you can take that word out. That's too too many lawyers. Is draft we got is draft the word that we want to get rid of?

That's what um I thought so. Let's do Yeah. Yep.

Well, before I mean, is there anything that before we make a motion or anything that we wanted to say or uh uh I'll let you speak if you'd like to speak?

Well, I just want to say that this has been a very hard decision. I mean, I struggled with it. I I carefully reviewed all the records, the expert reports and the public comments and the conditions and I believe that we can vote on this. Uh we we do need housing in in in Dartmouth. I've been I've been a resident of Dartmouth for over 40 years. My three kids were born here. They went to school here. They

went to high school. My kids moved out of town. My my daughter is a PA.

She can't afford to live in Dartmouth.

She calls me. She said, "Dad, I'm moving to Texas." Because I can't buy a million-doll home. I don't know how you guys do it. I don't know how you did it.

You know, I said, "Yeah, I understand.

Things are not easy." So, and also I understand the neighbors. I I understand the concerns and that's why we listened to all the experts. We listened to the to the peer reviews. We we we communicated with DPW with with everyone, you know. So, I think adding the 35 affordable units is is a big step. Uh unfortunately we still don't meet the 10% statutory requirement from the state and uh this is not a

a a cut blanch like we I mean we it took me this this afternoon took me probably two hours to read through the conditions. So it's this is we understand we understand the the how sensitive this to the neighborhoods.

Unfortunately, this is not an easy way to do it. But what we're trying to do, we're trying to balance. And I think if we can I feel that we kind of balanced to the extent practicable basically what we can do by posing all the conditions to make sure this is done correctly regarding traffic infrastructure uh and environment and uh so I know this decision is not going to please everyone. We understand that and a

project of this scale will have some impact no matter what. But uh I think I believe that we have a right balance and I can support this project.

So, uh before we I mean I'm not um I'm not ready to uh for a motion, but I don't know if any of the other board members would like to say something, but I mean this is this like I said, this is hasn't been easy at all.

No, absolutely not. Um and as well as you, Haleem, I've been I was born and raised in this town. Um I I've said it before and I'll say it again. I love this town.

And there are numerous times I've contemplated trying to find a way that I felt it would be beneficial to vote against this truly. Um I've even contemplated stepping down so I wouldn't be the person on watch. I wouldn't be at the helm at the during the period of time in which we're basically you can say selling our town away. But there's not much we can do because there are state mandates. And the only reason that

I'm going to vote for this is because I think that voting for this is better than the other alternative. Even though I've explored this alternative.

Um I've spoken with that woman on the phone more times than you can imagine.

Um, I just feel that we're better off as a community voting for it with the 30 pages of terms and conditions that are here than if we voted against it and let it go to appeal with the housing appeals committee. I think that that would be much worse of a result. It may not be as soon we would be confronted with it, but I think it'd be worse because at that point they're able

to do a lot more of what they want to do than where they're at.

So um and I think I think we all share with the struggle of voting for this, but this is the first one that we've done in a while. The only other one that I've been part of was the was the um preserve which is on Route Six. To me, that one made a lot more sense given its location, um given its character, given its size in relation to the total land

that was that they were utilizing, the total land size. Uh but, you know, we don't get to pick and choose what comes before us. And unfortunately, this is the one that we're here tonight on. um been dreading not having to make this decision, but uh we're here. We're here and there are not many options.

Mr. Newman, if there's anything else you want, I you said it succinctly. Um, I would rather see 30 pages of conditions attached to an approved decision than going back to they're allowed to go back to the state board and potentially get the project through without any conditions. The conditions are necessary. We need to put those conditions on there. So, I I would vote in favor.

I think reluctantly I have to agree.

If we need to take a break for a little while before we uh call a vote, we can do that. Um it's it's almost Oh, it's a little over six or we've got another we've got another 40B that we're going to be dealing with at 6:00. And that one's not 138 units. That one's 300 units.

So, um what's your pleasure, gentlemen?

We can take a break or we can go to a vote.

Make the motion.

Make the motion. Go ahead.

Um Okay. Uh, I make a motion that we approve comprehensive permit ZCMP25-1 based on the finding set forth in section one of the decision reviewed by the board in this hearing and grant the comprehensive permit for the project shown on the project plans described in scheduled Attached there too subject to the conditions. set forth in section two there too and to take action on the waiverss as indicated

in schedule B there too. Such findings, conditions, and schedules are expressly incorporated into this vote by reference and are each deemed by the board to be an integral part of the comprehensive permit.

I second that motion.

All in favor? I I I The eyes have it.

Thank you.

We're going to take a short recess, gentlemen.

Sure.

the comprehensive permit ZCMP-25-3.

The petitioner is Philip Cordderero on behalf of the Hathaway Dartmouth LLC.

Owner is applicant via PNS agreement.

The subject property is Zero Hathaway Road. also known as map 57 lot one. It's located within the single residence a district and this matter was legally advertised on December 18th to December 25th of 2025. We've already waved the reading of the abutters list at prior meetings. The petitioner Philip Cordderero is seeking a comprehensive permit pursuant to Mass General Law Chapter 40B sections 20-23.

The comprehensive permit guideline 760 CMR56 from the Massachusetts general laws and Dotment zoning bylaw regulations. The petitioner applicant is proposing a development on approximately 113 acres to be known as the Hathaway to be located at zero Haway Road in the single residency district. The development will have a total of 300 residential units.

All right. So, at this time, I'm going to call upon the petitioner or their representative to come forward and explain to us where we're at in the process.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Mark Donahghue from Fletcher Tilton on behalf of the applicant. Uh, a fair amount has occurred since we were last here on April 6th. Um, there has been exchanges of new plans and comments with regard to the plan with regard to civil engineering. uh just at the close of the last meeting, we had the chance to introduce and discuss what they

demonstrated, but not to have any discussion with you concerning some renderings that were posted to the portal and made available to the board and the public. So, we're glad to talk about those. With regard to traffic, there's been an exchange of memos by the various consultants as recently as this afternoon. So we can certainly summarize those issues and the entire development team is here to answer any particular

questions or look into any particular areas of concern of uh the board or the public. So with your permission uh what I'd like to do is have Mr. Cado who's the civil engineer from Allen Major review the status that's occurred since the April 6th meeting um and review with you some of those plans.

Thank you.

Uh, good evening. For the record, Phil Cordiero from Allen and Major Associates, uh, principal business address, 10 Main Street in Lakeville.

Um, as Mr. Donnie mentioned, I just wanted to provide an update as to where we are on the civil engineering and then obviously answer any questions that the board has. And at the board's discretion, if you wanted me to further review the architectural 3D, excuse me, the 3D renderings that were quickly presented at our last meeting, I'm happy to revisit those and present them here again tonight to field questions from

either the board or the public now that they uh have been added to the record.

Um, prior just prior to our last hearing, we had received a comment review letter from the town's civil engineering peerreview consultant, Mel Associates, who I believe is here this evening. Uh she had identified a few further comments on the review of the application specifically centered around the notion of the landbanked parking that we had presented to the board which as a reminder is an opportunity to

denote that we can provide parking spaces around the perimeter of our site with the intent that we would prefer to keep those as green space but build the parking spaces if there's a necessary need to do so. Uh what we heard through the town's peerreview consultant is they wanted to be sure that the storm water infrastructure properly accounted for all of those spaces that should they be

built, we did not need to reconstruct the project on the fly. So the plans that Mr. Donnie, you had mentioned that were resubmitted uh through the portal several weeks ago were no changes to the site layout, no modifications to parking, no modifications to certainly building coverage or layout. It was really a coordination to ensure that the drainage systems below the parking accommodated the future buildout of

those banked parking should we need to build them. Uh so they were really proofed out by calculations, storm water calculations, draw down calculations, total suspended solids and the like of which we asked your peer reviewer to weigh in on. Uh and she certainly did that. Um what I'll intimate to the board is that all of the calculations that we provided do of course continue to meet

the storm water management handbook standards. Uh and we meet all of the requirements for storm water handling on site. We did receive an updated peerreview letter from the consultant uh Tuesday afternoon as a response to those plans. Uh I'll obviously defer to um uh your peer reviewer to speak on their opinion. I'm sure you'll want to hear from her this evening, but by and large I would say she appears generally in

agreement with the calculations that were provided. She does make several recommendations of conditions on the plan should this board issue a permit.

Several of those conditions include providing a final operation and maintenance plan on the development, providing a final comprehensive collated storm water report for the file, uh, and then certainly providing a final set of plans depicting all of the improvements in total as we've put forth. We certainly agree with those. We recommend that those be considered as conditions uh, as ordinary due course of the nature

of these types of comprehensive permit programs. Uh in addition, there were a few couple of comments of provide clarification, make sure the parkings parking numbers are labeled correctly and the tables all coordinate with each other. Um they wouldn't obstensively change the plans in any way, but we're obviously happy to coordinate those, but we would seek final confirmation of all

of that information hopefully through a a condition is issued by this board. Um, in terms of other site engineering, not much has actually taken place since then. We believe that was a lot. We believe it was necessary. We believe that it's all coordinated and artfully reviewed, thoughtfully reviewed. Uh, but nothing else has changed on the site. I guess I should probably change the

screen to at least have a site plan up for the board's memory and recollection.

Um the areas that we're talking about, all of our drainage on site is located underneath the parking lot here, here, and along this rear tray. And it ultimately discharges to a native wetland system uh at the easterly portion of our site, or excuse me, the westerly portion of our site. Uh again, meeting all of the requirements of storm water management standards and the wetlands protection act. Um, that's all

I have this evening from a civil engineering perspective. I'm certainly happy to answer any questions the board has. I don't know if you would like to hear from your peer reviewer now or we can continue and revisit the 3D elevations that were pres presented fairly quickly at the end of our last meeting in April. I'll ask for the board's direction on that.

At some point, I want to see the renderings that you have, but um, any members have any questions of this gentleman's presentation?

No, I'm just All right. So, I guess at this point we call from the peer review.

Come on.

Good evening. Deb Keller with Maryland Engineers and Land Surveyors. So, as stated, we did review the latest uh set of plans and uh Phil did a great job of summarizing uh the majority of the revisions that were made. I'd like to highlight uh just a few for the board's consideration.

Um there were several items that I feel could be conditioned uh specifically um providing an ANR plan. I know there the the applicant is still continuing to subdivide the parcel so that the back land could be potentially used for open space or conservation. Um so whatever that form a plan looks like that should be something that uh is is linked to this permit.

Um, one of the other items that I still believe is open is the billboard and I believe that's a something that the board should condition whether or not that is a valid use to be provided on the site. My understanding is that is used um has been in presented uh to be used for revenue for the project. Um I think in in looking at the location of it, it's surrounded by um

roadway wetlands. So access to that location seems very limited. So being able to construct the billboard uh would require additional permitting through conservation for access. Um, but trying to get a little bit more information to understand if it could even be built in that location might be helpful um for the board.

And again, they they could still excuse me, you could still consider that as a a condition of approval if you wanted to wait and see that after the fact, but I just uh provide that information um to the board for consideration. As stated, there were some uh still some plan minor corrections to be made which all could be addressed through the the final plan set. Um I did have some minor

adjustments for the open basin. Um that is not collecting any of the roadway or parking lot drainage. is uh collecting off offsite runoff, but it still needs to meet um storm water design um criteria. Minor tweaks. Uh it's all all could be done. There's enough room there to do it. They may just need to expand the basin slightly.

again um with the with the parking and I I asked for a a sort of a conceptual or a one-page grading plan as to how they would grade out the future parking should it be um required to be built. Um that was not provided although it could be provided as a condition of the pro of approval.

Again, I do look at the plans and just so that you're aware if they do have to expand the parking um on either side, and I believe they have parking on three sides of the development um for future development, each one of those sides most likely will require a retaining wall to to uh construct the parking. So, I just wanted to make sure that we all understood what would go into expanding those parking spaces. Um,

my opinion would be is that if you could work with them to phase that parking less impervious is always a good thing.

Um, one of the options that I've worked on on other projects is um tying it to uh an occupancy or a parking evaluation when they're closer to completion of the project so that they have to go and evaluate parking to determine whether there is a need for additional parking.

And then that that that's when you could require uh construction of some or all of uh the future parking or land bank parking that they show on the plan.

Um I I did and again this is a a plan clarification um looking at uh relief for retaining walls. I I asked them to just double check to make sure that there's no walls in the side set back and this would be associated with the a sports court. Just making sure that the grading allowed for less than six foot tall retaining walls within the setback. So that they did not need uh relief from that um requirement

as uh anything over a retaining walls over 6 ft is a is considered a structure and would either need a variance or need to be set back um such as a building. I believe they are looking for relief for that for the front retaining wall along the roadway at the frontage um because that wall will be greater than 6 ft in height.

And then lastly, um the outstanding comment still is the coordination with DPW with regards to uh water and sewer being provided to the um site and what those improvements are needed to support the the project. Um it's been indicated that that is still ongoing and um so I believe it would be up to the board here as to whether or not they want to condition that or see if we can get any more information um

worked out between DPW and the applicant.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

John, you have any questions?

Not at this time, Mr. Chair.

I have no questions at this time.

Is there anything else you wanted to add, Mr. Cado?

I apologize. Uh if I just wanted to add uh some very brief clarifications if I may uh just so we don't uh indicate them as open issues. As uh uh Mel had mentioned, the open basin that she is referring to is this area here, which picks up the overland flow coming off of the Eisenhower neighborhood. So for all the board members in the public, this site has a lot of topography that slopes

towards the wetlands and it also slopes from east to west. So in cutting this grade down, we want to divert water to this Oland basin. Uh we're happy to accommodate the notes that were provided to us and we just note the reason it is the way it is. We were trying to minimize the amount of vegetation clearing as we had indicated to the board during the prior hearings along the entirety of that property line. But

we do have the land area to accommodate uh burm width and depth and we will certainly do that. Um the other note was relative to the landbanked parking which as a reminder we have allocation of spaces along the east property line, the north property line and the south property line. um the grading plan that was requested. We're again happy to accommodate that, it has not been provided under the premise as we've

indicated to the board, we would rather not construct those spaces. U but we can certainly uh indicate what the final grading would look like and as she pointed out, there would be retaining walls involved with the construction of all three sides if those spaces were were built. uh and we would want to ensure that those heights we can calculate those but those would be encompassed in the waiver relative to

the setback should those get built. Um speaking to the other retaining wall uh we are aware obviously there is a retaining wall that supports the recreational sports court that abuts the line between the church and our property. um excuse me that has intentionally been maximized at 6 feet in height uh because as we talked about at the last meeting or maybe the one prior to that uh the church cannot be

the beneficiary of a waiver. So we need to ensure that any retaining wall remains below that 6 ft. Uh so there's no structure considered on our side of the property. We are requesting the waiver as uh Deb had had indicated. Um and then lastly, uh we are continuing to work with DPW, um on coordination of the necessary review of um the offsite mitigation, the off-site improvements.

We do have an initial will serve letter provided to us on the project which outlined certain improvements that needed to be made. We're operating under the premise that those are the requirements. Um, but we understand the director does want to have information reviewed and we're actively coordinating with them on engagement of a consultant to to do that up to and including today's correspondence.

Thank you.

Want to move on to the renderings?

Sure.

Uh so as a reminder to the board what we had provided is this is the same site uh we had talked about the various crosssections as coming off of Eisenhower. We wanted to make sure we understood the relationship between the existing homes the proposed uh buildings and the top topographic changes that exist between the existing residential subdivision and the proposed. Um, I apologize I can't read those numbers at

this scale. I can get my printed plans, but we're going to zoom in on that as we move through. But the lines as you as you see on the plan indicate the general locations of the crosssections that we have provided uh, you know, sort of walking our way down Eisenhower with all of the steps uh, in the progress. Um, we do also have the architect here with us this evening.

he was not present for the last meeting.

So he can certainly add information relative to the building detailing if the board requires. Um this is the plan that we will start with. This is the uh architectural elevation and the whole purpose of this is to really confirm for the board the heights of the building.

Um Clay if you wouldn't mind the top of the building is Yeah.

Yeah of course. Please please hear it from his words.

Sure. Hi Clay Smoo Smoo Architecture located 8 Lyman Street Westboro. Um there as you know there are six buildings on the site. There are two buildings that are um I can read it. You can actually back out of it. Um there the two buildings that are parallel to Hathaway are fourstory buildings. Those buildings what we're using is 11 ft floor to floor. We build this with floor trusses to carry the loads. So, it's 11

feet floor to floor. So, buildings A and B, which are parallel to Hathaway, are 44 feet tall to the top of the roof. And we're proposing a three-foot uh mechanical parapit at the top. So, you can see that that is the top left image there. And you can see the 44T and the and the uh and the three feet. This diagram is sort of playing the dual role. Now, if you back out, so you've

got A and B, which are parallel to uh that are sitting on a flat site that's parallel to Haway. And then the back four buildings C, D, E, and F are fourstory buildings that then have a lower level terrace walkout if you can back out. So what you're looking at here and you can see the building at the top right you can imagine that is the higher point which has the

four the four stories at 44 ft plus the three-foot parapit. Then on the down side where the grade comes out it has a walk out much like you would have on your house where you have a walk out we call it the terrace level and at the terrace level on that side which at that point is five levels of of apartments is 55 ft to the top of the roof from the

average grade and again with the uh three-foot power pit.

Happy to take any questions on that.

58 ft. It's 58 ft and I'm I have to look back but I think the zoning is to the top of roof is it's considered 55 ft and then it has that screen wall on it.

Is that everything?

Hold on. That's not how this works, right? We We're all going to have an opportunity.

Sure. But I will we'll let him finish through through the what is that corral that screen wall that's on top is three feet masks the mechanical behind it.

Yes. So yes.

Okay. You want to get back and walk them through your sections? Sure. Back to Phil.

Okay.

Uh so this is this is the line diagram that walks you through the site. So in the upper right corner, this is the locus map. The red line indicates the directional compass. So again, we are looking towards the left. So for frame of reference, this would be Haway Road.

This would be the building AB sequence that Mr. Smoo just spoke about. Building CD and ENF as you walk down. So as a reminder, this is the fourstory. This is fourstory on the side closest to Haway.

Then it becomes a five and then similarly four and five. And again, you can see the grade as we walk those levels down. And this takes us towards the wetland area at the back where we do have some retaining walls that support the development. And what this allows us to do is our structured drainage actually exists underneath the parking lot through through these elevated levels.

Uh this is just a visual graphic. Uh you are on Hathaway obviously looking at the at the site. The church is here to the left. Eisenhower uh is to the right and you can see it again along the red line through here. So this is the first home on Eisenhower in buildings A and B.

Again, the fourstory model. Um as a reminder to the board when we were working through the layout uh when we had it conceptually reviewed as part of the project eligibility letter and we got feedback from the town, most notably the planning board uh through the mass housing comment letter. What we heard was activation centers really wanted to be as far away from the residents uh on

the existing Eisenhower subdivision as possible. So this area to the left of the site, not only is this the main entrance to the property, but this is where the clubhouse is located, this is where the pool deck is, the amenity center is here. uh are in earlier plans that was all located on the right side of the plan but has all been relocated and coordinated as we have progressed through these drawings. I will also

remind the board, we did touch upon this at the last meeting. Um, one of the elements of feedback that we got from the fire department, from the fire chief is because of the nature of the site, because of the density, um, they did request that we provide a second access point to the property and we did add it.

The second access point is actually located approximately here. It brings it into the midpoint of building A solely for the exclusive use of the fire department, gated, locked, but it would be fully paved all weather surface at their request. Uh I believe it was captured in the mel peer review uh the last one prior to the one that came out on Tuesday. So they are aware of it. Um the fire department is aware of it.

We've not received any additional comments. Um the one note that we are soliciting from the fire department is for those familiar a fire gate uh may look very utilitarian. It's often simple round bar bright brightly red painted.

Um we are looking for something a little more decorative. again to the fire department's um uh support and approval, but given that it is technically at the front door of the property, we want something a little more decorative, but it'll still meet all of the requirements that the fire department can put in front of us.

Uh so this is this is a blowup view of that area. And again, the intent of this, and I'll zoom in so everybody can read it, is is really to reinforce um the measurements that we have from our surveyed information just to indicate the the first home on Eisenhower exists generally 30 feet off of the shared property line. And our closest point of the building is 106 ft, you know, netting out at 136. And in between

there's the the circular driveway that surrounds the buildings that allow um entry to the property. Uh the takeaways from this type of slide is as far is is not only the building positioning as far away from the property line as we can accommodate but also especially on this first slide the beginning formation of the change in topography as to how the existing terrain is going to remain

higher than all of the terrain through here on the property. And this is going to continue to move downward. And it's in that motion, it's in that reality that allows the four and the five stories um that the architect has factored into the building design. And then between those two elements, uh this is graphically illustrating trees. So it is our intent to maximize and retain as

much of the tree buffer as we can, the natural tree buffer, and that's indicated on our on our landscape plan.

But we also note two things about the existing trees out there, which is it is not a uniform buffer. And in portions of it where we indicate that there's vegetative cover, it's very um lowlying.

There's not a whole lot of high vegetation. And so in areas like that, and we'll talk about it on the landscape plan in a moment, uh we are intending to supplement with larger species, evergreens, spruce trees, um things that have a wide birth at the bottom, grow very rapidly, and and can create an effective screening buffer for the project. Now, as a reminder, when we talk about elements like this, we do

note sight lighting. You know, we'll come into conversation. Um we do have a photometrics plan in the package. We can certainly certainly talk about those elements but the key points on site lighting is that any any lighting that we introduce on site. A has to be dark sky compliant which is the requirement.

B it is LED which is energy efficient. C the illumination created by those lights on site is not allowed to spread beyond the property line. Uh so we effectively place it so when the when the dome of light falls from the light standard where that light intersects hits the ground needs to be on our property and where it can't be on our property because of the height of the fixture or

the illumin the lumens of it. We install what's called a vertical shield behind it. So that dome is then blocked by a shield to effectively create that zero runoff situation. You'll hear those terms as we talk about photoometric plants.

So advancing uh what we were tasked to do is we started our journey down Eisenhower and we took this is an existing photograph of the property. We are obviously facing to the west uh in the distance is where the development is located. Um you can see on this plan the nature of the existing trees through here which are really low to the ground.

Um, forgive me, I don't know what species those are, but they're they're not very much leafbearing. They're sort of thorny and thickety. Um, and it's in those areas where we can supplement and we'll work to do that. Um, so the way we accommodate this and the position is shown here in the lower right hand corner. This is the locus and again we're looking to the left. When we take

the photographs, we do it at intentional locations that are tied to our survey.

And the reason we do that is so we know what the elevations are where we're taking the photograph. We know the height of the person taking the photograph. We know the direction that they're looking. And the reason I share all of that information is when we create the 3D model of Mr. Smoo's buildings and superimpose it into the the next picture, we know that we're getting the perspective and the

relationship correct. So what you're seeing in the distance beyond this is building B. This is a fourstory building uh and you're seeing the evidence of the upper floors of that building um projecting above the native tree line.

Now I do note for the board there is some creative license in the photographs in that there's vegetation that we know is going to be removed. So as I draw your attention to the laser pointer and I jump backwards, you're going to see that what we've done is we've digitally removed the vegetation likely to disappear. And that allows the building to be seen as you see in this photograph. And what that tells us is

when we advance and we start integrating our landscaping and at this distance it might be hard to see. So if I jump back and forth between the photographs, it might be more easily seen where things are popping into place where you can start to see some of our spruce and evergreen vegetation that we will plant.

will start to infill those zones and start to create the height that'll further bring down the the visual massing of that building from this particular location. Um so for the packets that you have for the for the packages that are online the the history of the photographs again locus the current condition the uh rendered condition with no landscaping. This is the rendered condition with landscaping.

And this is the architectural section that was presented with the heights of the buildings a moment ago. As we continue down line, we're moving to the next section. The model generally follows the same, but as I zoom into that, we actually create uh a little bit of increased separation between the home.

Now, obviously, we're showing a 92.8 dimension. That's not our property. that will remain untouched. But from beyond there, where our building the closest to the property line is about 110 1/2 ft.

And again, it's the same notion of where that landscaping is, where the drive aisle is, etc.

And when we advance it through to the view, this is the photograph taken at that same location from here, again, westerly. So it's sandwiched between the A and B tier and the C and D tier in terms of the building focus. So when we take the N native photograph, remove the anticipated vegetation and then show the building behind it. You can see multiple floors of the building. Now the lower

floors are recessed below grade because it drops down significantly from the Eisenhower subdivision to our property.

Uh and then when you introduce the landscaping screen that we're proposing relative to the landscaping plan again spruces arborvite emer emerald green arborite things that retain their leaves year round. So once it's a permanent and effective screen it remains in place.

There would be some introduction of deciduous plants uh excuse me deciduous trees obviously for visual interest but the effect of the screening is going to be based on evergreen trees. So it's a it's a year round situation.

Uh continuing down um so again we're we're moving further down and again that's the native photograph between the next two homes on Eisenhower. The next would be the removal of the vegetation and then the 3D building beyond and then the introduction, pardon me, slight delay here, the introduction of the landscaping uh where the trees would not exist. Now again, this is a situation where and

I'll back up to the native photograph. A lot of those trees in the distance are not trees with a lot of leaf uh growth on them. Again, it's that thickety variety of material. Um, so you'll see, you know, the effectiveness of the landscaping that we're intending to introduce through here. And then I'm going to continue moving down line one more section again with the same notion with the same cross-section, 92 feet

from the home to the property line about 92 feet in this case as we continue to drop down line. And then this is the photograph view through here. Now, in this area, as you'll notice as I advance through to the next slide, we do have some of the larger trees as we approach that wetland area that that would be removed as part of the project. And you can see the buildings beyond. Um

obviously everything in the foreground that 93 feet is untouched and as much as we can retain per the landscaping plan we will uh but then the introduction of the landscaping screen built up allowed to grow through there to really again bring down that visual uh the visual the visuals that you see through there and I think I have one more as you get to the very end of Eisenhower

uh again the same the exact same premise this is the pre-existing condition. This is the removal of the trees. So, you actually see them beyond the house in that location. And you can just see maybe the corner of the building peeking in through there. Um, now, of course, there's there's landscaping through there, but you don't see them in this photograph because it's it's well and

truly obscured by existing vegetation, uh, better growth trees that are going to stay in this this area. And then I guess one more as we walk down to the very end of Eisenhower. Uh and in this case what happens is there is some tree removal and I'm just flashing it so you can see where the focus of effort is is that tree removal is really relegated to that affformentioned runoff basin uh

that picks up the overland flow. We do need to construct that basin in the corner to mitigate the natural runoff um condition through there.

I guess one more and that's it. That's it. So in this case this is sort of a oneanddone photograph uh in that we took it at the end. This is the existing the altered and the proposed condition the buildings um and the tree removal exists outside of really the realm of what this photograph uh picks up which is why you see it as as the static photograph.

Um so I'm I'm happy to answer any questions on sort of the the methodology, the approach, um the design intent here.

So the proposed trees that you show for screening vegetation, the uh evergreen or spruce uh they they appear to be like uh somewhere between 35 to 40t tall. Is that how when I mean at the time of planting that those trees will be what 6, seven, 8? Uh so 10 10 to 12. So we would want to get so we can get 8 to 8 10 12 at the planting.

Um we obviously we want to show you what the growth looks like, right? So we need to accommodate what the future is going to be. But at at installation continue you're going to have an opportunity.

Uh so at installation those plants would be between 8 and 12 feet. um the use of things like the emerald green arborite in in a good sun location. They can grow about a foot a year uh which is why we choose them in in these locations.

Thank you. Any other questions, Joan?

No, I have not at this time.

All right.

So, we've heard a lot here tonight.

Are we hearing traffic or no traffic?

I don't know if I was going to give an opportunity. You want to do that now?

Oh, it's just 7 o' It's still early, as they say.

Still early. I guess you've moved along a lot quicker than I thought. All right.

Um, but the thing is I think that some people have some questions about this specific part of it at this point. Now, if they're going to start asking questions about traffic, we're going to have to cut them off so they can bring that up at traffic. So, they were asked to provide us renditions, photos of what this would potentially look like based on where the buildings are in relation to the property lines

given the height of the buildings. Um, you've seen them. So, I know that some of you have wanted to ask some further questions. I'm going to give you an opportunity. We're going to peacemeal this today. So, we're going to do any questions about the height of the buildings, the location of the buildings in relation to the properties that you may own along Eisenhower. Anyone like to

come up as usual? Come on up. State your name, your address, and you can ask a question. You got to come on up.

I've already You got to be heard because I've already been told by her I got to have my microphone nearby so that can be picked up.

It's a Tom Babington from 19 Kennedy Street.

Kennedy Street. Kennedy Street.

Thank you.

So, in the project eval project um letter from Mass Housing on page three, it asked the developer to work with the town and the neighborhood on the building height.

We're talking 58 feet.

That's two telephone poles tall.

Telephone pole is about 30 feet tall.

There's probably nothing in Dartmouth other than Driscoll's last direction at UMass Dartmouth campus that's taller than 60 ft.

The renderings aren't very good for in that world of 2026.

The the illustrations of the renderings of the building, they're in shadows.

They're taken from the street level, not from the people's backyards. They're also dead on with the narrowest part of the building showing in the renderings.

The landscaping plans vary a little bit from what version you're looking at on what if what trees are going to get removed, which trees aren't going to get removed.

And I disagree with the what I saw on the landscape plans. The trees they're going to plant are only going to be 6 to8t tall, not 12 feet tall. It's going to take a long time to screen 58 feet.

The other problem that you have is the elevation on Eisenhower goes downhill.

So if I'm a couple of houses down and I look up on an angle, I'm going to see this towering monolith that's taller than 58 ft high.

And we're still waiting to see how we're going to work out like a compromise between the developer, the town, and the neighborhood on building height. Nothing's happened yet.

They're not going to give up an inch.

Not sure but I your concern concern that's that's my that's my opinion so far the other thing that the de the other thing that zoning board of appeals did in Falmouth with the same developer they asked for a balloon test.

So instead of get get away from all the renderings because they can be manipulated the shadows can affect what people see in the renderings.

and they flew a balloon at each building at the height that the building height's going to be and did a drone run through the people's backyards. I actually have the the butter the letter from the the same firms that we're talking about from Falmouth notifying the abuters on how they were going to do the balloon test.

Then I requested the zoning board of appeals to come do the site visit during the balloon test so you could see it with your own eyes instead of trying to look through horrible looking renderings with just one shot from the street level.

So I think that's pretty much covered what I wanted to say about the about the architectural design.

All right. Thank you for that.

Okay, move on. I share the same concerns and I'm sure there are other people in the audience that have similar concerns and and I don't want to get sidetracked too much on parking but it's kind of like we're if if the neighborhood start bitching about the number of parking spaces we get less buffer if we don't push on parking. Maybe we get a little bit more buffer but the

parking is going to be a problem. But if I make it too big of an issue, I'm going to have parking spaces along the property line of people live on Eisenhower.

So the same developer in Felmouth for a 40B 300 units, similar kind of mix between onebedroom and two bedrooms and whatnot. They had a parking ratio of 1.73.

My guess is that they had more building space, buildable buildable space to allow more parking.

I understand we're trying to maximize density to improve housing availability in Massachusetts. This is a case in which the developer doesn't want to compromise. They want 300 units regardless of whether or not there's enough building spaces to make adequate parking and adequate buffer. So, we get buildings that are too tall and not enough parking.

So, that's pretty much summarizes my opinion on some good points. Thank you.

Before he leaves, can I ask a question?

You Oh, yes. Are you providing a copy of the letters that you're referring to?

Yes. Here's the the balloon test.

Yeah. We have here just the picture of the rendering at one point.

Okay. I'll just pass you around.

Yeah.

All right. Is there anyone else that'd like to come up?

And then one other thing would just be page three of the No, no. Let's look. I I I have I have that.

We have that. We have the project going on that radio. I I have I've actually circled the portion that you mentioned.

Thank you.

Anyone else that'd like to come up and speak?

Good evening. Uh Daniel Rodri, 17 Eisenhower Street.

So I have a few comments on the building height. Um, as Tom mentioned, right, the project eligibility letter um specifies or directs the applicant to work with the town and the residents on Eisenhower Street with the building height and the grading. Um, at the March 2nd meeting, Mr. Chair, you explicitly asked the applicant u to provide the number of units they would provide if the

buildings were adjusted to three and four stories. Um, Mr. Calhoun flatly refused that, stating, I quote, "That's not a product we're trying to build.

We're trying to build highclass products that people want." So, I'd like to ask the board, how is that working with the town?

We're going to get to that. Okay.

All right. Um secondly, uh with building height as well, um the the project itself is about 1.7 miles from the New Buffford airport. Um the billboard they're proposing is about 1.3 miles. Um now, I'm not a professional engineer, so I don't know all the calculations, but I did some rough calculations. um based on title 14 CFR part 77.9 um it appears that based on the um height of the property and the building

height that there might be a trespass into the imaginary 100 to1 ratio line uh of aviation safety. So I'd request that the board and its experts look into that and see if there's any violation um or penetration that would require an FAA determination of no hazard.

Um, and secondly, based on the images they showed today, um, the basin area that they're proposing, um, I'm not sure if they stated how deep that's going to be, um, and if there's any provisions that going to be provided to prevent my children from falling in that basin. Um, is there going to be some kind of fencing put up between Eisenhower and the property? Um, I'd like to ask the board to look into that.

Yeah, those are conditions that we can consider.

Anything else, sir?

That's it. Thank you.

Anyone else? Come on up, sir.

Ron Doolong, 24 Dean Street. So, uh, these buildings, we live in a residential area. Uh, twostory buildings. These are going to be fivetory buildings. Fourtory in the front, five in the back. Pretty high.

Just that little picture that I saw where the f the Eisenhower uh the street the building on Eisenhower the house on Eisenhower it's two stories higher than that.

It's it's it's these are going to be the tallest buildings in Dartmouth. Are we changing the are we going to be changing the town of Dartmouth to the city of Dartmouth?

We all live in a it's it's a quiet neighborhood over here now. Now the parking alone, right? They're going to have to expand the parking. 442 spots for 600 units. Uh I mean 300 units is far too little. Need at least 600 spots.

Otherwise, they're going to be parking all over Eisenhower and and Haway Road.

Too much. And then that then I was thinking about the uh that basin back there. So all these parking spots leaking oil, hydraulic fluid, all the fluids that the cars leak, where's it going into that basin? And where does it go from that basin? into the woods into the wood catches it where it go.

There's an infil in infiltration system.

They've explained that before, but this gentleman knows that very very well.

Okay. So, it gets storm water requirements. It's treated and all that.

Yeah.

I had those concerns along before I was on this board. I didn't know how that worked, but rest assured that's not an issue.

So, now we got three 300 units that going in here. They don't they only need like 75 lowincome units to fulfill the town's requirement. Is that correct or no? Well, the problem is is none of them, even the ones we granted today, don't count towards the inventory because they haven't been built. There's two criteria. One, they have to have it approved by a certain level and then

they count towards the inventory. And if they don't meet it by that period of time, then you got to wait for it to be built just like the ones out in the preserve preserve. They not they're not counting towards the 10% because they haven't been built.

So once they built, then we're going to have way over what we need.

We're probably going to have way over 10%. So why is it that in the residential neighborhood that we have, why can't we shrink those buildings down to three stories and two stories, plenty of parking, be it it's corporate greed.

I mean, the town should be fighting for the people. We're the people. Nobody here likes it at all. These guys want to make millions and millions of dollars cuz 300 units going to make them millions and millions and millions of dollars. We we don't need that many units. We shrink the town down to two uh two stories in the front, three in the back, plenty of parking, traffic wouldn't be affected as much. Everybody

would be happy. Compromise.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else?

Come on up.

Lori Ala 11 Eisenhower Street. Okay. Um can you explain to me the third house in is our house.

Why do why are there no I'm not sure about the right term. Those green lines.

Why are those not on our house?

I'm not sure the question. I don't understand.

I think she's asking why they didn't create any perspectives to show what the impact was going to be on her house. So they're showing the green lines show the images that they presented to the board of the third house and on the left which is our house.

One, two, three. Okay.

What? Why is that?

I don't know. We could ask them that.

Okay.

Okay.

Number one, um I agree with what everyone else said. I almost was gonna say it, but I don't want to reiterate everything that was Thank you for that.

Okay.

But I do have to say that the elevation from the backyards, it goes downhill.

Okay. So now from the street view what they were showing, you know, it looks sort of all right but all the backyards are downhill.

So now that fivetory building is over even higher really than what they're projecting from the street view, they would tell you something different.

They would tell you because the topography is lower, therefore it doesn't look as high from your property as it otherwise would. But I'm just explaining to you. I understand you're trying to say from from the perspective of looking down it look, but they will tell you something different. Okay.

Well, then from the street view when they were showing when they fill in with um new um trees and everything, they were taught in about putting trees that are what 8 to 10 ft high and they roll about 40 year, right? Like someone said that's it would take a long time to really, you know, hide the project.

There were those other arbor varieties they I think they call them re giants that grow three feet a year.

So why can't they put those in?

Those are things we can consider. That's why we're here to consider these conditions that we can put in there.

There are different species that can grow quicker to give you the type of coverage. But I have a bigger concern before we get to that. Okay. Is there anything else you'd like to ask?

No, I'm okay.

Thank you. Thanks.

Is there anyone else?

All right. Um, so I also share in the concerns that these people have said. As a matter of fact, I actually circled uh prior to today's date a specific provision that was mentioned by that gentleman back there. Uh we and he's absolutely correct and I've verified it myself. We've never granted any type of relief this board for any structure that was five stories. the most that I've

could I know that since I've sat on this board it was three and four and quite frankly is there's something that and and it does say here I'm going to read it just to make sure it says the applicant should be prepared this is from the letter that came from the it's a project eligibility letter that came from Mass Housing and that gentleman I don't remember his name but he's on Kennedy Street he

astutely um brought this up and it specifically said that The applicant should be prepared to work closely with its design team to address concerns regarding site grading and building height.

So, you've heard the concerns of the neighbors. I also have concerns. What are your thoughts about what could be done in order to minimize um the impact of a building that's four and five stories? I touched upon this with you just briefly. That gentleman also brought it up. No, I think that gentleman brought it up and um I think it's a renewed question.

Mr. Chair, um David Calhoun, Sax and Partners, uh where the development team.

Uh a couple of things to point out. What the gentleman is is quoting from is our project eligibility letter, which is uh basically your ticket to play, which you submit a preliminary plan. the state comes down, they do a sitewalk, they listen to comments, they take comments from the town, they take comments from all the boards. Uh it was unique in that the town planning board actually had a

meeting about our project and they talked about it and they looked at our project and they said, "Height bothers us, closeness to the Eisenhower, um the amenities being close to Eisenhower."

And they actually the actual language they used when they were having their discussion was rather than saying no, let's challenge these guys, let's ask them to move their buildings, let's ask them to move the amenities, let's ask them to get them away from the neighborhood. And we did that. We did all of that. There was, I believe, um, 13 or 14 different conceptual programs that were prepared for this property

before we got to this. We did not come to the ZBA because it's not appropriate at that time. But previously when we first opened our hearing, we explained that to the board that you know this is version 13. Uh so we made all the adjustments. Uh and the state did make a decision that we were eligible to build a four and fivetory product at this at that density with the parking. Um and um

we fulfilled everything that we think we're required to do. Um moving the project away from the neighborhood was a real challenge. Real challenge. Uh and if you look, you can see and you know, everybody says, "Well, somebody's right on top of me. There's going to be lights. You're going to be looking out your windows at us."

If you go to those homes, their butter is 30 feet away.

I'm not concerned about the lighting.

Lighting size.

I'm not concerned about that. I'm concerned about the height. And I don't know how I don't know how you mitigate that. I really don't. I don't know how you mitigate it.

I I think you can. The height is pretty well mitigated by the way we stepped it down the hill. Put it away from the neighbors. Um, and if you know the statement that there's no building that tall in the town, how about Hill Street down by the harbor? If you go to come up hill street and you look, there's homes that are pushing five stories tall that are pushing 55 ft plus in the historic

district. You get to the top of the hill, you have the church, you have the other old historic buildings. So the height, we're not that different as far as height. And what happens when you have the ability to go tall? You're able to reduce your footprint. You're able to disturb less area, more open space. I mean, we have 113 acres. Uh before we leave tonight, we're going to share a conceptual image of how we plan to

subdivide the property and what we're going to do with the rest of it. Um but I think we've addressed and we've designed very very smartly to mitigate the issues and one thing that we have done uh and at the very early stage and I think it's on your website uh posted that we're open to meet with any of the neighbors we have not received a single phone call my cell

phone is on your website not a single phone call from anyone to uh the Eisenhower side of us we're happy to meet with you happy to find out things things like can you change to Jolly Green Giants and if you don't mind Phil can you go back to the section of um the first section if you don't mind through the neighborhood go one more go okay see the way you have the

first house on Eisenhower to the right and then you have our apartment buildings over there to the left one thing that can be done yeah I know if you talk to people is rather than us putting plantings on our side and way far away. Often people will come to us and say, "Okay, can you do some plantings if I give you permission to put some Jolly Green Giants on my side?" Because if you put

Jolly Green Giants on the property line or just inside of it, all of a sudden they have a much greater screening effect because it's closer to their home. That's what happens when you talk to people. Uh we've had numerous meetings with the church. The church has a flooding issue unrelated to us uh that comes from the street. Uh we met with the pastor. We met with the board of directors. We came up with a plan. We're

we're going to help them. We're going to repair their entry so it doesn't flood.

Uh we're going to fix the burm between our property and theirs because when it does flood, it rides over the town's burm. Uh they have a parking license right now to park. And one of the things we're going to do, uh, we haven't been able to talk directly with them, but we have proposed it that rather than having them to extend a license forever to park on our property, we want to gift that

back to them. Um, the other thing that came about, and that's why we have a sports court in the back corner of our property. The pastor wanted to develop a program where he could have an athletic facility for the kids. He doesn't have dry land to do it. And that's why we came up with the concept that we'll build a sports court back in the rear property line. We'll have a gate with a

key access unique to them so they can come in and use the sports court. So if the people on Eisenhower or Kennedy uh would like to talk, we're happy to meet them. We're happy to look at things. Uh some people raise questions. Why didn't you take pictures from my backyard? we can't go on your property and we try to respect that. So I think our design program has spent a lot of time. It was

not before the ZBA all that time, but the planning board challenged us. I think we met their challenge and I think it's going to be a really beneficial plan when I'm done.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yep.

Yeah. Did you want to say something?

Yeah. I I just want to make sure that there's some facts actually on the table here. We're talking about, you know, trying to minimize development area and impervious surface and we have 3 113 acres.

We don't have 313 acres.

I saidund I said 100.

You said 300.

I didn't interrupt you, did I? I would like to speak.

If you look at their own plans as well as the town's plans, the the wetland line goes directly across behind and extends all the way back. And as Miss Keller said, where they want to put the billboard, it's all wet. So there's no there's no kind of altruistic philanthropic thing going on here. This is all non-developable land in the back.

So, I just want to make sure that the information is what it is. Saxon's um model is 300 units. They do it everywhere they did in Falmouth. That's what they do. So whatever developable land they have, whether it's five 60 unit buildings in Falmouth or the six, you know, however many units here, 50, whatever it is here, that's their model. That's what they're building.

That's what they're going to shoehorn in. So I I just wish there was a little bit more transparency and kind of intellectual honesty in the statements that are being made so that you know it's at least all out there on the table as to what's happening, the reasons that it's happening. But you know I I'm obviously not going to vote. I'm not in a butter.

Not a resident of Dartmouth. Um, I appreciate that the board kind of has, you know, trust in my counsel to you, but what it is important is my job is to point out facts if I feel like the facts aren't necessarily being accurately portrayed.

Look, look, he's very good at what he does. He's obviously presenting things in the light most favorable to his client, whoever it may be, and I respect that. Okay? But um as much as he feels and I and I I do agree to the extent that he said that we've tried to do a lot of different things to minimize the impact of this project upon the abutters but I don't think he can get away from

or he can minimize the impact of a four and fivetory building in the proximity that this is to a residential neighborhood of the character of Eisenhower Street. I've walked it. I've looked at it. I've seen it. I'm glad they did the renditions. It's good. They may want to do balloon tests or not.

Now, I guess maybe my question to you is I don't think that there's anything that they could do that would satisfy me in supporting this project as a four and five level building or buildings.

What do I do as a member of the board?

Do I present that caveat to them now and say, "I'm not going to support the project if it's four and fivetory buildings, but they don't need three members to make that decision." They only need two. And I'm not trying to influence anybody. I'm just wanting them to know where I stand on this before they start to spend more time, more energy, and more money. And if this if it's a make or break for them, then I

know that they're going to be running to somebody that's got more authority than me to make a determination. Well, I mean, one thing that can be done and it's been done in other communities when there is a conflict between the project eligibility letter and what is being presented to the board is that if the board wishes, I could send a letter tomorrow morning to the to the um mass housing and state this is what your

project eligibility letter says. These are the facts around what's being proposed and they didn't authorize a four and fivetory building. What they said is heard whatever, you know, it's it's all in the way the word you choose to use. Okay. So, um what they said is be prepared to address this issue.

And what their response is this is what we're this is what we're building and we're not changing it. And so if you know the the recourse recourse to the extent that's not even the you know the the right word but the path because it was through the the um subsidizing agency the path for the board based on the existing case law is through the subsidizing agency on this issue. And so, you know, it would

require the subsidizing agency would get involved in the dialogue.

Um, whether it would change anything, I can't tell you. But it would it would force the conversation beyond the conversation that Mr. Calhoun would like to have right now with the board.

Okay. Well, obviously, they're going to give us some sort of an eloquent response. They're going to serve as a mediator, I would presume. I don't know for a fact, but I would presume. I want to give you an opportunity to respond because you wanted to say something.

Yes, Mr. Chair. Um, your attorney um likes to site facts. She's incorrect about the entire site being wetlands.

She's incorrect that the site has no uplands, no access for the billboard.

All of those things are very possible.

The open space groups that we have met with that want the open space see tremendous value in the property. It's going to not be just dormant. Their goal is to make it so it is something that people can walk, mountain bike, etc. can use. Um the request that our PEL letter did not represent a fourstory building is not correct.

That's not what I said.

But hold on. Hold on. Before we get into that, I'm going to let you speak. Um, I I don't obviously you have a certain interpretation of what this eligibility letter states. I have my interpretation based on what I've read from it and obviously she has her interpretation of that. And somewhere in the middle is going to be where we're all going to sort of have some consensus as to what

we all think it it says or or the direction in which it wants the parties to understand it to be. Um the thing is is that when I look at the project itself and the gentleman uses the word greed I've been reluctant to use that word but when I look at this and the the level of density on such a small portion of uplands in this plus you combine that

with a request for a billboard at the other end I almost think the billboard is insulting but that's just me talking okay to ask for that in addition to what you're trying to do here. But we're not at the billboard at this point. I am trying to ensure that your client doesn't go spend more money needlessly when one of the members of this board is sort of speaking here tonight is definitely speaking here tonight and

saying I cannot support this as a four and five level story buildings. Just can't do it. So, you already That's not the response that I was looking for, but it's okay. Um, that's fine.

It's not a win or lose, right? This is we're trying to do what's best for not just the people in Eisenhower, but we're not even getting into the to the traffic part of this that goes down on, you know, Route 6 and Haway Road. We're not even looking at that part of it because that gentleman's here to tell us some more about that. Um, I just want to lay the cards out, so to speak, so that

moving forward, if there is some compromise that could happen here, maybe it can happen. I don't know. I'm I'm always want I I'm willing to be persuaded. I am willing to be persuaded, Mr. Chair. Um, with all due respect, the project eligibility letter process requires uh has a comment period. The town participated in that comment period. All your boards participated in that comment period. The ZBA does not

because the ZBA is supposed to sit as a quasi judicial board. You're not supposed to be sitting here saying I like something or it takes away the character. You're supposed to be making a judgment as if it's your weighing. And you're supposed to be weighing a very simple calculation.

Is the h is the town currently over there 10%.

Is the housing need warranted?

Every single town in the Commonwealth and the Northeast and in the country for that matter, the housing is warranted.

Most people would look at this development and they'd see it as smart growth. putting it as far away from the town, as close to the major routes of transportation, and with the fewest of butters. We did all that. Uh, and we've accomplished a plan. We've met with the people across the street. Thrilled to see it. We met with, you know, the church. We have not Hold on. We hold on one second. You

cannot be doing that. Okay. Man has a right to speak. I'm giving him an opportunity to speak. He said a lot of accurate things here this evening. Okay.

It's just we just have a difference of opinion as to what can or should not be done here. Continue. And the point people keep saying, "Oh, you're being greedy. You're being greedy." We're not.

If you look at the margin development, they're not great. Nobody's making billions of dollars. Nobody. This is a huge risk for us. We're betting on your town. We're betting that the people want it. We betting that you're going to want a quality product. We're betting that this will probably appeal to a lot of seniors because it's got elevators, because it's a managed property. It has

amenities on it. So, we're making a big bet that if we do something really well, it will do really well. It's not greed.

I can't say we're a nonprofit because we're not.

We are out to make money. But I wanted to go back to one more thing. Um, Miss Murphy mentioned she said that 300 units is Saxon's model. They just p move these around. 300 here, 300 there. It's not.

Every single project we have is unique.

Every single project is designed to fit into the site. We have projects across the country and none of them are identical. And if you look, some will be as small as 100 units, some will be 34 units, some will be 300, some will be 600.

This project is designed with the input from your planning board and we've met all the requirements of the project eligibility letter. When the engineers finish all their reports, we are not causing an impact on the traffic. We're not causing the impact on your storm water. We're not causing an impact.

She's laughing. That's okay. We can all laugh. But we're not causing impacts from an engineering standpoint.

Everything we've done so far meets the standards.

And again, final piece, if anyone from Eisenhower or Kennedy would like to talk to us, would like us to go in the backyard and take a look at plantings, we're more than willing to do it. Thank you. Come on up, sir.

So, it's again, it's Tom Babington from 19 Kennedy Street.

So, in a different universe, I'm a retired mechanical engineer doing product design, but in a different universe, if we were going to design this from scratch and we're going to compromise, you'd have the first, if you go back to the the shot with the the six units from the aerial shot, yeah, the three units closest to Eisenhower would be shorter in height.

In a perfect world, you'd use the the natural elevation change.

The hill goes downhill, you know, down Eisenhower. The property goes downhill from an Eisenhower parallel to Eisenhower. It also goes downhill towards the church.

So the buildings closer to the church would be maybe another story taller or two, but it would minim So you try to use the topography to your benefit, but you can't do five stories. You you give the people in Eisenhower a break. Reduce the height of those three units that abut Eisenhower. Increase the height not the f not the five stories, but you'd increase the height slightly on the ones closest to the church and

you'd really minimize the impact of the neighborhood, but you can't do 58 ft.

Now, to the developer's comments about why doesn't the neighborhood talk to the developer and have a little pizza party, he's been playing hard ball right from the start. Me personally, I don't see any need to comp to talk to him. I'm not going to get anywhere. He's not going to listen to me. He's just going to give me some trees.

Can't say that. You don't know that for a fact. You haven't tried.

I can try, but Okay, I get you.

I look and I understand.

I'll appeal to the gallery. If if anyone wants to talk to the the developer, go ahead.

That's not how this works, right? This is me and you. It's me and you. Okay.

So, it's my compromise. But are you looking for a compromise?

Would the developer compromise on the building heights?

Well, I ask for I'm going to ask him another question. If you could just step away for a sec. Sure. Come up, Mr.

Calhoun.

And one of the things lawyers never supposed to do on cross-examination is ask a question we don't know the answer to, but I'm going to do that. And I can see attorney is already laughing.

How did you arrive at 300 units and why?

The question I have, excuse me.

Oh, how did you arrive as 300 units being a suitable number to have this proposal or put forth this proposal? How did how'd you guys come up at that to that number?

We build a proformer. We look at the rents, the market rents, the market demand. We look at the site. We look at the conditions. Uh and then we prepare a project eligibility uh letter and we go to what we feel is going to be uh the largest effective project we can get. And the reason why you want a large project is because a large project supports on-site management. When you have on-site

management, you minimize the headaches and you minimi and you maximize the quality of the development. So you're able to have the amenities. You're able to have the clubhouse, their own fitness club, their own workspace, professional people on site taking care of it. You have you have the ability to do a quality product. If you go to a three-story walk out and you do 80, 100 units, you can't have management staff.

You can't have control of the property.

And that's when you get headaches. And a lot of the questions that the public asks and the concerns about the parking ratios, the parking ratios are driven by studies and historical data based on what is truly needed. Because forever people would say, "Oh, you have 300 units. You need two spaces per unit."

No, you don't. You have to look at what your actual occupancy is going to be and what completed projects are. And you can look at all the studies. There's numerous studies that show that we've created what they call asphalt jungle.

You go to the apartment buildings even at the busiest time and half the parking lot is empty and that's what they're trying to prevent you from doing and that's when people come back and say do the bank parking that way if you have a problem you can adjust to it. So the 300 units supports a strong investment with strong ability to manage it. And with that management on the ground there and

with strong leases, you minimize a lot of the headaches. Our residents can't bring three cars and park them on the property. Their lease stops them from doing it. Our residents can't park off site. Our residents, if they make noise, can't stay.

Managed properties are some of the best properties to live in because you don't have to deal with the neighbor next door who might want to collect cars. You just have to go down to the leasing office and say, "I'm not going to renew unless this issue is resolved." They take care of it. So 300 units is what the investment community also looks for for those same reasons. You get down under

200, you get to 250, it's not a desirable product. It's not worth the investment.

Thank you.

Hi there, Heidi Brooks, 25 AA Street, chair of the select board, but I'm here as a concerned citizen. So, I just want to go back because we are talking the height seems to be a big deal. So Clay Smoot um said that there the floors would be floor to floor 11 ft. So my question would be why so high? I realize that that's not ceiling height. I realize that in between the units

there'll be tresses tresses so that they have the um you know and all that mechanicals but is 11 ft necessary? can that be reduced and therefore reduce the entire height of the project? He mentioned that on um it would be an 11 foot floor tofloor building on A and B. Um but then he didn't restate what that height would be for CDE and F. Although using the 55 foot height, I would assume it was the

same. So if they're saying that 300 meets their need, can they shrink the building and get 300? Personally, I too would like them to flop off a whole floor and not get 300. But I guess my question is, can they make can they make their buildings shorter and still gain the purpose that they need?

Come on up.

I think it um I'm going to speak to it more from an owner standpoint. Uh we prefer to have very high ceilings in our apartments. Uh it makes a better quality apartment, better living space, uh better flow of air, and it allows you to do a smaller footprint because the unit feels bigger. And from an architectural standpoint, I'll leave it with you.

Thank you. And thank you for the question. And and it is 11 foot floor to floor each. You know, there's a tremendous amount of infrastructure that's happening in that two feet. So what we're looking is we're looking at ceilings in the units at 9 ft. We're doing that for specific reasons. Uh one of them being really light penetration into the unit. The units these the designs that we do for Saxon typically

have um larger window sizes and the and the greater height of the ceiling allows deeper light penetration. That being said, it's a 9- foot ceiling. Gives you a twoft sort of plenum to run, you know, the mechanical, the electrical, the fire protection. It fills up really, really quickly. So, I know that if we were building a house in a perfect world, a lot of us think, okay, eight foot

ceiling, nine foot floor to floor, and you add it all up. But when you're talking multif family and you've got the all those different systems and and fans and ventilation and washer, dryer, and all that stuff, it just really eats it up incredibly quickly. We might there is possibilities that we could study it maybe shave a couple of inches off per floor but it's really an industry

standard um that you'll see and that's the reason you see these buildings recurring over and over again in in that general vicinity of 10'8 to 11 ft and we found that 11 feet is really the sweet spot for us. So more than happy to take questions on it.

Thanks.

Don't go too far.

Uh so my next question along those same lines, industry standard um they give a better feel when you walk into them, which then moves into what the cost per unit would be. So we know that 25% will be affordable. Affordable compared to what they're charging for a regular unit. Um these are not what I would term section 8. They are not lowincome properties. They are just affordable.

A 10-ft ceiling property will cost more on average than the properties that are currently being built on Dartmouth Street with a more standard ceiling height. So again, when someone mentioned, you know, the willingness to compromise, I think it's very evident there isn't one. Thank you.

Excuse me, Mr. Chair.

I just Come on up. Sorry.

I just want to reiterate because it's really nice to have a sound bite and say 10ft ceiling, but I just finished saying we have 9 foot ceilings. And that is not really extravagant given, you know, living in 2026.

You know, we grew up I grew up in the 60s and 70s. you know, I 8 foot ceilings. I also slept in a twin bed, but people are just that's not what rents today. And he and this is a very competitive market. Granted, in Dartmouth, there aren't as many options such as this, but this is a luxury property. And the amount of investment in a property like this, it's

it's it's a lot of zeros and it's it's not a it's not going to be a short stack of pancakes. It's got to have that level of amenity to make it worthwhile. So could he do an 8-foot product? Yes. But it would be it really becomes it has to be an invest in an asset where people developers will come in and have investment and the investment the standard today is 9 foot ceilings

and the Florida floors are 11 or 10 foot 8 somewhere in that in that range. And that's the reason you see these this formula happening over and over and over again. And that's the reason you're not seeing, you know, as much as we may like to see the twotory to threetory product, you're not seeing that built because the the economics just don't pencil out for that. And I'm not and I am not the

number guy. Dave is the number guy. I'm the I'm the physical design guy. And really, we try to break the scale of the you know, these buildings. You know, I'm the architect. I think they're pretty handsome. We really try to break the scale of these buildings down aesthetically so that they don't feel as uh just these massive big blocks. We work really really hard. If you look at a lot of these developments, they use

the same boom boom boom boom boom, the same window over and over and over again. We really try to break the scale down. We try to really use some classical um strategies, really creating a strong base and a middle and a top and creating the the upper story to feel like an attic story. We actually are proposing to paint that a darker color so it almost feels like a mansard roof.

So it feels like four and a half stories on the fivetory side. So I I really really understand where you're coming from on this but the value of the develop the value is there to build that they would not be building a fivetory or four-story product if they didn't feel the value was there. So, I I understand where the butters are coming from. Um, obviously it worked for the developer, but um that's I think I just

wanted to set the record straight on the ceiling height because what happens is is it's sort of, you know, we just we just need to state the facts. That's all. I appreciate that. Thanks.

And I understand the the fact that a 9- foot ceiling gives a certain type of an appearance or a feel when you go into a a smaller space. I I understand that.

I've I've experienced that.

Appreciate it.

Yeah. I just couple of notes for the board.

So the Sherbrook 40B, which you are also reviewing at this time, is a threetory 11 foot height height, but they're they're doing three stories, 152 units. I believe they feel they're doing a luxury managed product as well.

Um, so I just and they're doing approximately 1.7 spaces per unit. So you have another project at in the same market at the meaning they're not obviously right next to each other but in Dartmouth. So drawing on the same market of potential renters.

It they're not walkups. Um and so I just I just wanted to note that for comparison. So um when the applicant is saying differentiz projects all over the country but only can be a managed project if it's 300 units. So I guess there's a question of does that mean that Saxon does not have any projects less than 300 units that have a manager? I guess, you know, there's there's just we know that

there's a managed pro a managed product, I'm sorry, project coming into Dartmouth with 152 units at three stories, same 11t ceilings, etc. Similar grade, it's being dropped down. So the people across the street are only going to see two stories with sloped roofs that are more, you know, car, you know, common to the the other houses obviously much smaller around it, but there's a sloped roof so

it matches more the design. So, and just saying you have kind of a present being built same time under will be on under construct at the same time two different products. And so that's where the potential questions come in as to it has to be this when another reputable developer is doing product at the exact same time. that is more in keeping with the questions that the board's asking. So I'm just

providing that context.

All right. So sir along again 24 Dean Street. So I just heard this gentleman. He's talking about, you know, you're asking the 300 units, how do they come to that? And he and he and he says, "Well, my investors say, you know, that's or the investors, the investors whatever his the investors, I heard him say investors."

Anyway, they said that uh 225 not enough, not enough for the money.

Uh I don't know if I heard him say that, but I make your point.

Well, anyway, all I'm saying is there is no compromise. I can see no compromise happening here. These five stories or no story?

Well, I'm not sure of that either.

They've obviously they've got to consider what they're going to do moving forward. Matter of fact, I don't even know where we're going to go at this point. We're going to I'm going to talk to to the attorney. Um and as a matter of fact, we're probably going to just take a quick fiveminute recess just so that I can go to the bathroom, unfortunately, because we've been here for a little while. And um and then

we'll regroup.

All right.

All right.

We're going to take a quick recess.

Thank you.

All right. So, um I think we've talked about height enough for this evening.

Anyway, um we're going to move on. We have our traffic consultant and I usually end these meetings right around 8:00. I promised my board members that we that's one one of the things we we'd adhere to. Um so at this point in time I'm going to call upon our consultant to explain to us a little bit about what they've been able to um observe, determine and maybe compromise or negotiate with the uh with the

Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Steven Finland.

I'm from Howard Stein Hudson. We're a transportation and engineering uh planning firm. Uh we were retained by the board to look at the um project, the traffic study, as well as the site plans and offer our input. Uh with our role really just being, you know, comparing to the town bylaws to make sure, you know, everything complies. So at the last meeting uh if you recall uh on April 6 we presented our initial findings

uh on our review and at that meeting I think I I don't know if I went through all the issues but we identified 26 of these issues associated with the traffic study as well as the site plan. Um we got some information back from the applicant. Uh we did submit a letter shortly after the last hearing which was on April 13th where we're starting to work through some of the issues. Um,

sub subsequent to that, we, you know, did get some revised site plans. Uh, we got some supplemental responses on some of the issues as well. Um, and we did submit a letter to the board earlier this week on May 18th. Um, where we identified, uh, some outstanding issues that we still have. Late late this afternoon, I um got a response from the applicant from the traffic uh, consultant. So, obviously, we haven't

had a chance to review that. So, uh, we're looking to continue to work with the applicant on on these issues and hopefully at the next hearing, um, we'll have an, you know, have more of an input, uh, a response. So, like I said, I know it's been a long night for you already, but that's just kind of where I wanted to just let you know kind of where we're at.

So, I want to ask you of of all the intersections um that serve or there's going to be traffic flow through, which is the most concerning to you?

Um, well, they wouldn't have identified any off-site mitigation if it wasn't a concern to them. So, to me, I think all the intersections that are talking about should, you know, do concern me. If I was to pick my favorite, I guess, if you're asking, well, your favorite being from my perspective the worst.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um, you know, they talk about, you know, Route Six at Sloum Road. Mhm.

They're looking at um doing some optimizing of that intersection to try to improve it.

Can we just start with this first? What is the issue with that intersection?

Uh it currently existing as well as the no build condition operates at poor conditions.

And why do you think it operates at poor conditions?

Uh could be a number of factors. It could just be the the capac the overall number of vehicles that are accessing it. It could be the cap, you know, capacity, how many lanes are appro at each approach, how it's being phased, things like that. And things that you can do, you know, and I think what they've said they're going to look at is, you know, look at some of the signal timings. Maybe that'll improve some of

their uh improvements out there. Um, but even that, you know, from what we've seen, I think in the morning they said they could get it from a level of service F, which is the worst. Like in school, you know, you can't get any worse than an F. They said they can get that to a level of service E, which is which is better than an F. But in the PM, it stays an F. So, there's really

not a lot there other than, you know, you looking at some pedestrian times, things like, you know, kind of tinkering with it. So, that's what they've proposed to kind of look at. We haven't seen what exactly that would be, but they've put a cost to what that would be to do that.

I'd be interested to see. I'll be honest with just just in general. I don't know how much can be done there given that, you know, that intersection was built for probably what the traffic load might have been in the 40s.

Mhm.

And it's unfortunate that this is going to be served by probably the it's right in close proximity to one of the worst inter the worst intersection in the town of Dartmouth, which is F Corner Road and Route Six. That is, in my opinion, the worst. It's actually the most heavily traveled, but it's probably the worst intersection that we have in town.

Yeah. And I think this was brought up briefly at the last hearing. Um, there are plans to redo that. Um, but I will tell you this, there were plans to do that when they came before us to put a Kentucky Fried Chicken on the corner of Tucker Road and Route Six.

Yeah. which unfortunately I didn't want to but I didn't support just for the very reason I thought that this if we were to vote for it we would be further creating an issue to an area that's already extremely problematic.

I completely agree with you Mr. Chairman and you know as part of our review we're trying to get assurances from the applicant that these improvements will be done because you know what they're proposing and what they're saying will do will happen. specifically. You know, you asked about another location was down at the ramps at 140.

That's bad there as well.

Mhm. As you know, that's uh unsignalized today.

And that's all the way on the other end of Hathaway Road.

Correct.

So, one of the things that they've looked at is applying for what they call a mass works grant through the town to signalize those ramps.

That's something that they've offered to, you know, contribute to. What they're contributing to, I can tell you right now, we're not comfortable with right now. We're still working through that. But that is one of the off-site mitigations that they've talked about as supporting the city grant application for the installation of a traffic signal and geometric improvements at both the southbound and northbound ramps.

But would you consider that to be the second most problematic area? Well, what they've shown us is, you know, that operates poorly and when you start looking at what it would look like if you put a signal there in terms of operations and level of service, it drastically improves.

I don't want to sound selfish, but that's a New Bedford problem.

And we've stated that in our letter.

That would be coordination that would have to happen between the town of Dartmouth as well as the city of New Bedford as part of that application for the Mass Works or for any type of grant to get that money to to construct that.

And while we're at it, there was two other ones. There was five total.

So, the Hathaway Sloum Road, um there's really not much they're doing there other than reapplying some pavement markings.

Um and then the last one was Haway at Wilbur Avenue where they're showing that the operations is okay there today as an unsalized intersection and they're offering to put a stop sign and a stop line.

There are you know I yeah I just to be full circle here too you know at the ramps they have offered some what I want to call short-term solutions which would be more to address the safety which would just be installation of signs and pavement markings much lower cost at both of those locations it's not going to solve your cap capacity problem in terms of how it's going to operate but

that is something that and the reason I'm I'm stating all this is because In one of our review comments, you know, we'd asked them to specifically break out what they're proposing for some of their in off-site mitigation. So, they've provided us a table now with what those are with descriptions and what those costs are.

Are you able to give us a quantitative sort of analysis as to what type of improvement that will create to the location based on what their proposals are in terms of all the any specific location?

Yeah.

Um those like I said the Route Six Sloum they're saying that they can make the intersection better a little bit but it's still going to look bad.

Um the other locations, Hathaway Sloum, Hathaway Wilbur, those are really just um like I said, pavement marking and signing cosmetic stuff or safety addressing some of the maybe some safety concerns. And then the ramps itself are really to address a capacity issue, understanding that it is in New Bedford, not in in Dartmouth, but this project does contribute traffic to that intersection.

name. Help me here.

You're a traffic consultant.

Not really. No, I I know traffic, but I'm not a traffic consultant, but traffic.

So, I just Yep. I I have one question, and I think um it's And I know I don't know how much time you want to, Mr. Chair, but that some of the charts um that Mr. Finland's referring to, they're also laying out fair share contribution. I think it would be helpful to the board to have your peerreview consultant explain what that is and how much like if you take x% of a number how much they're actually

proposing to contribute. I think that would be helpful for the board to understand.

So let's because you gota you got to make this more tangible for me so I can understand otherwise it's just it's not conceptual at least from my standpoint. What are they proposing to improve the intersection of Route Six and Hathaway Road?

So, I think I talked about there's two options that they've presented to us at both of those locations. One being addressing safety, which is adding the signs and pavement markings.

When you say paper markings, I don't know what that means.

Pavement.

Pavement markings.

Pavement. I thought you said paper markings.

Sorry. Pavement. I guess I should paper markings. Stop slurring, I guess.

Um, pavement markings. Yeah. So, um, and I think it's specifically, uh, you know, they're talking about a Captain Frank's driveway.

What?

Is it Captain Frank's driveway? That's what I've written down at the ramps.

Captain French fish.

Sorry, that's what they came back with.

Yeah, that's Yeah. Um, so in terms of what they're saying they're going to do right now, and let me to to the attorney's uh comments. So fair share contribution is essentially what the project is going to be adding for traffic to each of the locations. So what they've done is saying they're going to add an X percentage generated by their project at each of these locations. and they're saying, "Okay,

based on that, we're going to pay a percentage of what we think it will be for the overall cost." That's typically what a fair share contribution is. Um, but what they've done here, you know, and like I said, we we have a comment out. We just got the information back.

Maybe they responded back to this. I don't know, but I'm going to kind of let you know kind of where we were at last time. Um, they're saying that in terms of I'm going to just specifically talk about the southbound ramps. They're saying it's going to cost 2500 bucks to put the pavement pavement markings and signage there. They're saying that they're going to contribute 3.3% additional traffic to that location and

they're going to contribute $83.

And then similarly at the northbound ramps, same cost, $2,500.

They're saying it's going to be a 2% increase from the project generated and it' be they'll contribute $50 And who foots the bill for the rest?

No, I mean it's not.

So I I note none of none of the 40bs that have been before this board or any 40B that I've participated in in my 30-year career have I seen this fair share chart. So maybe I'm just not involved in the right projects. Um the other 40bs, the one you just voted tonight and the one that you're going to be closing the hearing on at the beginning of June, they are doing improvements and they are

similar pavement, signage, etc. And they have um indicated that they will pay the cost of those. So for example, Sherbrook is putting in all new crosswalks with handicap accessible ramp etc. and they are paying the entire cost of doing that. So no of the and none of them market rate pro projects that have come before this board have said we'll we'll give you $10 towards a stop sign. So I just for

context um I I think that that's all things we could discuss with Yeah, it's something I it's just I I thought it was important for the since it was it's a new concept for this board. I just wanted to make sure that your consultant kind of it walked you through it.

I'm glad you explained that to me. But obviously those numbers can be discussed. I'm just more concerned about what mechanism or what type of improvements are going to be put into place to um you know minimize their additional flow one or even if we could overall improve a given intersection even with the additional um you know traffic flow that would be uh experienced at that location based on

the size of the project. So currently what we haven't been given us in what they called their table A1 is a list of what they're proposing they're going to contribute to this project or what they're proposing needs to be done for this project as well as how much they're willing to contribute and we stated in our last letter that we're not comfortable with that.

Okay.

Um yeah I'm going to give you absolutely going to give you a chance. I just I want to make sure I explore everything here with him. Um let me ask obviously the way this is structured is you know they make a proposal you review it you make recommendations then they decide whether or not they're willing to uh meet those recommendations or comply with what the suggestions you may have.

Do you have any suggestions as to what could be done there that would be more than what they're suggesting right for an improvement at state road and short of you know having them to pay for an entire stoplight in that at that location which would be you know I think unreasonable signalizing that's what I meant to say uh having a full control signal there uh at that intersection is there other

things that could be done that would help we could look into that further but you know the the project study area that they provided to us. You know, this is what they're saying they need to address. you know, they they do talk about, you know, the intersection down at um you know, Haway Road at Route Six down at um Font's Corner, but they're saying, you know, the the way they're analyzing that is

there they analyze the existing condition, but then and but that they're saying is is when the the project that's currently supposed to start construction in the spring of 27, they're saying that's going to be in place before this project starts. So that's what they're saying it's going to look like in terms of how it's going to operate, not how it operates today.

That project was supposed to be in place in 2025.

Yeah. And like I said, we've we've been coordinating with the applicant and their traffic engineer, I don't believe, is here tonight. So we just got the letter and you know, these discussions are not over. you know, we're continuing to kind of drill down and and I look quickly. I think, you know, in terms of, you know, you know, are there other locations? Absolutely. I think we'll,

you know, in these conversations, if there's specific locations that we think that may need to be considered, we'll definitely bring that up as well.

Well, I am Mr. Calhoun, come on up. I am mindful of the fact, Mr. Calhoun, that that that problem is not being created by you. That problem, we have a problem.

We have a problem on Route Six, Fon Corner Road, Route 6 Tucker Road, Route Six Hathaway Road. We have a problem.

Um, it's just that unfortunately you're in a position where you're going to further contribute to that problem. And I know that you're trying to, you know, suggest or you have your your experts suggesting that you have some sort of a a at least a partial solution, but um, you know, I don't think that what they're proposing based on what I can understand is really going to have any significant impact. That's my humble

opinion.

Mr. Chair, um, just a couple quick points. The task that the traffic engineers required to do, our traffic engineers, was to look at a certain set of intersections, which we did, that was then expanded. And I take real strong exception to the position that we're willing to contribute $8 to the problem.

We just spent $2,398 making hard copies of documents we weren't required to do and handdeling them to the board as a traffic information. And it's all there. We weren't required to print them. We weren't required to do them. We got a request. We jumped on it. We took care of it. What Jeff Durk and his team, Zach is here tonight, were tasked with doing is make suggestions, make recommendations for intersections. They

came up with recommendations for intersections.

Some of those recommendations are really small and can make a great improvement. putting up a new stop sign, redoing the stripes on the ground, and he was also tasked with putting a cost to those. He prepared a cost for those, and we welcome the opportunity to get a cost response from your team, but he then took and he did what's required to be done, and I'm sorry that your attorney is not experienced in it, but a

fair share is the standard contribution that you're required to do an analysis for. And then you have discussion in Shbury for example our fair share on an intersection that's already not functioning properly. We first stepped up and we said we don't own it. We'll redesign it. We'll go even one step further. We'll do the grant application for you. We even went one step further and we offered to say we'll go and build

it. You credit us back on our building permits. But the those discussions can happen. But there's a when you look at the laundry list of tasks, you can say, "Oh, it's just putting in a new stripe."

But maybe it works. Traffic engineers say it it will help. And that's what we're trying to do. And when you look at the list, you can say, "Hey, why hasn't the town already completed that list?

Why aren't those stop signs in place?

Why aren't those lines restriped?"

So, we're more than willing if you want to have uh a what we would call an off record, not off record, but um have a work study group appoint someone from your board to sit down and say, "Hey, can we go through these items?" Happy to do it.

But to paint us as, you know, we're only contributing $8. I don't think that's fair.

Thank you.

Um Mr. Chair section 3.10 of the zoning board's rules and regulations for comprehensive permit says the applicant shall provide one original application online and eight copies for board members and staff. So one online and then copies for board and staff. So just for future reference. Well, I think the point you wanted to make is that, you know, they didn't have to go as extensively as they did on this, and

they did just to basically ensure that people had a a good understanding, including myself, a good understanding of what the perspective would be visually from each one of these properties. And again, they don't have the ability. They didn't go on people's properties, which I understand. They didn't go to every single one. They basically took the ones that they thought thought and they segmented it

out, which I take it face value. I I have no I think it's it's fair enough, but I understand that there's a requirement. All right. It already is after 8 o'clock, so now we have to pick another date.

I'm going to go to you.

Yeah.

For Mr. uh Cordiero. Um Phil Cado.

Yeah, Mr. Cordero. Just a quick question. I I I think I should know the answer but I can't I just want to make sure the upland area of the project where you have the four buildings cited with the uh including all the landscape and the parking how's uh what's the area approximately of that uh yeah yes of course so we are looking at uh we will develop an area of 16 about 16 acres so

Mr. Calhoun made reference to that uh we owe the board an ANR plan. It also came up during the conversation with Melo Associates. So ultimately the development area will be on 16 acres at the front and then the remainder of the land is what is in conversation to be to be donated to the land trust or other conservation group.

Thank you.

Sure.

So Mr. Chair, currently your timeline is that you're under the under the regulatory um provisions, you're required to close the hearing by July 7th. Needless to say, that lands right on top of the Fourth of July holiday. At this time, I believe that Michelle had um kind of projected because obviously you have other hearings other than this one that you're trying to fit in that um

if I'm if I'm not incorrect, I think the board had kind of held June 11th and June 29th um as two potential dates. Um we already have a lot on 29th. We have Sherbrook on 29th, do we not?

Well, that would be that would be to So June 8th. You're already meeting on June 8th on Sherbrook.

Oh, no, no, that's right. We had this on we had this on for the 29th and June 11th.

So we it discussed having to have two meetings that week because June 8th will be Sherbrook where you'll have to we're going to be reviewing conditions and um and then having to close the hearing.

You have to close the hearing on June 8th.

So what are you suggesting? Um well it's it's a it's a timing concern. I mean in there's at this point if there's only one meeting in June it's going to be very diff well if the board has to close the hearing which it does at this point before July 7th and you only have one hearing that means that the board will be doing full discussion and deliberation of the conditions in um

after the hearing closes with no input from anyone.

So, you know, the if the board is wants to do or is willing, I'd say willing is probably the better word to do two hearings, you can do June 11th and June 29th.

Um, at this point, one of the things we didn't talk about is that and um, Mr. Barber still doesn't have the information that he needs in order for his department to provide recommendations for a decision for water or wastewater.

So, um I I don't know when when that would be ready. Um hopefully it could be ready by June 29th if they get the information that's needed. Um but, you know, there's just not, you know, there's two there's a potential to have two hearings on this matter, June 11th and June 29th.

Well, let's put on for June 11th first and see where we go.

Yeah. Okay.

Mr. Calhoun, you want to come up?

How's June 11 seem for you?

You'll be out, right? We we we can make it work.

Okay.

And we're on for this 6:00 hour or 5:00 hour.

Six o'clock.

6 o'clock. 6 o'clock hour.

I'm sorry. What?

We have two other places at 5:00.

Two others at five. Okay.

Well, I don't have enough for professionals here.

I'm sorry.

Who would you like us to have for professionals, do you need to do more on the traffic?

Traffic? Yeah. Absolutely.

Yeah.

More on traffic for sure.

Um um I think civil we're good though on the civil was not uh yeah I no I yeah I don't we haven't seen any waivers yet or anything that have we have the waivers you typically what the board's been doing is waiting until all of the information had come in and the peer reviews had mostly completed their work um to make sure that the waiver list was the waiver list and doing that as one of

the last at one of the last hearings.

Um, but if the board wanted to do it, typically the staff gets together with the peer reviewers and walks through the waiverss to make recommendations for the board and then those are reviewed. You know, the board, you know, the staff will walk through them with the board and give the give give you their recommendations on what waivers to grant or not to grant. I don't know if you

want to do that on the 11th. um at this point.

Yes.

You know, you want to get Do you wanna want to get started?

Are you ready to get to that?

Yeah.

Um you just mentioned that.

Well, I think the civil probably are in good shape in terms of the storm water and all that.

Yeah, I found the traffic will be we're still waiting for the uh the last review and that that should be close to a waste water issue, right?

Yeah, the water I don't know if um I don't know Mr.

Barber's here if you want him to speak to what his concerns are about about why he needs this information. I don't think it'll take him that long.

Five minutes. Come on up, please.

Good evening. Tim Barber, director of public works. Um, we just uh we do need some additional information uh from the applicant moving forward uh with the peer review uh for both the on-site and some of the off-site evaluations for the water and sewer. um and to move forward with with the agreement with the peer reviewer to to complete the work.

There was I Mr. Barbara had mentioned to me that you had some concerns about the impact. So, but you didn't I I don't have any detail. You just mentioned you had concerns about the flow impacts on We do. We do have uh concerns and we do have impacts um on the on the sewer collection side. Um we've we've discussed some of these these impacts as well um with the applicant.

Do do you I I guess my question is in order to prepare something for like if the board was even going to start reviewing was do you anticipate that there's going to be comments and or conditions that are going to be proposed?

Yes.

So that's without Right. So I can start working on something but there'll be a big hole in it because Well, what about the the deadline on this? When's the deadline? July what?

July 7th. Well, if he still needs that information and they haven't provided it, that's not a realistic deadline for July 7th.

I'm just telling you what the regulatory deadline is.

Mr. Chair, come on up.

I think there's a a little bit of a disconnect. Um, peer review is required of our site.

uh they are right now the uh civils I would say are about 75% drawings 80% uh drawings which is beyond uh what you normally would have um you're normally that you would review it uh I think we already suggested a condition that uh our on-site um water and sewer would be per the DPW the town standards and regulations and meet all those requirements and would be reflected in the final construction documents.

That's the end of our requirement.

Um capacity and other issues offsite are not the applicant's responsibility because you are very fortunate in the way your fee structure is set up. And I don't know, you know, the fee structure as it relates to water and sewer is a three- tiered program.

Uh you have and it's big money and you ask why you have to do 300 units.

Anybody want to guess what the sewer connection related fees are?

You know, a unit.

Anybody know?

No. Didn't we just do 1.3 million?

Uh and we've been working with Mr.

Barber very very cooperatively. Uh we had our engineers look at the water line out in front of us, the shoeer line out in front of us. We came up with a conceptual design. Uh we they prepared costs as to what it would cost for them to do it. Uh we had discussions about the possibility of do we do it and get a credit back when we're doing our site

work to bring it in at a better budget.

On and on and on. Uh and as far as capacity at the the plant, that type of thing, you have capacity at your plant, but you also have in that 1.3 million, you have an II factor. So basically whatever flows come in we have to provide enough money to offset those and you have a set formula for that and I believe it's $5 per gallon of daily flows. So it's about $49,000* $5. So

another big number. Um but that's accounted for. So uh if there's additional studies that the board would like to do offsite that should really be outside of us. But we've already seen the cost to do the work um that Mr. Barbara presented. We even went so far as uh reached out. He his office reached out in the event that we had to upgrade a pump that we don't know is even impacted by us or not. Got

a proposal for that. That was like $245,000 if I'm not mistaken. So the things that have to happen out in front independent of us are covered by almost double the fees. Uh so uh we really think that the peer review on our site that's our responsibility could be conditioned and we would have to spend a lot more time and energy on it. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, there's a there's a there's a big gap between what's exactly on site and the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant. And in none of the projects, whether they are 40Bs or all of the non40B projects that also undergo this review, none of it is about capacity at the treatment plant. The capacity treatment plant is a capacity treatment plant. As you said, as we all heard all these

hearings, it's an issue for the town.

Um, but there are issues, and Mr. Barber can speak to it better than I can, but I've been in enough of these meetings now, is if the flow from a particular project is going to exceed or cause an issue or require a replacement or an upgrade in a pump station. And I'm not necessarily saying that it has to happen for this project.

I'm using that as example.

We've all been involved in projects where the developer whose additional flow which is way in excess of what would otherwise have been allowed under zoning for that parcel contributes towards the upgrade of a pump station.

That type of a thing. So saying off-site is not our problem again is not accurate in the same way as saying the off-site traffic is not our problem. That's not entirely accurate. Um so I don't know Mr. Barbara can speak to this the impacts of this particular project. I was just using an example.

Some of the impacts to the project are uh pipe sizing uh in the existing collection system uh pump station uh pump sizes and and capacity and pump stations.

Uh so th those are typ those are our two major um concerns currently. Uh and does does your department have the information about the amount of flows from this project in order to determine what its impacts are? Similar to doing traffic counts, right? If a traffic study says this project is going to generate this many traffic trips in this road on that road and that road, right?

This is the similar information that I understand that the DPW needs of the flows of the mix of bedrooms, all those information in order to determine what is going to be impacted and it's offsite and it's not capacity of the treatment plant. It's anyway I he says it better than me.

Yeah. Yeah. But we al we also have concerns with the capacity at the treatment plant.

Um but you know that we're doing a separate study uh on that ourselves.

Uh but but it's it's the infrastructure uh that you know collects these flows and and transports it to the to the facility and and we also need to move forward with with the water analysis and and the on-site peer review um with with our peer peerreview consultant. I believe there was some confusion. Uh, you know, I think the applicant believed that the the civil peer review consultant was working on the uh utility

peer reviews, but they they were not.

So, we would like to move forward with those as well.

All right. I'm still looking for a date.

Oh, you want to come on up? Yep. Come on up.

I think we're still June 11th.

This is probably better taken offline.

So, I'm going to suggest Mr. Cadir call Mr. Barber tomorrow figure out what information the flows are in the project narrative which were submitted with the application but if he needs other information as to what the project's impacts are then we can have it. Um I'm concerned with the concept though that in order to finish this process there's a need for a peerreview consultant who hasn't even been retained yet. um

because if they haven't been retained, they're not going to have the work done more likely than not in the timeline presented. So I think you know what we may have to have and once again this may be a better discussion offline. We're not trying to to defer that review.

Okay. But also we're not trying to tied this process down into it. So we can certainly draft a condition that says it's going to be done um as a condition of the final design. I mean, the pump station on site hasn't been fully designed. So, that's going to have to be reviewed by somebody before DPW approves its use anyways, but I want to make sure that while we're doing this, trying to move forward with a peerreview

consultant at this late date is presents a concern for the applicant.

Where are we at with that? Well, what's difficult about that is that the staff since the beginning of this process has said there's going to need to be a peer review for this. It has been in multiple letters from Merrill from the civil that they were not reviewing it. and both the applicant and the applicant's engineer repeatedly said Merryill's doing it even though they were told multiple times Merryill

wasn't doing it. So I I you know I do think that there has been a disconnect.

I agree with that. Um I don't know if Mr. Barber can speak to you know there's two things. First of all, the reviewing the the actual design, the timeline it would take to do that versus taking whatever flow information because it sounds like the applicant may have provided some flow information. What has Stant given you any timelines on what it how long it would take them or you know

can those things be bifurcated looking at the plans the pipe designs whatever again not a technical person versus looking at the flow impacts I I would say that the potential situation for the board is if something like looking at the flow impacts and whether that means a pipes going to have to be replaced in Hathaway Road or whatever. Again, I'm making things up because I don't have any data or or

expertise of this or, you know, pump station, whatever needs to be upgraded.

That condition, my recommendation to the board is going to be you're going to provide this information and whatever those impacts are, you're paying for them. Like that's where the board is left if it's not established now. And then there can be discussions about what those impacts are and the costs similar to what's happening with the traffic now.

So I I I think I think everyone's in agreement. There was no intention to create delay but there was a lot of mis conver like you know conversations not connecting on this. So you know that's the all right. Um I I don't know if Mr. Barber can speak to the timing on the review.

I can't I mean that I'd have to work with the with the peerreview consultant as well on on expediting a timeline if they if they could expedite it. Um I I think the I think the water analysis, you know, could be probably expedited and u you know, depending on on the percentage of the of the on-site design, how much peer review can be completed?

I think the uh the analysis on the on the impacts of the offsite, you know, I think they're they're pretty they're pretty close. They just have to look at the, you know, look at the the flows and the the most recent flows at the at the facility as well and and that are coming through the pump stations.

So, don't we have some of that baseline information anyway?

Absolutely.

We have baseline information. Yes, we we have, you know, we we constantly uh have new current information coming in as as we have, you know, 24 hours per day of flow.

All right, that was a long five minutes.

You got the last word because we need we need your approval if we're going to put this on for the 11th.

Just quick, I think if Phil Cado, Tim Barber, u myself could sit in a room and if the board wanted to put someone in the room as well, we could craft a condition that would work and address the issues. I think Merryill could probably do a quick review of the on-site. Uh because they're not designing anything. They're just checking to make sure that we're going to meet the future standards because

under the 40B process, we're not even required to go to the level of drawings we have now. it's normally conditioned that you get to that further level. So, I think the peer review of on-site is very quick and very simple. Um, as far as uh the traffic conditions and issues, I think it would be very helpful if the board would appoint the person to do uh a working session and we go through the

improvements and try to figure out where we can contribute to have the most effect.

Do you want to meet with them?

You got nothing else to do.

I mean, if I have to, I have to. How about Mr. Human? You want to meet with a Mr. Human?

No, I wouldn't even know what to do.

Traffic expert.

If not, I'll meet with them if you want, but maybe Zoom or something. I don't know.

Yeah, I'm sure that can work.

You know, I have 25 projects right now.

All right. Well, it's possible. So, we're not going to commit to that either way, but we'll leave that door open or that window open so that we can discuss it.

June 11th. Does that work for you?

Yes, it does.

All right. So, I need a motion, gentlemen.

Okay. Uh, I make a motion.

Excuse me.

Are you done with the height conversation? Is that conversation over?

Which conversation?

Height.

Oh, I'm going to discuss that with you.

Okay. But if if the board wants to do anything, then the board needs to Oh, okay. So, it needs to be All right.

So gentlemen I don't want this to influence you in any way, shape, or form. I just have a concern. I have a and obviously I can always be persuaded. I'm always going to be listening to people, whoever it may be, the the applicant, the uh the neighbors, anyone. But I have a concern about the height and the fact that I don't know whether or not that they've done enough to satisfy whatever the

intent of this letter was, whoever the drafter was, what their foresight might have been to what this language meant to them, whether or not that's been met on their part. If it is, then maybe maybe my opinion will change. If it isn't, maybe my opinion stays the same. I don't know. But that's just me. Now, I just need to know whether or not you guys are are on board with us writing a letter to

the drafter of this to give us some insight as to what they whether or not we're if we're asking for too much or if they they feel what they've provided and they may require I don't know if it's is it a board that makes this determination.

But what I mean, do we need do we need to Well, I mean, if I'm going to write a if I'm going to write a letter or even make a phone call on behalf of the board, I would just want to make sure that the board has authorized me to do it.

Yeah.

Okay.

I don't think we have to vote on that or just an informal acknowledgement.

No, just do we have to vote on that?

No, no, no. I just I don't want to take an action on behalf of the board that the board has.

Absolutely. I mean, whether it's one board or two or three boards, it's fine.

Members, yeah, it's fine. Okay.

I think it's going to be by phone call.

It be a good idea to have the opport um and we we can send the letter. I don't know. It's not inappropriate. Is it inappropriate to CC them on the letter so they know what we're No, I'm happy to CC them on the letter so they know what we're what we're requesting. It it's happened it's happened in other projects I've been involved with.

It doesn't have to be tomorrow. Okay.

But obviously sometime soon if you could draft one of those. Okay.

Yep.

All right.

Now, can I I'll entertain a vote to continue this matter to June 11th.

Uh, I make a motion to continue comprehensive permit ZCMP25-3 to June 11th at 6 p.m.

Second that motion.

All in favor?

I the eyes have it. Gentlemen, given the late hour, I am going to ask that we um table the uh administrative minutes for the next hearing date. Is that okay?

That's right.

We'll do so. So, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn.

Motion to adjurnn.

Second that motion.

All in favor?

I I The eyes have it.