Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting September 17, 2026

Good evening and welcome to the zoning board of appeals meeting of Thursday, September 17, 2026.

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

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

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

Thank you.

I have a couple announcements.

First, this meeting is being recorded by Dartmouth Community Media and also we typically announce our next scheduled meeting and that's something that we have not determined as of yet because we're going to be shifting our meetings back to either Monday or Tuesday and I think Tuesday I know that Mr. Schuba um unfortunately our schedules don't necessarily coincide as nicely as we'd like them to.

So, what day would be better for you? I think Tuesday better than Monday, but Tuesday better than Monday. Would you rather have Wednesday? Would you rather that have Wednesday?

Wednesday is a bad day.

Things are bad. So, well, look, we'll work around it as best we can. Um, there's a concern and we'll just maybe we have to shift something, but can we try back to Tuesdays for a little bit?

Sure.

All right. So, what Tuesday is avail this room available so that we can uh back? I'll have to check tomorrow, but they should be available.

They should be available. Okay. So, do you want to go this and the 20th?

Well, how many matters do we have? Well, I have about nine denial letters in the queue.

Nine?

Yeah. So, we're going to be busy in the next All right. So, so I'm going to say six not available.

Okay. Six is not wouldn't be good anyway. Um pull off.

Well, six wouldn't be good for me. I'm going to be away.

Oh, perfect. Then so the 21st October now.

Yeah, October. Yeah, October. The 21st.

Is it the 20th? Oh, the 20th. I'm sorry, the 20th of October.

What are we talking about? October. I'm not available 9 through 20.

How about the 13th?

I'm not going to be around.

Okay.

I won't be here on the 13th.

Okay.

I will not be here on the 20th.

Okay. So 27th until October basically and go the 27th.

27th. Gentlemen, that's fine with me.

All right. So October 27th it is.

27th.

And then sorry people. And then do you want me to do the regular schedule for November? like we'll go the 10th and the 24th.

Yeah.

Okay. So, we'll start with that.

That's fine.

Okay.

So, I can announce at this time that our next meeting that's scheduled will be for October 27th.

27th here at Now, the other thing we need to determine, are we going to five or we going to six?

Back to six.

Back to six.

I'm here. So, it's up to you gentlemen.

What's convenient for you?

You want to get out early?

You want to finish early? We can still meet at 5.

5:00 doesn't matter to me, Mr. Me. Five is fine.

All right. So it'll be 5:00.

So great. We got Mr. Farriia. Wonderful.

So now I just want to announce that our next schedule meeting will be October 27th at 5:00 p.m. here in this room. All right. Now moving on to the public hearings portion of tonight's meeting.

its deliberations of the comprehensive permit ZCMP-25-3 which was continued from August 27, 2026. The petitioners Philip Cordero on behalf of the Hathaway Dartmouth LLC and this is the Hathaway Road project. Um just for our viewers at home, the public meetings portion of this hearing has already been closed. It was closed at the last meeting which was August 27th.

We're here tonight to review uh a proposed decision uh permitting and also the waiverss. They we went over them almost we went over the waiverss line by line.

Um I've had an opportunity to review the decision, but obviously I'm going to defer to our council. I'm sure she'll bring us up to speed as to what's transpired since the last time we were here on this case.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So on um the 27th, August 27th, the board walked through the uh a draft of the conditions and and a draft waivers and the draft staff recommendations on the waivers. Um there was discussion on a number of both the conditions and the waivers. Um at that point there was some language just some not the substance of what would be included in them but um the language in

them and how how they would be worded appropriately so that um you know they kind of worked in in on the ground and and a number of those had to do with um issues related to Haway Road work in Haway Road engineering ISS issues. So, I was able to uh communicate both with Mr. Barber and with the applicant's attorney to just make sure that the language in some of the conditions you had already reviewed just

kind of was going to work in, you know, on the ground when when it was time for it to move forward. So, I can um I can you have two red line documents in front of you. One is the conditions, one is the waiverss. I can just um give the board and the public just quick overview. Some of the item, some of it's just clean up, you know, find typos, grammar, those types of things. Um some

of the changes you see is we went through there was language that the applicant had proposed at the last um meeting hearing. The board had accepted many of the items and there were certain things the board didn't accept. So um for you know example you know we had talked about the the peerreview fees um they had wanted to delay payment of those if there were appeals. The board said no they have agreed and my

understanding is up to date on peerreview fees. Is that correct Michelle? All set all set on peer review fees. Those are all set now. Yeah.

Yeah.

I also have a check to put a surplus in her check.

All right. Because I do have that checked off. He is one of the concerns that I had. So, yeah. No, but it's he's I I believe Mr.

Calhoun's brought a check and it's but it's conditioned on that being paid anyway, the permit itself. Correct.

Y correct. Okay. So, that's all been resolved. Um and then um again when you're flipping through if you see anything deleted it may have been language that the applicant had proposed and the board discussed at the last hearing and the language either wasn't accepted it was accepted or it was modified to some degree. Um the when you get to page eight, it's really just a lot of cleanup to make sure that the

references on the landscaping is tied to the specific sections of the zoning bylaw. But substantively, um the applicant has agreed to kind of rework their landscaping plan since they did a little bit of that redesign on the site. And it's specific about working with the planning director um to come up with a landscape plan that will kind of to the to the best degree possible create um the screening along the

property lines with the butters primarily on Eisenhower some some screening for the church. Um, so that's all going to be the the the staff and the department heads and the applicant just working together to kind of make that happen. Um, on on the storm water, it was mostly just clarification. There was a note, there was a condition that your peer reviewer had proposed that was

a little unclear, so we were cleaning up the language.

You on page nine now?

Yep.

Okay.

That was just that um Deb Keller's original language was unclear. So, we kind of went in, tied it back to the drainage sheet, made it so that it would be clear for the applicant and their team as to what she was referring to.

Um, and the same thing on page 10. Um, Steve Finland, the traffic engineer, had just wanted to make sure that the roads that are cut, the roadways that are internal, but they're kind of going downhill, that they designed something that will slow people down in their cars since you'll have it's going to be a downhill. You're going to pull into the site, head downhill. So, just some

traffic calming for the safety inside the site. Um in H1 uh which is on page 12 there was a lot of discussion as you know at the last hearing on the the proposed ANR plans what would happen with lot B the board had expressed its um position that if anything's going to happen on lot B other than the they don't have to convey it for conservation purposes but they are permitted to do that obviously but

if they going to do anything more that would develop the site, they they'll need to come back to the board. So, um I have retained the language that the board required there. Um the other ones that you'll see on 13, which is a number two and three, again, I worked with Mr.

Barber and um attorney Donnie, there's just clarification on how it was worded as far as there's some stonewall material. There's some trees. There's requirements to make sure that any contractors working in the rightway are properly licensed or insured or whatever. So, we we worked together to try to just make sure that language um worked for the town and for the applicant. Um,

and the same thing with street trees on page 14. Um, you know, there's there's some trees in there that may or may not be worth saving. So, that's going to get uh rolled into the review with the landscape plan. So, anything having to do with trees will all get sorted out together at the same time. Um the mitigation provisions just to recollect for recollection is um on page 15.

Number 11 is um $30,000 into a dedicated fund for some traffic uh management and improvements. Um number 12 is the $5,000 for the the six direct abutters. Um but of course the applicant is qualifying that on um they may withhold that if they have a butterers who are actively um trying to appeal their project. So that's their prerogative. Um and then there was hours of um just hours of

operation. They had asked for slight modifications on the hours of operation, but it's all consistent with what the board has allowed in other projects. So, it's the 8 to four, it's uh 7 to 6 on weekdays and 8 to 4 on um on Saturdays and no no work on Sundays. Um see, where are we? Page 18. Um again, um this is clarification. They're going to there's going to be the sewer main replacement which the applicant has

agreed to replace at their cost. That's sewer main in Hathaway. And so it just worked with the DPW director on the timing for when that would happen. So it's basically going to be that the issue is whether the the current pipe may not have enough capacity for all six buildings. So they're going to work together to determine is it is the upgrade needed for the first building?

The upgrade might not be needed until the fourth building. So, they're going to work together and determine at what point in the project that that work would be needed. Um, and then number five on page 18, this is um $40,000 uh to be um contributed to the town together that we'll put together with other funds um that are being contributed to the town for the north uh Dartmouth pump station upgrades. So,

that's those are the mitigation items.

Um, and that is those are the conditions. If the board has any questions on any of the other conditions, but all the other conditions are the same as you reviewed them at the last meeting.

Any questions, John?

I I I have no questions.

I have no questions. I had a I had a a chance to review this in the afternoon.

I a couple hours.

Okay, great.

All right. Thank you. Any questions?

No.

Okay.

All right. So then the waiver list, um there were just most of most of it was just cleanup. Um you'll see a number of grammar corrections, etc.

clarifications. When you get to number seven, there had been a note in the staff suggestions. Um that to grant the waiver for the height because the height in the district's only 35 ft. Um but then to tie it to something specific.

So, it's been tied to the uh drawings that they've presented um the height.

So, rather than saying, "Okay, we're waving 35 ft." You're waving it, you know, provided that the maximum heights consistent with what they've presented to the board.

Okay. Um All right. Um some of these were just kind of notes for discussion at the last time, so they weren't needed anymore.

For example, in 10, it was just a note for discussion. Um, so that's why some things were deleted. You'll see there's a lot of just grammar corrections here.

Um, as we go. Um, in when you get to number 17, there was just a redundant request there. So, both the one that's crossed out and number 18 were covering the same sections of the bylaw. That's why number the first one was was is deleted there. But, it's all handled in number 18. um that had to do with the uh landscape islands.

Um again, that's all there's just was a lot of conversation happening in the notes for the board at the last hearing. That was all not necessary. It was just discussion.

Um and then where are we again? Just taking out the narrative. So the the one the one insertion in here, but it was discussed at the last meeting was that the applicant is proposing an irrigation well and um there are board of health regulations that treat the irrigation wells the same as portable wells. Um so for uh this is similar to the Sherbrook 40B that those regulations the the um testing of the of

the wells will remain in place just to make sure there's no contamination in the water that they're using to irrigate. But otherwise it will not because otherwise there's a there's a regulation that says if you have town water then you shouldn't have a well.

But in this case, they're going to use they're going to use an irrigation well rather than draw on the water the public uh treated water supply. So it reduces their water consumption for the site. So that is the purpose. So that's on number 24 and number 25.

Mhm.

All right. And then there's So that's that's really the only thing that's new on new in the document but was discussed before the hearing closed.

All right. So um that's it. Then the third the third document that you have is a a full decision. Um and what that obviously includes in it is the other necessary information to issue a decision which is summary of the proceedings description of the property the hear how many hearings you know that you've held who's been who was here representing the board representing the applicant etc. kind of a summary of the

project and then the the factual and regulatory uh legal findings um which are uh pretty straightforward. the factual findings. It's located in single residence a fire district 3 280 units uh with a breakdown between studios, one bedrooms, two bedrooms, and three bedrooms. 25% or a total of 70 of the units will be restricted in perpetuity um as affordable units. Um the buildings

will be built the way they were shown to you in the height etc. Um and then the legal findings with respect to you know the town is below 10% etc. Um and you know the board's weighing of local concerns and then once you get past the findings and we're back into the conditions that we just discussed.

So that's that is the substance of what's in front of you.

Thank you Susan.

So, gentlemen, I know there's a lot, but we've been exposed to this before.

Um, and you know, unfortunately or fortunately, however you want to perceive it, this is the culmination of the months that we've been going back and forth with the applicant and getting input from the neighbors uh and trying to minimize the impact that this will have on immediate abutters, even just anyone in town based on traffic and all the other variables. So, if there's any questions as to what's been drafted

here, this is going to be what the we're this is what we're going to have to live by moving forward with this project and obviously what the petitioner is going to live by.

So, if there's any concerns, that's including you, Attorney Far.

Thank you.

There any concerns, now's the time for us to uh to address them.

But from what I've seen here, based on what you've, you know, surmised here, um it's pretty much everything we discussed. Yes, we've touched upon all of it. I had two concerns. One had to do with the payment of the peerreview fees and the other one had to do with uh those lots that they were potentially wanting to in the future do something with, but they've conceded to the language that we had

initially proposed. Um it doesn't mean it's not something they can come back before us and ask for. They can absolutely do so. And we don't know where we'll be then. Uh with regards to town and and the planning of the town and the zoning of the town, the 5,000 square foot lots.

Well, that's on that's actually a ballot question that's coming up for us in November, right? Uh it's going to be interesting to see what the people of the state of Massachusetts how they feel about it.

That's going to send a big message. I think um so the other thing that I'm concerned with is that it's not really on this is I think we at some point need to learn what are the requirements of a of a variance. Uh I've been trying to read up a little bit of it with the new which was effective July I think it was July 1st became effective July 1 that there's a new test now

it's obviously not as rigorous as the uh as the the one that's been in existence for decades I don't know at least 40 50 years probably. It's been in effect, I think, since the 70s. So, I'm still, you know, working with that. I don't know if we need to schedule something with town council or whatever else, but that's obviously a conversation for another day. So, if there's nothing um at this

point that you guys have any concern with, then I guess I would entertain a motion for a vote.

I I just like to know I did note it to board members, but just so when you take the vote, it will include I we just hand wrote it in. We'll fix it. I just put it in a typo on the date on page two. Okay.

Where it says September 16th, it should say September 17th, but I just wanted to note that that that when you vote, it will be voting it with that correction.

Yeah, that's okay.

You brought that to my attention earlier. I I just That's like a scriveners error. Yeah. Right. That's not a big deal.

Okay.

Not real substance.

Um, gentlemen, what's your pleasure?

I I reviewed the entire package. I reviewed all the information that Susan just discussed. Uh it contains everything that we talked about and all the uh conditions that we wanted and uh and the the petitioner made concessions I thought. So I I'll make the motion.

Okay. I make a motion that we approve ZCMP-35-3, that the zoning board makes the following findings that are set forth in section one of the draft decision reviewed by the board at the hearing and grant the comprehensive permit for the project shown on the project plan described in schedule Ato subject to the conditions set forth in section I I or two thereof 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.

Do I get a second? So, we have we have a um before I just want to say a couple words.

Oh, sure. I'm sorry if I didn't give you an opportunity. I'm sorry.

We uh we have a motion on the floor.

We have a motion on the floor, but you can still make a comment before we act.

Uh so this is this has been a a difficult uh decision for me as well as everybody in this uh room and you know but we we tried and we tried to do the best for the neighbors and to to to get the most benefits that we can get out of this project. Unfortunately, you know, this beyond our control, but uh we negotiated in good faith and but I I feel comfortable that we have all the

conditions that we put in in here and and you know, the the the applicant at the last minute, you know, worked with us to to address some of the comments that were raised and mainly I had the concern with the with with the height and the buffer from Eisenhower and I think we have a plan that would provide a buffer you know I mean may it may not be acceptable or may may not satisfy everybody's

you know and I understand that so but u saying that I I second the motion all in favor I I I the eyes have it all right gentlemen um certainly that's a somewhat of a sigh of relief but David Calhoun for the applicant. I just wanted to thank the board, uh, your staff and Susan, uh, for all the hard work. Nobody knows how much you guys put into it. We appreciate it.

We thank you.

Thank you.

Well, we hope we don't see you again for a long

moving on.

Okay. I'm going to So, um, Mr. for the rest of you don't need me for the rest of the meeting. You don't need me at all anymore. Um Michelle has a signature page for you. So if yes, you could take care of that.

I'll endorse that.

But I I am going to make my leave. I just want to thank the board for kind of Thank you. Well, it was nice to your confidence in me. It's been a a little over a year, but I appreciated spending all this time with all of you.

And like I said, if I come back, it means they appreciate. Hopefully we don't cross bus path somewhere else but not over a restaurant somewhere or a store.

Okay, there you go. Over over a cart. Very nice working with you.

Take and be well. Safe trip home.

Thank you.

All right. So, moving on, gentlemen.

The next matter we have, this has been continued a few times. It's variant ZAV26-3 and it was continued from August 13, 2026. The applicant petition is Cody Santos. the owners Mark and Lisa Santos and the subject property is located at 367 O Westport Road. So gentlemen, without me having to go into the rest of this, this is the case in which the petition has been having difficulty in getting

a surveyor to come out and to make some changes to the proposed plan or to the plan that they had initially submitted.

Um, and I think some of the suggestions were actually made by you u Mr. Schuba and according to what they've been telling us and I think someone can provide us an update. Um, so you've been speaking with him correctly?

Yes, he came in yesterday actually.

Oh, he came in yesterday.

Yeah. And he he they're just not returning his calls. He calls almost daily.

But I think at some point we got to, you know, we got a fisher cut, you know, cut bait here. So, we've continued this at least three times. Oh, yeah.

Today would be the fourth for at least that I can remember. And it could be one more. I think we're I I'm I'm inclined to grant them a little more time, but I think if they don't have it by the next time, I think they should know that we're probably just going to dismiss the the complaint. We can't just leave it out in the band like this.

Well, I'm not sure we can just dismiss it.

No, we have When I say dismiss, I'm sorry.

I you know, I Right.

Okay. I'm thinking as if we're a court of law, right? We're we're a board.

We would we would act on it, make a decision, and we'd probably deny the application at that point. At least that's what I would be suggesting. Doesn't mean that you gentlemen have to agree with that.

Obviously, could they withdraw it?

Yeah, they could without prejudice. We could do that, too. But I think they they ought to make we ought to make it known to them that at this point, we're going to give them a 60-day date.

Okay.

We'll give him a 60-day date and then if they don't come back to us by that date, we're going to Okay. And who wants me to speak to the building?

I I think they should go talk to the building commissioner. Really? I mean, he could probably look at it and and make a decision right now. You know, I don't know this. I don't remember the specifics as to what the changes were, but I know that, you know, for them to come before us, I only feel comfortable if it's on a plan, a site plan that delineates exactly what the distances

and what that those may be. Um I don't know what the relationship is with the uh with with the surveyor, but obviously um they haven't been able to get what they need.

No, but if the two lots are merged, right, there's no setback. There's no setback anymore.

You still have to But that was only one of the concerns, right? But you have to comply with the front setback.

You can you can do that. You can push the building back. So, but again, if they can do that, they may not even need to come before.

That's what I'm saying. They can they can request, you know, meet with with Randy.

They'll have to come for a special permit for the Aqua College.

Is that what he needs?

No, because when you combine them together, your your lot area is a lot bigger now. I think you're you don't need that.

Okay.

I didn't do the math, but I don't think you would need it.

You can say this. I'm not speaking for them, but quite frankly, if we're going to put it out for a date um probably sometime in November.

Okay.

All right. So, we ought to pick a date now that we're going to be meeting in November. If they're not going to be coming forward to to us with something of substance, then I'm lucky I'm likely, excuse me, I'm likely to be asking that the board present a motion that we deny the application.

Okay.

is it's been a while.

It's been a while, but we don't take into consideration the reasons why.

We have, but at some point again, I mean, that young man calls me weekly.

I mean, unfortunately, well, we'll give 60 days, right?

Yes.

So, you want to go November 24th.

What day of the week? It's Tuesday.

Tuesday.

Tuesday. November 24th.

Okay.

November 24th.

November 24th. I'll entertain a motion, gentlemen, to continue it to November 24th at 5:00.

Um, I make a motion that we continue variance ZAV-26-3 to November 24th at 5:00.

Well, it's it's 5:00. Yeah, at 5:00.

I second that motion.

All in favor?

I The eyes have it.

I think we said the meeting at five.

Gentlemen, I am going to in the interest of time here. Oh, okay.

In the interest of time, because I have to recuse myself on the next case, I'm going to suggest that I read into the record um the admin, we're going to jump to the administrative portion of tonight's meeting. I'm going to read into the record collectively all of the um minutes and all of the um uh approvals, review and approvals of the decisions that have been had. And we're going back to June.

So, there quite a few of them. I'm going to read them all into the record and then collectively if we can make a motion to approve one motion to approve them all.

Sure.

Is that okay?

Yeah.

Fine with me.

All right.

So, moving on to the administrative portion of tonight's meeting. Review and approval administrative minutes of June 8, 2026. Variance case ZAV 26-4 minutes for 133 Alpha Street and review and approval of comprehensive permit ZCMP-25-2 minutes of 498 O Westport Road.

Continuing on, review and approval of administrative minutes of June 11, 2026.

Review and approval of special permits ZP-25-6 minutes for 8 Bono Court. Review and approval of variant ZAV 26-1 for West Bliss Street. Review and approval of comprehensive permit ZCMP 25-3 minutes for Hathaway Road. Moving on to review and approval of administrative minutes of June 29th, 2026 and also review and approval of comprehensive permit ZCMP 25-2 minutes of 498 O Westport Road.

Review and approval of comprehensive permit ZCMP2-3 minutes for Haway Road. Review and approval administrative minutes of July 9th 2026.

Review and approval of special permit ZSP 25-6 minutes of 8 Bono Court. Review and approval comprehensive permit ZCMP 25-2.

Minutes for 498 O Westport Road. Review and approval administrative minutes of July 30th, 2026. Review and approval of variance ZAV 26-13 for 3670 Westport Road. Minutes will continue from July 30th of 2026. Review and approval of ZAV 26-6 for 20 for 38 Bliss Street minutes.

Review and approval of ZAV 26-54 484 Russell Mills Road minutes which were continued to August 13, 2026.

Review and approval of comprehensive permit ZCMP2-2 minutes for 498 O Westport Road continued to August 13, 2026.

Review and approval of comprehensive permit ZCMP25-3 minutes continue to August 13, 2026 for Zero Hathaway Road. That's all of them, gentlemen.

I make a motion that we approve all the minutes stated by the by the chair.

I second that motion.

All in favor?

I I I the eyes have it.

All right. Now the next case that we have gentlemen is uh ZAV 26-7 which was which was previously continued from August 13th. I had previously on that date recused myself as a result of a conflict and I apologize to you gentlemen but conflict is a conflict.

So I believe at the last hearing um that you were the acting chairman and we also had attorney Faria sit in and luckily we have him here today. So, we do have a quorum to continue to consider um this application. So, at this time, I'm going to we're going to take uh short recess so that the board can reconvene.

uh good evening. Uh the uh board the zoning board of appeal is back in session. Uh our next uh matter on the agenda and this is our last case tonight is variance zav26-7 and this case was continued from August 13 2026.

The petitioner is Peter Cruz and the owner is David Cardardoso. The subject property is located at 200 Cross Road identified as map 53 lot one.

It's located in the general business district and this case was advertised in the chronicle on July 23rd and July 30th. We did open the public hearing at the last uh meeting and I believe we read into the record all the comments from the various uh departments and uh uh so the applicant on this case the petitioner is seeking a use variance to pro proposing to construct a 9-unit townhouse which is not allowed use in a

general business district. This application is denied under the Dartmouth zoning bylaws with the sections not allowed use and also the the proposed design encroaches on setbacks with parking facilities.

And I believe also there's uh request for curbcut entrances. They're not with they're not allowed. And uh I believe at the last meeting um uh attorney Saunders presented the case and uh we didn't have enough time to hear from the neighbors.

Uh that it was that time that we had to take another uh 40B hearing. So we we cut the uh the uh uh meeting short at this time. I would ask attorney uh Saunders if you don't mind just a couple minutes if there's anything new that you want to add from that change from the last time or if you want to recap quickly what you're here for so this way if somebody wasn't here at the last

meeting they understand what this petition is for.

Sure. Thank you. For the record, uh attorney Chris Saunders, 190 William Street near Bedford, Mass. on behalf of the applicant. Um, you know, I I know we had the the presentation, but we're seeking um number one a use variance, uh, which I'll go into in a moment because what I also didn't have at the last meeting was the the revised chapter 48. And thankfully, um, uh, attorney introduced me to

attorney Murphy, who was kind enough to provide me with that statute because even as of today, a lot of databases haven't been updated, you can't really find the un unless you dig through the the voluminous budget that was passed, you're not going to find that. But I I thank Attorney Murphy for for sending that to me. So, we're we're seeking the use variance as well as a number of

other variances. Um the the um setback from the parking facilities requires 10 ft. In your in your agenda, it says it's proposed at 5.27.

I made the notation at last meeting that we're actually seeking um a variance down to 5T. So, I I did pull the application from the portal and it doesn't say 5.27. and it says 5T. So, if this board was inclined to grant the variance, I'd ask that it be uh down to 5T. We're also seeking a variance um from the parking facilities, they require a 5-ft setback from the building. We're proposing zero.

Um the setback of the building itself uh is required 40 ft. This is an an angled type building. the the narrowest um setback would be 10.5. So, we're seeking a variance for that. We're also seeking a variance on the curb cut driveway entrance locations. Um 10 is required.

We're proposing nine. So, we're looking for a 1 ft um variance on that. And also the maximum driveway width is 25. And we're proposing because we have two 35 and 40. And as I said, that was due in large part for the um access for fire um vehicles to to make the appropriate uh turns. Um I know we went in depth last last month on the plan. If you have any

questions, I'd be more than happy to answer those and either now or after uh members of the public uh want to chime in. But I do want to um I think the biggest difference between last month and this month is that even though this was law last month, it really we really didn't have it. And gone of the days where you you need the um the uh substantial hardship. The section

10 which is the variance section now gives this board the authority to grant uh permits u variances but the standard has changed. It is now strict enforcement of the ordinance or bylaw would result in a practical difficulty.

Now I've talked to many lawyers in the past month as to what practical difficulty is. There's no case law on this. So we don't have cases to define practical difficulty. But without this it would be practically impossible to to accomplish.

So is it practically difficult? Yeah, it's substantially difficult. Uh so I would I would suggest we've made that threshold. All right. And just by making that threshold doesn't mean this board is required to do it. I'm saying that we we comply with and you have the discretion as you do on any variance or special permit to grant or not grant um when you are making and I'm reading from the new statute in making its

determination the permit granting authority shall weigh the benefits to the appellant or petitioner and to the public interest and this is a big one including the interest in supporting the production of housing against the detriment of the public health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. It then cons continues and it may it doesn't say shall it may also consider one whether the practical

difficulty relates to soil conditions, shape or topography of such land or structures. And as I said last month, I mean the majority of this um property is wetlands and that's why we had to go closer to the road. um the the topography there's I think it's a 17 to 18 ft drop. So we we we meet both the soil conditions and topography. Um, two, whether whether the enforcement would impose a financial hardship to the

appellant or petitioner. And I would suggest this does would pose a financial hardship. When this project was originally um kicked off, they were looking for 10 units because of and I wasn't present at these meetings, but I'm told that there were meetings with the fire department. fire department really wanted um two two entrances and exits. So to accommodate fire vehicles in order to do that they

had to lose one unit. They can't afford financially to to lose any other units.

So I would suggest we have a financial hardship although it is not required.

These are things you can consider but I would say we do have it. Um three, whether the benefit sought by the appellant or petitioner can be achieved by some other method feasible by the appellant.

There's really no I mean with the wetlands and the the shape of this lot, it's it's there is no other method that's feasible. And lastly, number four, whether the practical difficulty was self-created. Th this certainly wasn't self-created because originally our plan was to do 10 with one entrance and exit in order to accomplish the um to to make the project financially feasible appease the the fire

department. We had to lose one and and put another entrance and exit. So I would suggest we have com I'm not saying that the new statute is slam dunk. It certainly made it a lot easier for attorneys and engineers compared to what we had. But I would say based on the new statute, we comply um with the terms of it. And I would respectfully request you approve these variances. And if you have

any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer if you want to talk hear from the public. I leave it to the chair.

Okay. Thank you.

Uh before we open it to the public, is there any questions from the board members?

I don't have any at this time.

I have no questions at this time.

Hearing none that Yes, this is a public hearing. Anyone here for this case? Uh yes. Would you please come to the podium and and state your name for the record?

Thank you.

My name is Lee Hall. I live at 208 Cross Road right on the side of this property.

208. Okay. Um um we're very concerned in the neighborhood about drainage because the most of the school water from the parking lot across the street drains right across the street. I got videos from this past rainstorm of a 20ft 8 in deep river running through this property. A lot of water goes right through here. Um I'm sure you guys know about the major drainage issues on the bend there at Crossroad that the town's

tried to fix before and hasn't really fixed any of it. it still floods every single storm and we just keep orange barrels on the road saying that it floods. Um there's also something in the works about widening the road. We've gotten things saying the road's going to be redone and they might be taking some property to do sidewalk and widen the road. Um I don't know if that's going to affect this 10-ft

variance if they widen the road in two years after they build this. Um so it would be even closer to the road according to what I've heard. Um, a lot of it's the drainage. I moved to the town from New Bedford. I lived with apartments on the side of me my whole life. I moved to this town so I didn't have to live with six families on the side of me anymore. I got a single

family home. I always thought if somebody built there, it would be a single family home or a duplex at most or something, you know. Um, so I'm not really happy with that happening right on the side of my house, having nine families driving by my backyard every day to leave their property. Um, it's just been kind of stressful thinking about it. And I'm not, we have other neighbors that couldn't make it

tonight, but we got a couple other people here um that have concerns about the flooding and increased population in the area and things like that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I believe the the people in the back too, would you like to speak or you have the same concerns?

I just come to see what's going on.

Okay. So, basically, you have the same concerns or Okay. Um I can't I mean we have the attorney here but I mean I can tell you that with the drainage if there's a drainage issues that caused by the the school has nothing to do with the applicant here. But uh in terms of storm water they have to take there's we have storm water regulations in this town. So they they can't just dump water

to other property. So they have to go through the proper channel and again because the proximity of this project to the wetlands they would have to file a notice of intent with conservation. So that would be reviewed by peer review I believe or whoever's you know like or the town officials and again it'll be a um uh you'll have a chance to go to that hearing because that you would be

notified. It's it's a it's a public hearing and you as in a butter you will get a notification too. Um uh and I believe the uh attorney I mean also they will have to go through site plan and reviews but uh you know this is not you know we we look at these things but it's not our purview as a board to look at the drain the storm water. We we

look at the storm water if this is going to affect you negatively but they can't do that. They have to take care of their own storm water. Whatever they produce in terms of runoff, they have to keep it on site or the rate from the site from the before development has to equal the the rate of the of uh the runoff post development. So this is this is required. It's not you know but in terms

of the crossroad I can't tell you. I'm not, you know, this is something that you can talk to DPW, but I I have no uh information on whether this is going to be to have a town building in that location.

I'm sorry. You have to go get up. You have to go to You have to get to the podium because we have to get you.

You also said it was denied because there's no townhouse allowed in that area. Correct.

Well, it's not allowed per zoning. It's allowed by a a variance and that's why they're here. And there's certain criterias for variance they have to meet. And you know, I believe attorney uh uh Saunders went through the different uh parts of how they can meet those. You know, if they can demonstrate to us that they can meet them, then we can we can approve a variance.

That's why he's in front of this board because because of the variance for that variance.

Uh yeah, we got we got a use variance.

This is a use variance too, right?

Yes. Yes. Yeah. What is the use?

So because it's multif family is not allowed in that district. That's what I hear. But you also heard that we have a financial and not finan we have a housing crisis in the state of Massachusetts and apartment buildings going on road.

But there's different um thresholds now for variances that we have to go by.

Okay. I'm just not sure how selling expensive condos helps the crisis as much as like apartments for poor people that need places to live.

Okay, Mr. Hall, quick question.

Are you saying that the flooding that you saw in the last storm goes right into that land right here? There's a runoff here across from the school entrance and then there's another broken one through right here that I maintain. There's trees falling down there all the time. I go there with my own personal chainsaw and cut trees out of the way so the water can still drain off the road and I go there with

my snowblower and I plow these entrances out to the drainage every winter and the school plows snow on them and I have to go dig them out again.

I hear you. Okay, thank you.

And my property by the time they fill this in is going to be a lot lower, which this is lower now, so the water kind of stays that way, but once they fill in for this lot, it's going to be higher than my yard.

Conservation Commission.

Okay. Is that uh are you across from the potter school?

Across from the library.

Mhm.

On the library. What?

I'm right here.

But where's the where's the part of school?

That's across the street, too.

The driveway to the part of school pours out here. All the water comes out their thing and it runs driveway. Driveway. So, this is the part of school driveway. Probably this bigger driveway here. So, but aren't you saying that the water the flow of the water is from the part of school?

Some of it. Yes. A lot of it's also just coming down the road as well. Yeah.

Yeah.

But there's major drainage issues along this entire road. And there there's been in plans for years because we got these letters years ago that they're supposed to be redoing the whole road. And then we got things in saying they wanted to, you know, eminent domain and make take some property and make the road wider or add a sidewalk. I'm not sure exactly what it's for, but so I didn't know if

that would intrude on the variance of how close to the road eventually. You know what I'm saying?

Is there storm water there? Do you know if there's a collection system?

There's nothing.

No. If you keep going down um right at the bend in the road there, but there's the town just last year because people were going there and digging tunnels into the woods to let the water drain off the road. The town put up a bunch of no trespassing signs, they put in a well to drain it, but the well doesn't go to anything and it's just become full of stone and it doesn't drain or do

anything at all. the road still just floods like crazy just after down the road maybe a quarter mile or so because there's no drainage off of the road besides just runoffs that keep getting plugged up and things you know what I mean and then the drainage that they did put in I think they just put a well full of stone they didn't really drain it to anything it seems like it's a town issue not not

okay not not the applicant's issue that's that's what I'm getting at so and they have if they have no right if they there's no drainage easement they can't just dump dump water right into someone into private property unless they have a proper easement that Well, I'm just concerned about the height difference too once they fill in to my property and all that, but that's for a different meeting. Yes.

Yeah, that would be reviewed by and again I guarantee multif family complex versus just a single individual home is something that I could bring to your attention for this meeting.

We understand. So, they have to maintain that water on site. I think I looked at they have an infiltration system on site that collect the runoff from the pavement and the uh I know but I've been alive for 40 years.

I know that parking lots and drainage systems don't always fully function, right? But this would be reviewed by professionals, you know, like so I'm sure they all are reviewed by professionals and they don't always work. Okay. They all water flows downhill.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, attorney Mr. Chair. I think it may be uh appropriate if if you would allow us.

Peter Cruz from CAB engineering. He's had um in-depth conversation with Tim Barber and John Conno from DPI about possibly the applicant granting the town a drainage easement to alleviate the issues. I I don't live there so I don't see it firsthand. I if you would allow Peter Cruz to u Thank you.

Good evening Mr. chair and members of the board, Peter Cruz from Cab Engineering. Uh we did sit with Tim Barban and John Connell from the DPW uh last week. Uh we went we have the same concerns as the the abuter uh with all the water coming off uh crossroads on our property. Uh we did sit down, we had a great conversation. We just got an email uh this morning that uh the town

has engaged VHB who is their house consultant uh design firm to uh coordinate with us on getting the proper drainage easement in place to be able to put two catch basins up at the top of the property to maintain that runoff and not adversely affect you and be able to run it down our property into the wetlands after it goes through all the water quality structures. And um and then the other

thing to to sort of address his concern, we're building the site up, but we're maintaining all our runoff on our if you look at the contours uh of the site.

Everything's coming off crossroads entering the site and it is actually sloping towards you.

We're actually building a wall up there and it's going to catch all that not going our way anymore. So you it should not negatively impact you. So, we're going to like like m uh the chair said, we're we're going to maintain what we produce on site uh from the roof from the roof.

Uh excuse me, sir. Uh we you need to So, we'll be we'll we'll we'll be maintaining our roof runoff, our parking lot uh runoff, all subsurface to meet all the storm water regulations that the town has. Um, and we're also being good neighbors with the town uh in in in working with them to get the proper easements in place to be able to collect the water coming off Crossroads and and

and actually get it to where it goes today, but in a better manner than just dumping it off.

That's a lot.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Um, anyone else?

in the audience. No. So, as I mentioned, you still have your opportunity to go with the then at that time they'll have the design that the the storm water design completed and they can, you know, they can answer any questions you have, you know, but it seems like this is the the sensible way to do it because the water is going to the wetland anyway without any treatment. So, I believe

once they design the system, they have to catch it, treat it. you know, they there's regulations in in storm water, you know, for oil water separations and all that before it goes into the wetland. And it has to be at the same rate so it doesn't flood your property either. So, um, at this time, is there any questions from or uh any, you know, from the board members for No, I have crew attorney.

I just had a question uh part of the variances they want. One of them is a use variance. Yes, one is use variance and there's bunch of uh will be relief on uh it'll be setbacks and dimensional relief.

Now, what what's an allowable use in this zone?

It's a single this is a single residence, I believe. Oh, general business, right? Uh yeah. Yeah, it's general business.

Yeah. Yes. I'm I'm sorry.

It's general business which uh residences are not an allowed use in in multi not allowed. Right.

Correct. But the bit the one of the biggest things in this new uh variance is that this it essentially allow it says except where local ordinances or bylaws shall expressly permit variances for use, no variance may authorize a use or activity other than residential. Mhm.

So this allows for use variances uh in any resident in any district for any residents. Now um so and and that is something that and just to answer Mr. Halt's question and being a resident I I miss I mean this is general business. So they can put a retail building with parking lot of this side. Yeah, that's another you know uh I believe there's a church on the other side but church is not

considered you know so uh u okay well Mr. Chairman the reason why I asked that question because this gentleman Mr.

Hall said, and I I I I sympathize for him, that you move from New Bedford because you don't want six family houses next to you, but you're also in in an area where you could have a retail outlet there, which could cause a lot more traffic and a lot more problems for residential people.

So, it's, you know, it's a problem. And now with the with the new statute here, I said, uh, I don't know. It I I think our hands are tied to some degree to say, what do you want? Do you want uh multif family or do you want retail?

I don't know. I think address.

No. Yes.

Um. Yes. Uh, so um I don't Saunders at Yes, if you don't mind. Uh, I don't think I don't have a decision because for two reasons. first because uh this is kind of the first project with the with the new uh statue with the new variances. So I haven't had a chance to look at the uh the statue with and the requirements and also it's been so crazy with other stuff. So if you don't

mind I don't think we're ready. I don't think I have an issue with this. I personally don't have an issue.

I don't have I don't have an issue.

You know the relief on all the you know this is reasonable on the setback we can address it because of the wetlands in the back. you had to be in the front.

The width of the driveways because it's a safety uh uh concern. So, we understand that the five foot from a building. I mean, you have a garage, you can't you have to park inside the you're going to park 5t away. So, I I don't have an issue with any of the the variances.

My eyes suggest that we have uh Right. That's right. So my my suggestion is that we can't we can't make a decision tonight on this, but uh we would want to continue this and give you the opportunity to write a draft decision and then you can send it to us uh send it to Michelle and hopefully a week before the hearing or so we can take a look at it and then we'll take a

look at it and we'll make the decision at that at that hearing. But uh we've been this is the the the latest practice as attorney uh Maderas would like to have the the attorneys uh work for their money or kind of get them engaged in and in and writing the decision. So uh so if this is what we would do um we'll u we'll continue the hearing until I'm not sure what we have.

Yeah, this is this is an issue also.

Well, Michael can't sit on this case anyway. Can we move it up just to have him on the three gentlemen sooner than the 27th of October?

Uh 27th of October and we you be like the first one on on the Is that what you mean? Like we can have it right have it before that. Whatever three Whatever three date you three of you can make.

Oh, just for this hearing.

Yeah. Five.

Um yeah, let me check. I mean uh which what date? So it'll be an extra meeting, right? just um I mean we'll be here what a half hour uh even that.

Okay. All right. So, what are we looking at?

You tell me. Uh the three of you are available.

Uh oh, you're going Yeah, you're leaving.

Uh we're talking about October. I'm leaving on the 9th and I won't be back.

So, it has to be before the 9th.

Well, all right. So, uh I don't think we can go if you want to go on a Tuesday, we can go the 22.

Yeah, but let me check. The 22nd of October of September.

September. What do you don't you need uh 22nd? That's next week, isn't it?

That's next week.

What do you need for uh you need to post it? What?

It's continued.

It'll be an agenda and I'll continue this case.

What about the 29th?

29th. It's on a Tuesday.

Uh the 29th.

Um I'm open on the 29th so far.

How about you? I I can do the 29th.

29th work. Attorney Saunders.

Yes.

Do you have a a meeting already scheduled for the 29th?

This is you'll be it. So you would have to post that meeting, right? I think he thought legally.

Oh, okay.

So um No, not the league. You have to post it agenda, right?

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, but that's I mean a week was enough for So the 29th at 5:00 unless you want to go October 27th.

No, no, no. That's good.

just uh put that proposed uh variance.

Would you make sure it's in not in Polish and English far as the 29th? So the the 29th at five, right? Is that what we said? Okay.

Um yeah. And then this is kind of the use the new uh guidelines standards for for the variances whatever. So that's that'll be interesting to get the first one.

I actually think you would fit the old conditions.

It it certainly helps in the use variance now though the way it's written.

So you get back to me like at least by the 23rd 24th.

Y a few days before doesn't have to be a week you know for Yeah. Yeah. Meeting five you said on the 29th.

Thank you.

Mr. Attorney Farriia, it's Jenua Sneer motion to continue.

I don't know the number.

I make a motion that we continue uh variance case ZAV 26-7 to September 29th at 5:00. I'll second that motion.

All in favor?

I I thank you.

Any um I believe this any business we need to discuss? Nothing.

Okay. So, we do I have a motion to adjurnn?

I make a motion that we adjourn.

Second.

All in favor? I I thank you.