Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting - September 29, 2026

Good evening and welcome to the zoning board of appeals meeting of Tuesday, September 29th of 2026.

At this time, I'm going to call upon everyone on the board and everyone in our audience to stand so we can pledge allegiance to the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

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

Thank you.

All right. So, I have to announce that this meeting is being recorded by Dartmouth Community Media. I'd also like to announce that our next scheduled meeting is on October, it's Tuesday, October 27th at 6:00 p.m.

here at Town Hall at room 304.

Moving on to the public hearings portion of tonight's meeting. It's variance case CAV26-7 which was continued from September 17, 2026.

I had to recuse myself because of a conflict on this case at the last hearing date and again today I will have to recuse myself as the matter is still ongoing. It's my understanding is still ongoing.

So we're going to take a short recess so we can reconvene the board. Thank you.

So the zoning board of appeals is back in session. Our first uh item on the agenda and the only item on the agenda tonight is variance ZAV 26-7 and as chairman Maderus indicated he has a a conflict with this case. So as a vice chair or the clerk I'll be chairing this and also attorney Faria and attorney would be the voting members on this case. Uh so this is uh this case

was uh continued from September 17, 2026. The petitioner is Peter Cruz and the owners David Cardardoso. The subject property is located at 200 Crossroad map 53 lot 1-1. It's located in the general business district and this was advertised. We opened the hearing. We had few public hearings on this case. We heard the testimonies from the neighbors at the last meeting. We closed the public hearing. We didn't close the

public hearing. We continued the public hearing. And I believe I asked uh uh uh attorney Sanders to write a uh draft decision for the board to to uh to review. And uh this is uh where we're at. We do have the uh draft of the decision that was sent by attorney Saunders. And uh at this time before I think we're going to keep the public hearing open in case we need to discuss

any of the findings or the uh uh uh conditions that are on the uh on the draft decision. Also this is a public hearing. Uh before we we start the discussions on the findings, uh I would like to ask if anyone in the audience is here for this case, uh please come to the podium and and state your name. Uh if either in support or in opposition of this case.

Seeing none, uh we'll move to um the board members ready to go over the uh findings?

Yes. of the decision. Okay. So, uh what we have we have a uh and again and please if you have interrupt me or if you have any any uh anything to add or delete or the the modified just let me know. Uh the board determined the following though if we're going through the findings. The subject property is located at 200 crossroad and is known on the town of Donouth assesses

maps at as plat 53 lot 1-1 and is in the general business district. The property has been owned by Chuck's home property LLC since May 15, 2025 and consists of vacant land. The petitioner/owner seeks to construct nine twobedroom townhouse dwellings with a garage in each unit which will total two parking spaces per unit with total two parking spaces per unit.

The petitioner seeks relief from article 375-18.2 allowed uses. The residential use is not an allowed use in the general business district. So that's the first uh the um the use variance. The petitioner seeks relief from article 375-24.3C2 off streetet parking regulations. The proposed design encroaches on setbacks within parking facilities required 10 ft to property lines proposed 5T from

property lines and required 5t from buildings proposed is 0 feet. The petitioner seeks relief from article 375-33.2.

Minimum setback dimension 40 feet from street rightway is required. Proposed 10 and a half 10.5 ft from the front setback street rightway. The petitioner seeks relief from article 375-24.3 M4 and 37524.3 M5. Driveway curb cuts. Curb cuts, driveway entrances, location and size is required 10 ft from the property line.

Proposed is 9 ft.

Required maximum driveway width within width 25 ft and the proposed is 35 ft and 40. And again, I think attorney uh Saunders justified why they need the wider because of the fire apparatus and the access to the site. The board finds that a strict enforcement of the bylaw would result in a practical difficulty and that the benefits of to the petitioner and to the public interest,

specifically the interest in supporting the production of housing outweigh the detriment to the public health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood.

The submitted plans include a drainage system that collects all runoff, treats it, and directs it to an on-site infiltration system in accordance with local and state storm water regulations.

I know there was some concern about storm water from the neighbors. So we we yeah uh the board finds that developing the property with nine residential townhouse units would be less detrimental to the neighborhood than developing it with other uses permitted as of right in the general business zoning district such as retail, fast food, restaurants or service establishments. We agreed on that that

you know so the board finds that the petitioners have demonstrated that they have satisfied the statutory requirements of MGL uh chapter 48A and uh uh section five section 10 variances. The board considered the this first one whether the practical difficulty relates to soil conditions, shape or topography of the land and finds that half of the site contains wetlands and contains steep topography

contributing to the practical to the practical difficulty and this is the reason they ask for the front setback because they can't move the building to the back because of the wetlands.

whether the strict enforcement would impose a financial hardship to the petitioner. The the the board finds that the inclusion of a dedicated entrance and a dedicated exit from the facility at the request of the fire chief resulted in the reduction of the initial plan from a 10-unit townhouse development to a 9-unit townhouse development, creating financial hardship.

The board finds that the benefits sought by the petitioner cannot be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to achieve. The board finds the that the practical difficulty was not self-created.

Uh those are the the findings. Now for the uh uh for the conditions the the stated conditions that we always include with with the variances or special permits. The petitioner will secure all the necessary permits and approvals from all applicable boards and agencies. All conditions associated with previous variances issued for this property shall remain in effect and adeared to by the applicant

and the we referenced the the the plans that were submitted for records. I think there was a site plans prepared for crossroad by uh uh Peter Cruz and the architecture prepared by Chuck's home properties as the uh plans of wreckage.

Um, anything else that we need to add or I think we covered Yeah. any I don't have anything to add. Uh, I read this before I came to the meeting and I thought it was uh a good prepared well.

There's a typo in 8 paragraph 8.

Is it the 4A?

Outway is not spelled out wy.

Oh, okay. All right.

Yes. I have another typo in paragraph 11.

It's 48A.

I I think it should be 4A. I think when I dictated No, no, I changed that. 48 48 is the fire safety. 48A is the variance. You can double check me on that.

4A is the variance. So 48 section 10 is for variance.

4A. 40A. Okay. I think when I dictated that I said 4A, you know, my secretary must have 48. 48. 48.

Okay. But for it's a it was missing the A though. Okay. You got it.

Yes. Okay.

You got to stop speaking Polish to your secretary. 48.

Okay.

Yeah. I think that one I find. Yeah. 48.

And I just added couple with the you know just one you know it's not I think it was a very good well-written one. So uh I at this time I I need I would like to entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

I so moved close the public hearing.

I second that motion.

All in favor?

I.

Okay. What's your what's the pleasure of the board? I make a motion that we approve variance zav-26-7 with the uh stated uh facts and conditions.

Do we have a second?

I'll second that motion.

All in favor?

I.

Okay.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Nice project, too.

I think um this concludes our meeting tonight. Is there anything that we need to discuss or uh you know you?

It's close enough.

I said 15 minutes close. All right. So, we need a motion to adjurnn.

I make a motion we adjourn.

I second that.

All in favor?

I I thank you.