Dartmouth ZBA continues Hathaway 40B hearing after residents press concerns on height, parking, water and traffic

The Dartmouth Zoning Board of Appeals on June 29 continued the public hearing on a contentious proposal known as the Hathaway project — a comprehensive-permit application under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B — after hours of testimony from the applicant team and dozens of residents who pressed the panel on building height, parking, water and traffic.

The applicant, representing Hathaway Dartmouth LLC, is seeking approval for a development on roughly 113 acres that would yield about 300 residential units. Attorney Mark Donghue and project representatives described recent design revisions intended to reduce the visual mass facing nearby homes: portions of buildings closest to Eisenhower Street were reconfigured so the nearest façades are about three stories (roughly 33 feet) while taller sections step back and may reach higher elevations where the grade drops. Project presenters said the maximum height, including rooftop screens and mechanicals set back from the façade, is roughly 55–57 feet at the most seaward points but is set back substantially from abutting yards.

Neighbors pressed for clarity in feet rather than stories. “Three stories doesn't mean anything to me. Feet is what I understand,” said Geraldine Perry Lopes, an Eisenhower Street resident; the applicant replied that the three-story portions are approximately 33 feet tall and that walkout-level sections on the downhill side can reach about 44 feet, with the most set-back façades reaching roughly 55–57 feet.

Parking and buffering emerged as central disputes. The applicant described a mix of constructed and so-called “banked” parking spaces — spaces shown on plans now but built only later if demand requires them — and said the plan as presented would yield about 341 constructed (non-banked) spaces (a roughly 1.14 ratio per unit) and 472 if banked spaces are later built (about 1.57 per unit). Project engineers proposed compact-space options (8x16 feet) to gain horizontal buffer for neighbors and said dense evergreen screening and a proposed stipend for immediate abutters to add landscaping or fencing were under consideration. Several residents said they feared “banked” spaces would eventually be built and that buffers would be removed; one abutter called 300 units “truly crazy.”

Water and wastewater capacity was another major concern. The board read two letters from residents raising water-use and cost estimates. Dartmouth's director of public works, Tim Barber, said he had reviewed the correspondence and found some numerical errors in the authors’ calculations; he also said a late Stantec review provided that, while off-site and on-site water-main sizes appear able to meet pressure and volume needs (subject to fire-department review), wastewater service would likely require targeted sewer-main replacements and pump-station upgrades. Barber and staff noted the project faces standard sewer connection and mitigation fees; the DPW recommended against waiving those fees because upgrades would otherwise fall to town ratepayers.

Traffic was raised repeatedly. Multiple abutters and commenters argued that nearby intersections, especially the Hathaway Road/Route 6 corridor and the Slocum/Route 6 area, already have congestion and safety issues and questioned whether planned or proposed improvements would solve neighborhood-level impacts. A resident who reviewed MassDOT correspondence said a longer-range Route 6 project is on hold, adding uncertainty to some traffic mitigation assumptions used in prior traffic studies.

The applicant emphasized the project's affordable-housing component and feasibility constraints. Project counsel and team members said 25% of the units would be designated affordable at about 80% of area median income and that the project's financial viability depends on the proposed unit count. They argued the team had repeatedly revised plans to respond to board and planning-board input and said they were willing to meet in a focused staff/board working session to explore trade-offs related to height, unit count, parking and operations.

Following extensive public comment and internal discussion, a board member moved to continue the Hathaway hearing; the motion carried. The board set the next public continuation for July 30, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. in Town Hall, Room 304.

The hearing remained open; the board discussed limited working-session options (one board member with staff and applicant experts) to examine whether meaningful, verifiable concessions (for example, lowering building mass at the north edge or reducing total unit count) could be developed before the next session. If the hearing is closed in the future, the board may take up to 40 days to render a decision under Chapter 40B procedures.

For now the record includes: the applicant’s revised elevation and dimensional exhibits, a set of resident letters alleging water- and traffic-related impacts, DPW comments on sewer/water infrastructure and fee calculations, and multiple public comments urging reductions in building height and unit count as the primary path to reduce neighborhood impacts. The board scheduled a public continuation on July 30, 2026, while noting that limited, single-member working sessions with the applicant’s team could occur in the interim to explore trade-offs.

Next steps: the applicant may use the intermeeting period to prepare alternate site/parking layouts, revised height profiles or proposed conditions addressing banked-parking permanence, expanded landscaping, fence/retaining-wall treatment and demonstrated funding for wastewater improvements. The board will expect detailed plans or condition language before any final vote.