Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing 40b topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board closes hearing on Sherbrooke Farms 152‑unit 40B proposal after debate over crosswalks, sewer and waivers

Dartmouth Board of Appeals · July 10, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board of Appeals closed the public hearing on Sherbrooke Farms (ZCMP25-2), a proposed 152‑unit development (including 39 affordable units) at 498 Old Westport Road, after extended discussion of crosswalks and ADA ramps, sewer‑pump impacts, landscaping waivers and irrigation‑well testing. The board will issue a decision within 40 days.

The Dartmouth Board of Appeals on July 9 closed the public hearing on Sherbrooke Farms (ZCMP25-2), a comprehensive permit application proposing a roughly 152‑unit rental development on about 81.8 acres at 498 Old Westport Road that would include 39 affordable units under M.G.L. Chapter 40B.

Legal counsel reminded the board that the hearing was scheduled to be closed that night and that the board would have up to 40 days to render a decision. Counsel said the applicant had submitted updated plans and several response letters dated June 25–26; the board received an updated plan set, a landscaping plan and responses to peer‑review and DPW comments.

Engineer David Dimitrich, representing Sherbrooke Farms LLC, walked the board through significant plan revisions: reduced parking stall lengths in some aisles to add landscaped islands; an expanded central aisle; two flattened outdoor amenity areas with walking access; and a revised landscaping plan with additional trees and buffers. Dimitrich said the parking changes were made to increase landscaping and pedestrian amenity space.

A central strand of the hearing focused on pedestrian safety near Lucy Little Road and access to UMass Dartmouth. Counsel and the applicant described three primary mitigation categories: painted crosswalks with ADA ramps, a roadway safety audit with recommended striping or signage, and mitigation for potential impacts on the nearby Junior Street pump station. On ADA ramps, Dimitrich said, “We are proposing ADA pedestrian ramps at this location ... and we are very much willing to install ADA‑compliant ramps.”

DPW Director Tim Barber cautioned that whether existing town‑owned ramps meet current ADA slope, width and landing standards must be verified: if the ramps do not comply, modifications will be required. Applicant representatives resisted bearing responsibility for replacing existing town‑owned ramps but acknowledged they would install ramps associated with new crosswalks and would work with DPW on any construction‑related repairs.

A nearby resident who identified herself at 489 Old Westport Road raised privacy and glare concerns about one potential safety device: “If you put a flashing light on the corner, it’s gonna reflect off my TV,” she said; DPW agreed to meet the resident on site to explore mitigations and clarified town property and visibility requirements.

On sewer infrastructure, Barber told the board that the applicant must provide on‑site pump station designs and flow data for the town’s consultant (Stantec) to complete an impact evaluation of the neighborhood pump station that would receive the project’s flow; the applicant said it would negotiate a fair contribution to any required upgrades after DPW’s evaluation.

Board members and the planning director, Dan Giosa, reviewed numerous waiver requests — including parking ratios, reduced setbacks, curb type and landscaping standards — and flagged discrepancies between dimensions shown on plan tables and the waiver list. Counsel said she would circulate a redline of draft conditions and the waiver list for the board and applicant to reconcile typographical errors and numeric inconsistencies before final decisions.

The applicant also requested waivers related to irrigation: instead of using potable public water the team proposed on‑site irrigation wells. Board of Health testing and water division notification were raised as conditions; DPW said it would require the water division be informed to prevent cross‑connections and that testing protocols be satisfied before any well use.

After receiving no further public comment, a committee member moved to close the public hearing for ZCMP25‑2; the board seconded the motion and approved it by voice vote. Counsel confirmed the board may meet in a public meeting (no new evidence) within the coming weeks to review redlines and finalize conditions, and that a final vote or signature must occur within the 40‑day statutory window (the board noted August 18 as the 40th day).