At a public meeting last night, the Hanover Zoning Board decided to delete a controversial amendment from the ballot of the May election that, if passed, would have allowed Dartmouth to begin construction projects on Maynard Road and elsewhere without the necessity of obtaining special exceptions.
The meeting attracted an especially large crowd of about 40 community members, many of whom voiced their opposition to the proposed amendment due to the freedom it would give the College for large-scale development.
The amendment would have permitted the construction of student residences, research facilities and parking facilities within the College's "Institutional Zone" as long as they are more than 150 feet from a residential district. Currently, these types of developments have to be reviewed by the Zoning Board and receive a special exception before work can begin.
"I think a lot of people came out for this one issue. The amendment was taking away our voice," Hanover resident Cynthia Barrette said. Her sentiments were shared by many community members not in attendance, with eight letters requesting deletion of the amendment being circulated at the meeting.
Community members such as Eleanor Shannon said that the College's Maynard development plan would adversely affect the character of the neighborhood, which they said was the purpose of requiring Zoning Board approval.
"Why should we make it easier for Dartmouth the develop the 'I' Zone? Light travels, sound travels, students travel," Shannon said as a criticism of Dartmouth's expansion plans on land that abuts Hanover residential property.
Other community members cited increased traffic due to an new exit on Route 10, which is part of the development plan, as another negative impact to the Hanover community.
"I love students, I used to be a student, but please give us some space," resident Bill Brine pleaded.
Dartmouth Director of Facilities Planning Reed Bergmann emphasized at the meeting that the College did not propose the amendment and that Dartmouth had no interest in changing the current laws.
The amendment was proposed by the Planning Board as part of a larger effort to reduce the expanding number of special exception cases that it faces each year.
Nevertheless, some in attendance at the meeting seemed to view the decision as a victory over the College.
"I think Dartmouth backed down due to the huge amount of public backlash," concluded one Hanover resident who attended the meeting.
