We have a July 8th meeting of the conservation commission. Please stand and salute the flag. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for
all. He plays that song bad boys over his loudspe. Yeah. All right. All right. So for we got we have four soil permits tonight. Uh first one is Kevin Kandeas number 452 for 832 Main Road. Mr. Chairman, this is
renewal of a soil permit for Kevin Kandeas 832 Main Road. Soil permit number 452. Um description. The owner has filed to renew the stockpile transfer site permit for the property at 832 Main Road. Uh the site is in good working order. I
recommend for the board, the Westport Conservation Soil Conservation Board should approve the soil permit number 452 for one year for Kevin Kandeas. Any questions? If not, a motion. Motion to approve. Second, Jake and then Jason. All in favor?
Opposed? All right, that's unanimously. Uh, so Pin for River Falls, uh, number 458, 251 State Road, Mr. Chairman, River Falls landscape, 251 State Road. This is again another renewal of circ number 458. This is a
commercial location on state road. Their owner again has filed to renew the stockpile transfer site permit for the property. Um the site is again in good working order. Recommendations for the board. The Westport conservation to conservation board should approve the
soil per number 458 for riverfalls landscaping for one year. Motion must approve. Second. Jake and um Phil all in favor oppos uh David Cabraw 4531665 Drift Road soil permit.
Correct, Mr. Chairman. David Cabraw 1665 Drift Road soil permit number 453. He has applied for a renewal for the stockpile transfer site permit that is located at his property at 1665 Drift Road. The site again is in good working
order. Recommendations. The Westport Conservation Soil Conservation Board should approve the soil permit number 453 for David Gabraw for one year. All right. Motion approve. Motion from Jake. Second. Second. Second from Phil.
All in favor? All right. Propaving number 498 493 American Legion Highway. Again, Mr. Chairman, this is the last one we have today is Prop Paving. They are located in the commercial area 493
American Legion Highway. This is soil permit number 498. Um description the owner has filed again to renew the stockpile transfer site permit for the property at 498 American Legion Highway. This site is also in
good working order. Uh recommendations. Westport Conservation Soil Conservation Board should approve the soil permit number 498 for prop paving for one year. Motion to approve. Second. Second for Phil. Does Jake fill all in
favor? Both second. All right. Pampler trip notice of intent 24 Valentine Lane proposed dock and seaw wall improvement. Dave, how are you tonight? Good. Do you have any uh green cards for me tonight? Uh yes, I do.
All right. Good man. Thank you, sir. Whenever you're ready, you can start your presentation. Mr. Chairman, commission members. For the record, I'm Dave Dickman from Schneider Devman and Leone. I represent Pamela Trip. She's with me this evening. She's
the entire audience. Um so we filed a notice of intent on her behalf to perform improvements to the existing floating dock facility at the site and to perform some improvements to the existing uh stone and concrete seaw
wall. Uh the dock itself was initially put in place 33 years ago based upon a harbor master permit. It's a bottom anchored uh dock. The proposed improvements are to
um do multiple things. One, uh we had yield grass surveyed um along and this is a pretty intense area for yield grass, I guess. Um one is to remove one of the floating docks so that we're shrinking it to get it out of the earrass. Number two, we're looking to
install a couple of pilings to hold and anchor it in place horizontally um rather than the bottom anchor chain system. Um in the last storm uh last year the uh part of the chain system uh ripped apart. There's a uh a timber
landing that's attached to on land that'll remain in place. We're proposing to uh rotate it counterclockwise to also uh try and get some set back from the old grass bed. And lastly, um, in recognizing we file a notice of intent
for any floating dock project, we have to submit it to the division marine fisheries and we fully expect the comments to be uh, such that we elevate the bottom of the float 30 in above the substrate, which uh, we're doing that in this particular case. Normally, we would
put pilings and put stubs to the pilings underneath the floats, but in this particular case, we know there's a ledge issue out there. We don't believe we can get a series of piles to do that. So, we uh designed a um a leg system with skids
on either end of the floating uh existing floating docks. So, three will remain out of the four. They'll all be fitted with um float stops to elevated 30 in off the bottom. Um the second part of the project is the
property is uh bordered uh from the river with a uh vertical stone and concrete seaw wall. It needs maintenance. It needs uh concrete put into the point into the holes and cracks along the face. U both structures are not licensed by the waterways program.
So we have submitted a chapter 91 waterways license application. Um, additionally, we have filed with the Army Corps of Engineers for the dock work. We do have a D file number. Uh, I think the only comment was that we should submit a license application
which is in motion. So, with that, I'd be happy. All right. Thank you, Chris. Mr. Chairman and members, this is Pamela Trip, 24 Valentine Lane. This is a notice of intent application filed by Schneider Devman and Leone with Dave
Devman representing. Report date is July 7th, 2025. The file number with no adverse comments is SE802805 issued from D. And also as Dave mentioned, we did receive DMF comments
to richer and marine fisheries uh in favor of the proposed design. Uh the site visit was also on July 7th, 2025. Description of the work, the applicant has filed to has filed to make changes to the existing float dock system at 24
Valentine's Lane. The previous docking float system is bottom anchored and rests on the bottom at low tide. The applicant is removing one float section to get it out of the eelgrass habitat and add three piles and retrofit the retrofit float stops to maintain a 30-in
separation. As David mentioned, this is a series of legs that will sit on the bottom of the floats. In order to maintain that separation, the floats will have 8x8 legs installed with skids attached on either end. This seal grass habitat has been accurately mapped by
Paul Caruso, a marine biologist and is accurately represented as you see and modifications were needed to get out of that area. Uh the dock will provide lateral access across the lawn to allow public passage. That's something that's also incorporated into the new licensing
requirements, um which may not have been descriptive here. This also will require signage in order for people that may be traversing that area to know what they can do in order to get by this location. Um, resource areas to be impacted or
land under the river, land containing shellfish, riverfront, and a flood zone. Recommendations to the board. The West Conservation Commission should approve the new float system with three new piles and retrofit float stops to maintain the 30 30in separation rather
than 30 foot separation with standard dock conditions. And also I I didn't include was allow the seaw wall maintenance uh to repair in an existing location. That's all. Dave, is the seaw wall going to be
raised at all or just just repointed? Just repointed. All right. any of the floats on top of any eel grass where they need to flow through decking or see through nothing or nothing. No again just shy the last float was just in the area. So they are doing uh in the best interest to remove
it totally and not consider any attempt to try to impede which I guess you mentioned that was slowly causing some adverse effect. Right. Correct. Yes. So this is in the best interest and it is a flourishing area of eel grass David that whole side
get some good scolops over there eventually eventually if we can get a good year. All right. Uh anybody else have questions? I just what is the um seaw wall restoration reflected in the plan? It is there's a detail up here upper
right hand corner. Ah okay. All right. There was a a text on top of text and submitted a revised plan right in this location which described it. If you were looking at the plan, I noticed it that's before I came over here and was looking at the So, we have the revised plan. Yeah.
And it does give the revision date of today, right? Yes. Okay. Great. Thanks. Anybody else? All right. If not a motion. Motion to approve. I second it. Kevin and Bert. All in favor? I opposed. All right. That's unanimously. Thank you, David.
Thank you guys. All right. Next. Um, so we have Ron Alivera, Dazro Realy Trust, Francis Estate, Charlotte White Road, construct storm water infrastructure grading above and that is going to be continued to when Chris
7:22 July. So I need a motion to continue to next meeting which is July 22nd. So moved. Second. Phil and Jake. All in favor? Opposed? All right. That's unanimously. Thank you. Um, that's it for the Let's see
what we got. Let's see what we have. East Bay Media Advertising, $123. I need a motion to pay. Motion to pay. Second. Jake, uh, Jason and Jake. All in favor? Opposed? That's unanimously.
Minutes from 610. Let's see. Jason, Jake, Kevin, Phil. Oh, so we can actually do this. So 610. Uh, we need a motion. And so that was so basically everybody but uh Bert and myself were were not here. So need a
motion to approve the minutes. Motion to approve the minutes. Second. All in favor? Post. All right. I'll let you sign that. Make yourself real important. We get sued. They'll go after you. Leadership that night.
Yeah. Amazing leadership. I I actually it was funny when I got home that night. I got a bucket of popcorn and watched it was I was like watching I was like watching a comedy. All right. And my stipen was doubled for that meeting too. Yeah. Next we have 624 minutes which are
myself, Jason, Jake Burton 0* two. Okay. So we need a motion to accept the 624 minutes. Move to approve. We have a second. Second. Thank you B. All in favor opposed. And yeah.
Who's abstaining? Was I there? I don't think I was there. I don't know. Were you? I mean, physically you weren't, Phil. But I'm sure in spirit I was. Yeah, you were. You were not here. Uh, you were here, Kevin, weren't you? I know you weren't here. Were you a hover master training? Yeah.
We have some storms and a half into action with the storms. Yeah. All right. So, that takes care of everything that I have to do. But Chris, I'm sure you have a notebook full of stuff to do. I don't have a notebook. Uh, Kevin and um, uh, Bert. I mean, Phil. Governor Tr
I submitted to the commission members a well testing report submitted from um Peter I forget his last name the main roads basically main road Corey uh property for what we
had concerns with with draw down of the river as well as draw down of the wetland systems. This report needs to be reviewed and uh George Campbell environmental who we had in the past is aware of it but he's requesting that also we get a vote of approval to allow
him 8 to 10 hours of review for the purpose of coming back with some comments and concerns that would come out. We previously have contracted him for this. Up to this date, I don't expect it to exceed $1,000.
Should you take out take it out of the board of health stipen and we'll take it out of the board of health stipen. So, we need a motion to such as it is. Can we approve eight? We need 10. Can we because if we don't say 8 to 10, it's not going to be eight. It's going to be 10. Well, that's I mean, we want to get it
done right. No. Yeah. say 10 hours of we need a motion to pay George Campbell up to 10 hours of time to review there's a lot there was it was there was a lot of information there good so someone want to say so moved so so just just a question I mean that
this project has gone on for so many years we've had third party reviews and all kinds of so oh is George Campbell working for us he's working on our behalf now this is not part of the third party review okay okay he's working on our behalf. Remember
now, this project still doesn't have an superseding order of conditions. So, never mind what the well does. They can't they haven't done any replication. They haven't done anything to move and their order is probably more than 3 years old already, but the state has
never issued them a super seed. So, this project is still in a stand still. So, is the applicant even the same? I don't know. No, I think you know who the applicant is? There's a a realy trust that owns it now. Five something realy trust is
taking it over and that was the associate partner that Mr. Corey had in the project the whole time and that remains that remains that individual still remains in paying taxes on the property. So let let me let me get him. Let's just get I'm sorry. Go ahead.
No, no. So the one um so I had a brief exchange with uh George Campbell and Chris on email in which uh George gave us you know his kind of preliminary reaction to the um withdrawal as far as
um having sufficient capacity for the use and he thought that and it was taken during a drop period. He thought um you know that essentially they wouldn't have a a problem uh you know uh running the you know running the pumps in terms of
providing adequate capacity but um he didn't really comment on the I think what was really the focus was um what's impact going to be on a wife brooke um and so what I suggested was
rather Then as far as I guess a timing goes as rather than him giving us just the analysis of what the applicants consultant had done that um
because Buzzards Bay Coalition had hired their own hydro geologist um that uh you know Chris could reach out and anyway that we should wait to
get both to get um to find out if Buzzard's Bay hydrogeeologist is going to comment on it and then George should look at both sets of comments because we're going to be able you know to make
a decision looking at both the applicants and I guess the interveners g hydrogeeologist and um because whatever we do um you know we're probably gonna be
putting a bunch of conditions I would think on what we want. It would just help to have both sides rather than you know um making a decision now how many hours it would be just by looking at the other guys because we're not
going to be able to evaluate what their hydro geologist said. I mean the people at this table won't be able to so we're going to need to hear both of it. I don't have a problem with that, but I I I don't think we should. If Buzz's Bay wants to get their comments in, they need to get their comments in. I I'm not
I'm not waiting two months for me to get the comments in. Yeah. So, I just think we can, you know, find out. We could reach out to them either Chris or I could and just say, "Okay, you know, uh are you going to submit comments and you know, what's your timetable for submitting a
comment?" So we would know that rather than um well we can give him a time table because the you know the last time it was you know clear that Pleasard's Bay had disagreed with a lot of the methodology that had been used and it
would just be good for them to put their cards on the table so that we would know that when we made our decision. But did now this has been so long I I forget but didn't the state get involved and look at the methodology someone from the state look at it and and I'm not going to say approval but
look at it and didn't have any necessarily any negative the well uh review was for public water supply were the ones that had some input stating that they felt the procedures were done correctly but um I think in the end they made these
modifications to allow this and testing to be Yeah. Well, when we first got it in front of us, when George and and his hydro geologist looked at it, it turned
out that um rather than providing the data on the withdrawal from two well, two different wells, they provided just provided the data from one well, a favorable
and called it two. And so that's when we in our um denial and then the appeal to the um uh uh for the wetlands part of it said well the water division over there
kind of messed it up because they had not submitted accurate data and they had claimed that they had tested both wells. You know they they do these 72-hour pump runs but they hadn't. And um and then uh uh and
basically our consultant just kind of tore to shreds what the other consultant had represented for a bunch of different things about Ben Rock and you know a whole bunch of things and so that's just sitting over there now but it really goes to the
water part of it not so much to the wetlands part of it. Right. Correct. But then this issue came up about the impact to um Angeline Brookke and that's how we got into the piometers
and setting up uh and and measuring the impact on the um on the stream on the on the stream while this while this testing was going on and uh and so George's preliminary
comments just related to I think saying just scanning, you know, what it said. It seems like the well testing was done appropriately, but I don't think he even looked at the
because it wasn't um this is like the day after the report his report landed and yeah, it's it's it's pretty massive. Um he's not going to be back till that gentleman till the end of the month anyway. So yeah. Yeah. And there's nothing I mean
they haven't filed a um you know a separate request to allow us to approve operation of the wells and that's when it's going to that that's when it's going to come back but correct I just thought all right well that that's okay you reach out to reach out to that's where it is right now
I can send the corresponding to Buzzers Bay and make sure that they have received the same documents. Yeah, but I think Yeah, I think if we ask them, you know, what their timetable is to I'll forward it to Karen and she'll probably tell we don't want to wait two months
for comments. No, that's understandable, you know, can be transparent and say, you know, we we've waited eight years for a replication, Mr. Chairman, and it's still not done. Thank you for reminding us.
Does the may not be relevant, but I'll ask anyway. Does the um capacity with which the applicant represents himself in this project have any bearing? We had a lawyer. Not at this.
Oh, no. No, no, no. He was Yeah, he was just not at this time. No. Yeah. No. So, so we can make a motion to approve. Well, I I I don't I don't think we should at this point then if you want to also if you if you want to have him review Buzzes Bay comments
after the Buzzard's Bay comments. I mean, is Buzz Bay going to pay to have this to have George Campbell review their comments? And no, no, but I would What a hell? I I would I think it's reasonable to assume that
Buzzard's Bay is going to appeal a decision that allowed for the wells to start operating and that the basis for that appeal will be their hydrogeeologists
report and that as So that the decision that we would make on that um whether we would approve the operation
or deny it, it would help to have George's analysis to back up our decision. um uh you know and
so I thought if he if he's going to but if they're if they're going to appeal our decision you think they're going to appeal it no matter what why would they give us their report then why would they just hold the cards and why would they I mean I I well I think they're going to make I think they're going to make the case to us I I
I mean I'm I'm just speculating it I'm just doing it I'm assuming So, let's just assume that they were going to try to convince us um to deny
the u the application, you know, um you know, based on his impact on Angeline Brook. And I was just thinking rather than having George go through just the an Dylan is the is the
hydrogeeologist, you know, through Peter Dylan's hydro analysis and just give his his opinion of that and then later on have Buzzard's Bay come in and then
go back and have him look at that. It might be just helpful to have them both together in front of them. So then he would say, "Okay, here's my opinion." Okay, but that's assuming that Buzz Bay will give us their report. That's Yeah. Okay. So why don't you ask Buzz Bay if they're going to give us I think they're going to give us their comment. Yeah. They're not cuz nothing's in front
of us now. And so they could say, "Well, we're going to wait and and see." That'd be good to know. Do you want me to wait till George to do his evaluation? No, he's have to do our He's going have to evaluation of the report anyway. And then he can look at Buzz's bait. Okay. If they give it to us. So let's just do the 10our
up to 10 hours for George to review. There we go. Peter Dill, what's his name? Peter Peter Dylan's report. Peter Dylan report. And then if if Buzz's Bay decides they want to give us their report, should they want to give it to us, we can allocate more money at our next meeting to review those. Perfect.
That's fine. Okay. All right. So 10. So we're looking for a motion to allow up to 10 hours for George Campbell to review the report prov uh provided to us by Peter Dylan. Provided by Peter Dylan. Peter Dylan from the weapons.
Yeah. on behalf of the applicant. Um, reports done was done by Peter Dell on behalf of the applicant and we paid for from our wetlands funds. Correct. So moved. All right. Do we have a second? Second. All right. Second from Kevin. All in favor? I. Okay. That's unanimous.
Go. Chairman, I just have a quick question for Chris. So in a situation like this, we're dealing with a public water supply. You know that that they're going to, you know, maybe move forward with development. How is that any different than the situation where we're
having developments non-stop through town that are putting in 25 30 houses that are tapping the you know basically water resources on the ground and we don't do an analysis on really the impacts. It shouldn't it should be that it should it should be the same.
Yeah. I just think I think the biggest concern in a town like Westport is the water supply with the increased building. So, if you put in a development, shouldn't there be some sort of if you're near a wetlands or if you're near a brook or stream, shouldn't there be some other analysis that we
could do in order to look at how that's going to draw down on the water table? Cuz this is this is a small project compared to it's almost like an after the fact effect though. The commission has the right to come back at somebody after the fact if something has been proven to
have caused an adverse effect. So for us to make that assumption is difficult without some sort of data available. But that also may be for a single family house. I think it's not necessarily warranted. But but if you have if you have 25 wells draw the same aquifer.
Yes. And this is going to be let's say let's say I don't know what they're doing. Let's say they put up apartments. They put 20 apartments up. Let's make a reference to the Pine Ridge Estates proposing correct 38 homes all individually fed from wells with
we may be able to ask um them to do some study. Okay. um for the fact that they could be depleting the wetland down gradient. Um but then again, they'll make the argument they're tapping into the deep bedrock aquifer and not necessarily the
surface contribution to some of that wetland. But wetlands are also fed from groundwater intrusions and that's how you get them seeps and etc. that occurs. So I don't see why we couldn't because they're trying to skate under the requirements.
Correct. by by not having a that one should have a public water supply, but they don't want to go through that. Correct. Okay. How about when we when we the new well that was proposed up in the harbor, wasn't that was going to be a public water. That was Well, yes, that as well went
through some design requirements, but they were proposing what they ended up doing in the end was not what initially that they were searching for. They were physically searching for a viable public water supply and in turn they ended up
at the point they started from. Well, I guess what Jake's saying and I if we're going to do this, we should be should be consistent. Consistent. I I truly understand. That's agreeable because I know I mean I know the argument is that tapping into the water supply in the bedrock, but that's not
also an infinite source of water, right? No, it it's No, it is not. But and it's also impacted by each individual. correct on how much that one's using in relation to what you're using. So yes, and I agree with you. We should be
consistent especially when there may be a stream down gradient or there is not necessarily on a single family but more of a a complex drawer of water or need of water. Okay. So go ahead. No, I was just going to say
and I used to know this off the top of my head when we were looking at this before, but um my recollection is that the wetlands regulations, you know, don't treat groundwater as a protected
resource under the wetlands protection. It's only an interest in the act of protect. Yeah. and and it's and um and so they don't have the typical kind of performance standards that you would use for other but they do have this
reference to kind of uh and this is the verbiage that I don't remember but kind of like maximizing protection water quality water so they yeah because they recognize that like here that public
was mostly focused on public wells that public wells s they don't prohibit public wells being cited in wetlands in wetlands you know wetlands resource area but they do give us the opportunity you know to look at how impacts are going to
be minimized okay and at least that's kind of my recollection um and so uh I think that's our um you know it's kind of you know going to be the
focus of our you know what we would do I think is how we're going to get you know assuming that getting a permit from D on the water supply side it's going to leave to us um and they have this very
high standard for cold water fisheries normally you have to do a cold water fishery but you have to be pumping like 10,000 gallons yes whatever it is and they're doing like 10 I mean They're way below the threshold. Correct. And so it kind of fell to us to look at, okay,
what do the wetlanders regulations say about particularly protecting the cold water fisheries? Where are the regulations for cold water fisheries? Um, well, it's a funny, you know, it's like, and again, I'm a little rusty because it's been a while. I mean, there's a reference to
cold water fisheries being uh an interest of the act to protect that, but again, there's no standards that uh gives us the authority to say,
"Okay, you know, we can deny you this because we think it has an impact on cold water fisheries or like demand they do this study at least if it's a public water supply because there's a threshold that's established by their regulations that um the withdrawal is." But that
also relates to what we you know uh what the hydro ge what the hydro um geological analysis was when they do this intensive pumping. One of the things they look at
out of it is how quickly did it take for the well to come back level, you know. And uh I think and again just my scanning of it and a little bit of George's reaction was yeah that's not a
problem. I could actually you know uh pump bore hole um refilled in a very short period of time. meaning that you know uh in the bedrock there was a lot of there was a lot of water available at a period of
time where you know the area was under you know uh I don't know what level of drought but it was still it was a dry period overall so uh but uh anyway we just have to get our
feet wet again figure out what's going on maybe not there's no water there course What else? I I can talk to you about the U. All right. Motion to adjurnn. Motion to We have a second. Second. Second from Jason. All in favor?
Opposed? That's unanimously. Thank you, Valerie. and