February 17th, 2026 meeting of the conservation commission is being recorded. Please stand and salute the flag 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. >> All right, septic hearings. First one for the night is Pauline Messier, RDA, 9193 Benoy Street. Help me put my ring off yours.
Important. Everybody wants to talk. >> You just laugh. >> You just laugh. >> I think she laughs that time. How are you today, George? >> Good evening, gentlemen. For the record,
my name is George Aub. I'm representing Pauline Messier regarding 91 and 93 Benoid Street. I have some small easier. >> That's fine. Thank you very much. >> I'm sorry. I'll pass. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah.
>> Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. We're good. >> Sure. Thank you. Okay. Okay. My eyesight's >> No problem. Okay. Very good. Okay. What we have here
>> is we have a uh apparently we have a failing septic system at 91 and 93 Benoid Street. This property is has is a two family with four bedroom. And uh we have an old system here
probably was done in the 1970s. And what we have is four beehives and two two septic tanks. We're going to propose a new septic system that meet the requirement of DP and town board of
flat. We're not asking for any variances. There is a brook on the side here that I think it dries up in the summer time. I heard and we got some wetland and there is no work. I already flagged it here. There's no work at all within 50 ft of the wetland line. We
will install SS at the 25T buffer. You can see it in probably green and the 50 foot is the is a red color. And uh the minimum filling will be at least 63 ft from the
wetland mine and the septic system the edge of it is 68 ft. It's basically we want to remove all those old structures and put new system straight forward. >> Okay. >> Yeah. We'll do a report. Okay.
>> Mr. Chairman and members Pauline Messia 9193 Benoy Street. It's a request for determination of applicability filed by George AU. Report date is February 13th, 2026. The site visit was also or rather was on
February 12th, 2026. Description of the work. The afternoon is filed and requested a termination to propose a repair of the septic system at the property for the existing fourbedroom dwelling. As George mentioned, it's uh a duplex with two bedrooms on each unit.
The wetland line was walked and and also at the edge of the river. It was determined uh they represented the wetland line and the edge of the river accurately as shown. The leeching area is being proposed at 68 ft from the wetland with the grading uh slightly
closer closer rather for the raised area at 63 ft. The regulations under repair allow the activity within the riverfront area uh that exists within this unnamed perennial stream along the east side. The setbacks meet the title 5
requirements which is a 50 ft setback. Old system to be abandoned for the title 5 requirements. Septic tank and pump chamber will be installed to the rear of the home at approximately 90 ft from that wetland. All work is within the existing maintained lawn area for the
property. Again, resource areas impacted is buffer zone and riverfront area. Recommendations. The Westport Conservation Commission should approve the project for a septic repair with a negative box 3 determination. >> Hey, George. Is this a board of health
approved already? >> Uh, we're waiting for you guys. >> Okay. >> All right. Um, any questions, guys? >> If no questions, we're looking for a motion. >> Motion. >> Second. You want to make it subject to board of health approval?
>> Yeah, >> that was Jake and Phil. >> All in favor? >> Opposed? That's unanimous. >> Alexander Mashado RDA 92 Bono Street Of course.
Gentlemen, this is similar situation. I got some extras. Thank you, sir. >> Please ask one here and one here. >> Thanks, chairman. Put >> the gentleman over there. Thank you.
Uh for the record again, my name is George AU and I'm representing Mr. Alexander Machado and he's got a property at 92 Benoy Street. This is similar to the other location. It's across the street by the way. Uh however, it's only single family. Has a
three bedroomedroom house. Uh we're going again we are not asking for any valiances. We're going to replace the new the existing failing septic system because it's in the ground water anyway. This test pools are in the ground table. Uh we're going to replace
it with a new septic system. Uh as you could see here there is one I highlighted in yellow there is a like infiltration structure which is about about 30 ft from wetland. We're going to eliminate that. We're going to back fill it
anyway. remove it be pumped out and removed and the rest of the work is outside the 50t buffer. We installed siltation silt socks around at the 25 ft and uh basically that's it. We're not
asking for any variances and a new septic system. You'll be pumped sham by the way all of them are pumped in that area. >> Thank you >> Mr. Chairman. This is Alexander Mashado, 92 Benoy Street. Request of determination applicability filed by
George Aub. Report date is February 12th, 2026. The site visit was on 2013 uh 26. This is board of health approved. The applicant is filed to repair the septic system to the existing three-bedroom home. As George mentioned,
this is immediately across the street from the previous one. The wetland line was walked and determined to be accurate. Um there's also associated riverfront here, but this is much further away as the river goes much further to the east of this site. Uh and
the wetland is much larger. Um in this particular location, the proposed leeching field is to be located 56 from the wetland edge. The septic tank and pump chamber will be installed behind the home and those will be 54 ft from the wetland. All work are again proposed
with the existing lawn area for the home. activity meets the minimum setback distance per the regulations and title 5 of 50 ft. Uh the old system here as well is to be abandoned per title 5 regulations. Erosion controls will be
installed as the limit of all work on the site. Resource areas to be impacted as buffer zone and riverfront recommendations. The Westport Conservation Commission should approve the proposed single uh deposed sewage disposal system within negative box 3
determination for 92 Benoy Street. >> Any questions, George? >> Why are the houses right across the street from each other doing this at the same time? That just a coincidence or what? >> Just a coincidence. They uh this one is
just sold. The other one happens to be currently still under the same ownership. Different owner. They're different owner. The gentleman just purchased the property. He's >> trying to fix it right now. >> Is this one also pending board of health? Same.
>> Yes. Similar situation. >> Waiting for your approval. >> All right. >> I have a motion. >> I'll make a motion to approve pending uh board of health approval. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> Opposed. All right. That was Jason and J.
>> Thank you. Thank you, George. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, George. >> Just for your record, there's another project right next to it has been approved already, but it's far away from wet net. >> Yep. >> Similar situation.
>> No problem, George. Okay. Town of Westport, notice of intent. Roundabout intersection Route 177 Tickle Road and Robert Street. >> You know that green with one too, right? >> We also said moved unanticipated. >> Yep. As long as you got it on your
radar. >> I got red pen. I always listen to the right pen. >> You always said eight pluses on my work. always got eight pluses so you never all the time >> maybe.
>> Is this actually the town or the state? >> Town. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Jake authorizes. >> Yeah. >> It is authorized. >> What happened to our easel?
>> It's upstairs. I got one. >> We saved it. >> No, I if I leave it down here, it gets it disappears. But >> happens at our office, too. This This is why >> he likes to feel foolish when he comes
to a meeting. Stay >> easier. Uh actually, you know, I I need your green card. your body notification cards. >> They are in the front. >> I have them here. That's good. We have them. >> Thank you, Mr. >> You guys can start your presentation, please. >> Have those sheets.
>> All right. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Greg Croy from Park Corporation. I'm with Kyle Stanley, an engineer from Park Corporation. I'm an environmental scientist. We are here on behalf of the town and Masdot um for the proposed intersection improvements at
the 177 Route 177 Tickle Road and Robert Street intersection. Um they're proposing a roundabout in place of the existing intersection. Um just to kind of work through some of the administrative stuff, we did submit as a limited project under 310.53F,
which is four roadway improvements. um specifically correcting substandard intersections. Um we did receive a file number from D under 0802827 for which we have responded to their comments which were pretty minor um last
week last Friday. Um so we we submitted a supplemental memo at that point responding to those comments and a few tweaks to the storm water management system which we'll walk through today. Um so that's more the administrative side. At this point, I'll kick it to Kyle to discuss the design and I'll
circle back around for weapons information. >> Thank you. Thank you guys for having us today. Um, so basically just to give you a brief overview, I'm sure you're all very familiar with the area. Uh, this uh intersection improvement is the intersection of Route 177, uh, Robert Street and Tickle Road. Tickle Road
currently, Tickle Road and Robert Street are currently stock controlled and Route 177 runs freely at a pretty high rate of speed. Um, so the town ultimately um has concerns with the existing operations at the intersection um and ultimately
wanted to make safety improvements to that. In order to construct the safety improvements, uh they needed to receive funds from MASDOT. So once you go through Mass DOT, now you have to go through all the Masot guidelines. So, um, first thing we did was, uh, conduct
an intersection control evaluation or an ICE as you may hear me refer to it, um, from this point forward. And basically that will just analyze um it analyzes any type of intersection control say like an allway stop uh
signal roundabout and it um it will assign a value to that um based off criteria such as um traffic capacity, crash reduction um and other sort of criteria in that nature. Um, and based
off the results of the ice, the roundabout was found to be the preferred alternative. Um, in addition to just the ice, um, we do have to we did have to review the, um, mass complete street guidelines um,
for bicycle and pedestrian accommodations as well. As you can see, we ultimately landed on needing to implement a 8 foot wide shared use path with a 5 foot wide buffer and then a connective sidewalk in the south side to help people cross here. Um once we had
that footprint laid out, um we looked to see where the best place would be to put to put the roundabout. We first looked to see if we could keep the existing um intersection at its center. Um but with
the sidewalk and the widening um in this area here, there is an ex existing septic system in this southeast quadrant right here that would have been impacted. So in order to avoid that, we needed to shift the intersection north um which
you can see does um impact and encroach on some of this existing wetland here. Greg um can we'll get further into the actual impacts and the mitigation that we um will be doing in that area. Um the last thing I wanted to
show was the storm water system. give you a brief overview of what we plan to do to take the storm piece of plant. It's still big. All right. So, at the western end of the intersection here, we are proposing uh
deep some catch basins wherever feasible. There are a couple locations where we do need to provide gutter inlets where there is uh gas relocation or just um we are proposing water quality swells which we'll show more uh predominantly on the next page. Um or we needed to keep it out shallow just so we
didn't change the capacity of that swell. So we are proposing as I said deep some catch basins to provide pre-treatment um prior to entering the water quality swell. There's two water quality swells proposed.
Um there's one, this will end up being one here. Sorry, it's a little cut off from the overlap. And then this one also is also going to be one uh with GB and check dam baskets. Um, and then for the eastern limit here, um, again with
MASDO, um, needing to meet their guidelines, um, we didn't ultimately change this drainage. This, this will still uh, discharge as it does stay and almost act as an overflow. So, it's not taking any additional storm water from outside the
project limits. Um, but we did have to run a new trunk line in order to take these existing catch basins out of series. And eventually this does discharge uh to a point uh closer to the wetland. There is um existing head walls
here for uh the existing discharge. I know it's tough to see from here, but here's your existing roadway. So, we are widening a um a decent chunk to the north here. Um we did try and look at pre-treatment in addition um prior to
the wetland, but this existing uh drainage system is very shallow. So, we were pretty constrained um with the grade that we were actually coming out here and with the existing wetland grade. Um with that, I will turn it over to Greg just to discuss some of the wetland impacts and the mitigation that
we're proposing. Um, so wetlands are on the site. Just to start it off, we have the B series. That's a BPW in the northeast quadrant. We do have an IVW identified as the east E series on the plans. Um, to the south of the site and then to the east of the
site, we have a D series wetland on the southern limits of the road. We are associated with the shared use path. There are some unavoidable wet impacts. Um I colored them in just in purple so the commissioner can see a little
better. But um pretty small slivers where the um shared use path in the shoulder leading down to existing conditions will um fill in some wetland uh BBW and then associated erosion
control temporary impacts for that. In order to meet performance standards of the Wild Protection Act, we're proposing a replication area to the northwest of that location. Um the the replication area is designed at a 2 to1
ratio to loss impact. So we're proposing a,000 I think it's 1,087 square ft of replication um for the 500 about 58 maybe square feet of impacts. Um so that's our plan to address the
performance center for BMW impacts. With that, I think um that's that's pretty much the whole project. We've been um happy to answer any questions from commission. >> All right, we'll Chris will read his report and then we can get in some questions. Thank you very much. >> Mr. Chairman, members, this is the town
of Westport filing for American Legion Highway Tickle Road and Robert Street intersection. This is a noticeable intent application filed by PAR Engineering. Uh report date is February 13th, 2026. The site visit was also on
February 13, 2026. The file number for the project is SE802827. As Greg mentioned, there were some comments from the state, but they more were relative to the 401 water quality uh considerations. Um, but this project
does not exceed the 5,000 ft alteration and it doesn't trigger the 401 water quality. Just quickly, detailed description of the work. The town has filed the limited project for road maintenance to construct a roundabout at the intersection of Robert and Tickle
Road on Route 177 for traffic improvements. The proposed project area contains two BVW and one isolated land subject to flooding. The wetland uh wetland flags B1 through B22 are on the north side along Tickle Road. The second
BB BBW is on route 177 west of house number 101. Uh this is wetland flags D11 through D25 and the isolated land subject to flooding is on the west side of Robert Street. Uh approximately 100 ft up from the intersection give or
take. Um this ILSF area on Robin Street does not hold water does hold water during the spring and fall but not does not contain any connection to any other BBW um making it meet that ILS ILSF criteria. The new road design will
require the permanent 508 square ft and the temporary 116 square ft alteration to the northern BVW. Storm water discharges and some roadway grading will alter the wetland along this area. The roadway is being shifted north to allow
the new roundabout and all highway improvements. The replication area of 1,087 which is greater than the 1:1 ratio is proposed to replace the temporary and permanent losses uh of that 624 square
ft. The project goal is to improve the intersection with adding the roundabout and other associated improvements to storm water to promote public safety. The road work will be designed in accordance with mass DOT requirements. The new roadway will not require a 401
water quality certification because this disturbance in the resource is well under the 5,000 square ft threshold. The wetland replication of,087 ft will be constructed in the north section along tickle road. The wetland replication will remove most of the
vegetation within while preserving some of the mature trees. It will be planted with high bush blueberry, red maple and black gum and sweet pepper bush. The remaining area will be seated with a wetland seed mix. The work will also be installing deep sunk catch basins and a
grass drainage bio retention swailes in order to enhance the storm water measures. All discharges of storm water will be directed through rip wrap aprons at each outflow. The limited project filing has been taken into account uh
researching all alternatives to limit the alteration to what you see in these resource areas. All activity is within the mass DOT layout with some areas requiring easements from land owners to accommodate this design. Erosion controls will be installed along all
edges of the work and will be maintained throughout the project. Uh resource areas have impacted a buffer zone and BVW as they had shown. The wetland uh recommendations the West Conservation Con should should consider approving a
limited proc roadway application to install a roundabout at Route 177 Robert Street in Tickle Road intersection with conditions. I only have one condition and that's that all easements are signed and recorded before the project moves
forward as well as our standard conditions which identify uh 48 hour notice etc. So the only condition I think of concern is to make sure all easements are signed and recorded. That's all. Mr. Chairman, >> thank you. You have any questions about
what Chris report what I said? >> I'm sorry. Do you have any questions about his report? >> No. >> Do we have any questions from the audience? State your name, sir? >> Sean week. Uh, >> come to the podium because she like, you
know. >> Okay. Uh, >> radius of the boat. >> The radius. It's uh 50. You want the radius is 55. >> 55. >> Yep. >> What's the turning radius to a fire truck? >> Um, I don't know the exact turning
radius off the top of my head, but this was ran uh using WB50, which is bigger than a firet truck. So, >> you have a water truck and any 65 ft radius. What I'm concerned about is you're going to need to come back and widen this thing. Um, and I think that you should file for
something appropriately. That's that's my concern. Besides, it's ruining my commute to work twice a day. But it it's not wide enough to get a water truck around that. That's the same problem they have in front of casino. >> I mean, we >> you're up on the curb and you're up on the sidewalk.
>> Yeah. So, I didn't w that truck a They do have a truck apron in the center that allows the trucks to make that turn a little bit smoother. Um, but I think if you're coming going west, you're going west on 177, you try to get on Broadway, you're never going to make that turn.
>> So, I mean, this whole area right here is mountable. >> Correct. >> Anything that can any turning trucks are able to >> I'm not I'm not criticizing the design. I know you're only here for the witness part of it, but I just think it's not going to work and we're going to have to wipe everything around here to make
that. >> That's my concern. >> All right. Thank you, Sean, >> Mr. Chairman, if I just made one comment. >> One second, man. >> The Tivven roundabout is the same way. And I've watched vehicles, they actually
piggyback. They jump their tires up on the actual rotary and they use it. So this curving on this rotary is made in a manner so it's not abrupt. It's actually lowered. So if this does occur, they're allowed to use that in ability to get around that roundabout.
>> Yeah. This this curving here is mountable. This inside here is not this normal curve. But >> but it should be this is all mountable. So a truck can get up and >> but a truck the truck getting westerly is not going to do this. It's going to
do this to get to Robin Street. It's never going to hit that inside. It's going to hit the outside. >> It's not going to do this and go around like this. It's going to come down and go. >> Yeah. No. And I No, I I understand. Um we did run we did run it based off the
the trucks. Uh like I said, WB50, which a pretty um 50 foot truck. Um and it does it does meet all the turning requirements for that. So, >> all right. Thank you, Manny. Just say your name before Manny, please.
>> Emanuel S Jr. 316 Gford Road. Um, formerly I lived on 195 Tickle Road. I do operate a low bed truck. Um, I have problems. I can't make it around the Tivven one. This going to prevent me from getting I don't know how I'm going to get to that other end the town with
the low bed. I'm definitely not going to be able to go with that. My other concern is if there's going to be any land takens for the wetlands. And then Sean just brought up another concern that he believes you're going to have to expand it. So, um I think if you're going to come forward, come forward with the whole plan. But my other question would be is I live at I live at 316
Gford, which I have an intersection at the end of the street on Route 6 with a with a stoplight. And your company has a proposed design in front of Mass Highway for the blinking mass light at that location >> where I believe they put an extra pipe
in in case they wanted to switch it into a stoplight at a later a later date. I would just would like you guys to explain to us um what the difference between that intersection is and this intersection because in previous meetings that I seen, you guys were
telling us that that's what Mass DOT wanted. Um, but we got some other residents that I mean a lot of people are against this and I would just wonder why mass DOT said that we need a roundabout there but they don't need a roundabout at >> GIF. Well, they're only here for the
wetlands. So, we can't get into this. The my question is did this go to planning? >> Did planning board look at this? >> Does not have to. Mr. Chairman, >> fire department get notified of it to to make comment or anybody. Um, I would say the police department
was in favor of it, but I'm not sure if the fire department has commented since it's been presented. >> I mean, that doesn't The questions are very good questions that Sean and Manny asked. They don't have anything to do with wetlands as far as, you know, right now, unless you need to expand it, then you have to come back and that could be problematic. But
>> I would suggest before you do this that or whoever's in charge of this program. I'm not really sure. you guys. I would talk to the fire department and I would also I would see if there's any other best practices for the size of the the rotary to be honest with you because I'd hate to see you undersize it and then
have to come back and then maybe not get an approval then then you come kind of stuck with uh non non-functioning rotary. So >> chair, we're in the process. Can I ask you guys where in the process are you with respect to this? Like as pointed
out, if there are land issues or easements, wouldn't that make more sense to provide this plan after that occurs or or if there is a situation where you have to come back and it has to be widened or you know to to accommodate that because I you know I know everyone
can say but you go that word the Rhode Island DOT admitted they failed on putting that rotary in front of that casino and it's it's a cluster over there. uh would you see that I mean there are trucks that can only go one way and can't go the other way. So um to
the chairman's point you know do if there is an expansion have we had it all confirmed the easements and the takings and should that be you should be you be coming to us at a later date with that sort of stuff as opposed to checking this box. >> So formal rightway plans have not been
uh like uh approved yet. So, we're still in the process of um filing those. So, I mean, the design is the design's at 100%. Um we'll obviously take these concerns um and bring them up with um mass guides um as well.
>> Who's spearheading the project at Tom? Is it the town administrator? >> Um so, Jim Harnett uh before he he left was um the one that was spearheading the project. And then like I said originally um the so the town was paying for the
design then in order for um the construction of the actual roundabout to uh or the construction of any of the alternatives the town needed funds for mass. So that's when you need to start start guidelines.
I mean, from a from a wellness perspect perspective, you you probably meet the regulations. You could probably get approval, but if it's not a good design, not your fault, but if it's not going to work for, you know, the trucks and that travel down that road, I would think maybe want to um talk to the town
administrator about, you know, getting some input from the fire department and maybe the planning board and and make it so it's a more workable project before you seek approval rather than having to come back. We you could just, you know, you can you can ask for it's up to you. You can you can ask for a vote or you can ask for a uh continuence or whatever
you want to do, but I hate to see you get an approval for a plan that's not going to work. >> Then it would look a lot worse if have to come before us with the >> if you're going to be taking land from somebody to make this happen and then you find out we need more land and you got to go back and take more land from the people. I don't I think that's you know not that it's wetlands related but
I think it's unfair. >> Jim, one quick question. So a lot of a wetland's impact is because you have to have that shared use path essentially, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So and that's a requirement that is mandated by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
>> Yeah. Even so even they're not meeting >> even though there's no sidewalk. It's a sidewalk. >> Start meeting with So the ultimate plan eventually is from what I'm hearing is they're trying to make a connection from Westport to Rhode Island with a path along 177. Um but strictly for for the
sake of this project. Yes, we Jim was very passionate about can we just put the space in for it? Can we just put the space in for it without having to actually put the pedestrian improvements in and I was very adamant with these are guidelines and this will be these installed. >> Chairman, I have one more question on
that. So, we talked about other alternatives or u you took into account all alternatives. So on the south side you're saying that there was a septic system that was probably forcing you to shift that northerly to shift that whole intersection. >> Yeah, it's b the septic system is b
basically past the stone wall. So >> but there's no there's no other space where you can move that septic so that you're not shifting to other property owners. >> Uh so that the whole reason why we shifted north was to was to avoid the septic um because to avoid the the cost
of that relocation. But we're dealing with a $5 million project, which I think is a complete taxpayer boondoggle, mind you. But you have a $5 million project and you weren't willing to avoid the wetlands because you had to pay possibly $50,000 to $70,000 to move a septic
system. Is that correct? >> I would say on the high end, that's $120,000 system. >> Okay. Out of a $5 million >> because of its capacity and its size. And >> so we're going to impact the wetlands because the Commonwealth doesn't want to spend any more money to fix that. Okay, that's fine. I just wanted that in the
record. >> Maybe the owner doesn't want to have their, you know, relocated. They can't comply. >> Phil, you have questions? Did you I I I just um because it seemed like a third alternative which we use sometimes because it's a little bit hard for you
know it's like kind of a horse and cart type of thing here that we could condition it on um you know uh confirmation that um you know that the uh all the traffic issues related to
safety and the ability of you know large vehicles to um you maneuver through the traffic circle um are confirmed. Just a third option between a continuence and
>> did you have a question? >> I do. >> Okay, Jason. >> So, I know nothing about roundabout traffic scheme design. So my question may be a really dumb one, but why why are we doing a roundabout and not a
simple set of lights? >> So um we do we did conduct a warrant analysis. So, um, to add on to the question that was asked earlier about that other intersection that when you look at that, those volumes coming from those side streets, they probably larger
than what's coming from Robert and Tickle and that's probably why that one warranted uh, traffic um, signal. This and um, that one also I don't believe is funded by Mass. I think that's just the town. So, like I was saying with this
one, um we don't meet the traffic signal warrant just because of the low volumes that you do have coming out of the side street, but it it was still ran through the um intersection control evaluation tool. And once, like I said, there's criteria, like I said, crash reduction,
um there's um uh speed, there's there I don't know them all off the top of my head, but there there's a handful of criteria that get assessed to each um improvement in um it eventually spits out the result of
which one is the preferred alternative based off the values it was given. So in this case, the roundabout provided the best value for future maintenance, for crash reduction, for capacity, for all these things.
>> Hold on. Ma'am, ma'am, if you ma'am, if you'd like to make comments, you come up here and you can ask. >> I just have another just another comment. So if if the if the the if the traffic volume um east west versus the traffic volume north south a
part of the criteria, which I totally get. Um you know, we have the computer boxes that adjust the light uh the time that the light is green versus red. I mean, all the lights on 88 are coordinated. So if that's a criteria,
why don't they want to put turnabouts at every intersection on on 88? You know, I I I understand there's more criteria, but every time just anecdotally as a driver and as I try to teach my kids how to drive, roundabouts, they scare the hell out of me. People know what they're
doing. Like whatever accident reduction criteria this computer thing spits out in real life, people don't know how to manage those things. And it's going to take generations for people to learn. They've never gotten it. >> Go to East Providence, see what they did.
>> Yeah. It's like it's you take your life in your hands. So I I just don't I don't know why we can't save a whole pile of money, put up some lights with the light phases coordinated to allow for the higher east west volume. >> Okay. >> Just like it seems like we're this is a
project that I don't know that we just I don't care what the computer says in real world. I don't think we need it. >> All right. Well, >> go ahead Jake. >> So as you can tell it's obviously a very controversial project to bring to Westport. It's not it's not but I just
wonder you quoted saying that since there are low volume side streets coming into this rotary you all coming into this location that it deserves a rotary based on the statistics yet the high volume at the blinking light on Gford
road which has a higher chance for traffic accidents you're going to put a blinking light I I just it it's counterintuitive in my mind that if you're quoting this as a safety key improvement for the area, but then you're saying you get a rotary because
it's low volume on the side streets, which in my opinion will decrease the chances for incidents to occur as opposed to the other ones. So, >> it it's just the the volumes on the side streets don't meet the requirements to warrant a signal that it's based off MUTCD. If you look
at what it what the the guidelines, it basically just >> So, you have you don't have enough when you have if you don't have enough volume on the side streets. too. It can also hinder your traffic signal um just because you are it is still going to be calling these these side street phases and now you're going to have queuing
along uh route 177 with opposed to just for for example for capacity for a roundabout. Um this everybody obviously you yield but it's it's one direction that everyone's going. So when you're talking about safety
compared to a traffic signal, there's only eight conflict points at a roundabout compared to 32 at a traffic signal. >> And did you have a question? Do you want to say something? No. Hold on. Manny Manny, the the the young lady. Did you want to say something? >> You can just come up here and just
just state your name for us. And um we're all nice. So >> hi Michelle Cardi. My husband Ron and I have the home at 407 Tickle Road. We bought it. We did not um when it was built, we weren't aware that this was
going to be a plan when we bought it. I've, as you know, submitted several complaints about it and concerns. uh as a statistician while you do not give out your algorithms and all of the
data that goes into it I can guarantee that everything that it's based on everything that is a norm does not fit what is real life there in that intersection as you were saying so you might be taking something that might be
a nationwide standard but here it really does not fit and I understand that someone died many many many years ago. There have been no more fatalities. There have been no more increase in accidents with the current situation as
it is. But what you're doing when trucks go around that intersection is you are changing the trajectory to where they are going to point at my house. So when they hit ice, instead of they're going this way and they're this far away from the house and yes, they can hit each
other and they can fall over. They're still far away from everything. When you put a roundabout in and they hit ice and you haven't even planned for a barrier or anything, my office is the corner of that house.
you you're you're trying to solve the fact that there was one bad accident by making it much more dangerous for me to live in my home for my grandkids to be there and a whole bunch of other things that I just don't understand why when this was planned at a time when there
was not a house there, there were not homes up and down that road that you didn't say, not you, the town didn't say, "Hey, I understand we sunk some money into an assessment of this. I understand that's what we thought at the time, but we made a mistake because we
also said that this could be built. And we also decided that there would be all of these other things. And the amount of traffic that there is now might be completely irrelevant for how much traffic there will be 5 years from now by the time you finish this. And then
you say, "Oops, we should have had a light because now there's all this traffic." So, you know, I've looked at the numbers. I don't think you've got statistically significant differences, but I haven't done the analysis to tell you like across these various different factors.
I would love to get into that, but not my job. I just think you wouldn't even be dealing with taking away wetlands, doing all this other stuff if you went back to the board and said, "Hey, town, maybe we
should reconsider this. Just because we went all the way down this road sunk cost doesn't mean we should spend $5 million more dollars on something. Maybe we ought to consider leaving it how it is, putting up another yellow warning light
or doing some other model. That's that's all I have to say. >> Thank you, Manny. >> Mr. We I have discussed the wetlands. I'm giving a little bit more latitude only because I mean >> so voted in >> I I'm I'm going to be in agreement with
the engineer on the light and and the reason why mass dot said cuz I was involved in some of that stuff. So the reason that mass dot said because they they determined also that GFID road did not require a stoplight and that's why
they couldn't put a stoplight there. But they did it's the same analysis for the for the mast wood and actually if you see the intersections they knew they have a double yellow light and that's what's going to happen in Gford road and in the in that planning process I was involved in it on the planning board
when Mr. the hot was also involved in the gifted road and I asked them to put an extra duck in there if they ever changed it make sure they accommodated if it did have if it did meet the criteria where you put a stoplight and that's how that came came to point and for for the people who owned that house
in there I was also involved when the roundabout came when the police chief former police chief Mr. Pelletia wanted the roundabout. Correct. >> And at the same time, um the planner was doing they did a flexible frontage subdivision there where these houses were built and that was all at the same
time. And if you look at one of the meetings, I mentioned it in the meeting. Um in in addition to that I don't believe that um the developer uh and I believe the flexible frontage engineer was site engineering and I don't think they they applied for mass highway curb cut permit that they required to for the
development and then each individual individual house if you look at mass highway curb cut regulations when those houses were built. I don't believe that's my belief that that was never done. So Mass Highway didn't even really know that this was going at the same time. Just like the people that owned the house before,
>> she sold the house when she found out. >> Yes, sir. >> It seems bring us back to Westland. It seems to me because on the same goal here with less impact, just put turnout lanes in the east west directions because that's where the problem is. When someone has stopped on route 177
for any length of time because there's west traffic, they may chemic turn north on the tickle and vice versa for Robert. If you had turnout lanes in both directions, it would solve that problem and you wouldn't have to widen the road as much. You wouldn't have to shift the road and you could just easily make
traffic. You had four or five cubes for cars. I'm not a traffic engineer. I don't play on TV, but that would work. I go by there twice a day and I see what the problems are. that rotary would be a problem >> especially for a truck that's trying to plop.
>> All right. Thank you, Sean. >> Do you do you think we >> Mr. Chairman, if I just may through the chair, I I just thank you for letting people air their concerns, but you know, we are here only with governing work within 100 ft of wetlands.
>> Um it wasn't our decision uh for this design. I I don't know where it stands with the selectman. I I I I just would ask if if Greg, if we were to vote in favor of or come to a vote, if you're telling me that this really isn't final
plans, this redesign or what you may change maybe more than what an amended order conditions would allow, if you know what I'm saying. If you if we approve this and you come in and say, "Oh, we're going to make changes," you may be coming in with a whole new NOI.
We we did work through the 100% process with MASTA. So these are final plans. I don't think what I think what Kyle was saying was the rightway plans as far as easements. >> So right away Yeah. The rightway plans haven't been >> What if you don't sign then then you guys then it's taken by the town or the
state takes it. Is that how it's going to work? If they don't sign the easements? >> Uh yeah, I would I would think so. Yeah. So it could be a pro legal battle on that, I would imagine. Well, I again I'm I'm just asking questions because I I
don't want you guys to get an approval from us and then find out if you feel confident that you don't need to make any more modifications, then we can come to a vote. I'm just leaving that to you guys because whatever may or if it doesn't change, your proposed amendments
may not be acceptable. In other words, if if it's that much of a difference. So, I just want to air that out. And lastly, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I want to remind people in the audience, if you are in the butter, you have the right to appeal these decisions uh that the commission may make. Uh there's a 10-day
appeal period that follows any decision that the commission may uh take on such applications. And if you do consider such an appeal, uh if you contact the office, I could advise on how that may come about. But
that's all, Mr. Chairman. And just so that people know that this is our jurisdiction is strictly the wetlands. It's not the safety of or if an 18-wheeler can make the turn. Um although as town residents, we're all concerned about that and we don't want to see a bad design. Well, not bad. I won't say bad design. We don't want to see a design that's not going to meet
the needs of that area happen like what's intervened. Um you know, so we want to get it done once because otherwise there may be more impacts in the future. Um, so that's our our our purview is strictly the wet lines. It's just it's not about this. It's not
about, you know, the design. And if it were, it would probably be a different could possibly different outcome. >> Just one comment like I mean based on the wetlands impact, I'll vote yes for it, but I don't want my yes vote to be misconstrued as any type of endorsement
for the project. Right. I just I'm not going to waste our agents time with issues that aren't within his purview. So, you'll have my vote, but you don't have my endorsement. I agree. All right. So, if that's the
case, looking for a motion. Come on. In the interest of time, I'll make a motion to approve the limited project roadway application as it pertain pertains strictly to wetlands impact.
>> Second. >> And that was Phil seconded. All those in favor? >> Opposed. >> All right. >> So, uh, J. >> So, it passes, but I don't think any of us are happy about the project to be honest with you. We only vote for it
because it meets state regulations. But I really think you need to take a you need to you should the town should contact the fire department and take input. >> Final approval is the board of selectment. I would say >> so the only thing that's come before select board at that that point is a
poll relocation that they came with NAR and the others. So that's the final approval will probably come before uh the select board at a future time. >> Okay. Thank you. >> They just put one of these out in Rhode Island somewhere and they had the same problem. The buses can't make it around
the Rotary and it's a debacle out there, too. So, I don't know who designs the standards. I know it's not you guys, but >> I mean I assume it would be, you know, if it was that the select board could, you know, hire its own consultant and go and look at all the data and, you know,
form an opinion and come back and, you know, and uh do that, you know, just as happens in projects where people don't, you know, necessarily take the proponents idea. It just requires an investment of time and money to do it.
And my only concern is the $5 million state project. Why should the town spend any more money on that? >> Well, that's a different level of what we're talking about here. I'm just saying if people don't think that this plan is going to accomplish what it is and it's kind of based on engineering
science, then just like we do here, we hire our experts to look at what other experts say and >> correct >> and you know make a counterargument about it. And I think everyone's trying to get to the same goal. So uh but there's always potential for
disagreement you know uh on these kind of topics just like there are in uh you know whether groundwater pump wells are going to affect cold water fishery right >> you know let's everyone you know try and figure out what
to said Tom is a pirate this is the salt >> well no I'm just okay well then well a little Even if you know what >> well you know many saying is that sometimes you know you have you know >> even with the wetlands regulations sometimes they meet the regulations but
it's not the not the best >> best practice you know it's just >> no I I'm just saying in general here >> I just mistake they come >> all right guys >> and I know the fact is the reason they
didn't want to stop because they said that's what they need to do Yeah, they need to put a new blink and do a short set of drops. Problem solve going to fix the drainage at that time. I do believe the section needs to upgrade.
>> No, I I we're just limited to reviewing the wetlands. That's all. There was a safety issue. I we we could have we would have voted differently. I'm sure we had we had the perview to do that. >> All right. All right. >> Eric Greenwood Chase.
>> Yep. >> This is it right here. Chad >> um Portugal. >> Unanticipated. Eric Green with 52 Jillian way to install well and water line with tree cutting in the buffer zone. >> Good evening. Char for Eric Greenwood and from Northeast Engineers. This is a
lot on Jillian Way, one of the vacant lots. There's only two left on the north side of Gillian Way. There's a bordering vegetated wetland to the north. Unicorn bordering vegetated wetland. Uh what we're looking at to do here, originally there was a design for this house to put
the well outside the buffer zone. Unfortunately, the lot next door has designed a reserve area in here. So, we're not we can't put the well over here far enough to get 100 ft away from there septic septic. So the only place that we have located is 22 ft inside the
buffer zone which is yellow line. Uh all other activities are outside the buffer zone. Uh the grading we have retaining wall design keep everything outside the buffer zone. It's just a matter of installing a well and a line which probably means a couple of trees need to get cut uh to do that.
>> Thank you Sean. >> Mr. Chairman, this is Eric Greenwood 52 Gillian Way. This is a request for determination of applicability. Northeast Engineers and Consultants filed with Shaun Leech representing. The report date is February 17th, 2026.
This is board of health approved. Uh the site visit was also on February 17th, 2026. The owner has filed a request for determination to request approvals to remove trees and grade in the buffer zone. The existing lot has been undeveloped since the subdivision was
constructed. The weton line is located on an adjacent lot and the buffer zone overlaps the rear portion of this lot. The well is proposed just out well in the buffer zone just inside the buffer zone rather. However, some trees in this buffer zone will need to be removed in
order to get the well truck in place. Uh the home will be built entirely outside of the buffer zone. Uh the area will be graded around the well and become rear yard for the home. Erosion controls are to be installed beyond the work and remain until the area is stabilized. Um,
as you can see, there's also a drainage easement on that side of the lot. So, they're really limit Oh, the opposing side. You got it listed as a drainage easement. >> Yeah. Yeah. Down here. >> Right in there. Okay. So, that's why you limited a little bit as well. Um, wetland the recommendations. Westwalk
Conservation Commission should approve the well and grading in the buffer zone with a negative box 3 determination. >> That's all Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. Any questions? >> One question for Sean. A lot of times we
ask people to put a pile of boulders along the at the >> as a barrier to >> just to prevent any future encroachment. Um then surely once they start clearing they'll end up with enough rocks. >> Yeah. The in order to condition for the drainage easement goes along the side
here. Uh it kind of dies here and it just goes into the woods towards the wetlands. So they're not expecting to do a lot in here other than put a well. I mean it drops off significantly down to the wetlands. So if I don't know if you want put boulders around the well. I'm not
sure what what's out there for boulders. But >> where's the other vacant lot? >> Oh that's the other vacant lot. Okay. >> Yeah. Right next door. Right next door to each other. >> Yes. I knew they were, but this is the furthest one. >> Okay. >> Cuz originally we had the well over here, but the septic system this lot's
over here, so we couldn't get 100 ft away. >> Okay. And they're both owned by the same family. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Yeah. So, if the topography doesn't if if a if a stone border doesn't do any good, then I wouldn't even bring it up. But, you know, everybody tells us they're not going to do anything else,
and then they do everything else. I mean, there's going to be some tree plant just for the house, but it's fairly flat and then it drops off to like a giant swale that heads towards significant weathers. That way, it drops right off. >> All right. >> All right. Any other questions or concerns?
>> Motion. >> I'll make a motion to approve the well and grading in the buffer zone with negative box three. I second. >> Second from Burke. All in favor? >> I >> Okay, that's unanimous.
>> We have three certificate of compliance applications. >> We only have two, Mr. Chairman. >> Uh for the record, two of them have been requested for continuances because of the snow cover. So, uh, Lawrence Humphrey and Jonathan Levy will be
postponed till the 30th meeting in uh, 3:30 is our last meeting in March. Leon, right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, who's this? What's this? >> These are two Bruce Roths. We have two Bruce Roth. >> Okay. I only see one here. Okay.
>> Yeah. >> The last meeting in March. Yes. So I need a motion to um move these you know due to snow cover and inability to inspect uh Jonathan Lev SC80 2243
uh 418 G&H Drift Road and move that to the last meeting in March. >> So move second. >> Okay, that was Phil and Jake. All in favor? All right. Uh same thing for Lawrence Humphrey SE82516 218 Hicksbridge Road. Move to the last
meeting in March. It's Jake. We have a second. Second from Phil. All in favor? Opposed. All right. That's unanimously. >> All right. Now we have Bruce Roth SE81614 and two are the these going to be done at the same time. You going to do them separately? >> Two separate ones. Yeah.
>> Okay. So, uh Bruce Roth, SE81614, 27 Atlantic Avenue. >> Correct. Mr. Chairman, this is Bruce Ross. This is an outstanding order that's been in the files for quite some time. Uh the report is dated February 13th, 2026. Let me ask a question. Is it
2614 or 1 1614? >> 1614 and 2614. There's two of them. >> Two. >> Okay, I'm good. >> Okay. Uh, they happen to be ready 2614 and 1614 are very similar. So, all right. >> He was just fortunate. But yes, Mr.
Chairman, this is file number SE1614. This work was filed to request a certificate of compliance for work that was to construct a deck attached to the existing home. The home is elevated on Atlantic A and this application was later amended to install a stairwell
down to the rear of the home. All work was conducted in 2008 and completed according to the plan of record. So this is housekeeping. We're just trying to move this uh along. The recommendations, the Westport Conservation should approve the certificate of compliance file
number SE801614 with a full release of the associated work completed in 2008 for Bruce Roth 27 Atlantic A. >> Do we have any questions? Not a motion to approve. >> Motion from Jake. Do you have a second? >> Second.
>> Second from Phil. All in favor? >> Post. I mean, anybody opposed? All right. >> All right. All right. So, we have another one from Mr. Bruce Roth, SE827. >> Mr. Chairman, >> 2614. >> Correct. Bruce Roth 27 Atlantic AB. This
is another certificate of compliance. This is file number SE2614. Uh, February 13th, 2026 is the date of the report in the site visit. Description of the work. The applicant has filed to request a certificate of
compliance for file number SE 8002614. The work was to construct a garage in the flood zone in front of the home. The work was completed a few years ago in 2021 and uh work was done in accordance with the plan of record. Recommendations. The
Westport Conservation should approve the certificate appliance with a full release of file number SE82614 for the garage constructed at 27 Atlantic A as all work was completed according to the plan of record. Have >> you a motion?
We have a second. >> Second. >> Jake and Phil. All in favor? >> Opposed? All right. >> Hang on. Let me give this shirt here. >> All right. We'll just sign up. >> I'm sign. >> Yeah. Give a heads up.
>> All right. >> Questions? >> We have uh let's see here. East Bay Media Advertising Excuse me. >> $258 for advertising for hearings. Need a motion to approve. >> Motion from Jake. Do you have a second? >> Second.
>> Second from Jason. All in favor? >> Post. Okay. Nobody. Great. >> Jason was second. Jake made the motion. Jason second. >> He's very appreciative. He doesn't have much clothing. >> That was >> That was made. No, that was um advertising um East Bay.
>> East. >> All right. Our next uh next bill is for Serpent $526.85. >> Mr. Chairman, that's for the um open space plan um we're working towards under a grant. That's our share or our
contribution of the uh grant to date. >> Still a motion to approve that. >> Motion from Jake. Do you have a second? >> Second. >> Second from Phil. All in favor? >> Post. >> I always like the contribution. Whenever I have to pay taxes, they call it a contribution. And they call my my taxes
revenue and not not, you know, theft of my wages, but that's just me. >> All right. >> Wait to get the contract. >> Wait till I wait till I get my new exercise tax bill. >> All right. >> Something tells me I want to want to go
to the rotary construction business after this. >> Yes. Going to want to drive just got a truck with good clearance. February 3rd, 2026 minutes present. myself, uh, Jake, Tom, Phil, Burton, uh,
and Jason. So, we we can vote on these. If there are no changes, I need a motion to approve the minutes from 2, three. >> Motion approved. >> Second. >> That was Jake and Jason. That's February 3rd minutes. All in favor? >> Opposed. All right.
>> Let's see what else we have here. We have these are uh executive session. So we can vote on these executive session minutes. Need a motion to approve. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Okay, that was Jake and Jason. All in
favor? >> You got that? Jake and Jason executive minutes. >> 23. >> Thank you. >> And there's a request to resign 1125. These were already approved. >> Yeah. >> All right. So these are for you, Jason.
You obviously messed up your signature. the one time you you run the meeting and this is messed up. You got to check you got to check the box. >> I think so many probably sold it as an autograph and that's why we have to resign. >> That's what I'm thinking. >> Then go to the Bristol County
Correction. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> Tell you what the pen would change. >> That's all. >> So that's all I have. Um Chris, what do you have anything for us? I just have an update that the uh uh the SOC for
Buckman the applicant's attorney Brodsky has asked D for an extension to 227 to respond to our letter. Um I I expected that and in addition to that the well public water supply across the street on
main road mass D will be scheduling a onsite in the coming weeks because of the snowfall and snow cover. They're looking at sometime in the beginning weeks of March. So that's just a heads up on that one. That's all. >> All right. Jeeoff, you have nothing
else? >> Just to follow up on the uh on the first one. Um but we have not heard back from Alex about um any conversations about alternative plans. >> No. >> Okay. >> No.
>> Right. So if no one else has anything but for a motion to adjurnn. >> Move to adjurnn. >> Phil second from Jake. All in favor? F.