All right. Thank you. Don't be too close. The August 5th meeting of 2025 of the Conservation Commission is being recorded. And uh we can all stand and salute the flag, please. Aliance 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. We have a soil permit for Margaret Sylvia number 497 330 County Road.
>> Chairman, members, uh this is a renewal of soil permit for Margaret Sylvia, 33 County Road. This is soil permit number 497. Date of the report is July 29th, 2025. Description of the work the owner has filed to renew the stockpile and
transfer site permit number 497 at the property located at the farm at 330 county road. The site stockpiles earth minerals to the rear of the farm. The renewal for one year is in order. Recommendations. The Westport Conservation Commission Soil Conservation Board should approve the
soil permit for Margaret Sylvia number 497 for one year. >> All right. Any questions? No questions. A motion. Uh, move to approve soil permit 497. >> Thank you. Second from Jason. All in favor? Opposed? All right. Unanimously.
>> Cody Flynn, 141 Donovan's Lane, stepping permit, RDA. Greg, how are you? >> Good. [Applause] directly Greg Nichols South Engineering except to repair the Cody Flynn. What we
have here is the existing lot 141 Dwayne West River is over here on the west side of the property existing structure the cess pool here and what we're proposing is to remove the cess pool and install a pump a pump chamber which is within the
200t librarian zone. From there the epine will be pumped across the street to land that is owned by this family into a uh solar built construction which is here shown here on the plan. So the resource areas that we are looking at is
only in this uh in this case is the 200 foot zone. We do have some grading here and we do I'm also showing a water line around the back of the uh sep tag to prevent any runoff. Uh, I don't think there's going to be much activation. It's not going to take very long to do
this, but nonetheless, we're strong enough to secure the sidewalk. Let's go. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman, members. This is Cody Flynn, 141 Donovan's Lane. This is a request for the termination of
applicability filed by South Coast Engineering with Greg Nicholas representing. Report date is July 30th, 2025. The site visit was also on July 30th, 2025. Description of the work. The owner has filed to install a septic tank in a pump
chamber within the riverfront area. The system will be pumped further away from the river on a lot across from Donovan's Lane. The activity falls under the minor exemption for a septic repair in the riverfront area. Um, so with that recommendations, Westport Conservation
should approve the pros work for the tank installation with a negative box two determination. Uh and the work falls under the exemption for the minor work in riverfront area as well. So both those will be noted. >> Thanks Chris. Any questions? No. All
right. Questions or motion? >> I'll make a motion to approve with negative box two. >> Second. >> Who's that? Bur or Phil? >> Second. >> All right. Jason and Bert. All in favor? Opposed. All right. It's unanimous. Now
>> next we have uh John Paser 1985C main road. That's also a soil permit. I mean a septic permit. Okay. Again, Greg with South Coast Engineering. Uh this one's a little bit different than previous one. Piece of
property. It's actually on Hillside Avenue, which is a road that comes to tease off of main road despite the address of 1985C. Um and here we have the west branch of the Westport River. We have an existing structure and what they did, they took
an existing garage and expanded it out this way and took what was formerly the garage and turned it into living area. >> They did not add a bedroom. They did add a bathroom. It's gone through the board of health uh and subject to um been approved subject to conservation
approval. So, you have an existing tank over here and a pump chamber. They added the bathroom in this area from this area heading east. I guess this is all a slab. So you couldn't really do any plumbing to side.
So they opted to put a step out over here and then put in the tank. The issues here uh that we have to address is primarily the velocity zone which is showing right here. So the question was do we put another tank in the velocity
zone? was already one there or do you keep it out of the velocity zone and sacrifice the step back for the well? This was a way for everyone to to board of health approved because the decision was that the uh putting a tank in a velocity zone is something that should
be avoided at all costs and over here we can do this check the well and uh that will be fine. So what we have here again for the resource series we have a limit of 200 foot riparian zone. We have a a zone over here at elevation 14 and we have the velocity zone which is shown
right over here which is elevation 17 which really doesn't affect what we're doing. We're out of it. So again flood zone and the riparian zone is um two resource areas that we're in case just
from there the sewage flows by gravity to the tank. gravity back to the pump and then it the existing pump it will be pumped up to the existing leeching field which is way around. >> Thank you >> Mr. Chairman John Beisa 1985C main road.
This again is a request for determination of applicability filed by Southwest Coast Engineering with Greg Nicholas representing. The report date is July 29th, 2025, not 31. And uh the site visit was also on July 29th, 2025. As Greg
mentioned, this is board of health approved contingent on our acceptance. Detailed description work has filed to replace a sewage line and sector tank on the property at 1985 C Main Road. The property borders the Westport River and proposed work falls under the minor
exemptions uh within the riverfront area for a septic system repair activities. The septic line was damaged and will need to be replaced with a new tank installed. The work is within 50 ft from the edge of the river and within the existing lawn area. Erosion controls will be installed around the work area
as shown. Recommendations. The Westworld Conservation Commission should approve the septic line repair and tank installation with negative box 3 determination. Mr. Chairman, >> thank you. Is that okay?
>> Any questions? Not a motion. >> So, I'll move to approve the septic line repair and tank installation with a negative box 3 determination. >> Second. >> Uh Jason second. Phil made the motion.
All in favor? Opposed? Match sound. Thank you very good night. David Marian, RDA6 North Bolt Street. Construct addition to back of existing single family dwelling in the buffer zone. Anybody have Mr. Marshian? Come on up, sir.
>> Good evening. Are you >> Did you bring a plan? I'll pull it out. I had the uh Yeah, I apologize that look at the July 15th. This one. >> No, no, that's not island. You got it.
Grab it. Was in here. >> Was it RDA or was it a >> RDA? Did you get them confused or did I miss it? >> Oh, maybe I got a confused one. I just change one of the Yeah, just check those. See if one of those says Marshand on. Maybe they're in the wrong order. >> Yeah,
>> we'll just we'll just we'll just change the uh the sex sheets. >> All right. >> You want that? You got that? >> Yeah. >> She just introduce yourself. >> Yeah. Good evening. My name is Dave
Marsh. I'm the owner of 66 North Wall Street. Um I currently have an existing 31 home. Um and what I'm proposing is to build a 35x 35 ft addition on that. Um this will be a full basement here. Uh in red is the outline uh basement layout
and the green is where the stairs will be. Um this does encroach on an existing 100 foot buffer zone. Um and at the furthest point it encroaches 26 ft into the buffer zone as I laid out on this drawing here. So I'm coming to the board asking if if uh for a determination for
um for that. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. As mentioned, David Marshian, 66 North Street. This is a request for determination of applicability filed um by Mr. Marshian himself. Report date is July 29th, 2025.
Site visit was also on July 29th, 2025. Description of work. The owner has filed a request for determination of applicability to propose an addition to the rear of his existing home. The work would fall just outside the buffer zone to a boarding vegetated wetland. This
addition will be 85 ft from the wetland edge. So it just falls within that area. As he mentioned, all activity is within the existing lawn area and previously permitted house construction. Erosion control shall be installed along the rear to protect the resource area that
is further beyond. So basically again this is a project within the existing lawn uh to expand the home just within that buffer zone area. Recommendations Westport Conservation Commission should approve the proposed addition in the buffer zone with a negative box 3
determination. >> All right. How's the um limited work look now? Is it the wetland wetland's been left alone? No problems. Yes, he's plenty of separation between him and the limit of his lawn area is already expressed to not be anywhere
near that wetland area, etc. >> All right, >> it's fully protected. >> Any questions? I would just, you know, is there any way to maybe use some of the boulders that you'll invariably dig up to mark the limit of work >> just so we don't have, you know, an
addition and then, you know, and you reclaim your 85 ft by, you know, moving further into the >> sure >> the buffer zone. >> You can work that out with them, Chris, right? >> Yep. >> All right. >> Any other questions or comments?
>> Yeah. >> Make a motion. So, I'll make a motion to approve with the addition of um the u fair >> enough so much. >> We have a second >> from B.
>> All right. All in favor? >> I post. All right. That's unanimous. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Need a significant [Music] There we go. >> Yo, I I had to put the signature in the bottom by mistake.
Jason messed it up. You know what I'm saying? It's tough dealing this guy. >> All right. Um Jonathan uh Buckman, Anra, zero Pine Hill Road to determine if resource areas depicted on plan are accurate.
>> Mr. File number. Let's see. 2808 >> 2808. We have the photo cards. >> Yes, we do. >> Yep. All right. >> Good evening, members of commission. I'm Ryan Holmes with Environmental Consulting Restoration
Ed Jacobs Consulting and the afternoon gentleman Buckman. We filed an Android application to confirm with the commission the weapon resource area is located here. This property located off Pine Hill Road. Um it's a large um piece
of land approximately 14.3 acres. Um what we have on site, we have multiple resource areas on site. If you come into the property from Pineh Hill Road, you come into a boring vegetative wetland system which is here in green. Um there's an section of an intermittent
stream that we've delineated. There are uh more of the intermittent stream within the boring vegetative wetland which we haven't mapped for the purpose of this amrad. Uh and that was a comment we were able to coordinate with Chris on is that we should indicate that the
stream uh does extend in either direction. So we made that note on the plan. Um so you have a bording vegetative wetland system. You have a perennial stream that can comes in off the east branch of the Westport River over here. It's a map perennial stream that comes in here. We've delineated the
mean annual high water here and then you come back into a border and vegetative wetland. And if we didn't have enough resource areas, we we have land subject to coastal storm flowage, the FEMA uh flood zone here and and here. So what
we've asked the commission to do is to confirm the location of the bordering vegetative wetland as we've delineated in the inland bank of this intermittent stream and the inland bank of this perennial stream. Um I did get a chance to review the delineation with Chris on
Friday. Chris was nice enough to meet me out there and we did walk and talk and go through uh the site so that Chris could could uh understand the the delineation methodology. Um why are we doing this? Well, we're doing this because we're going to come back to the commission with the notice of intent uh
at some point in the near future to propose a single family home with driveway. We'd like to to uh to look at this portion of the site. There's a upland area uh in this portion of the site, but we're not here for that. This is a a technique for us to plan and come
back to the commission so that when we do come with the notice of and we're not uh looking at resource areas and and how things lie, we've already nailed that down with them with the ORAD. So uh it's a brief overview again, boring
vegetative wetland, intermittent stream, perennial stream, boring vegetative wetland, and we do have the the flood zone. Um, with that I'll bring it back to you commission address. >> Thank you, Chris. >> Mr. Chairman, members, Jonathan Buckman,
Banner Construction Company. This address is 0 Pinehill Road at the time. Um, but it it is located near 337 Pinehill or across the street thereabouts. Um, this is an abbreviated notice of resource area delineation
filing. Uh it's filed by PMP Consulting Incorporated who drew the plan and Brad Holmes from ECR uh LLC that flagged the wetland resource areas that is uh depicted. The report date is August 1st,
2025. There is a file number for this. It's SC802808. Uh detailed description again Brad mentioned we visited the site on Friday. The owner has delineated the resource areas located on the property with the filing of abbreviated notice of resource
area delineation. The property is located off of Pineh Hill Road across from the Wasatuxit farm and after 337 Pinehill Road parcel frontage on Pineh Hill Road and extends down approximately 2,000 ft to the Westport River. The
wetland line was walked with Brad Holmes ECR Incorporated. The wetland system is made up of two separate systems. The upper wetland is associated with an inland wetland and the lower area is associated with a coastal wetland. Wetland flags were determined to be accurately located and no changes were
recommended. The plan should revise to show the approximate locations of the intermittent stream uh and the coastal title portions which Brad has indicated they do show on this plan. Um, wetland flags A1 through A26. Wetland flag A19-1
through A19-3. Uh, wetland flag B1 through B10. Wetland flag B1-1 through wetland flag B1-22, wetland flag C1 to C36, and wetland flag
D1 to D9. This site contains a flood zone and riverfront areas as well uh and land subject to flooding. This this shall be noted that although one intermittent stream is shown more may be present within that large wetland area. Uh the lower wetland is subject to title
action uh during regular tide cycle. Uh there is no natural heritage and endangered habitat or species habitat that exists on this subject property. Uh resource areas impacted or none at this time. This is specifically a delineation
of the resource areas. Recommendations for the board. The Westport Conservation should approve and issue an order of resource area donation with the approval of the resource areas as shown on the plan dated 72125. So we got a revised date. What is that
revised date? >> 84. >> 84. So please make the plan date 8425. That is all, Mr. Chairman. >> All right. Thank you. Do you have any questions? >> No. >> Okay. Any questions from the audience? No. questions for the table.
>> I was just wondering if Chris also kind of agreed that there was a buildable upland lot on it. >> Did you think >> there are two areas of potential building on this site? >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> All right. Any other questions? If no questions of motion, >> I'll make a motion to approve um as shown with the plans dated 8425. >> All right, you have a second.
>> That was Bert, Jason, and Bert. All in favor? >> I posted. All right, that's unanimously. >> Thank you, brother. >> Thank you very much. See you guys. >> Um Okay. Next we have certificate of
compliance. First one is for Joyce Gambone SE82767. >> Oh no. >> Thank you very >> All right. Uh Joseph Gambone certificate compliance >> SE802767
1431 Main Road. >> Uh I believe it's Josyn Gambone, right? >> Yeah. Join. What did I say? I I said Joyce. I believe you said Joselyn. All right. >> This is Joselyn and Gamble, 1431 Main Road. This is a new house construction on a property of land uh just down from
the um Oh god, I draw a blank. Gway, that's it. Gway roadway. Uh report date is July 30th, 2025. The file number for this project was SC02767.
Detailed description your owner has filed to obtain a certificate of compliance for the well and grading completed in the buffer zone for the new single family house. The area stabilized and seated with 75% growth established. The site again is stable and the project has met the order conditions issued for
the single family home. Uh this project impact is just the buffer zone. Recommendations. The Westport Conservation should approve a full release of the order of conditions and issue a certificate compliance for SE802767
uh for 1431 Main Road, Jocelyn Gambone. >> All right, any questions? >> No questions. A motion. >> Move to issue the certificate of compliance for 1431 Main Road. >> Okay, we have a second. >> Second. >> Second from Jason. Okay, so it's Phil
and Jason. All in favor? I >> opposed. Okay, that's your nano sound. >> Okay, we have certificate of compliance for Chris Souza, SE81779, lot 18 Kyle Jacob Road.
>> Mr. Chairman, Chris Souza. This is an old application that was found um 41 Kyle Jacob Road. This is a request for a certificate of compliance by the owner. Report date is July 30th, 2025. The file
number is SE801779. Again, the owner has filed to request a certificate of compliance for an order of conditions that was filed when his home was constructed in 2010. Uh financially, he is observed that this is still uh encumbering his property. So,
he would like to have that cleared up. All work was completed according to the plan of record back then. The site was stabilized and in order to what the previous order had uh requested recommendations, the Westport Conservation should issue a certificate
of compliance for file number 1779 as all work has been completed according to the plan of record. That is all, Mr. Chairman. >> All right. Any questions? It's not a motion. Make >> a motion to issue the compliance.
>> Okay. File S8779. Do we have a second? Second. >> All in favor? Opposed? All right, that's unanimous. That was Jason and Phil. >> There you go, sir. >> So, chairman, that concludes the agenda. >> All right, we'll do bills and then we can go over anything else Chris may want
to discuss. I'm sure there's some doozies out there. All right. East Bay advertising for hearings total is $246. Motion to pay. >> Motion to pay. >> Okay. Thank you, Phil. I'll second it.
>> Second from Jason. All in favor? Opposed. All right. That's unanimously on. >> Uh, Conservation Commission WB Mason $34.18 for office supplies. Do we need a motion to pay? >> Motion to pay. >> Okay. >> Second. >> That was Jason and Phil. All in favor?
Opposed? >> All right. That's unanimously. >> Minutes. I doubt these are going to go anywhere, but let's see what we got today. July 8th, present. myself, Jason, Burton, and Phil. Yeah, you know what? We get Wow, that's like a winner. I want
to play the lottery on the way home tonight. Okay, so we have the July 8th minutes of the uh 2025 minutes of the Conservation Committee meeting and looking for a motion. >> I'll make a motion approve the minutes. >> All right. Do we have a second? >> All right. Second from Phil. All in favor?
>> Opposed? All right. That's unanimous. It's going to be a good day tomorrow. And then we have minutes from 7:22 present Kevin, Jake, Phil, myself, Burton, and J Jason. Oh, no, wait. Jason and
Christopher Capone. Yeah, I know you were here, too. Yeah. Oh, we're all here. >> Yeah. Wow. >> I'll tell you. Trifect. All right. Do we have a motion to approve the July 25th, 2025 minutes of the Conservation Commission? >> So move. >> All right. Do we have a second? >> Second.
>> Second from Jason. All those in favor? opposed. All right, that's unanimous. So, that concludes my my portion of the meeting and now we can uh see if Mr. Capone has any uh anything you like to add tonight. >> Mr. Chairman, we've had a discussion
that's come to light for property from Robert Brona at 2015 Main Road. Mr. Bronca had initiated activity after getting signoffs from the historical commission, conservation commission uh and the building department to construct
a pool above ground I mean an ingground pool rather. Um this matter was I guess much overlooked by the historical commission and after their agreeance they have now stated that they're not in agreeance. So this matter has uh become
a civil court matter. Um the opponents of this project have taken uh Lawrence Beals's engineering company and asked for him to portray a plan representing
what has been done on the property. Uh this contradicts what we had received from uh Northeast Engineering Consultants as far as the limit of the velocity zone as well as the extent of the riverfront. Um what I'm asking the
commission at this time uh because this isn't a civil matter and I think that there are some entities like the historical commission that's needs to agree to what uh Mr. Brona needs to do to move forward. I I don't think in my
opinion that we should be looking to issue an enforcement order to Mr. Bronca. Um I did sign off on the building permit application cuz in the initial plans we had it showed that this project was not within those uh resource areas. So there's been some discrepancy
with the plans that have been represented. Mr. Beals is represented that the project in fact is within 200 ft and as well as a portion of this activity is within the velocity zone. Um I'm not disputing all that. I just think
that some of the information Mr. Beiel's used is not field surveyed rendered. It's actually from him re uh determining it from LAR survey, etc. Um again, I'm not disputing what he represents, but
because this isn't a civil matter, I think that before we proceed, we should have the applicants get some agreements to what direction they're going. And Mr. Bronca could rip the structure out if it's not allowed by the historical commission. He could he could move it.
So there are other avenues that may need to be taken. So at this present time, I'm asking the commission to make a motion uh that based on the legal matter that is at hand. We will not take any action until such time that a final
decision is rendered in what manner Mr. Bronca is going to proceed to correct uh this activity and violations on the site. >> So just just to be clear though, I mean who did the survey originally or survey? >> Northeast engineers and consultants.
>> Wasn't there other engineers involved? >> Mark Rodri. >> Mhm. >> Uh CEC maybe very in the very beginning may have done something. So yes, there are more than one um individual that's looked at this property. What I see
happen is the way the shoreline extends southerntherly, it jotss in and it makes that riverfront come closer from the neighboring property rather than from his property. So the coast comes in on a big sweep. So you measure 200t here,
it's fine, but when you measure 200 ft from the neighbors, it obviously comes up another 25 ft. So, um I also believe that the only thing that I see wrong with this project is he did work within that velocity zone with that wall. Um
this falls under the minor exemption for a pool, patio or shed within an existing lawn of a pre-existing structure. So, the pool would apply to that um being riverfront activity. But because it has that velocity zone component, I think
that's where Mr. Bronco would need to correct um that potential activity. So um that's kind of where I think the commission should go with this. I'll I'll leave it up to you if you have any more questions, but >> I I think at this time because it's
civil and the neighbors are developing these arguments in order for I think Mr. Bronetta to file, which he's willing to do, but if he files, he knows they're going to appeal. So he doesn't want to file something that they aren't in agreeance with because it's just going
to be a dog chasing his tail. So that's where I think the commission shouldn't necessarily step in right at this particular time. >> Questions what was the driver behind the request for an enforcement order? Was that
coming from the neighbors or >> they didn't ask for this. They're just sending me plans contradicting what we have on record and they have not asked for an enforcement action, but I I'm hinting that's what they would like to see happen so that we intervene and you
know the gentleman has to come clean and file which again he is willing to do. He just needs a direction. Um he still would like to maintain the pool. If he's got to move it, then those things may be something. In the meantime, because both
parties are fighting back and forth, I again, I didn't think it was the best time to take that action. >> So, who sent the who sent the the the plans to >> Lawrence Beals from Be Thomas? He's been
hired by the opponents um who are represented by other individuals. I'm not sure who all the opponents are against the project, but and the historical commission as well. I think they're a party to the
appeal. They initially made a decision in favor and then >> reneggged because the visual aspect of the wall from the river not from the roadway. >> Did he go and survey actually survey you say?
>> No, this gentleman has only done it from aerial interpretation based on LA survey. >> Okay. Um yeah. >> So there are a lot of interesting kind of legal questions.
um about it. I mean just my one comment on the historical piece of it is it's my understanding just reading you know the shorelines back when was that
he got verbal information from the building inspector which led arguably led him to believe that historical commission approval was not required.
And then that became an issue when it was clear that it in fact was required. And uh and so I think that this is just my recollection. So I think that um the reason that then the historical
commission intervened was because they were not really notified as would have been the practice and all this happened. >> Correct. You you are correct in that interpretation. >> So you know it it and I I've never I mean I'm not familiar with a situation
where what the um property owner did was in you know construct something that was consistent with the plan that we approved and then later on we find out that the plan was inaccurate. Um because in the normal course if
someone disagreed with it they would have appealed the order. >> Correct. So, it's kind of that's a a question. But now, from what Chris is saying, it seems to be that he's acknowledging the inaccuracy. >> I don't think he did.
>> I don't know if he's acknowledging the accuracy, but the opponent say he has not rebutted their It's only gotten to my desk so far, but I believe Mr. Brona, >> right, >> may have seen this, >> right? Yeah. So, I honest Yeah. I mean,
so just in terms of what we should do, I I I'm not sure what we should do. Uh I mean, I I think we can request him to respond to the plan and, you know, to
say whether or not he is agrees with it or doesn't agree with it. Um but if he remains silent on it, I'm not sure what the scope of our authority is if he constructed it consistent with our plan.
So then I think we would need to get it advice um either from DP because they would be the ones who would be receiving the appeal because it was an order of conditions whether or not or you know get town council to weigh in if we
wanted to do that just about procedurally how we should proceed or we should just wait as Chris said to see what the civil litigation turns out because if the historical commission was successful
and he actually had to demolish a lot of part of what he constructed then what we would be doing would be kind of I don't know what the right phrase is you know >> counterproductive >> yeah exactly it would be like you know
like okay you need to adjust this a few feet and then we go through all that and then it turns out oh I guess we have to tear the whole thing down you know so you know right exactly But we could find out um what our authority is here cuz I I
>> Well, the thing is we don't I mean the only thing is we don't know what >> we have a plan that was done by an aerial survey. Yeah. >> From them. We don't know. We have three other engineering firms that have done ground surveys who say one thing and then this gentleman says another thing. He may be right >> because he may be looking from the the
adjacent property but he may be wrong. But the question is, if you act on what he says and he's wrong, then now we're getting in the middle stopping someone from moving forward or having someone tear something down that isn't correct. So >> yeah, >> I personally I I would like to see them get this straightened out with
historical commission and see what's going to be the final >> Yeah. >> piece there >> and then come back and say, "Okay, let's everybody get together and get the plan right." >> I would only like to add so excuse me, Mr. Chairman, through the chair, >> Mr. Brona has filed for everything that
he has done on the property. He's filed for a dock. He's filed for activity down along the river to build the patio. He filed for a septic system installation, which is even closer to the river than the actual structure itself. So, in my assumption, when I saw all that
activity, I felt the pool was further away than any aspect that he's done to date. >> Right. And unbeknownst to me, there was some possible errors. So I do think because of litigation, we should just
let this play out and let Mr. Beals know and the opponents that at this time we would like this to be worked out between the courts. And when that decision is made, we would notify Mr. Brona that he has to correct whatever is decided or or
come forward with a proposal to lessen the impact of the wall. They talk about a knee wall to try to hide for and then build the landscape feature on that knee wall. So there are some things being proposed that have not been necessarily
agreed to. So >> yeah, >> if if someone would make a motion along those lines, it would be helpful. >> Yeah, I agree with you. the opponents are asking to meet with me and I don't think I should be meeting with them at this time because
I I think that they're bringing something forward that hasn't really been further discussed within the civil case. So, and I didn't want us to issue an enforcement order in the middle of it all when we ourselves actually signed the building permit thinking that it was
acceptable under those >> and it may be, it may not be >> correct. >> We don't know. >> I mean, seem like it would make a lot more sense than to hash out the civil side of it and the applicant probably shouldn't agree to something that isn't permittable.
>> Correct. >> Right. So whatever they agree upon they should make sure is permittable. And then >> now the the so >> the engineer of record feels that the activity in a flood zone can be signed
off by FEMA by sending them an amendment because it's an accessory use to a dwelling and not a dwelling. So FEMA may physically allow that structure to remain. So they felt that they could obtain approvals through FEMA that even
though it's a vzone that it it it would not be causing any subsequent adverse effect. In addition, there's no immediate dwelling that would be potentially impacted by by that slight activity. And we again talking 200 and
some feet from the edge of the water. This isn't something again immediately u adjacent to where I'm sure this board members have seen pools a lot you know considerably closer to the edge of the water than what this is. So >> what's the elevation?
>> Well the elevation of >> Yeah. Look of the the the zone >> 16 and a 14. So it's a ve 16 and an AE14 >> flood zones. >> Phil, what were you gonna say? >> Nothing. Well, I mean, I think that
they're I think that um uh what do I think? I think that what's going on civily relates to the authority
uh of the historical commission and I think that is what is being raised was errors uh in or alleged errors in um you know
the plan that we approved and now is a request to take kind of retroactive take action against it. And I I guess my feeling is I don't think it would disturb the
um the civil piece if um we just looked at the what authority we would have to
take action in this circumstance which I I feel I don't know I don't know. So I think just educating ourselves about what we could do is one thing and then whether or not we would actually assuming we had authority
act on it is separate because it might be it doesn't make sense because of what's going on in the litigation for us to act on it. But I don't think there's harm in us determining uh what the scope of our authority is.
Could we issue an enforcement order for someone who is in compliance with a plan? Um, even if it turns out after the fact that the plan was not seems like not intentionally inaccurate, but just used a different
methodology than someone else. >> No, I don't have any problem looking into it, but I >> that's what I would need a motion to do that, but I would >> we got to that. I I just the only thing is I think until we really know what what they work out with between the
historic the neighbors or whoever's involved in this what the final project is going to look like >> right >> cuz you know first of all you don't know if this gentleman is right. So I you know I don't even like mentioning names on on >> on on TV because you know once you're
accused of something I mean you're in the front page of newspaper you might as well be guilty forever. But nonetheless, I mean, I I just I I don't think that, you know, we acting upon it's not good. But looking into it, that's fine cuz it's may happen in the future, too, right? We may we may get a plan that's bad in the future. So, it's good to know
>> what our authority is, >> right? >> But until they figure out what the final >> Yeah. I mean, >> plan wall or whatever that thing is will look like, right? >> Then I don't think there should be action taken. And at that point, I think they're going to have to somehow the other engineer is going to civily or
they're going to have to get him on. He'd have to do like a real survey, >> right? >> Not a not off an air. >> Yeah. No. Right. Right. That might Yeah. I mean, so just in terms of cuz I I'm putting myself kind of in Chris's shoes in the sense that if you actually had
that meeting with the um you know the neighbors with the opponents and they said what are you going to do and my response I don't know what I can do and that you know so that would be so I'm not going to answer until I actually figure out what I can
do because Chris can look into that because this is a novel it's a novel question cuz it's not If we know that the engineer falsified you know the information he just use a technique which is not consistent with the
>> and again we rely on the professional engineer. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> In my opinion liable for what is rendered on the plan. >> Right. >> But again just so everybody we don't know that it's >> is there going to be a ruling on what the inaccuracies in the plan are? Is
there going to be a more accurate plan? We don't know if there's inaccuracies, B. >> We don't know if there's inaccuracies based on this individual's interpretation. I mean, it's not field surveyed. So, >> I think that would have to be part of this litigation process. >> So, I don't think that's going to be
necessarily litigated. It's going to be litigated if the historical commission has authority to uh render a decision against because of it being visibly from the Westport River. I think that's what
is finally coming out of it. >> That that's what and they're waiting to make that decision by way of the court process. But this plan has come about in a way to show that wait a minute, Mr.
Bronca, look what he's done. He's totally negligent in what he's represented. Never mind the fact that the plan's inaccurate. He has, you know, again, >> right, he goes, I mean, because you
could arguably, you know, make the case this may not be the situation, which is, you know, there's harm that occurs when something is constructed in the Vzone that is not, you know, that we weren't
aware of. And so, you know, maybe that is a basis, you know, to go back in. It's not just simply, oh, you know, you're, you know, you didn't define the riverfront area correctly. You know, you're a few feet over. It could be, you
know, this could have collateral damage to neighbors if you know, you had a incident in which someone had a wall that was in a Vzone and I don't know, you know. So, but that's what I think we need to find out, you know. Okay. that
that's I think that would be helpful to me and until then I don't think I think we can uh reserve not intervening in the you know in the in the other case because we
wouldn't know what would we really be asking for >> right >> that's my sense of it no >> I agree with you even if we find out we do have the authority to intervene I think we need we need >> you need a lot better information than an aerial server.
>> Yeah. I mean, so you know, you know, can we require him to reservey in or I don't even, you know, how that would >> Yeah. >> You know, >> but for now, we'll just let >> you know, >> we'll let Chris, >> but look, ask the state what we should
do, what we could do in a case like this. >> Yeah. >> Uh oh, and also FEMA has an opinion on this that could also help guide us and them >> have more information to work with.
>> Yeah. And if and you know Yeah. Exactly. And if the if you had a 20 foot wall of water come that that part of the point, there's not going to be much point left. >> There's going to be a lot of damage. >> I won't be I won't be eating houses. >> I won't be eating oysters on Sunday. I can tell you that. >> No. you know, you know, is it like it's
a mistake, but it's like a negl negligible mistake or it's a mistake that, you know, >> threatens public health safety in the environment and then you're kind of in a different situation and >> right >> uh I don't think we're saying that there
was malfeasants or something that it was done this way. It's just that oh, you know, like uh you know, we didn't realize that the emergency doors wouldn't open, you know, the way you said they would. And so now we can't have people in there. And even
though we approved it, you need to redo your emergency doors because otherwise, >> people get trapped in the building and Okay, that's different than you know, you didn't paint it the right color. >> Is that a case that you've you've heard of before, Phil? You >> I'm just I'm just being >> talking about that down in Miami there.
I'm just I mean I don't want us to do nothing if it's really a serious problem that we have the authority to address that that's you know that >> so what is so they so right now the original plan was just about 200 feet away from the river right and with Mr.
Beal is it >> be Mr. plan. How far away is it from the river at that point? >> I'd say it's 75 to 180. So about 20 foot 25 ft difference in in the portrayal of how
much work is within that area. Never mind the VE. The VE is a very small corner of it. But again, I still feel the riverfront is not the issue because there's an exemption under the regulations for activities >> adjacent to. >> Well, just just find out from um you
know, contact the state, see what they say and then, >> you know, you you can also, you know, along the way. This is this is going to let them let their stuff play out. But >> so we'll reserve taking any action at this time until a final decision is rendered and the agent will contact Mass
D and try to get some clarity on on the um approval of a plan that now has has some errors within it, >> right? >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> And also how would it be handled if they walked in the door today with the same plan, >> right? >> Without their neighbors, without the
historic commission, just someone walked in with this plan, how would you handle it? >> Okay. without, you know, any any kind of pressure from anybody. >> Okay. >> I mean, I'd be surprised if in, you know, the history of the weapons regulation that this issue had had not come up again or someone hasn't raised it. So hopefully there's some precedent
out there that says, "Okay, here's what you can do >> and here's the tools you have, you know, an enforcement order or that there's some other, you know, process that you would, you know, go through um, you know, to do that." Uh
and uh yeah. >> So how do you issue let me ask you a question. How do you issue enforce an audit based on something that isn't field survey that someone is alleged? >> Do do you have the authority to to make the applicant or have the applicant allow someone to do a a
>> an opposing field survey on their property? >> So So like if you we're neighbors and we're fighting with each other about the property line. >> Right. Right. Well, I think both engineers should sit down and they should be hatching it amongst themselves in order to come to a >> a conclusion that works for
>> their goal or doesn't work for their goal and they have to relocate things. >> Yeah. >> I mean, >> yeah. >> Well, if everybody sat down and worked things out, Chris, this wouldn't be going on right now. >> How how high is the how high is the wall? Like the the view from the river? That seems to be
>> I believe I believe it's in excess of it, right? It's like 8t. It's 8 ft. All right. So, it's 8 ft. >> It's 8 plus. I'd say they say 11.5, but I I really have not stood. >> But is that post backfill, pre-back filled? >> No, this is this is not backfilled. The wall is >> No, no, no. I mean, like what's the
finish grade? >> No, the finish grade would be much less exposed if he was allowed to back fill and put So, again, this whole footing, I believe, is still exposed. Mr. Bronco was stopped in the process. The pool is still in its very early stages of being
uh formed and framed with with the um rebound material. So his wall is not backfilled. So I'm sure it would have had a blend of >> two foot of of material that would softened it. >> And he hadn't landscaped it yet either, which again. So
>> yeah, >> but it kind of looks like a it's like if you had a like a stone revetment that occupied a large part of the property, but instead of having it on the edge of the it it's just moved back. So it's a big stone wall. I mean it's it sticks
out quite >> you know you don't you don't you don't see that kind of stuff >> but the the finished plan is also supposed to be stone on it and it you know so >> yes he was going to put veneer u a product on it to get rid of the concrete >> with some plantings and you can you can
hide a lot of that with plantings and >> well yeah that's >> that's not but I'm saying I I I would probably suggest plantings before I started suing my neighbor Yeah, like this just seems like the >> ways around some of this stuff.
>> I think there was a practical from the you know from the owner's point of view rationale as to why he he did it this way is necessary for for his access to something rather than
going downstairs going into a pool that he wanted something that was uh he could access. But in any event, that's for the historical commission to deal with. I think that we're >> in more um
>> So, so Chris, is you going to look into our op I'm not opportunities, our options? And no, we're not going to we're not going to take action right now until I think we I mean, you really can't you don't want to take action until you know what the what the final product's going to look like, >> right? Right. So maybe when the
historical commission does their thing or the lawsuit goes to whatever happens, I don't even know how where they stand with that. But when that when that gets finished, then we'll uh we'll know. >> Yeah. I mean, you know, if the
if the if the people who are raising this and obviously have legal counsel, you know, want to submit a memo to us as to what they think our authority is under these circumstances based on the
wetlands regulations and cases. You know, there's no harm for that either. >> Mhm. >> You know. >> All right. Thank you. >> So, that would be another thing you could >> I just don't want to be enjoying the lawsuit for going after somebody who's not agree. No, no. And I think it'd be,
you know, it's not right. Yeah. I I totally agree with that. >> I mean, ultimately, whoever, whoever stamped the plan, if it's not correct. >> Yeah. >> From a liability standpoint, the professional engineer is the one who holds the bag on this. >> And again, in my opinion, is who is rendering that final decision. It's up
to him. >> Well, this is just to educate ourselves. And then what would we find out? We could decide that makes sense. Otherwise, >> tilting in windmills would not be a good use of our agents limited time. >> Perfect. Thank you.
>> I thought I thought even the windmills at the little, you know, little golf cult. >> No, we're not building anymore in the ocean. Those windmills. >> Well, the whales are happy. >> I have no more. >> Nothing else. Okay. Motion tojourn. >> I move. >> Thank you. Do we have a second? Second.
All in favor? That's unanimously. Thank you, Valerie Wilson. Thank