We have the October 14th meeting. The Conservation Commission will stand to salute the flag. This meeting is being recorded to the flag of the United States of America to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all. >> I thought he was thought he was here. >> All right. Phil, you came last year so you get the you're in the demoted seat now you that all right first we have a so for J&R Sun 17 Sodom Road so permit number 492
>> Mr. Chairman and members, JR and Sun, 17 Sodom Road. This is soil permit number 492. The um property is located at 17 Sodom Road. The owner has applied to renew the stockpile and transfer site permit at their property. The property, excuse me,
the property used to store materials that are used for the family's asphalt business. The site is in good working order. Uh there's no there's a buffer zone area on this site, but they are not actively working within that area. Recommendations. The Westport Conservation Soil Conservation Board
should approve the soil commit number 492 for one year. >> Thank you. Any questions, comments? Any questions from the board? If not, a motion. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Kevin and Jake. All in favor? Oppose.
All right. That's unanimously. You're welcome. What do we sign on that Chris? This one. >> The very left right hand. >> All these little lines right here. Jeez. >> All right. Next, we have uh Sarah
Henson, 1636W Drift Road. This is a request for determination. >> Chairman, Mr. Potter cannot make it. He has another meeting. He asked if I could just do the presentation for him. It's a request for extermination filed
for a septic repair at 1636 W Drift Road. This is Sarah Hinson's property. Uh they're proposing a new leeching field um within 54 ft of a wetland system that borders along the Westport
River and the small section of Fragmitees. The existing cess poolool is bought in the middle of the property that's proposed to be filled in place for a title 5. A new tank will be installed immediately outside the rear of the onebedroom structure and it will
go over to that leeching field. Um this is going to be raised slightly because of the water table. So it's probably going to be on the ground about 3 and 1/2 ft. Um but other than that it's a repair to to a system that's been there for quite some time. Um it's basically
about the only location they have that is suitable for that design given the well setbacks from the adjacent properties. All right. >> So I recommend for the board the Westport Conservation Commission should approve uh with a negative box 3
determination um with a condition I don't have that one with me, Mr. Chairman. >> I got it with a negative box three determination. That's right. I mixed up the one with Rogers. Has this gone to Border Health yet? >> I believe it has. It may have been heard
tonight. >> Do you know if this has been heard, Phil? >> I'm not sure. >> All right. Well, I guess we can just make it conditional on the >> condition. >> Yes, I think it was heard tonight, actually. Yes, it was. >> All right. Was it approved? >> Yes. >> All right. So, it was approved by the board of health. Anybody have any
questions, concerns? All right. Not a motion. >> Well, I'll move to approve the plan for the septic repair at 1636. Uh W drift uh drift road with a negative box 3 determination. >> Thank you. Second second from Bert. All
in favor? >> Pos. All right. That's unanimously. >> Next RDA for Antonio Rodri or Rodriguez 8 Cypress Lane construct pool in the buffer zone. Anybody here have for Mr. Ro Rodri?
>> Yes. >> Is it Rodri or Rodriguez? >> It's Rodri. >> All right. Thank you. >> Going around to a top. >> Good evening. For the record, Stevie Cavalo or Farland Corp. Um on behalf of
the applicant, Antonio Rogers. Uh what the applicant is looking to do is simply just install an inground pool in an established yard behind the existing dwelling, but in front of the existing shed. proposed work uh does include an
associated uh p paper patio around the concrete I around the ingground pool. Um all of the work is outside of the 50t buffer zone and all within an established lawn area. Be happy to answer any questions. >> All right, we'll read the report and
then see if we have any questions. >> Mr. Chairman Antonio Rodri Rodriguez 8 Cypress Lane is requested termination of applicability filed by Stevie Gavalo with Farland Corp. The port date is October 7th, 2025.
Site visit was also on October 7th, 2025. Description of the work the owner has filed to construct a 16x32 inground pool within the buffer zone. The work would be within 50 ft of that wetland area. All work is within the lawn area and
within the limit of work um within the limit of work approved for the single family home. So they're not expanding into the wooded area at all. Erosion controls be installed as the limit of work for this project. Any water observed during the installation should
be pumped through a hay bale check dam. Um I'm not sure if they are proposing it this time of year, but I think that is a decent uh special condition. Recommendations. Westport Conservation Commission should approve the ingground pool in the buffer zone with a negative box 3 determination with the condition
that any groundwater encountered may be pumped through a a bill checkown before a discharge if needed. >> You have any questions? >> No. >> No. Okay. >> Just a comment. The board of health approves inground pools. I don't know if
they've already got a board of health permit, but if not, we can make it conditional on getting a permit, >> right? You know, if >> I believe it's gone through the building permit process, so they the board of health is aware of this. >> Okay. >> I thought I heard the applicants consultant say there would be no work
within 50 ft of area and your description says it is within 50 ft. >> It's within the first 50 ft. So, I apologize. It's in the outer 50 ft of resource area.
So the pool itself is within 50 ft. >> It's it's all outside of the 50ft buffer. >> Still got radium patio, right? For the pool itself, I got >> This is the 50ft buffer. >> Yeah. >> All right. Any questions in the
audience? >> It's off topic, but I had to shoot one of my trucks behind yours. >> Just take a peek before you back out. >> If you hit it, hit it hard. >> Real hard. All right. Any questions from the audience? Any questions from the the
commission? If not, a motion. >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> All those in favor? Opposed? That was Jason and Phil. >> And that was unanimous. All right. Thank you very much.
All right. Next, we have continuence. Jonathan Buckman, notice of intent 0 Pineh Hill Road. Uh SR SR se 2812 construct single family dwelling
driver grading in the inland coastal area. >> How you doing, sir? >> Good. Good. Thank you. Good evening everyone. My name is Adam Rossky. I'm an environmental lawyer with DTM Law in Kingham. Hello, Mr. Weinberg. Nice to see you again, sir.
>> Brad. >> And I'm here representing the applicant, Jonathan Buffman. Uh together with me this evening is Brad Holmes, our professional weather and scientist with ECR, Eddie Jacobs, our professional land surveyor with PMP, as well as Samantha
Crips from his office. Um, you're familiar with this property. uh you're familiar with the wetland resource areas. There's no issue whatsoever with respect to the delineation of those wetland resource areas and you're familiar with the project. But I do want
to speak to the project purpose and obviously Mr. Buckman is not seeking just to construct a single family dwelling and driveway anywhere on the property. Um he specifically selected the location of the dwelling in the
uplands outside of the riverfront area because it candlely it's the best location for the proposed house. So the project purpose uh is the proposed single family dwelling in this preferred uh location. Now I submitted to the
board just some thoughts with respect to the legal aspects of this uh notice of intent and I particularly addressed the access limited project provisions in the state wellness protection act regulations. Um and I uh alluded uh in
my September 8, 2025 to the fact that this project may not need uh the limited project exception. The project as I've indicated and is reflected in the materials submitted by Brad uh meets all of the performance standards that is all
the performance standards for work in bordering vegetated wetlands inland bank uh land subject coastal storm flowage which doesn't have performance standards um neither does the buffer zone to BBW but there's one exception with respect
to riverfront area and that is that the proposed driveway would encroach within 100 ft of the perennial stream and therefore there's no minimum 100 ft of undisturbed vegetation under the riverfront area regulations. However, if
you dig into the regulations of 310 CR10.5841A, it allows the conservation commission to permit such work if the applicant demonstrates that there's an area of undisturbed vegetation with an overall average width of 100 ft which will
provide the equivalent protection. And then alternatively um that uh there's a partial rebuttal of the presumption of significance sufficient to justify a lesser area of undisturbed vegetation. Uh Brad uh
together with uh uh Eddie and Samantha have actually calculated the actual average width of undisturbed vegetation um that will result from this project and I believe it's 198.5 ft. it exceeds
the average 100 foot. Um I also suggest that given the fact that the lot is a little over a portion acres and we're proposing to alter 3.8% of the roof criteria um that uh that that the board could find a partial
rebuttal of the presumption of significance for this project. So what I just want to be clear is is that this project can meet all of the performance standards for work within riverfront area and may not need the limited
project exception uh for the driveway. But again, just to make sure we're bootstrapping here, if in fact we do need that exception, we've demonstrated that there's no reasonable alternative consistent with 310 CMR 10.53380.
And and reasonable is the key word. And I suggest that reasonable in the context of of a case that's impacting Riverfront area is different than reasonable in concerning, for example, impacts to BBW. And in fact in the uh riverfront area
regulations reasonable is specifically defined to mean practicable and substantially equivalent economically taking into consideration costs existing technology proposed use and logistics. And I believe in my research this is
because it was never the intention of the rivers act to prohibit construction in the riverfront area. The goal was to preserve as much as reasonably possible within the river runs area to protect the perennial stream or river. Um uh the
access limited project exception does not define reasonable but I suggest that it should be informed by the riverfront regulations in this case and the purpose of the rivers act. of the proposed location again in the uplands uh closer
to the Westport River is the only reasonable alternative to achieve Jonathan's project purpose. In fact, denying an order of conditions for that preferred alternative may result in a loss of significant market value of this property. Uh, I provided to the
conservation commission a market value analysis of the proposed dwelling in the preferred location versus market value of, for example, a house along Pine Hill Road. Uh, and that dimmunition value approximately $2 million, very
substantial amount of money. It just so happens that uh that alternative appeared to be preferred by the neighbors. I understand that there were numerous neighbors submitting letters in support of the project and I suggest they don't want to see a dwelling in a different location. Uh they prefer to
see the dwelling in the preferred locations. I don't know how deep you want me to go into the case that I cited in my letter. I found only one reported case that addressed an access limited project which did not comply with bird standards. More often than not, you see
a lot of cases dealing with border and vegetated well. someone who's proposing to alter more than 5,000 square feet of BBW and it needs to uh needs relief because anything more than that's prohibited under the state regulations. So I gave you the case of uh the matter
of Jeff Amura. In that case the applicant owned a little over 30 acres and in fact proposed a three lot subdivision. Um that subdivision was proposed to the access pipe uh to the proposed access to those uplands was
proposed by a bridge uh over the perennial streeting. The presiding officer in that case found that the access limited project complied with the exemption standards and the applicant was not in that case required to accept an offer to sell his land as advocated
by 10 residence group. Apparently, there was an abuter willing to purchase land for open space and the abuters wanted to consider that as a an alternative. Uh ultimately, the presiding officer upheld mass EP's approval of that roadway project. I think that case is
interesting because there's no argument made that uh Mr. Amaro needed to reduce the scope of this project that for example, he was only entitled to one house and not three houses. and I think uh recognized this this this concept of
of economic practicability um that I think is special under the rivers riverfront regulations. So with that said, I'd like to have Brad with your permission to explain the calculation of the average width of uh of undisturbed
vegetated. Before we go into that, our our our question or our issue is not the access, assuming that we're the only place you could put the house. Our our issue is the fact that he does have another buildable lot or a potentially buildable lot up front up top. And I
know the neighbors don't want it there, and I know he doesn't want to be there. I would want to be down where he wants to be, too. But from what we read or from what we read and what our our attorney said, if you have another practical alternative on your lot in your name, titled in your name, then you
have to take that before you go and do the the limited project. >> So, um, town council didn't render an opinion one way or the other. and he simply recognized what the regulations say and that is that uh you need to
demonstrate that there's no reasonable alternative. Uh I I've suggested that you need to interpret the word reasonable in the context of the riverfront regulations which is special because those are the only wetland regulations that factor in economic
considerations. And so I believe that uh that what I'm presenting to you is entirely consistent um with what town council told you. This is what the regulations say. You need to make a determination. Again, if we need an
access limited project exception, if you need to reach that issue, you need to determination determine what is reasonable in the context. The word reasonable again is not defined in the wetland regulations. I suggest that you need to or I should say it's generally
not defined in the wetland regulations. You need to define and interpret reasonal in the context of the riverfront regulations which do specifically allow you to consider economic considerations. So, I have a comment on that part of it and I don't have the regulation, the
riverfront regulation in in front of me, but my recollection is that it's pretty specific as to the type of cost that can be calculated and I view them as outofpocket costs to um design and
construct the project. And for example, it says profits that you might lose if you do not if you don't get what you want is not considered a cost. And what I see
um you're proposing is that this there is this speculative based on other properties loss of future value to the property in the event he doesn't get to
construct a house with a riverview. And I don't see that as an outofpocket cost the way that is expressed in the riverfront regulations. Now I could be wrong but uh to me there's an analogy
between the regulation specifically excluding lost future profits from a proposed alternative as not counting towards an economic factor is the same as saying well my property
values could go up in the future if I if I execute according to what I want. So why you're correct. There's a specific definition of cost and it specifically talks about profits. This is not a for profit. This is not a speculative
developer coming in in order to maximize profit. You have a a gentleman who wishes to construct his personal home. I'm talking about the intrinsic value of the property would be affected. that I think is reasonable to consider for
purposes of again the economic effect of the on the alternatives analysis. So again perhaps and that's why the case is is kind of interesting. They allow that gentleman to uh to develop a three lot subdivision
again without consideration. So theoretically, I guess if if I it's unclear from the record, why didn't they say to him, "Oh, well, we'll give you one lot and not three." Um, it's I I I think there's a difference between lost profit and the intrinsic market value of
this property, which informs the decision as to reasonable alternatives. Well, I guess without being repetitive, I view the regulation to talk much more to out-ofpocket costs and comparing the ability to execute the projects. And
also in the at in the alternatives if we went down this path in the alternatives analysis the only critique of lot one the lot that's closer to the public way in the alternatives analysis was and I
fully understand it. I've been there myself personally is you know uh the loss of uh you know privacy and their own viewhip. But you really didn't provide an economic analysis of to
compare them economically. What would the value of the property be on lot one as compared to the value of the property on loss two? >> We did provide that that analysis. I didn't I didn't I guess I didn't see that in the version of the that I saw
but >> no no we submitted a separate submitt with a market value analysis as well as the resume of the real estate professional who >> I I saw that for the uh anyway >> again as I said I don't think you even
need to reach uh the limited project exception because as as Brad will explain to you um we are providing the equivalent environmental protection which is the whole purpose of this exercise and the purpose of the riverfront regulations
here and demonstrated that as we meet all those performance stands we don't need to rely upon that exception. So >> I I understand but but no one has answered and I asked Mr. homes just a couple times the last meeting. Why are you not I know understand you want the
value, you want the view. I agree 100% with that. It's great, but the how I read the the particular uh section that Chris gave to us unlimited project, it talks about the fact that there's no other area on the property that can be used. No one's answered the question
other than the fact that the neighbors don't want it and I don't want it >> or they Mr. that so that that doesn't you know so to me that it's not how much wetlands because I mean if you didn't have that lot up front this would probably get approved I mean I'm not saying it's not I can't I don't vote for
everybody if you didn't have that lot up front this would would be not probably not as big an issue >> this is a closer case I think what you're referring to is the wetlands policy 88-2 >> you have that Chris I don't >> there's there's an inherent problem with that because that policy was actually
drafted in 1988 8. The Rivers Act was adopted in 1996 and the riverfront area regulations was adopted in 1997. DP never went back to that access policy to specifically address riverfront. They actually did go
back in 1997 uh to the limited project regulations and they've run those regulations to include riverfront. So the relevance of the DB policy with respect to riverfront area I I question. >> Okay. to be quite honest um it just has
not been updated and I I stand to be correct Mr. Wyberg I believe that's how that all went down >> all right I mean if Mr. Holmes wants to give us a brief description, that's fine. But I mean, I I like I said, I don't believe the way we see or way I
see it anyway, that how much alteration is is the the real issue. The my my sticking point, me personally, I can't speak for >> that. That's why we're providing you with I think a more direct way to address this issue because we're going to show you um that this in fact meets
the performance standards for work in the roofing area. Brad, do you want to explain? Thank Thank you very much. >> One point towards the policy is as Adam mentioned, I think that that policy was geared to boring vegetative wetlands where you had a maximum of 5,000 square
ft again prior to the wetlands prior to the riverfront regulations. So, if you if you if this project was a BBW project and we didn't have a riverfront and we were and we were trying to go over 5,000 square feet to get to this part, the
limited project provisions would direct you back to what you're talking about. >> We're way under 5,000 ft of BBW. So, we're not we're not held to that. Um what Adam was describing about is we filed the we included the limited
project provision because we we can't avoid going over the stream to get to this uplift. But when you look at the limited when you look at the no significant adverse impact for riverfront it talks about the first 100 ft. But as Adam mentioned before it
talks about what's your overall width. you do you do you have at least 100 ft of overall undisturbed uh inner riparian area because this property here has riverfront on all three sides. So we have riverfront all the way through here
and and on this side you have a an enormous amount of riverfront distance on the site. And what uh PMP has been able to calculate is the overall undisturbed riverfront area. That distance is 908.5
ft. The reason for that is because all that we're occupying for the riverfront is for this driveway here. we would be able to to maximize out to 10% so that the the you know the house and yard could enter this area but we don't need to. We can keep it outside and keep the
riverfront at only 3.8% as proposed. So that what you're looking at is this project maintains all that 200 feet on this side almost 200 feet except when you calculate this and you calculate that you come out with a total of 198.5
ft of undisturbed buffer way beyond or I'm sorry undisturbed riverfront way beyond the 100 foot distance that's listed in the no significant address. Thank you. Does anybody else have any comments or
questions? >> Do you guys have any comments or questions? So, I'm maybe I need a a point of clarification as to whether or not um the applicant is saying that the
um that uh I think it's lot one, which is a lot closer to the public way, is a um a viable alternative, but it's not practicable
as the riverfront regulations define them because of the greater property value of lot two. Is that the argument or is they saying that it's just it's not doing the alternatives analysis
you're not you don't have to consider lot one as an as as a available alternative. Does that question make sense? like is your is your case turning on the economic difference or are you just saying that that there are some features
of lot one that just don't make it available? Uh I I can't speak to the features of lot one because the preferred location is lot two. And yes, our argument is if we need the limited project provision,
>> we I that that because of of of because of of of the difference in extrinsic extrinsic value of those two propositions that no one would choose to develop lot one and not lot two. >> Okay. Okay.
Okay. I mean, just one more comment. I I I mean, I appreciate the comments that were made about the limited impact on wetland resources,
but my understanding of the analysis is the commission's job to minimize wetlands impacts. Even if you might allow an alteration, I think it we're in a situation where you have one lot where there is no
wetlands impacts and you have the other lot where there are at least three wetland impacts relative to and um I just think that is a distinction that makes a difference as
to how we're supposed to implement the regulation >> is permittable. But >> I don't disagree with you that the wetland regulations aspirationally want you to avoid wetland impacts. >> However, they also incorporated
performance standards which allow you to >> absolutely absolutely >> to impact wetlands provided you present credible evidence that you meet those performance standards which is what we have done this evening. So I I I share with you your aspiration, but as a
practical matter, um there's a pathway here to issuing an order of conditions to approve this project. >> Right. And I understand what you're saying is the distinction is is that lot two is more valuable than lot one. And so the applicant has a right to choose
the val the the the lot that um achieves greater economic value to him. only because the one standard that we do not meet is riverfront as as Brad suggested if we were talking about BBW
it' be a very different conversation it's simply because when conserving alternatives in the riverfront area there there's this economic consideration at its core and was placed there I believe intentionally um because
again reading the preamble to the rivers act there was never an intention to use the rivers act to prohibit development in riverfront area. They simply wish to regulate it. Uh nothing that we're going to do is going to impair the functioning of that riverfront uh to protect those
perennial streams and rivers. It's such a dimminimous alteration in this case. >> All right. Thank you. >> Any other questions? The limited project regulations don't consider economic value. It's only
wetland impacts and economic value under the wetland regulations seems irrelevant. >> All right. Anybody else? Nothing from the audience. All right. Then looking for a motion.
Just point of order. Chair, are we the motion based on the report that we have? >> I mean, it's up to you. You want you can vote to approve it or you can you can vote to deny. That's up that's up whoever want to make the motion. I can go back in the hallway. >> Well,
thank you. >> Is that you referred to a report? Is that a report from the agent on this? I don't know what that is. >> Yeah, it's a a report written by the agent. Would you have an extra copy? >> I should have one. I don't know. Do you
want to give me a copy? Oh, you already wrote on yours. >> I don't know what to do with mine. We'll get I'll give you one before in just a minute. >> Thank you very much. >> What happened? L >> 10. >> All right.
This is 910. just to move the discussion forward and to express you know my own personal opinion is is this is just a a complicated I feel is
like a complicated project in a comp affecting a complicated set of regulations which is the riverfront regulations and um I'm
concerned that we have this fairly I think I don't know unique situation of the there being a a buildable lot uh on the same property that the
applicant owns which has no impact on uh weapons at all. And this other issue about whether the distinction is between between these two properties, you know,
the economic val the difference in economic valuation of the project and um and secondly um and I don't think that the alternatives analysis was circulated
among members of the board. I I I just happened to um see it, you know, today and um and I'm not sure that it really, you know, kind of passes muster because the
only part that I saw was speaking to the legitimate concerns of the abutters. But uh you know that's not a issue that is or a concern that the riverfront regulations
um and so it may be that uh so that leads me to think that it's a complex enough issue that I'd really that might benefit from getting DP's
um view on this because it's really potentially significant if we approve a project like this where you have uh you know one lot that has no impact
and another piece of the property has went impacts but it'll yield higher property values for the you know for the applicant. I think that can open up a lot of projects
and I'm concerned about setting the precedent um without confidence that we're doing the right thing under the regulations to do that. So that motivates me to
uh you know deny the you know to deny the project but I don't know what other people on the commission feel presumably appeal and appeal is supering art conditions and we'll have the state
>> that's what I'm you know and I realize that that that is you uh a burden on the applicant. Um uh but at least in my experience on the
commission, I view this as a fairly precedent setting set of circumstances which could have ramifications. Most of the other riverfront projects that we look at and the vast majority of them that we approve
are much more bread and butter than I think the set of facts in this case are. So >> was that a motion? >> Well, I'm just offering I'm just don't want to be >> well right.
>> I want I want to hear other commission members opinions about it. >> Sure. if it you know if it's not if not I'll just to promote the discussion I'll make the motion and see what happens but
okay so I would move >> um I move to the to deny the the notice of intent um because it doesn't uh meet uh either it doesn't meet the
require the the requirements for the limited project review for roadway access or the riverfront regulations because there is a reasonable practical alternative lot owned by the applicant for the proposed project without any wetlands impacts.
>> I second that. Um to follow up on Phil, I think this is probably a discussion that's going to obviously be elevated beyond us. We're asked for legal counsel and legal opinion. Uh they the town council provided that opinion. Uh, and we're
going to use that obviously in this denial. Um, let him move forward. I think that's probably the best course of action for us to protect our town and protect our uh, wetlands.
>> I just make one comment. I I guess Phil I don't the precedent setting aspect of this doesn't concern me that much because um there's enough gray area in this situation that I'm not
it's highly unlikely that foreseeable future we'll have another similar project. So and we always have the option to kick it up to D. So, I'm >> I'm not afraid that we're going to upend our waterfront regulations in town just
because of this one. And I >> I struggle with this one because I see what we've had to hold our noses and vote for with some of the the ground array solar projects and the really adverse impacts
that our votes have had on abutters and multigenerational properties. And this one, if there is some degree of gray area, I guess I want to tiptoe into that gray area because allowing the applicant to
do what he wants to do benefits the utters. Um it he's going to extraordinary measures to build a bridge. Um,
I I guess if there is a hint of gray area in this situation, I I guess I want to go there. I I just I don't other than maybe slightly bending a regulation or whatever. I I I think this is a
situation that warrants a little bit of discretion and not necessarily just the letter of the law. All right. Any other comments? All right. So, we have a motion from Phil, a second from Jake. All those in favor?
I >> opposed. >> All right. I'm in favor. So, that's four to two. >> So, that carries >> Jason and Kevin opposed. >> Thank you. >> Okay. And next we have
Susan Etsy. Notice of intent 44 Palmer Lane. Construct fixed pier gang way and float in place of existing pair. >> Alan, how are you? >> Good. >> Did I Did I put that in there? I'm sorry. It's SEA 20 2813.
>> Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay. Whenever you're ready, Alan. >> All right. Thank you. Good evening. For the record, my name is Alan Peru. And for this hearing, I'm representing Susan Estie and Larry Sullivan. They're both
here. And they own a house at 44 Palmer Lane on the shore of the Westport River West Branch. We propose to replace an existing pier and mooring piles with a
69 ft long fixed pier 20ft gang way and a 10x20 float with float stops designed in accordance with current regulations. The record waterways license plan three sheets is dated September 12th 2025
revised through October 6th 2025. on the easel or on the board I have an enlargement of sheet one the plan view of a waterways license plan and I've highlighted in yellow the property lines
pier this is the existing house there is an existing pier in the same location where we are proposing the new pier the new pier will be elevated uh to meet the one and a half to one width the height
ratio over a 8ft wide strip of salt marsh along the existing stone reetment at the shoreline. So as you can see about 24 ft of the pier is actually on the land but um we established the
height of the deck of the pier based on the requirement for crossing this bit of salt marsh. So we narrowed the pier to 40 in for the first three pile bays until we get across the salt marsh and then we widen the pier to 48 in for the
seawward three pile bays. So the length of the pier is approximately the same as what's there. We're going to remove the existing pier and remove a couple of moing piles and install a 20ft gang way and a float. So on the plan, I've
highlighted the mean high water line in dark blue and the mean low water in a dash blue line. Approximately 130 ft offshore is a eelgrass meadow eelgrass bed which we located and the
proposed float is approximately 49 ft from the eelgrass bed. On the property, there exists a stone seaw wall rebetment and an 8 foot wide strip of salt marsh along the face of the seaw wall and an eel grass bed
approximately 130 ft offshore. The width of the proposed pier over the salt marsh is 40 in. The deck elevation is 6.8 mean sea level which meets the 1 and 12:1 height to width ratio recommended by the
department of marine fisheries. The uh pier is 5 ft minimum above the salt marsh measured to the bottom of the strings. The width of the seawward three pile bays of the pier is 48 in. We
propose we propose four piles to anchor the float with float stops to keep the float 30 in minimum above the substrate and shellfish habitat. The proposed float is approximately 49 ft away from the eelgrass bed. David Pashette,
wetlands consultant, performed a negrass survey at the property on July 12th, 2025. His report to the commission is dated July 31st, 2025. We received a report and a project
review letter from Amanda Davis, environmental analyst, the division of marine fisheries, dated September 26, 2025. So, I have a copy of those two reports for you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you.
>> To respond positively to Amanda's comments, we added the following two notes on sheet one. The piles for the existing pier and existing mooring piles shall be fully removed from the substrate rather than cut at the base.
The float stop shall be set to keep the entire float 2 and 1/2 ft minimum above the substrate at mean low water. And then we refer to that note in the detail and on the profile sheet. The mass D file number is SE80-2813
and we respectfully request the approval of this plan and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. >> Thank you. Chris will read the report and then we can get into questions. >> Mr. Chairman Susan Etsy and Larry Sullivan 44 Palmer Lane. This is a notice of intent application filed by Kuru Engineering with Alan Guru
representing. Report date is October 6, 2025. The file number with no adverse comments is SE2813 as Allan Cordely passed out. We've also have DMF comments and they have some minor concerns for the egrass beds as
Allan had indicated in his presentation. The description of the work. The applicant was filed to license and build a new fixed pier gangway and float on the west branch of the river. The site has an existing fixed pier that will be removed. The new fixed pier in the same general location as Allan mentioned. The
first section will be 40 in wide extending out to a section then will be 48 in wide to a length of 69 ft. There will be a 3x 20 gang way and a 10x 20 float. The orientation would appear in the west to east direction which is
favorable uh to allow sunlight to penetrate under the structure. Uh for this this particular dock, the eelgrass survey conducted by Dave Pette identifies sparse eel grass 35 ft uh to the main eel grass bed and approximately
60 ft out from the farthest existing pile. uh as Allen referenced in his uh presentation, those piles are what David used uh for his location of those sparse areas. Allen's willing to remove those piles uh in a restoration effect for um
the concerns that DMF had. The knock the uh dock will not provide any shade or prop wash to this large eelass bed. If you see in the photo that I gave you on your report, that little hatch line I put is actually the visible bed. So, you
can see that the dock still has a distance between that and that main bed. Um, when you look on the aerial photos, unfortunately, Leon didn't put this in color, but it's so clear that um you can visually see it um from the naked um eye
in that aerial portrayal. Um the bottom the dock will maintain the 5-ft height that will not require stairs for public egress. Reflective tape is to be installed on all seaweed edges per the marine services and the dock will require float stops to maintain the 30
in from the bottom. Resource areas to be impacted as land uh land subject to coastal storm flows, land containing shellfish, coastal bank and riverfront. I have the following recommendation for the board. The Westport Conservation Commission should approve the proposed
fixed pier, gang way, and float uh on the west branch of the river for file number SE2813 with standard dock conditions. Mr. Chairman, that is all. >> Thank you. Any questions, Ellen? >> No. >> All right. Any questions from the
audience? >> All right. >> Much to approve. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion from Jake, second from uh Jason. Any discussion or questions? If not, all in favor? >> I >> opposed. All right, that's unanimous.
>> Thank you very much. Have a good evening. >> Thank you, Alan. >> Okay. >> Did you plan up the whole evening? >> Now, what's that? What's that? What's that right there? >> That's shells. >> That's uh Charlotte White's a solid
field here at the end of Palmer Lane. Yeah. And they filled it with they put clamshells on. What property is that? >> Yeah. >> Oh, that's okay. I got it. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Is close by. Yeah, one of his is
next. >> Nicholas Larry. Notice of intent 200 Atlantic Avenue. Renovations to single family dwelling and associated septic upgrade with grading in the buffer zone and land subject to coastal storm flowage. Didn't Didn't we have this last time? Do we have a No.
>> No. >> All right. Are you representing Mr. Lair? >> Yes. >> Do you have your notification cards? >> Um, we I don't have a physical copy of those. Um, >> did you send us copies? >> Yes, we do. >> Do we have Do you send us the green flag
receipts? >> Yes. Uh, I believe we did. If not, I I can >> Well, if we can't open the hearing unless we have them. So, I mean, >> I can double check. I know you sent me the proof that you sent them out, but you didn't get any responses back from
the applicants. Usually get a return receipt. >> No. >> Um I I would have to check on that. Could you check your fold and just
>> Yes, Mr. Chand. >> All right, we got that's fine. >> We got I apologize for that. >> All right, go ahead and site presentation, please. >> Hello everyone. My name is Abby Ismile, project manager for Princip Engineering,
representing the applicant. Um, so this project is um related to interior renovations to the house to increase bedrooms from the existing three-bedroom to five bedrooms. So with that, there is also the proposed upgrade of the septic
system, both the leechfield and the tank. Uh, the existing septic system was installed in 1985. Um it is it's located in the southeast of the site. Um a portion of the existing leech field does encroach into
the 100 ft wetland buffer zone uh that's associated with the area of ponding in the lower lawn. Um so the proposed plan is to uh abandon that existing leechfield um and relocate
the new leech field um fully outside of the buffer zones and with the upgrade as well uh we will be adding uh innovative and alternative technologies with denitrification uh which was not present in the existing septic system.
Um so there is in addition to the area of ponding in the lower lawn there is also a coastal bank um associated with Rhode Island Sound um to the very to the south of the site. Uh so we have on this
plan we've indicated the setbacks to this initial bank um that's immediately uh adjacent to the water um and then We have also indicated a secondary bank um
associated with this slope um off of Beach Avenue. So we have this dimension is to the very outer edge of the area that we disturbed for the new Leechfield. So we have um over 225 ft to
this secondary coastal bank and more to the the one that's directly adjacent to the water as well as over 100 ft to this um wetland area of ponding the lower. Um if I can continue I have Bren and Faf
here with me to speak more on the wetlands or >> Sure. No, absolutely. Thank you, Brandon Fanov, professional wetland scientist with ecosystem solutions. Um, yeah, so just a a quick rundown on on our wetland resource areas. Um,
land under the ocean beach. Uh, then we got the top of the first coastal bank. Uh then there's a doom that goes to beach a and then we have that that separation of beach a and just past it uh there's a little rise uh which Abby
here did the calculations on uh based on on Chris's recommendations um because he thought there might be a second coastal bank uh and come to find out that rise right there does meet the criteria so she created a second coastal
bank on the north side of beach Avenue uh which has its own 100t uh buffer zone and then it goes down into a hollow. Uh and and the funny thing is that this entire area uh all this area is the the
the people here like manicure it uh if you haven't seen it but uh in here there's a hollow that that fills up uh with water and you can see it on aerial photographs especially for the spring photographs like the April photographs and at this point we're uh we didn't do
a delineation but it's it's pretty well combined right around to uh elevation hive uh that we're presuming to be be a wetland area. Uh and then the the land continues to go up uh to where the the house and the leechfield are proposed.
The entire area just about is also within land subject to coastal storm flow. It's the 100-year coastal flood plane and it's the uh the coastal uh ve zone velocity zone. Okay. So uh in our on our uh submission, Mr.
Capone made some uh very uh um useful comments and and he he has a a valid point as well. Are there any other uh coastal banks here because the land does continue to rise? Uh so Abigail and I uh
did the calculations and we did a analysis of the slope going from the the uh this low carrier right here with the zooming dwell up to about where the safety system is and we found it had a 17 to1
slope which does not meet the criteria for coastal bank. Uh but then Mr. Kevin came back as well you really need to include the entirety of the flood zone. Uh so we have to go back to the drawing
board to satisfy Mr. Pone uh which is what we plan to do with uh with the cross-sectional details of of each one of these uh slope transetss. So that's that's where we stand right now. >> All right. >> Yeah. >> So you're looking for a continuence a
two week continuence four week. >> Yes, please. >> Two >> uh two or four I think you can get this done in two. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Two weeks. >> Two weeks unless Mr. Capone has further comments. Do you want to just continue with tweets? >> I only would like to express that this plan was received today and we require a
week in advance submitt of any revised plans. Secondly, I don't necessarily believe that they met the coastal bank requirements by their present presentation tonight. They need to have a trans line showing the slope profile
as well as a cross-section. I am in my opinion there is I believe a coastal bank further up the slope than what they represent. Um, and that's based on it. As you get closer up the hill, there's a very flat spot as Brandon mentioned, but as you get closer towards the home,
there's a rise in a settle ledge. So, I know that they're very Let me go back. This is new construction. They're increasing flow. So, this applicant needs to meet Title 5 to a T. They know variance is allowed. So my concerns are we need to see this coastal bank
referenced accurately for the board of health's interpretation so that they can make a decision on their side of the title five issue. We have now an activity entirely within a velocity zone which is a very volatile resource area.
So there is a septic system currently adjacent to their proposed location. Um but because the increase in flow this gets looked at a lot more stringently in my opinion. their septic tank based on title 5 needs to be cited outside the
velocity zone as well. Um, and I'm stretching that opinion because that's kind of a border health requirement, but they're going to try to present this to us. We should have a plan that's going to meet the board of health requirements as well. So, I do suggest a two-e continuence. I am looking for that
coastal bank profile showing those cross-sections as well and any consideration they have if they can relocate that septic component um for a title five. That is all I have. >> Do you think two weeks is enough to get all this done? >> It is. We we we shall get everything
that Mr. Capone asked for. Um and then you know the numbers will be what they are. >> That's correct. I'm not I'm not trying to make them what they're not. I'm not here to say you can't do this. I'm saying you have a very unique situation. You got ledge. There really is no other area to put the leeching field. So I
want to follow through with title five. It does have that allowance for them if they do not have a feasible location through the board of health to to get that approved. So I am not here to deny the project. I would just like to see all the resource areas identified. >> All right. For a motion for twoe
continuence. >> Motion continue. >> Second. >> Okay. That was Jake and Jason. All in favor? So that's what the 29th. >> 28th. >> 28th. Okay. >> Thank you for hearing. >> All right. Thank you. Have a good evening. So that's contained to the 28th.
>> That was unanimous. >> All right. Moving right along. Tracy Piv notice of intent zero register. AB construct single family dwelling with point source discharge in the buffer zone. Anybody here for Miss Piv? What's that?
>> Questions prepared. >> Good evening. >> Yeah. Good evening everyone. My name for the record, my name is George A. I'm representing >> Let me have the green card, please. George,
>> yeah. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Just wait for Chris to get back in just a second. All right. >> Oh, he's back. >> All right. You want to drink?
You Whenever you're ready, George. This is the original lamp. Okay. Septic lamp. Okay, gentlemen. What we have here is uh we have a two grandfather
uh vacant lots. They were combined together. They were created in 19 1917 over 100 years ago. Those are buildable lots. They're uh the total area of the lot, both of them, is 64,000
square ft. This is the limit right here. We got about 400 ft frontage on Register Avenue and another 400 ft frontage on Construct Dav. And uh those two streets are not developer
right now. They are basically three. There's no no access over there. Here we got quite a bit of upland on those two those two lots. Got some upland here and upland here. And the area of the upland is 27,780
square ft. And we got some wetlands in the middle. The area is about 36,220 ft. Uh those lots were recently parked and uh we're proposing a three bedroomedroom
single family house um on the lot on a on a slab that's not going to have a basement. Also we are proposing a gravel driveway and uh adjacent to the driveway we have
a proposing a swale along register air from the intersection of long street all the way to uh to the property. Uh the wetland line has been uh flagged and approved by the agent a while back
and we're not proposing any work within 25 ft of uh of the wetland line except the well will be located at least above 10 ft from the from the wetland line. All other work is outside the 25 ft buffer zone.
We are proposing a new septic system that meet the state and town requirements and for this septic system we are using a micro fast system. uh instead of a regular conventional tank.
Uh that is which is now is a town requirement by the way and this will reduce the nitrogen in the ground and uh also we're proposing a uh quick for
the leeching field which is uh reduce the area by 40%. and will recharge the effluent in the ground more safely. In addition to this, we are proposing a dry well to pick up the roof runoff and
store it and store it and infiltrate it in the soil. In addition to this, we are proposing another 12in pipe that brought up brought our attention lately under uh
loan street to help the situation here. Siltation fence will be added at the 25 ft buffer and uh after that the area will be lubed and
seated and drive will be gravel. We're going to have a uh drive will be from this point to to the property and we got quite a bit of flat area proposed right here. It's at least 50 foot diameter in case
for emergency vehicle and again we're not working within 25 ft the buffer. All work is an upland area and it's a straightforward single family house nothing else. All the roof drain would
be roof runoff would be discharged on the ground and uh that's it. I mean >> crystal readers report and then quick question. You said register a and conscript you don't have access to them or or did you say you don't have access to conscript or register?
>> What happened? This is conscript avenue here and register avenue here. I think the last house is right here. Uh but this is a tree. We got some wetlands in over here and the best access is to come around Lone Street and access the
property here. We're not impacting any wetland and no work here. There are some wetlands on other side of uh Lone Street. U again this is a 50ft buffer right here. We're not working anything within 50. >> All right. I respond to Sammy. I I
wasn't quite clear. Thank you. I appreciate that. Chris, Mr. Chairman members Tracy Py register AB again this doesn't really have an address this a note intent application filed by George Aub engineer of record the report date
is October 9th 2025 is a file number issued by the state uh with no address comments it's se 802814 uh agencies required to be status would be the building department and the board of health description of work the owner
has filed to construct access to the property located on a section of Register A not constructed. The owner also is proposing a single family home well uh uh sewage disposal system and grading within the buffer zone to wetlands. The wetlands have been
delineated on abbreviated resource area delineation and approved on order of resource area delineation and approved except the section of wetland located on others property to the east. This happens to be the wetland to the east of Lone Street. Um, this wetland is just
below Loan and registered intersections. This was found um after the uh owner determined that this would be his least uh all adverse effect uh access rather than coming in as he previously was
considering from register. So this has been discussed with the board prior because there was some activity on the site um and numerous complaints have been coming in for the past couple months. So um this access is being designed of
adequate width to satisfy the fire department uh and use in an emergency is capable with a hammerhead that will be proposed as a turnaround in the property itself. Um the access in the beginning
will require a coit to be installed under Lone Street to allow the water to flow from the west parcels over to the east section of that wetland. Um the access way and frontage must be reviewed by the building commissioner, determine
if it satisfy the zoning requirements and if it is adequate uh for those considerations. A drainage swell will be installed on the north side of the access and this will direct any storm water toward the wetman east of Lone Street. Now and George presentation even
mentioned that he has provided drainage calculations that show that there is no adverse effects from this design that would contribute to more offsite water flow. Uh and everything has been designed in accordance with those drainage calculations. The single family
house, well, and septic are proposed on the lots owned by the African. All this work is within 25 ft of the wetland previously approved. A 32x 28 home uh developed on a slab will be constructed uh 34 ft at the closest point to the
wetland. The septic system in this case is allowed under the pre-existing lock criteria and its location meets the minimum setback of title 5 of 50 ft from a wetland. A denitrification component
is part of that design uh which is a requirement on pre-existing lots um from the board of health. The well location is shown within the 25 ft no activity area on the south end of the lot. The proposed well location is the only
portion of the lot that can have the well installed in order to maintain the 100 ft from septics and it septic itself. Uh the total amount of disturbance on this small lot area will be 6,750
square ft including the house. Uh erosion controls will be required to be installed along the 25 ft limit and along the access way on both sides. Again, as I mentioned, the board of health needs to approve the septic. Um,
roof runoff will be diverted into a drywall system. As George mentioned, >> uh, within that, uh, small upland area, resource areas impacted again for the commission. This is only a buffer zone activity, uh, except that minor uh,
crossing that they do in the beginning of Lone Street. Um, but I can't constitute that as wetland and per se. It's more of a conveyance of water, allowing water from one side to make it to the other side. Um, one of the neighbors had conditions that iced up.
So, we're trying to alleviate any of those concerns and make sure the water stays away and does not affect any of the abuing property owners. So recommendations for this board tonight. The West Park Conservation Commission should approve the proposed project file
number SC80 2814 with the conditions and this is pending board of health um approval. Mass DAP filing was received today. The conditions are as follows. Erosion controls to be staked in place will be
the limit of all clearing and along both sides of the access constructed. Well location will cry an excavated sump adjacent to collect any spoils during the installation. Disturbed area within the 25 ft no activity area shall be
stabilized with native seed mixture. Split rail fence or similar to be erected along the entire length of the 25 ft no activity area and shall remain in perpetuity. drainage swale to be installed during the access construction
and stabilized with hay bale check dams until seating establishes. All disturbed edges of the access shall be seated immediately upon completion. Uh a 12 inch ads pipe culvert to be installed under the access at Lone Street will
require an asbuilt plan to ensure proper elevations have been obtained and rip wrap aprons installed on the inlet and outlet sides of that installation. Lastly I added was roof runoff is to be directed into a drywall system. That is
all Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Do you have any questions George? >> No. >> All right. Any questions from the table? All right. Questions from the audience? All right. Start right up here in the front. Sorry. Just state your name and
just ask a question, please. >> My name is Bob Gagney. Um, I live at the west end of this property at the top. Um, lots 340 to 345. And before I start, I just want to be clear that I'm not a civil engineer, environmental engineer, septic engineer, or any such thing. So
my questions and concerns concerns might seem irrelevant or perhaps even ignorant. So please just bear with me because I do have a lot of questions and concerns about this plan. As far as frontage goes, are they proposing that the frontage is on the adjacent to them or on their
property? Where where is their frontage coming from? I guess is my my initial concern. George, can you answer that frontage right here? >> So none of that needs to be cleared, paid. There's no requirements for any of that. Okay.
>> Um, >> I mean, you're better off not clearing it because the trees are better than, you know, the brush. Okay. >> Again, I have a lot of little questions that that I look at when I look at this plan. >> Can I just add to that, Mr. Chen? It's deceiving, Bob, but they are creating a hammerhead that is considered frontage
as well. So, in front of their property, George is referring to the actual frontage of the property. They actually have frontage being created here and then the hammerhead comes down into the property, goes across and comes like this. So they're actually providing 50
foot of frontage for this property. >> I highlighted the other one. >> So at what I understand the minimum that they need from what they were told is 50 foot of frontage. So I hope that answers that question. >> I thought I had heard 100 ft myself, but >> the 150 foot is needed for a lot of new
construction today. This is again we're referring to grandfather a lot of of historical wrecket I guess you could say. >> All right. So moving on past that the plan for the access road coming up from Ruin Street. Their plan basically says to only remove 4 in of top soil and you
have to fill that back with um or remove the top soil sorry and replace that with 4 in of gravel. The top soil in that area is about a foot thick of organic material. So, are we only are we removing a foot of organic material down to the clay layer and then just putting
4 in of gravel on top of that? Is that what the plan is? >> Basically, just remove all the top soil and just put gravel there. >> So, don't we need a thicker to maintain the grade? Don't we need a thicker >> only driving for one person? >> Understood. >> It's not for >> but heavy equipment. Yeah,
>> but it is going to be bringing a ton of heavy equipment up there. >> Yes, but we'll remove the top soil and just uh add gravity that it's that's a save elevation. without changing the elevation. >> To that point, do we have a map of the original elevations of this area? All I
see in this map is elevate the proposed final plan elevations. >> Those those are the existing elevation right here. >> Which ones? Show me. The only ones I see are existing. The two CDHs, right? >> This is elevation 180. This has been
surveyed. The lot has all the flags here by Jim Walsh over there. >> Y I'm familiar with the >> This is the celebration 181 182 183. We're not touching this. >> Understood. >> I'm more concerned obviously in this area. >> This is the only area that we were
working on. Nowhere within 5 ft of the property was safe. This is the law. We stay and put in the house and and the system will be on that up area. more than more than the septic system would be more than 50 ft from the wetland. The
house would be 34t. >> Go ahead, Bob. >> All right. So, my my next concern is they're basically according to the way I read the plan, they're raising the slab of the house up 5 ft from grade. >> No, if you look if you look at this, we're
raising the ground almost 3 ft. We have to maintain This is >> right. You're looking at this part of the plan. >> Yes. >> The same as the top of the slab is 187. >> Yeah. 187.
>> Whereas our general elevation is 182. So the general elevation is one right here. Yeah. 182. Right. So we're bringing we're bringing the slab of this house up 5 ft roughly. Roughly >> we have to raise the elevation of the septic system. We need 4 separation. I'm going to get to that in a minute.
>> And the slab has to be higher than the existing unders. >> What is you if you're worried about water runoff? Is that where there's other vict >> and the septic system up 3 ft and if you follow their elevations it's basically all sloping to the abundance property and back into the wetlands or towards
the street. No, no, sir. Just we are we we have to maintain 4 ft at the separation to the lower table. I can't put the system in the ground. For this reason, we have to fetch. >> Just show them where the water is going to show them how the the grade is going to be. I think that's the concern is
where's the water going to go? >> Okay. This is this is the house right here. And this is a septic system right right here. The existing grade is right here. The finish grade will be this side because we have to meet five prime. We have to meet the ground requirement. I can't put the system in the ground and
the finish of the the slab of the house will be this side. >> The slide of the house is 5 ft above. Can't put it any lower. Understood. I'm all trying to point out he's trying to >> is that we're going to be 5 ft above grade for the slide of the house, 3 ft for the septic system, the top septic
system, which all then slopes >> that's okay, hold stop one second, please. >> Slopes out to the >> Okay, I I I know what you're trying to say, George. He wants to know where you're going to raise this up. Where's the water going? >> Okay, we have elevation 182. What happened? All the water from the house
is going on the ground. >> Basically, we are raising the ground around it. You have recharge >> 3 ft about 3 ft >> but the yard itself is sloping >> sloping back and the same lane is going to go there and we have grass over there will be grass and the driver will be
gravel and and the elevation of the first floor will be like what you said almost 5t above the elevation floor >> I'm just trying to to bring some of these points to to talk about a little bit >> go ahead >> that's all that's all I want to point
things out that I see. Um, again, I'm not a civil engineer, structural engineer, septic engineer, any of those things. I just look at this drawing and I have some concerns being in a butter and knowing that how much wetlands there are here. >> Um, so going forward from that, their
proposal or submittal to the conservation commission says they're only bringing in no more amounts of film. Yet, again, this slab is 5 ft above ground and the septic is 3 ft above ground. They're grading it out over the course of the entire property, the outside corners and edges of this property and that's considered minor fill.
>> Is this allowed by by >> I'm not saying it's not going to be allowed. I'm just asking questions that we're basically creating a mound in the middle of this property and it's all going to slope to the edge of the water and into the wetlands. Every single house has been built like that. We can't
build it again. We can't put a separate system in it now. The system has to be 3 ft 4T separation of groundwater table and this and the floor has to be higher than we finished today. So minister every house you see >> that's fine. What other questions you
have Mr. G? >> Uh so my other question is in regard one of my other questions is in regard to the swale design. So, we're basically saying we're going to develop a swale here, 5t wide by 236 feet long, and it's going to drop by um I think it
was 4 1/2 ft over that 236 ft and dead end at the end into basically the wetlands buffer zone. You're saying that there's no adverse additional water that's going to come from that that wasn't there already naturally. >> Yes, sir. >> I can't buy that myself. But I also look
at this and I say, "Okay, I went and looked at this area today." This is saying there's a 4 foot drop between the front and this. I went and looked at that today. It was maybe a foot a foot and a half drop from this end to this end. How are we getting 4T down?
>> We We don't go out and survey it. He surveys it stamps the plan. If you find out that he's lying on all this stuff, then he is liable under his license for that. >> I'm not accusing anybody of lying. But that's that's okay. But but what you see and what you see in it, you know, when they do the trans sector are two
different things. I don't know why I I don't go out there and automeasure it. I mean, we could what if we're wrong and then we hire a third party. I mean, this can go on forever and ever. That's why they stamp the plans. This their license is on the line when they stamp these plans for any if if they misrepresent the truth or if the builder who builds
it doesn't do it correctly, then they're responsible for building it to the specification of the plan. >> So, we we so when the plan comes to us, we go by what the plan says, and they're expected to build it. If they don't build it according to plan, then that's that's a different story. >> All right. So, skipping that for a
moment. We're okay with just dumping whatever water come. Obviously, the road or excess way is pitched towards that swale and pitched towards Lone Street and we're basically just going to dump everything from that swale into the wetlands buffer zone as is. Whatever it
may be, that's okay. versus the there's a covert on banner that they could potentially take that and dump that into that as a possible solution. So, we're not even possibly affecting the wetlands. >> I'm just throwing out a suggestion. >> I I understand what you're saying, but
they the wetlands protection act has certain rules and regulations. When they design, they build those regulations. Would it be better to go to banner? Possibly. I don't I don't know. I'm not I'm not I didn't I'm not an engineer and I certainly didn't analyze it. But all this is done according to the wetlands protection act. That's that that's the
that's the key. It was just like you know the gentleman was here before the same thing. There are certain rules and regulations whether I like them or not. They build them they design it. Is this the best place for a house? Maybe not. But you know if they have a right to have a house there if they can meet the regulations. >> Understood. We will again assure the
people that the swale isn't just going to dry and dump water there. It's going to have to have a conveyance to make it continue on its way to that wetland system beyond. But every drainage system discharges into a wetland. That's where most people and where physically is the
most optimum location to direct that storm water on any development design. That's where the ponds usually overflow. So he's designed this in accordance. First of all, most of that activity you're referring to is out of our buffer zone jurisdiction. The section in the
middle is again totally upland and the two ends are within our jurisdiction. So we are here to just assure you that we're trying to alleviate any concerns for the neighbors, but it's ultimately up to George that designs the final say. So I I know that doesn't alleviate all
your concerns, but we can't make him pipe it to Banner AB. That's not an option that we we would propose. Um and then then he would have to bulldoze again up through those two other properties adjacent to that section of the road, interrupt more people and
again so I I don't think that is the right thing to do is is design it in accordance with the minimum amount of disturbance like he shows here. >> So I have a swale of mine by the way as well and the amount of rain that comes through that >> it's you're referencing something that isn't relevant to this plan. stick to
what we're referring to here, not to scenarios outside of what we're actually looking at right now. >> Comparing I'm not saying it's the same compared swale. Your swale is something you created in your yard by making a depression and allowing water to, you know, convey
>> what they're doing. >> This will handle the same. This is going to be a grass swale, which is is part of a design that is incorporated in limited development projects like this. >> Understood. All right. >> So, furthermore, the culvert that we're
planning to put or they're planning to put under the intersection of loan and con loan and register here this year. What's what's the purpose of that? And and there's very little detail on how like what is this meant to catch if if the drive the access
>> road is going to trap water that is coming off the west lots. Mr. Sor's lots bleed water all day long. It puddles in the middle of the road. This pipe is now going to give it a place to go underneath the axis that Mr. Pil creates. So there's no longer an impond
ponding area. And now it's conveyed. It reaches a point. It flows through the pipe down to the wetland that is adjacent to Mr. S's property within that remaining register area. >> What is the overall design of the the inlet and outlet of that? All I see in the plan is there's going to be stones
there. We dig a hole and throwing stones in it and that's going to catch everything. elevations here slightly below the existing service and you get about half a foot pitch from here to here. Basically, it could bring up the water any any runoff here if it to go
>> and then we're basically hoping that the outfeed of it doesn't flood back into the source property. Is that correct? >> No, we're not hoping for that, Bob. We're not here to adversely affect anybody. We're contributing to that concern Mr. the source had by giving the water a place to go and allowing it to
fall into that swale that is evident along Mr. Sor's property and just to the left of his driveway. Um, it's been conveying water for now. Again, some of this work that the pipes have done have disrupted that form of flow, but this
pipe will try to maintain that so we don't have water trapped on one side that is contributed to by that whatever isolated area that bleeds out of conscript. >> Okay. It will be within the register avenue.
>> It's within the lone street and register paper ways. Yes. It's not going beyond that. >> No. So, I I have a concern, one more concern about the well location. When I look at the mask.gov private well guidelines, it says that a well is
supposed to be loaded located 10 ft from a property lines and 25 ft from a normal driving surface of any roadway or 15 ft from any right of way, but we're only showing it 7 ft away here. Down by law 6 down six feet.
>> If we pass for instance if conservation passes the bylaw we can super we can >> keep going. >> But we stayed away from weather. >> Um the so I know you basically have where
our butter's wells are. I don't see the well for this property. Is there is there a reason for that? >> It's it's too far. >> How How do I know that from that drawing? >> It's too far because we have >> Have you guys located it? Have somebody located it? >> It's more than 100 ft. I mean,
>> again, I don't see it on the drawing. So, I'm sure those properties that close to the septic right here. There's nothing here. >> There's nothing. >> And I'm assuming it's in that front yard. It is far enough away, but nothing in this drawing tells me that. I believe the ones on Banner are flip-flop.
>> So where the ones on conserve have the septics in the front and the wells in the back on banner I think they have the septics in the back and the wells in the front. >> Let me check that it's all wet in here by the way. Anyway, >> not there wet goes to the left.
>> Right here. Right here. >> Yeah. Again, that's why the flip-flop >> and that's because of the setback requirements of being 100 ft away. So that is a good observation, but that actually is a point of health obser This is those are the closest weapons.
>> And again, I I assume that it was f further away and didn't need to be shown, but I don't see it on the drawing, so I have to ask a question. >> What's wrong with that? >> Um, what about the uh the vernal pool study that you would recommended, Mr. B? >> Vernal pool study. Nothing came back
from any observation except of species. There was no egg masses ever observed to indicate that it's a vernal pool. >> You had recommended at the last conservation committee meeting about this that they have a study done in the spring. Has that been completed? >> No, it has not.
>> Thank you. Will that be completed? >> I would say no. It doesn't need to because this area was never designated as that. When you file an application, the area can't be assumed to be. It has to be mapped as such. In this case, it's an assumption. So, >> so what about the vernal pool that I
notice over there? >> You never have documented any any masses that of the number that it would allow it to be registered as a certified ver. >> I had shared that information with you. I didn't have it certified, but I shared that information with you. >> Yes, you have. And I saw plenty of photos of spotted salamanders from the
neighbors. Correct. >> So, the fact is the vernal pool on an adjacent piece of property. This doesn't >> doesn't dictate that this property still can't be developed. The vernal pool does not stop the applicant from being able to develop the uploads. The vernal pool would end at the limit of the weapon.
>> Mhm. >> If there was a pool in there. So they would not be working within vernal pool habitat with this proposed project unless they filled in the wet. >> So vernal pool study makes absolutely no difference to limitations on what they can do they can develop etc.
>> Correct. >> Okay. only if they would adversely affect that resource area which the vernal pool is within that will trigger them to have those concerns addressed. >> All right. So my next big concern is the
septic system and where it goes down according according to their plan their septic system >> that's not in our purview if I may Mr. Gagy that is a board of health requirement. So, there going to be another meeting to discuss that because they're basically digging down to the bottom of the to the top of the water table to build the septic.
>> That's how you build a septic system. You go all the way down to the water table. You fill it up with sand and then you put the legion trenches at the elevation established 4 ft above that. >> Okay, that's standard procedure for any septic system.
I think that's all I have for today. That's pertinent at least based on your feedback. >> Thank you very much. You're welcome. >> Anybody else have any comments or questions? >> I just have a brief statement of uh
>> Just say your name for us if you could. >> Uh my name's uh Kevin Brazo. Uh my wife and I live at uh 64 Conserve A uh which abuts to the uh property at uh Zero Register A. I'm here tonight to speak in strong opposition to the notice of
intent to file to build a single family home home on that lot. Uh this piece of land is mostly wetlands and every part of the proposed project, the house, the well, drywall, septic system, proposed road access and driveway is planned well
within the 100 foot wetland buffer zone. The plans don't meet intent of Westport's conservation standards. I'm asking the commission to deny this request. So, after reviewing the plans attached to the notice of intent, I have the following concerns in no particular order, and they all fall under the same
tier of importance to us. Uh, unmitted work already performed on the proposed gravel road within the buffer zone. uh the work that has already been performed on this proposed road, I believe, far exceeds the intentions the town had in granting the
applicants to create access to that lot. Uh while the town claims that the wetland protection act does not protect the buffer zone from gaining minimal access to the lot, the work that's already been performed far exceeds access limitations and is more than the realm of the beginning of road uh stages
of road development. The result as of today is is a cleared access path about 20 ft wide stretching from the end of Lone Street to the northeast corner of the register a trees that need to be removed that are mentioning in the NOI
swale plants have have already been cut down and just moved over to the sides of this path. Boulders that have been removed and cut down just moved over to the sides of the path. Um, with disregard for the buffer zone, erosion control, per permitting, or even
approval of the NOI, uh, I welcome anyone on this committee to visit the site and take 15 minutes of your day to look at the work that's already been performed and judge for yourselves whether minimal non-invasive access was performed.
Uh my next concern is the proposal calls for raising grades by 3 to four feet with all the runoff pitched towards the neighboring lots to the east. The lots to the south south of concert path and directly into the wetland area. Taking into account the buffer zone proposed is
now only 25 ft. That's a big change that can lead to serious consequences. Um I'd like to point out that this is not a modern large subdivision. This is an older small established neighborhood with houses in close prox proximity to
one another. Redirecting storm water and having filled here will alter how water moves across every budding property. The wetlands currently act as a sponge for this area. If we stop filling and redirecting that flow, the risk of flooding, storm run, storm water runoff,
pollution, erosion, and groundwater contamination will rise dramatically. Uh my next concern is uh the plan only uh the plan includes only a 25 ft no work zone instead of the standard 100
buffer zone meant to protect wetlands. Cutting that buffer zone down so drastically almost guarantees more runoff, erosion, and pollution. Exactly what the wetlands protection act is supposed to prevent. I think the term no work zone should be used loosely because
to the south within this so-called no work zone there's a proposal to perform work by placing a private well only 10 ft away from a from the wetlands. So this no work zone seems to be a contradiction on this plan when a private well is going to be drilled within its boundary and only 10 ft from
the wetland itself which brings me to my next point. Uh the proposed well is 10 ft from the wetlands even though the state regulations require at least 25 ft. This is a serious contamination risk for both the wetland and the drinking water supply. On the mass DP's private
well guidelines on page 19 and requires a minimal lateral lateral setback of 25 ft from wetlands. And even this distance requires Westport Conservation Commission to approve the proposed well location if it's within 100 feet of surface water regulated on the wetland
the wetland protection act. Um I'm asking this commission to not just check boxes but to protect the town's natural resources. I'm asking the conservation committee commit commission to not simply approve proposals that try to bend the rules of regulatory
compliance to protect the town's natural resources and apply sound conservation principles. The in the impact of placing a house, a septic, a well, a drywell and driveway within a compromised buffer zone is significant, irreversible, and has permanent impacts on drainage,
wildlife, and water quality. I'm asking the commission to apply higher conservation standards to protect Westport's valuable wetlands areas as they are crucial for flood control, pollution, prevention, and wildlife habitat. Uh my final and kind of last concern
here is that the applicants were well aware that they were b what they were buying and had knowledge that these lots were heavily populated with wetlands and that any upland on these blocks would be well within the 100 foot buffer zone. This is a 1.47 acre lot that was bought
for $23,000 in this current in this current real estate market. well below market price for anything comparable in size containing less constraints and when I say well below market value that's an understatement uh the fact that the lot is majority of wetlands and
that the small amount of buck plans that exists fall well within the 100 foot buffer zone is not a hardship unforeseen by the applicant granting a variance under these circum circumstances would send the wrong message signaling future buyers that can that they can know
knowingly acquire a deficient law and expect the commission to overlook critical environmental regulations. As uh Chris Capona, conservation agent, has said in an East Bay, Rhode Island uh Rhode Island.com article titled, "Be
careful before buying Westport land in regards to the exact lot we're discussing today." The article on August 12th, 2024 states, and I quote, "There are no deals remaining. and I urge people to do your homework and do your due diligence before you sign for such
properties. Then in a reference to zero register av goes on to say this land is encumbered with difficulties and has no place to put the house. So I don't know what this particular person is thinking. This statement perfectly sums up the situation and I and I agree with the
statements. I hope the committee does too. Uh for all these reasons, I respectfully ask the commission to deny this notice of intent. This proposal is not reasonable for the sensitive property and fails to meet the standards that protect Westport's wetlands and neighborhoods and like to thank for your
time and consideration. >> Do we have that copy? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> All right, sir. Good evening. My name is attorney Patrick Matthews. I'm here for the story who um live just easterly of the
proposed project here. Um I'm not going to reiterate all concerns that you just uh because we just heard about everything that I had noted and I was going to bring to the board's attention. Um, one thing I did notice is that the um, with regard to the application
itself, it it it did not confirm that the project uh, was going to meet the performance standards um, that you normally see that it wouldn't be relative to working in the office. So, that was just an application thing. Also, I I noted that there was no
variance that has been filed for put placing the well uh, where they're going to plan to put it now. So, that still hasn't been done. Um, I guess it's contingent upon what they do, but you do here, I would imagine. Um, my client's main concerns are relative to where
their properties are. Sors owns this property here, but they also own a house here. Okay? And prior to this recent project for forever, basically, this was a heavily uh uh wooded road. Nobody would act used it to
access anything. it basically I think the um the attractiveness to the applicant is the fact that it it's it's less wooded than some of the other locations but the big concerns was is the amount of work that's been going on
um as as as of now um when I looked at it we found that the road had been uh been torn up there's trees and boulders as been mentioned that have been cut trees have been cut
and left outside the actual roadway and other people's property without permission without obviously um there's no uh there's no signage here. There's there's there's no um erosion control, nothing. And that's what they're these
people are planning to come to this town and and build something. Prior to even looking for any approval, they've already done this. It doesn't show them to be very good neighbors at this particular point. We're very concerned too with this uh not only the color but the um this area right here because
we're worried that this is a wetland up here which isn't delineating really on their plans at all. What we're really worried about is this being overcharged by or overburdened by by the project that they're doing here. As you've heard
from other people, this is essentially going to create a mound. It I I know it meets the setback requirements from the property line. All this stuff is going to start running this way just naturally and it's going to it's going to affect these properties already. It's affecting
this roadway which used to be basically the um the street was basically from from from conserve all the way over was basically not being used other than the driveway. They've actually done a lot of work so they can get their vehicles in and out
of that lot. I understand that they've changed the the nature of the lot by bringing in soil and things of that nature to change the wetland so that there's more upland so they can calculate it to to qualify in terms of town's um uh requirements. So, I really
just want to express on behalf of my clients of their great concern about this project and ask that the board not approve this um because they basically are going to be changing the environment negatively. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Does anybody else want to speak? [Music] >> I have some images. >> Just Just do me a favor. Just state your name up there in the My name is Michael Sor. Um, I'm the resident of 56 Street and I would imagine the person that's
most been affected by the work that's been done so far. Um, I put put together some images that might help illustrate the the matter a bit more. >> Thank you. >> Just as my attorney mentioned, I'm not going to ride home on things we've
already talked about. Um, but as the homeowner, you know, I have personal knowledge. I've been here for 13 years. Um, and I've dealt with these matters already prior to the pilots um presenting with any desire to build. Uh, you know, 12 12 months out of the year,
this is wet where I can't even mow my lawn. Um, vehicles regularly get stuck when they turn around. Uh, the the pipers the first encounter with a large tractor got stuck all the way to the axle. Um, that was this has been my concern from day one. And conveniently, the the cover is located at the
cross-section of the two paper roads. Unfortunately, it's about uh 25 to 50 ft south on the paper road where the water naturally crossed as Chris recognized himself and several times he's come to the property. So, it's going to be difficult to me to understand how the water is going to get up an elevated
area to a caliber and then drain um subsequently to the to the east uh with like my neighbor recognized without him having to drastically change the landscape not only of a paper road but of a private person's block. I I heard him say he's going to pour out rip wrap. I understand those those are large rocks
and to to put in large rocks you have to remove a large amount of earth. Again, that's on my private property. I'm not sure who on this board would consent to that when they already know it's going to lead to ultimately worsening flooding. Um then also I this project has been presented as a limited um
interruption. Well, we've been completely ignoring conscript avenue. The only reason that the the pivas have come around to the lone street access which was previously shown as private um is because the conser the conservation commission said there's too much
wetlands on the uh western side they had to come around to find other access didn't offer any input or professional opinion on how to find the access just go find that access well in that time as the neighbor has recognized and Mrs. Co has recognized the privates had started
their own work in making their own road. The planning board has said they're about to do improvements. Well, that's not improvements. That's developments. When you're unearthing trees, when you're cutting down trees, when you're removing boulders, um that's that's development of a road. Um, and then also
when we sent him around to another way and ignoring the the whole side of here where where the majority of their uplands are, we sent them back into a buffer zone where the majority of his wetlands are. Why would we send him through one buffer
zone that we've identified, another buffer zone we have not identified, another buffer zone we have identified, when he could come in through no buffer zone, no buffer zone, no buffer zone. that I don't see how that's a a limited impact project. >> Um
>> there was an area of concern on conserve that I expressed to you that again conscript rather that was flooded and it wouldn't be as advantageous as you claim it to be. It's the root of all the water that's draining towards that pipe. So there is an area of ponding that sits
right in the conscript way. So they would be filling something. So by them filling that, Brazita probably would be affected. So I'm not here to dictate which way the buyer should go. I'm here to dictate what is best for the wetlands on the property. His proposal at first
was to go through register and fill in all those wetlands. He later identified he had two upland areas on either side of that property. He chose to access the least affecting area and that is that side. So that is why we're here. I
understand he's done a ton of work. I've received calls for six months. We're fully aware that he's been doing some work in that area. We have honored the notice of intent application that now is been submitted to allow him to get that
work considered and approved. So, as far as you're concerned, he has now filed in accordance with the regulations. This is a buffer zone project. There is no wetlands being altered in this project. Again, this is within a 100 ft of a
wetland. It's a discretionary area under the wetlands protection act where anybody can perform work. It is not a no touch area. A wetland is a no touch area. So your setbacks and all the arguments you're making are not relevant
because it's still a buffer zone activity permittable under the wetlands protection act. This again is can be allowed if this commission approves it. you have the right to appeal this decision to D and ask them to come in
and intervene and render a decision if you feel we have done something negligent. That is all it and I I greatly appreciate that input. Um but as you recognize earlier on the record, the the water drastically froze from my property to my property does not drastically throw down conscript. That's
something I recognize for the turkey that lived here. Um I have some additional questions myself. Is a BVM uh is is are BVMs the only protected resources under the wetlands protection act? >> BBW. Okay. I just want to make make sure everybody else.
>> That's fine. Boarding vegetative wetland. Is that is that the only protected resource under the wetlands protection act? >> No. No. >> Is is a stream a protected resource under the wetland protection? >> Absolutely. But it's within the BBW on this >> is a is a stream a stream regardless of whether it's intermittent or continuous.
Whether it's intermittent or or perennial. Yes. >> Right. They still continue to stream. Right. So then how something that you recognize this water flow that goes across my property to that property as you recognize as an intermittent stream. How is that not its own resource? How are we ignoring that? And if we're only talking about buffer zone, buffer zone, buffer zone, wet lane over here. If if
if a if a if a a water if a a waterershed that collects water, it has to collect from somewhere, correct? And it has to spread that to another waterershed. We're talking about that very that very waterway. If if we're if we're going to protect areas that collect water, how are we not protecting the the very water that is being transported to those very very
locations? This is what I'm having a concern. >> Understood. You have a high water table neighborhood, Mr. Sors, that everyone is not going to argue. We are talking about a conveyance. We're trying to convey the water from one side to the other in
order to not cause a ponding area. We're not going to discuss all the fill that you placed on your property that was done in the buffer zone. We're not here to argue that, are we? So, you have done some manipulation of your own property that may require submitting requirements
through filing. So, I don't want to single people out here, Mr. Sors, but we're all trying to get along. You built a wall. You impeded this gentleman's access to his property. You've done everything possible to try to deter him from accessing this property. >> 18 times cops. So I I don't want to get
into that, but I'm just trying to convey that we are trying as a commission to do what is best. Laura Healey passed regulations that allow this gentleman to consider developing this on these paper ways. This is something that she has
going to cause a lot of problems in the community. This is first one that we really brought to light is these paper ways and how these people have rights to it. Mr. Piga has just as much rights to that way as you do and anybody else in that development. So you again we are
trying to meet the requirements that seem to minimize all those disturbances. I cannot say that some people may get a little disturbance from it but it's not going to cause any adverse effect to your property >> and I respect your opinion and I'm here
to you know oppose that opinion respectively. Um, >> understood. >> And the only reason that I if if we we want to have a guta moment about the two gravel that I put down, this was prior to you identifying that as an interest stream and I didn't know what that was. I'm a nurse. I'm not a wetland scientist. Right. Thank you. And I've
done zero work since then. And yes, 100% I dropped boulders. I dropped boulders out of the recommendations of a town officer who I will not name in this in this in this meeting. And then I was told by the police that that was something I wasn't supposed to do. The only reason that I've done any of
this arguing, the only reason I've hired a lawyer is be from the recommendations which I have in the emails which I can give to you as a copy as well which have come from the recommendations of Christopher Cole. The only reason that I've been involved with the police to to to drag the poor pivots to to get a harassment order is because it was a recommendation from the town police on
me to try to do this because we they were all under the impression this was a private way and never thought it would get to this this point. So to to that regard, I am sorry that that I did do work and I didn't know I was supposed to do that. Again, I have ceased I have ceased assist with without, you know, on
my own. I haven't had to have the town call on me multiple times to stop doing work to them that are that currently negatively impacting my their neighbors. Not not potentially negatively impacting me, but currently negatively impact the neighbors. When when your when your when your driveway freezes over and your fiance slips and falls, that's a
negative impact. When you have to spend money on tractor work to recover out the way that's been for draining water that that you can see in the pictures for 13 years, that is negatively impacting your neighbor. When I have to spend time out of my workday to come to come to here, to come to me, to go to court to spend
time talking to you, that is negatively impacting my neighbors. When I when I have less sleep because every time I hear a beep beep beep down my driveway, I think it's another tractor and I don't and I already have paranoid issues because I have PTSD for my service to this country. That is negatively impacting my neighbors. So guess what? his freedoms end where they infringe upon mine and and you can you can have
your professional opinion all you want but I can also have my opinion as a citizen of this town and I appreciate you for your time. >> Thank you sir. >> Thank you. >> So anybody else want to speak? >> All right. Do we have calculations on on runoff and drain?
>> That's drainage calc he's provided Mr. Chairman that show there is no increase in runoff from this. >> If you want to come up and just state your name please. I'm Britney Alves. I live at 56 loan. My question is um since they've been doing
all this work without approval, how come nobody is um enforcing any fines or telling them to stop doing it since they just filed for the notice of intent? They've been doing work since November and nobody has ever said anything about
them stopping, giving them any fines. >> Yes, the commission did issue them a letter. um some of the work that they did do as I was trying to reiterate was created by others. So again the access was impeded by them placing boulders. So
the bikers contact me. I said well sure you can move the boulders. You have rights to get into your property. So there's some work that was pushed for them trying to get them to be in trouble but it was done by others. So we do not have a finding in our community because
we do not have a more stricter bylaw or a weapons bylaw. So there is no finding under our current regulations to instill on these people. And then can I just show a video of what that property looks like today after all the rain that we've
had cuz it's a mess over there and all the delivery people are trying to deliver things into that and getting stuck and we have to tell them not to go in there because we're scared that they're going to get stuck and then we're going to get in trouble for it. There's no signage saying that they're not supposed to drive over there.
There's mats and gravel poured all over there. It's not a suitable road, but delivery people, UPS, everybody wants to drive up through that way. >> Well, that's something I can't control at this time. >> I understand. You can't control anything, but we live there. >> Well, thank you for that. I appreciate
that comment. Um, I try to do my job and if you don't feel I'm doing my job, that's something you can express. But again, you have rights to appeal to the state and I do going to say again, this is a buffer zone project. This is a very
basic project. I'm sorry you guys feel that it's much more detrimental, but it's not under the wetlands protection act. >> The buffer zone isn't protected under the wetlands act. >> Yes, it's protected under wet, but it's a discretionary area where certain
activities are allowed. So why is it just so drastically reduced to the point where it's only 25 ft for >> 25 ft is a recommendation of this board as a policy to stay they could be doing work right up to the wetland if we want
>> 75t below the standard recommended by the state you want come up to the microphone if you want >> no but so so basically the 100 the 100 foot is what gives if it falls under our purview it doesn't mean that work doesn't get done in the 100 foot it means it's within that purview I mean, if you look at most of our other
herrings going back forever in all different locations, 25 ft no activity is where we is is the typical standard. And then, you know, obviously though they'll be working in the buffer zone. We tried to get them obviously to mitigate it with dry wells or whatever
the case may be. But the 100 foot is not a hard line. If that were the case, there would be no houses built in this town. Oh, I'm not saying there isn't a uh variances to, but I mean 25 ft. It's like I mean it's from here to the chalkboard. I mean, it's minimal. You
know what I mean? It's s it's such a minimal protection of this air. I mean, it's just seems just crazy, you know? >> Do you want Do you want to How long is that video you have, ma'am? >> Um, it's only like 3 minutes. >> If you can just show us. Yeah, just you can show us quickly. You guys want to see the video? >> Sure. >> Quickly.
If you want to just bring it up here and just I know you can't put it on TV, but you can show us, so it's fine. You can put it right in the middle there. I got my spectacles on it cuz I can't. >> And we didn't really have that much rain
this last couple days. It been worse. And we were told that we're not allowed to remove the gravel to stop it from flooding our driveway. It also shows you how much they've constructed the road. They did this all before they
comp when we're done with this sir. and you come back up to the microphone if you want to see. >> So that's the roadway or the proposed roadway where the mats are. Okay. >> Rubber mats in the water >> which he's gone.
>> Well, he put the mat so he didn't sink in. He >> so he could drive his truck up there. He's been driving his truck pretty much three times a week every day going up, coming down the property, driving, coming around, turning. But he put the rocks and the mats there so he can access his property. We thought that
access meant he could walk onto his property, not drive his truck and whatever else he wants to. >> Bulldozers through the woods, >> bulldozing and whatnot. >> I thought you had to do permits before you could do anything. >> Yes, you do. That is something that they have not again, but they were waiting to
do a perk test. That is something that hinged on how the property was to be developed. And every time they would come down and do something, they would say that they were doing a test perk so that they could do whatever else that they were doing on the property. >> Also, we would like to question the
validity of the perk test. >> Who's the protest that's bought to help? >> Yeah, that's the validility of it. I suggest you guys park your property like I already suggested. >> And we will when we don't have to spend thousands of dollars on an attorney and all. >> I understand.
because this is unnecessary money that we've had to spend. >> All right. I think that's that's good. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Pra, is it >> sorry? I'm sorry. >> Miss Capot asserted that the the only times that they brought in a tractor was
because it was um instigated by myself. We have a we have a list of the all the dates that they were in and out with the tractor and I only had rocks placed one time. So, I'm not sure if the how uh well that lines up either. So he said watch place one time. I got plenty of
how many times. So once again >> does anybody else want to make a comment? George, are you all set? >> No. I'd like to say one last >> just to let you know guys that this is a grandfather lot that is buildable. We're
not asking for any variance and it meet the septic and the house meet the requirements of the town board of health and uh the state and we are hoping to get an approval for that. >> Your whole developable area is what
6,300 ft. Is that what I read? 6750 above >> 60 6750 ft >> in that area disturbed >> just this area >> and and you've you've done the test that you're not going to have any water running off anybody else's property >> not yes
>> now the calculations >> fact the roof drain is going >> no I know I know the roof but any the yard the the the top of the subject >> if you get two inches of rain the two in is going to go anywhere right we're raising it 3 ft just to make it to meet the type requirements,
>> right? >> We're not adding anything. The 2 in is going to go there no matter what. Even if we raise it or we lower it another foot or foot and a half, I mean, the same motor is going to get there. It's all going to be grass and crush stone the driveway and we're not changing anything.
>> All right. Thank you. Did you have a comment, ma'am? Did you want to say something? >> All right. Okay. I thought I heard you say something. I'm sorry. Anybody else have any comments? >> Yeah. I just We've heard a lot about the buffer zone here. The buffer zone is not an area protected under the wetland
protection act. Its only purpose is to protect the wetland. And if you can't show that work in the buffet zone is going to alter the wetland as the regulations put it, you can work in the buffet zone. Our standards are actually more strict than the state. We have this
25 foot no work zone. State doesn't have any no work zone. You can work anywhere in the bubba zone as long as it doesn't affect the weather. So too much is made of the working the bubba zone which is perfectly legal as long as it doesn't affect the wetland. You have to show
whether affect the wetland or not. >> I have a a a question for for George. are are George, are you go um are you going to um apply for a permit under the
board of health storm water regulation for this? Have you have Have you done that as part of >> We're not asking for any variances. I already provided the the dry one right here. >> Say yes. Say yes, you will. >> I'm sorry. >> Say yes, you will. in your soil in your
presentation of your sewage disposal plan, they're going to ask you that you have to address those concerns. >> I'm not saying that you haven't done it there, but there's a process. >> So that may be adequate, right? >> So the the way the wetlands regulations
are set up, it the wetlands regulations don't regulate storm water impacts from a single family house. Okay. The board of health has storm has
uh storm water regulations that is separate from the septic system regulations but oftent times I think as George has indicated the plans come together so that the septic plans and
the storm water management plans are all approved at one point in time when the when they're both ready for review and the perk tests are part of that
which is determines if and where the leech field can be located. Um yeah and so the um and there's disturbance when the septic tanks you know are put in but then they're buried
and then they're grasped over. So, um, the real concern that most people have about storm water is that is when you add imperous surfaces like roofs and roads. This is a gravel road, so it's
impervious. So, all the rain that is going to fall is going to percolate into the ground. And what George is saying is that the water that's going to run off the roofs are going to be collected and put into dry wells, right? Is that
what's happening? >> Yeah. You know, and so it's going to be collected and put into a well and then the water is going to be slowly released into the ground. So, it sounds like there are issues with
what's going to happen with the grades and whether or not um you know that's going to affect you know where the storm water or excess storm water is is uh is going to go. And what I heard from Chris
is saying that they're trying to redirect that flow in a way to avoid it accumulating on the road. Um but there will be an opportunity through the
board of health permitting process to um see that some of these issues that you're talking about at least relative to what what if any additional storm water is being generated by the
project will will get looked at. and someone who's who's going to come in and crunch a bunch of numbers. And um and one of the goals is is that the storm water
from the site as it is and the site after its development should be the same. They should be managing all the storm water on the site. And it sounds to me like they're trying to do that, you know, at the in terms of collecting
all the roof water and, you know, they're not they're not paving the driveway. They're it's a it's a gravel and dirt road, which is means that whatever is falling there is going to go under the ground.
But it could turn out that there's a very high water table and you get a storm. you get a series of storm like this and the ground the water just comes out of the ground right there's nobody can I mean you know what do you do there's nothing you can do about that it's not uh you know unless you you know
decide to build you know a big storage tank under underground to do it so um it may seem like we're not you know that the issues are not being paid attention and I don't know what the history of it is but I think
that all the authorities that should be looking at this will look at it and um and that it won't be, you know, and that it won't make the situation any worse
than it is. But um again, I'm not really familiar with that area, but um I would uh I think if you're concerned about it, you know, you can bring it to the attention of the board of health and ask
them to look at this when the they do the stormwater permit and that would be the next logical step. >> Can you say something please? >> Okay. Please note that similar homes with similar land charact characteristics were previously approved
and built in this area and none of them have any nitrogen removal system. All most of them are cess poolool or oldfashioned uh tank and none of them have a dry well from the roof or or the or their driveways. We are basically we
are taking all the roof drain all the roof runoff and dump it in the ground. >> That's right. That's it. This is the only thing. And the other one, we're not changing it much. Again, it meets all the requirements. We're not asking for any variance and this is this how it is. It's a single family home. We're not uh
that's it. >> Yeah. Yeah. All right. Any other questions or comments? All right. Does anybody have any nothing at the table? We have a motion. >> I mean, I just think it's it's worth kind of explaining to people how the process works. If we if if the lots are
combined and buildable and if we vote it down, which is what most of you would like, the applicant will appeal. And if the lots are buildable, the lots are buildable and DB overrules our vote. So if we vote it down, it doesn't stop the project if the lots are in fact
buildable. Just I I just like for people to know how the process works so that they don't think they're getting getting a raw deal from us. >> Appreciate it. All right. Do we have a motion? >> All right. Well, so I will move to
approve um the plan for the uh for the property at Register Avenue subject to the conditions that are described in Chris's report
which include erosion controls being st in place at the limit of all the clearing that the well location will require an excav excavated sump adjacent to collect any spoils during the installation
and that there'll be this um 24 25 ft no activity zone that will be stabilized with native seed mix that there'll be a split rail fence to be erected along the entire length of the 25- ft no activity area and shall remain there in
perpetuity. So that will be a no work area you know uh forever and that a drainage swale be installed during access construction and stabilized with hay bale check dams until exceeding se
seating is established and all disturbed edges of the access will be seated immediately upon completion and there'll be a 12t ads culver to be installed under the ax access which will require an asbuilt
plan to ensure proper elevations have been obtained and rip wrap aprons will be installed on the inlet and outlet sides and >> that's pending all the border health approvals for whether it be septic storm water >> septic and storm water.
>> All right, second. >> All right, that was um Phil and Jason. Okay. All those in favor >> all right Jake opposes. >> So George please direct your clients to
make sure that these conditions are before the unit. First you have to get the permit >> and before you do any more work you have to wait the appeal period >> which in case I'm sure the neighbors may want to appeal which means you have to wait for the appeal period. Um which means no more work in there. And then
once the appeal period's over, if they don't appeal it, then you all the erosion and everything else has to be done before they do any other work in that. >> Thank you very much. >> Because you know we we sent them a letter, we asked them to come and file, you filed um in lie of getting a uh enforcement order, but you know the work
just can't continue until this is done and they have to wait the appeal period. Thank you. >> All right. Can I ask a question? No, >> you come out. It's fine. Um, what happens if they continue to work after you tell them not to? >> Jesus Christ. >> What do you do with the program at that
point? >> Um, we could call him back into the commission and and reprimand them in in a manner that uh is suffice. As I mentioned, we don't really have finding. So again, that that's all we can do is have him come back before us and explain
why don't work. Oh, or we we can bring the if we need if if if No, no. If we could we can also dep bring the state in as well if it's ser if the state wants to get involved. You know, we we can call the state and we can ask them to get involved too. And but the reality is
I I I know there's been work going on. I I don't know to the extent, but I really hope that they wait the appeal period because the permit says it's it has to be one. It has to be filed at the registry of deeds and they have to wait the appeal period for it to be valid. So in effect, if they did work beforehand, they'd be invalidating their own permit
most likely. >> All right. >> You're not aggravating us. >> I'm I'm I I feel I I I feel I feel bad for everybody because I you know, when you have problems like this and you know, it's not a right or wrong issue sometimes. It's just that the law allows
so much and it it just creates a problem. Up until a week ago, the state wasn't going to get involved. And that's >> they said that >> they said now once that because they filed the notice intent, they weren't going to get involved. So it wasn't wasn't like this was just going unnoticed and out.
>> You should. Yeah. Okay. >> Sure. >> Sure, ma'am. >> My name is Jenny and I live on live in West. >> Can you say your whole name for me? >> I live in West. >> All right. Can you say your whole name for me, please? >> Jenny. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> I've lived in a Westport for 35 years. I've never seen what has happened here today. >> I mind my business. I don't get involved with anything. But that woman comes over to the house screaming. >> Okay. Please, please don't don't let's not make something. >> Don't make a personal point of view.
>> Meeting was for nothing because it seems like the minds are made up. So why bother coming here? >> Well, I wasted my night, >> okay, >> to come here. >> Well, you don't know who this man is? I don't know. What is your name? >> Hi, Crystal Bone. >> Okay. You seem like your your mind is
made up. >> So, let me let me just explain. >> Let me let me explain something. >> There you have the state rules and regulations. >> I understand that. >> No, no, no. Hold on a second. No, wait. But you you say you understand, but you're not listening. There's state rules and regulations. If we He comes in, he presents a plan.
If he meets the the check boxes, the regulations, okay, >> and he meets it, then it's our obligation to approve the plan. Now, you have the right to appeal the plan. >> Mhm. >> And if you appeal it, the state's going to look at it based on their regulations, and they may come to the same conclusion. May maybe they'll find
something we missed, whatever the case may be. But it's it's we approve a lot of projects that I I basically, you know, hold my nose at. I don't like the projects. There's a lot of projects on the river I don't like. But >> you pick and choose. >> No, it's not about pick and choose. And it's it's about what the regulations say
because I know if if I vote it down, the state's going to come back and just overrule us. >> So >> I don't know why he's laughing at me. >> So >> basically we we make our decision based on the statement.
>> So that that's based on the the rules that we follow. We don't have a bylaw. It's based on the state wellness protection act. And that's we make it. And engineers are very good at working within those those regulations. And that's I mean I don't know what else to tell you. >> But I'm just insulted. >> Okay.
>> I'm not talking about appeals. I'm not talking about regulations. I'm insulted. >> Okay. So what what would what would you have had us do? Just go against what the state regulation is. Okay. So I don't understand what you're insulted about >> against anything. I just feel that coming to this meeting was a waste of time. >> I'm sorry you feel that way.
>> That's what I I'm sorry you feel >> standing here while he's facing against me which I seen him smiling. >> Okay. Ma'am, do do you have anything else to add to it? You guys have >> No, but I can take this further. >> Okay, that's fine. Thank you. Do any else have anything to say? All right, have a good night. Thank you. Next. Next
hearing. Allison Culage, Thomas Borico, notice of intent 1787 F Main Road. Vista pruning within tree cutting within the riverfront area in the buffer zone. Really? >> Oh boy.
>> Hold on. Do we have your green cards before we start? >> I I have them. I have them. >> We got them. >> Okay. >> No, that's good. You're all set. >> You will prompt. >> Thank you. >> I always get caught when I miss those. So, I just want to make sure. >> I don't want to get caught missing those. So,
>> yeah. You come back to another mystery meeting. >> All right. Glad you start your presentation, please. >> Uh, sure. For the record, Claire Hogabone, wetland scientist with LEC Environmental Consultants, representing the applicants uh for the project for uh to propose selective vista pruning and
tree cutting at their property. >> Guys, can you take >> Guys, take it out the hallway. >> Sorry about that. >> Oh, that's okay. >> No, that's all right. Thank you. >> Don't smile. We say you want
>> No, no, it it affects the whole recording. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um so the commission might recall that this uh project for raise and rebuild of the single family dwelling at this property on the eastern shoreline of the
west branch of Westport River was uh issued an order of conditions this time last year. Um the property owners and applicants have since poured the foundation and utilized that experience to understand where they want to do the vista pruning and tree clearing to
restore historic scenic uh views from the uh location of their new house. So the old dwelling and foundations here that's currently demolished. Um so they used to have the view in this direction and this direction. So from the new house um what they want to do on the
western view corridor is just true bistip pruning to the um letter of the definition. They just want to clear uh four to five dead trees uh and those will be distributed throughout the forested area to reestablish some uh
wildlife habitat value. and they would like to trim dead or dying branches on Easter white pines um from sort of the uh the bottom to midpoint of the trees. So they'll leave the living uh branches on top of those trees. Uh at the
southern view corridor here uh we have two small polygons that indicate uh cumulative areas of three uh large deciduous trees they would like to cut and two sapling uh American holly shrubs
and the larger polygon at the uh southernmost point is a grove of uh oak saplings. They want to remove approximately 10 to 15 of those. All of the work uh for tree cutting would just uh be cut down to the stumps. So the
root systems would be left in place to avoid any uh disturbance to the soil profile and uh it'll all be done by a certified arborist. They already have had somebody come out to the site and they've indicated their means and methods to essentially climb the trees
and cut as they work down. Uh so no equipment will be required for this work. uh we provided uh brief regulatory uh discussion on the work here. Uh the as you can see in this uh lighter blue
color that's the 200t riverfront area extending from the western branch of the Westport River. Uh we're also proposing the tree cutting to stay outside of 50 ft from that river boundary. So uh this line right here is the 50 foot. Uh all
work is staying out of the land subject to coastal storm flowage boundary. Um and we are within the 100 foot buffer zer coastal bank as well. Um but again with respect to coastal bank the project has been designed to avoid any root removal. So there's no soil disturbance
proposed with the project. Um, and we did briefly address that the project has no adverse impacts to the uh, riverfront areas capacity to continue providing functions and values in accordance with the act. I'm happy to go through it more, but I want to respect your time.
It's been a long evening, so I am passing it back to the commission. >> Thank you. >> Can you just add just miss Dutch that this is a preserved piece of land? >> Oh, yes. Thank you so much. Um, so >> thank you. This this line here indicates
that everywhere uh in this area here is all conservation land that the applicants and property owners donated uh in 2007. Um so when they were uh preparing this plan, we indicated, hey, some of that's going on conservation land. We need to reach out to the
trustees. So, we uh corresponded with them and they provided uh reserved right approval documentation that we included in the notice of intent application for the commission's records that's allowing this work to occur on conservation land. Um, and with that being said, Chris, I
appreciate you bringing that up because I realized in the notice of intent application, I provided a document that didn't have the signature from the property owners, so I wanted to give you one for the record. Thank you. You're welcome. All right, Chris.
>> Mr. Chairman, members, this is Allison Kulage and Thomas Burico, owners of 1787 F Main Road. This is a notice of intent application filed by Cla Hogerboom from LEC Environmental. Report date is October 9th, 2025. There is a file
number with no adverse comments. It's SE802815. Uh the site visit was also on October 9th, 2025. The property is located in the west branch of the Westcore River and is a 24.7 acre mostly wooded property. The
owners of the property in agreement with the trustes reservations are the CR holders are proposing selective clearing to obtain a view of the river. The new home and associated work has been permitted on a prior order of conditions. The associated work is to
conduct vista pruning and some tree removal to create two view corridors. The vista pruning is allowable activity under the minor exemption under 310 CMR 10.02 as long as it is taking place 50 ft from mean high water. All proposed
work will be above the 50ft setbacks from mean high water. The location of the view corridors were carefully selected to limit the amount of work um on LEC's behalf. they did meet with me um prior to this presentation
um and also have been very uh clearly working with the clients to limit those areas of best opportunity to obtain those views. Um a total disturbance of 8,227 ft within the 100 ft and the 100 and 200
ft areas are the roof areas proposed. So it varies but they're working within that 100 foot on some but mostly it's the 100 to 200 foot. Um all activity will be conducted by a licensed aberist as uh Claire mentioned with climbing
involved and uh no use of equipment. Um the tree removal within the vieward will allow the understory growth to thrive maintaining a stable slope. Uh although no significant adverse impacts of riverfront is anticipated, mitigation
has been provided to offset the disturbance and this is within the construction of the home. Portions of the riverfront area that were permitted within the new single family home limit of work will be restored with native seed mixes and shrub plantings. So within our approval of that new house
location, they had incorporated those features to enhance this current for knowing that they would like to commence this this vista pruning. Um resource areas impacted are the riverfront and the coastal bank. Recommendations to the
board. The Westport Country Commission should consider approving the vote proposed view corridors at 1787F main road allowing tree removal and vista pruning within the designated areas as shown on the engineered plan from
Schneider Devon and Leon dated September 29th 2025. That is all. Mr. Chairman, >> do you have any questions cla No? >> No. >> Okay. Qu questions from the table if not a motion. Thank you for uh actually
coming before us before pruning as opposed to most people in Westport. So we appreciate that and thank your clients for putting in a conservation restriction as opposed to everyone trying to squeeze a house in every lot of this town. >> I I just have a question. Is there a plan that actually kind of reduces this
down to the like treeto tree level that okay here are the ones that are going to get marked and so that when the arborist goes out there is this like a thing where the best plans intentions don't actually happen when the contractor goes out there and
>> I would suggest Mr. uh to the chair that we can put conditions that the trees be clearly marked in advance. Okay. >> I think we're open to that that they're clearly clear clearly marked. So, the applicants were uh they did a site visit with the arborist that they're hiring to do the work and they indicated the
specific trees. There's even uh one of the photos in the NOI application. I remember the landscape architect sent it to me and said it's this one, this one, and this one. So, they're very um aware that they don't they don't want to go overboard because they really appreciate
the scenic view that remains from the water as well and they want to sort of strike that balance of a view and privacy and >> correct >> environmental stewardship. So, um I think they're certainly open to the trees being tagged and inspected by Chris before uh any work is done.
>> Thank you. That's great. Appreciate that to approve. >> Motion for Jake. >> Second, Jason. All in favor? opposed. All right, that's unanimously on. >> Thank you all. >> Thank you. >> Certificate of compliance. Uh Steven again. >> All right.
>> Steven Boay se 1847221 Robert Street. >> This is which one? Mr. Chance. >> Uh Boprey. Steven Bo. >> Steven Bo is 221 Robert Street. This is the compliance for file number SE801847.
Uh the site visit was on October 7th, 2025. Um report is also October 7th, 2025. The property has an old order of conditions at the registry. The order of conditions was for single family home construction
well and grading that took place in 2010 2011. Um all work appears to have been completed according to the plan. Uh this was a buffer zone activity to sorting pond. Recommendations. Westport Conservation Commission should issue a full certificate of compliance for file
number SE801847 as all work has been completed according to the plan of record. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> That's uh Jake and uh who is that? Kevin. >> Kevin. >> All right. >> It's alive.
>> Okay. >> She didn't call you. >> Mary Spears SE8 2. Is that right? 275. Is that that old? >> Yes, it is. Mr. Chairman, you're not seeing things. >> Zero East Shore Road certificate of compliance. >> This is Mary Spears, Mr. Chairman. East
Shore Road certificate of compliance. For some reason on the the order they call it Drift Driftwood Road, which I've never heard of to that extent, but this is the end of East Shore Road. Um file number SE 80275. This dates back to 1988
um when the Apple constructed a small structure on Woods Point, which is a peninsula extending from East Shore Road. If you've all looked down from 88 going sutherly, you look there's a little shack on that little nubble of ledge that sits right against the 88
bridge. Uh this has no septic. Uh this is simply a structure that was permitted at the time. The access is across the salt marsh by way of a boardwalk. Um, I do have some relative concerns that I will express um once these new owners
take it over, but that boardwalk is not permitted and the accordance with the current regulations. It's only 18 in above the marsh um and a neighbor called and said they posted a file number. So, I'm not sure if they think that they can do work. So I was just curious on that
aspect but the apparently a neighboring abuing to this is buying a property um from the spears. The recommendation the West Conservation should issue a full certificate compliance for filing SE80275 and again the Spheres Mr. Spears if you
all want to know he invented the GI Joe >> motion to approve >> second. Okay, that's Jake. And you think of that? >> All in favor? >> Wasn't he in Isn't he in Warick? I thought I saw him on channel 12. Did he just pass away? Maybe I was like that.
>> Yes. I'm not sure how long ago he passed away. >> I saw something about the GI Joe guy on on the speed part of that group that worked for Hasbro and designed it. >> That's interesting. Did you have a question, sir? Yeah, I just um >> before he had left I shot you
commissioner and um Chris >> he's that guy um Sus quite a few times even to Ralph the building department about machinery and stuff being moved and Ralph told me why cuz he put a car underneath the tire and it never got moved. So I just wanted to
make that clear and if Chris can maybe meet me at the property tomorrow to see exactly how it looks right now cuz I don't trust him. That's why he's trying to make a point right now that we're gonna go do something and I'm gonna go to end this. >> Why Why don't you call the office tomorrow? Maybe if Chris going out there, but
>> yeah, give the office a call if you're worried about that. But if anything, documentation with with date stamp photos is always a great thing, too. >> Mr. Piper, where's a where's a camera? >> I just want to make sure he's not going to say that we're over there doing stuff when we're not doing stuff. He's done it
multiple times already and Ralph knows it from the building. >> Okay. But you you do you do know like when when this order is issued there's a waiting period which is the appeal period which I'm sure you're going to they're going to appeal it anyway. So you shouldn't even just stay away. I mean you can go there with Chris and maybe document it but that' be the
extent of going of doing any work there. >> All right. Thank you >> guys. Thank you. >> All right. Lastly, not lastly. Jason Wal Walters SE8253379 Gibly Lane. >> Jason Walters 79 Gibly Lane is a
certificate of compliance. The plan was filed by South Coast Engineering. The file number for the project was SE802533. The date of the report is October 7th as well as the site visit was on October 7th, 2025. The owner has filed
requesting a certificate compliance for a septic system installation at 79 Gibby Lane. This is off of John Reed Road. The repair was within a small lawn area of the updated cottage. It was an old rundown cottage as someone um put a little facelift on. All work is
completed in accordance with the plan of record. Uh driving by the site, everything is is correct. The West Conservation recommendation should issue a full certificate of appliance for final SC02533. As all work has been completed according to the plan of record.
>> All right. >> Motion. >> Motion to approve. >> Jake Phil. All in favor? Opposed. All right, let unanimous I Okay, few bills. That's it.
>> Minutes from 9:30 present. Uh Jake, Burton, myself, Phil, and Jason. >> Kevin was not here. Do we have any changes or if no changes, a motion to approve? Thank you. We have a second. Okay. Thank you. That was Jake and
Jason. All in favor? >> Opposed. All right. That takes care of that. We have uh East Bay Media Advertising 369. Motion >> second. >> All right, that was uh Kev, that was Jake and Kevin. All in favor? All right,
that's unanimously owned. >> Uh was this Oh, I'm going leave that one to the last to itemize that one. WB Mason 9485. We need a motion to pay. >> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second from Phil. All in favor?
>> Opposed? Okay. Lastly, we have Chris Capole mileage $368.20. [Music] >> Just for the record, this is from uh $819 to 1010. Okay. Motion to pay from Jake.
Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second Phil. All in favor? Opposed? That's unanimously. >> What was that? Gillette Stadium. Gillette Stadium. No, that was that was >> that was that was the that was the
Patriots tickets. >> I was there. >> All right. Anything else, Chris, or can we go home? >> The only thing I want to bring to the commission's attention is the county administrator approved our budget and doesn't feel that it's in need of having a meeting with us to discuss it any
further. I stated to him that that's fine and I will reiterate to him that the commission is fine with our proposed budget as written. It's the same thing every year plus the in raises. >> So we don't really have much to discuss. He's retiring in a month. So >> yes. Well, he's pushing them along real
quick. I don't know why he wants all the budgets all ready to go. So >> yep. >> So I have all this. >> All right. Motion to adjourn. >> Motion to do >> we have a second. >> Second fail. All in favor? That's unanimous. Thank you very