All right, we have the April 28th meeting of the Conservation Commission. Stand and salute the flag. This meeting is being recorded. Pledge >> algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under
God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. >> All right. Leon's good. The world is good. First hearing uh Christopher proof
>> Ento. Thank you. Gnome surf notice of intent zero main road constructor a barn uh Dominion style Jesus Christ headquarters building associated parking driveway access with septic system utility storm water management system.
All right. Who's up? >> Good evening Mr. Chairman. For the record Christian, principal engineer and president. Do you have all your green cards, Chris? >> Filing club. >> Yeah, we do. Okay, >> we got them. >> All right, go ahead. I'm sorry.
>> I'm here tonight representing the applicant who has filed notice of intent for the uh subject property off off of uh Main Road. Um property is about 7.21 acres. Um and it's assesses map 77 lot 28.
Doesn't have a number yet. Uh it's just a wooded wooded lot. Um I'd like to say I mean this this project is is you know it's it's going for commercial use but it's really the design is really more of a residential complex. The driveway
we're proposing is a 16 ft wide gravel driveway and we're also proposing um a gravel parkway. I just like to go through the the plans. Turn off you.
The gra the the driveway itself is coming off coming off main road um into a into a parking lot here which we have um 16 parking spaces um in the in the parking lot. And this is the bu the
building here. Uh we've designed everything as much as we possibly could outside the 100t buffer which is which is this line here. Um we have the septic system going underneath underneath the parking area and majority of majority of the work as you can see within the
within the buffer is is for the drainage purposes. Um currently right now the site topography cheap flows everything down into into the wetland here. Um total upland for the out of the 7.21
acres is is roughly 4.43 43 um acres of of upland. We're also for drains, we're also proposing a small bio retention area here just to try to capture some of that water instead of having it enter onto uh onto main road. Um the storm
water has been designed into in accordance with mass DP storm water standards. We have filed this project with the planning board. Um the plan board has a peerreview consultant that we did receive uh feedback on um last
this month. We will be back in front of the plan award again in June. Um at that point we would have we would have addressed the peerreview comments. There's certainly some changes that we do need to make um in order to meet the
requirements. Um, we feel like there's not going to be any major changes to the plans, but certainly we're not looking for approval tonight. Um, we just wanted to present the project to you and to get some feedback from from the commission. Um, we will
have a well in the middle in the middle of the property here. There will be a propane propane tank. >> Can you show me where the well is cuz it's not shown anywhere. Really? I looked everywhere for that. So >> yeah, we kind of tucked it away in the middle here. >> All right. Sorry. So I make a comment.
There's no well and I looked 100%, >> you know, meet the setbacks from the >> It looks like one of your dots for the buffer zone. >> Yeah. Um so as far as you know, far as the other utilities, I mean that's that's really it. We will have electric um coming off
coming off main road. Um but again I think we we stated that project's going to be in full compliance with master DP storm water rigs. Um we do have some changes that we have to make in order to meet the requirements
of the peerreview consultant. One thing that I did want to bring up that the planning board wanted us to look at um which they wanted us to access the site from the abuing parcel um
to the south. In order to do that, we would have to come through this narrow area here which is very there's an isolated wetland area here. So, we would have to fill that in and the distance from this well is very tight. Um and we wouldn't It'll be very difficult to do
anything with the storm water from that from that gravel road. Um, and we could probably do some kind of grass rails or something, but it'll be very tight. Um, we feel that the the applicant should be able to access the site from main road. This is
a really a low um traffic facility. Um, it's closed, actually closed in the winter time, so there will be no traffic in the winter. Um, and even in the peak season, not many vehicle traffic coming in and out
of the site. Um, so we're going to we're going to push back on that. Not only does it make sense from from the ownership and liability purposes, but coming from there and going through the wetland being so close, it just doesn't even make sense from a conservation
standpoint. Um, so we just wanted to bring that up and and we're hoping the the commission would would also support the driveway coming off the main road rather than coming through this area over here. Uh, cuz that's one thing they wanted us to
look at. Having that support will will help will help us um keep moving forward with the design because if we do have to do that obviously it changes the design, it changes storm water calculations and we just don't want to um waste the client's money doing redesign it if if
we don't have to. Um I will say this is uh Gnome this is for Gnome Surf um and this is their nonprofit. not that it matters in in regards to what we're doing in in work
within the resource area. Um whether it was a private development or nonprofit, um we've done the best we can with trying to push as further away as possible. Um the building setbacks are the dash line. So you can see we tucked
this away as further as far as we can to the north. Um these little buildings you see here um this is part of a a phase two. Um they have to get funding for this project. So the main purpose is to
get this randonium built in the parking lot. Um and then this would be something that they plan on doing in phase two. We did want to show it um to get permitting done, but we don't anticipate that getting done um maybe a year after the
project's constructed um or when they get funding. That that was pretty much it in a nutshell. Um I'll be glad to answer any questions the commission may have. Go >> ahead. >> What exactly are the card cottages? Yeah, five of them about eight.
>> So, these will be like they'll have they'll have events where they actually the kids actually sleep over. Um, >> so they'll be like it's almost like a little campground crowd kind of. >> Okay. >> Not going to be like Airbnb. >> No, it's fine. >> Attorney Mong on behalf of the applicant
as well. Um, the cottages are more of during the summer months. So known focus is primarily on teaching autistic children and you know diverse people how to surf and you know use therapy that way. And this is kind of their you know
outside sanctuary to allow families from rural area I mean uh urban areas like New Bedford and Fall River things like that an opportunity to spend a night out in nature. Um Christian pointed out we have like a common bathroom in there that's all you know designed within. It's obviously a phase two, but no, the
no renting out or anything like that. It's purely for the uh you know members of the the gnome community. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, Chris, >> Mr. Chairman, Christopher Anto for Gnome Surf, uh Christian Farin representing
this is a notice of intent application for the property located at zero main road. It's between Cumberland's and Benton Courts. uh that's where the access uh exists. Um report date is May 5 rather April 15 2026. The file number
is pending at this time. Uh planning board and board of health need to comment on this as well. As far mentioned, the planning board has given them some general comments at first detailed description. The actton is filed on behalf of Gnome Surf, a
nonprofit organization providing unique experiences for disabled persons. They are purchasing a parcel between Cland Farms and Bettin Courts. The property is currently awarded undeveloped piece of land formally owned by Primacare. The
property is 7.1 acres in size and has 4.43 acres of uplands on the front portion. The pros work is to construct a bondinium style headquarters, associated parking, septic system, and driveway access from main road. In addition to
the rear of the section of land, they will construct five 14x14 cottages with a separate restroom building. The wetlands have been approved on an order of resource area delineation, which is on file. The plan has a storm water basin to be constructed along the
wetland within 10 ft of its delineated edge. The basin will collect runoff the designated design project rather a smaller bio retention area is proposed close to the main roads entrance. Um discussing with the town planner Michael Burus there are some concerns for the
entrance uh being too close to the other ones that currently are there. They may be looking for a different access to eliminate this concern. Um it's recommended for the commission that we should probably continue this hearing um and allow planning board to hatch that
out before we get a final plan and um it doesn't agree with their concerns. As far as Christian, as far as that wetland, um, you know, I know Primacare in the past when they tried to develop this parcel, they got comments from the
planning board stating the same reasons that the entrances there were too many of them at that point. I don't know coming off the other section that primacare allows you. I that very small isolated area isn't significant.
Um, I I think there is allowance to come in that way, but I I think the planning board would push you if that's the case. So, I can't really comment cuz nor do I want to redesign the project, but you know, the planner felt you could snake right through that area. And I I shook
my head, too. So, um, no, you can't really go between the two wetlands. You might have some minor impacts, but uh, again, so that's something you're going to hatch out with them. So I recommend to the board as the applicant kind of
also considered was the commission should request the app and continue hearing and obtain comments from the planning board to provide a plan that meets all concerns. Uh again this is pending file number from D. That's all >> couple questions that you know the
border health has a stormwater um bylaw as well. So just make sure you take a look at that. >> Um >> I think that pond personally Mr. chairman is is considerably overkill for the project. So I think they may have >> taken that into consideration with
>> I don't want them coming back for a time zone regulations. >> Um so if they if you do come in from the other the other uh lot who owns that lot and do you have permission to use it if you if they ask you to the planner does ask you to do that? >> Sure. >> Again attorney Mac Long on behalf of the
applicant. I'm in uh communication with the seller. It is also owned that is Primacare. So, Primacare owns the building and then this is their abuing parcel. They bought both together. Um I we have not had a serious discussion about it. In the beginning when we first started and first went under agreement,
there was some talk about an easement. Um it would definitely be a bit more of an undertaking. Um you know, if you're familiar with the Cumber Cumbies parking lot, you it's kind of right there. >> We're not talking about having a massive
flow of traffic here. So, we're really going to try to get the planning board to support us coming off of main road. I know the applicant really wants that. Um, separate driveway, kind of quiet, that that sort of uh thing. And then also, if we were to come in the other way, we would still likely be coming
through that area with utilities. So, you're going to you're talking about disturbing multiple areas. So, you know, we were kind of hoping to get a little bit of feedback from you guys in terms of as much as, you know, Chris pointed out, it is small and tight there. we would likely end up having to replicate
that area along the, you know, southern border of the uh budding Bettton Court area. So, it's kind of a tricky one there. I think if it really came down to it and we had to I it's 50/50 at this point. I really don't have any definitives from the sellers. Um but
obviously best case scenario accessing from the frontage on Main Road would be best case. >> Yeah, it's going to be a little more expensive going that way, too. Yeah, >> with the white lines. Yeah, >> definitely. >> All right. Uh, questions, guys? >> Just procedurally, so are you
anticipating that your next meeting with the planning board that there would be a definitive decision there? >> Probably not to be honest with you. I think the ne we have our next meeting is the first one in June. I think June 3rd. Um, and that will be our first meeting
presenting the plan to them. They were kind enough to give us feedback ahead of time because we had to delay. So, we know where they're at. As Chris pointed out, he talked with Michael and they shared the same concerns with us. >> But the hope is with our first meeting at planning, we can kind of nail down,
all right, this is where the access is going. Tighten up a little area from there. But, you know, I think the major concern that they had was the driveway. Outside of that, we didn't have a lot of feedback on the building location, parking. As you can see, this site is kind of tricky with the wetlands being
right in the middle of it. Yeah. >> Um, >> but you know, I do think it's a great project and I think it's a nice thing to have in town. I mean, I guess the reason I asked is that if if then you felt like it was um that you were going to develop a more
detailed um alternative access calling it, you know, then it might be reason to come back and and get our feedback on it because generally we try if there are alternatives, we look at less >> uh intrusive on, you know, wetlands and
that kind of stuff and then we might be able too. >> That was kind of >> back to the planning board final decision. >> In all honesty, that's kind of our hope is from you guys to get the I think we're all reluctant to do any work within the wetland. Obviously, we're
here to protect the wetland. So, if we are absolutely forced to come through, we're going to have to disturb them and you know there's going to be replication work and all of the like. So our hope with the meeting today was to get a little bit of feedback from you guys so when we're in front of the planning board, we can explain to them and
express the reluctance to come in through the wetland. >> Right. And I I I um I'm not prejudging it. I'm just saying probably to get that opinion. It would be helpful to have more detail about what the would be and how you're comparing alternative
suggestions. >> Yep. Thank you. What's a bario? >> Essentially, it's a new term. They It's If you look, you want to flip it over and show them the building. Um, it's, if you're familiar with any of the storage poleb barn style buildings, people take
those and develop them into uh like living. It it it's technically not a baraminium because nobody is going to be living there. It's a combination of barn and condominium is where they come up with the term, but the point being is it's a pole barn. It's a It's a This is
a rendering of what it could look like, but essentially it's a open floor plan, open concept. >> It's a metal type >> building, >> metal roofing, so it brings in that appearance of more the rural character than >> It appears more like a barn than a commercial building.
>> Exactly. And then you can add different uh gazeos and stuff off it or leaning shed roofs that can make little enclosed areas. So like weather low. >> Yeah. Comparable to that. Yes. Similar similar in design. I think they used a
lot of wood at Weather Low, but >> a little less magnitude than what Weather Blow probably had. I think this is more like, >> you know, it's got the kind of the >> top of it like an old barn. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay.
>> Anybody else? Anybody from the audience have any questions? Chris, as far as the access goes, I wouldn't take away the planning and traffic danger, all that stuff. Just from wetlands perspective, wouldn't we prefer they not alter the wetlands and go through the wetlands? >> Of course, there's always the request to
utilize areas without impacting wetlands. over. Uh I was just expressing it's not it's not again every wetland is somewhat significant but um again for the purpose of safety it may be something that may come to
>> you know but I would truly say to the board that we always seek to have a project that doesn't has an alternative and this one uh does meet that requirement the way they designed and that's the reason I think they chose that design uh was specifically afford
that. So, >> all right. >> So, I I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but I guess we can state in in a setting tonight that the commission would prefer an access that would not impact wetlands if at all it >> Yeah. >> And that may be something they can go to
the planning board with. >> All right. So, next question is when do you guys think you want to come back? July sometime or August? Well, >> probably. >> I mean, I would say late at earliest late June once we know >> maybe a second meeting in June would probably
The ideal >> we're first week of June with plan >> 26th of May. >> Second meeting of June. >> Yeah. >> What is it? June 12. >> You know what that is, Liam? Second meeting of June. >> No. >> Mr. Chairman, just so you know, that
driveway we it is kept outside 100 foot buffer. >> Yes. So, some of this project is completely out of our jurisdiction. Yes. I'm just I'm trying to just orientase myself. So, come up main road. >> This is betting courts right here.
>> That's bett. That's Yeah, that's a skinny piece. >> A lot of parking lot is this entrance. >> The dirt portion in the back of Cumberland Farms where they have like Jersey barriers right now is encroaching on this lot. >> Yes. And Benton Court's encroaching on the other side.
>> Fenley's new restaurant that's that's further down. >> That's towards the condo. Correct. Okay. Correct. So it looks like the second meeting in June would be the 23rd. Tuesday the 23rd if I'm correct. >> So there you go. >> You want an extension? All right. >> Continue to the June 23rd meeting.
>> You have a motion to continue to June 23rd, please. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All those in favor? All right. Thank you, gentlemen. >> Thank you. The boarding >> that was um Phil and uh Jason, >> who was it?
truck still. >> Next, uh Scott and Scott and Barbara Jones. Notice of intent one Carter's way SE80 2830 installation of dock float gang way in the west branch of the West River.
The green card, please. Y >> that's currently what's there being replaced with the license dog. This one's license not >> that was not licensed or permitted.
>> Okay. For the record Greg Nichols of South Coast Union representing Scott Jones with their property on Carter's Way. God is located down south to main road on the west side and the property fronts on section of the west branch of the westport river known as Cove. What
we are proposing here is a boardwalk across the marsh which will begin just east of the beginning of the marsh and terminate just beyond the limit of water where you'll have a gang plank which will access an 8x6 float. The uh
boardwalk as it's proposed be 3 ft wide with a minimum of 4 and 1/2 ft of clearance over the marsh. The boardwalk itself will have the throughflow decking rather than wood which will allow according to the specifications 84% sunlight to get through which I think could be beneficial for the uh for the
mash. As Chris was uh mentioning when I putting this stuff up here, there is an existing very short dock over here with a float system. that got has I couldn't find any record of a license. I'm not sure how old it is. It doesn't look
terribly old. It's um used by Mr. Jones, but in addition to it not being registered. You can also see on a plan it's also property. So I don't know who built it or how it was built or where the determined property lines were. But in any event, it's coming up. Couple
other things worth mentioning. This section of prop is probably about three and a half acres and about two acres of it is all conservation restriction and that runs from about the edge of the high water about 600 ft this way and that conservation restriction it heads
uh north on all of our budding budding properties there is a area here which allows for dock easement I talked to Rob Moran about it he had no issues with this there's also a walking easement that comes down along within this tree line shown here the benefit of the uh
one lot on Carter's way that is not front on Holders Cove. Um that lot is now also owned by Mr. Jones. So I think that Eastman is extinguished by consolidation if he wind up selling it and making them back to life. I don't know. Uh what else can I say about this?
Um this area here of Hers Cove is listed as a potential area for eel grass. When we went out did the um the soundings to get the depth of the water we didn't see any evidence of eel grass at all. the existing path that goes through there. It does go through a BVW. There's no proposed work in that area. Existing
path been there since at least 1987. It's shown off plan. Uh I think that's all I have. Mr. Chairman, back to you. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. This is Scott and Barbara Jones, one Carter's Way. Uh notice of
intent application represented here by South Coast Engineering with Greg Nicholas present. The report date is April 15th, 2026. There is a file number with no adverse comments. It's SE802830. We also have received DMF comments via I
believe an email with no concerns for the dock as shown. Description of the work happened was filed to construct a license fixed pier gangway and float on the west branch of the river. Property has frontage on holder cove that lies between Main Road and Lawrence Avenue. The old non-pmitted structure will be
removed from the marsh, a fixed pier 117 ft with a 22 foot gang way and an 8 by6 float. The structure crosses a large portion of the salt marsh and decking should be a through flow type to allow adequate light as Greg has proposed
here. Float stops will be installed and set above 30 in above the bottom at the end. Uh again, this design meets the town's dock policy and no eel grass is found within this area. Uh dock height also proposed at 6'6 in. Uh this is
adequate to allow public access underneath. So no uh stairwell or such is required. Resource areas to be impacted is land under the ocean land containing shellfish, salt, marsh land subject to flooding. Um and I didn't indicate riverfront recommendations. The
Westport Conservation Commission should approve the proposed pier, gang way, and float with standard dock conditions and the use of throughflow decking required for the section of Marsh Crossing. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
>> You're all set, Greg. Any questions? All right. Any questions from the table? >> How do they uh how do you get the equipment out there to drive the pilings with a span that large? >> Yeah, it's a northern planet out there, Jason. I mean this is like 100 a little
over 100 ft. So well doing some research on it. I looked and see there's a product called Mega Deck which you put on the MOS and you crawl out on that which is necessary. There's a D policy on that. It recommends the temporary use of dunage of some sort to support that.
It's guide to permitting small pile supported docks and peers under 2003. That's a D policy on that. What I said over here is that whatever kind of crossing material they use and I'm recommending mega deck if you have something better that's that's fine. Put it out where it's needed and move it. So
that means you know move out put another piece in front because the piece of front might be lifting up behind you but I don't want to leave it up there indefinitely. >> I don't think that it's feasible expects. >> There's a whole bunch of that. It sounds like the same product in uh Portsmith
how they work. I I saw a whole pile. They look like pallets. >> Okay. >> What? >> And they set it down and they run the equipment over it and then they Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Are they Are they driving them or they using helicil pilots?
>> Coil would be nice if they want soil analysis to do that. I'm not sure how you get out there to do that. >> Any other questions? I have no qu any questions from the audience? No. Okay. No other questions. Is there a motion?
>> Motion approved from Jake. We have a second. >> Second. >> Second from Tom. All in favor? Opposed? All right. That's unanimous. >> Matthew Christine Doyle, notice of intent 1794, Erift Road, SE82834, extension of the existing dock
installation. Two new floats with one gang way east branch of the Westport River. >> Wait a minute. Hold on a second. What did I just send down? >> Is that the right one? >> They were in our illustrious agent didn't put them in the correct order. Just
>> one. Send it back. You know, when the chairman isn't here and I run the meetings, we generally sign the correct one. >> Oh, okay. >> That's okay. >> Missing a few miles off the passport tonight. >> I get the integr.
>> Well, you know, when you rely on your agent to do stuff for you and then he just he lets you down. >> Sometimes you got to mix it up just to make you feel like you're important. >> Once again, he's leading from the back, throwing his under study under the bus. Why don't you just pull the plug on Leon and call it a night?
>> The one thing it's consistent. >> All right, we got the great consistent. >> No more belowing. Okay, we're good. >> All right, I think I'm good, too. All right. Again, great. South Coast Engineering for Matt Doyle property
1794E Griff Road this way down south end of Griff right before it makes a turn to go on to grade 88. All right. This is the 1.1 acre uh parcel of land. There was an existing dock over here which is permitted under the previous owner
Capital. And what Mr. Doyle would like to do is to extend a dock out, remove a float and gang way. extend the dock out roughly 21 ft and have a new float over here which will be 8 by 24 and also another float
over here which will be a 6x8 float right next to a work platform. This float will be accessed by a gang. This one here will be accessed by a ladder right off the side of the dock. This here although it's um going to be a bigger dock when it's all said and done
out into the water. The existing dock here is going to remain as it is. So all the work here is going to be limited to the work that's already in the water. So it's going to be the impact would be land under the ocean. The uh existing dock isn't adequate to um to service Mr.
Doyle's boat. I don't know anything about boats. So proposing this this float and I'll have a couple peers out over here which you take his boat and put it into this area and also have the option of putting a smaller boat over here against this dark.
Um it's pretty straightforward as far as you know the other one is concerned. There will be float stops. There's a lot of water over here that we're putting float stops in event of a um a real stream low tie. Again 26 2.5 ft 30 in
above the bottom and uh it's pretty much what I have the chairman a little bit simpler. >> All right, Chris. >> Mr. Chairman, this is uh Matt Doyle 1794 E Drift Road. The uh notice of intent is filed by South Coast Engineering with
Greg Nicholas representing. The report date is April 15th, 2026. There is a file number with no adverse comments. It's SC802834. We also received comments from DMF with no um initial concerns. Detailed
description of the work. The owner has filed to reconstruct an existing license spear on the east branch. The dock will be modified with adding a 22 ft extension to a larger 8x4 float. This extends the pier 35 ft further from the
existing licensed pier. Distance does not interfere with navigation. Dock design meets the town's dock policy. Uh again, as Greg mentioned, this float will not require float stops because there's adequate depth. Uh however, reflective tape should be installed on
all seawward facing sides on the farthest section of the float. Uh there is no eel grass found in this area of the river. So there's no concerns for that. Um resource areas for impacted is land under the ocean, land containing
selffish and lead subject to flooding. Um recommendations for the board. The Westport Conservation Commission should approve uh should approve should approve the proposed fixed spear extension with a new gang way and float with standard dock conditions for file number
SE802834. That's all. Mr. Chairman >> questions. No. Any questions from the table? >> Any questions from the audience? >> All right. A motion. I'm going to be abstaining from this, but a motion from the table. >> Motion to move.
>> Second. >> Okay, that was Jake and uh Phil. All in favor? >> I abstain. >> Jake. Okay, Jason. And I abstain. All right. Thank you, Greg. You're welcome. Good night, Greg.
You make sure you got fully next. You check. I tried to put him in the proper order. No, >> you didn't. >> Try harder. >> That's the auto pen. >> That's what my baseball coach used to tell me. >> Coach, I struck out. >> Oh, it's right. Oh,
>> go try harder, Paul. >> All right. Next hearing we have. Let me just make this. That's done. That's done. That's done. Are these continuous John Foley? >> What's that? >> You going to continue John Foley? We're going to open the hearing and then we'll Yes.
>> John Foley John Foley notice of intent 246 River Road SE82931 construct new fixed pier gangway float and fixed access platform in the west branch of the Westport River. All right, Charlotte, how are you this evening? >> I'm well sheet.
>> Can I get you another one? >> Absolutely. All right. Sure. >> You said I wanted to sign. >> I signed it by accident and then I I put like an error note in your mind. So I put it near his instead by accident.
What up? I haven't yet. >> I'm going to start with me. No one's getting watch. >> The green card is Sean. >> Yeah. >> Thanks. >> Says the guy who was uh was mentioning about how smooth the meetings run when he's in charge. >> Yeah. >> Well, I'm not in charge tonight. That's
why it's not going smooth. You can um well wait for Chris to come back actually. >> Would you like to talk about to fill the dead air cable access to? >> No. No one's watching us. >> I cut those. I cut those panels. >> The stuff you printed from?
>> Yeah, I cut them. I seen two routed them. They came out real nice. >> All right. >> Don't give that to Jason. So, he signed it. >> Is that going to? >> No, I'm skipping it. I don't know if I sign it. >> Yeah. >> All right. Sean, go ahead, bud. >> Okay. Sean Lee Susie Engineers
representing John and Mariela Foley 246 River Road. This this proposed dock uh this particular parcel is located almost directly across the condominiums on river road overlooking great island. It used to be Jack Penny's property if
everybody knows where that was. But what they're proposing is basically they have an existing residence and it's being up on point with land to to put a dock. Uh originally we had proposed a platform uh at the end of the dock on the thing. Uh
Chris has a written report not recommending that, but we will remove that 10ft pl 10x10 platform in favor of just putting steps up from an elevation 3 to an elevation six over the salt marsh. Will be 6 ft over the salt marsh. We're extending out across the salt
marsh with a 20 16 ft gang way going to a 28x 20 flow standard basically configuration of the dock. But we've read uh Mr. Pon report. I know he wants uh delineation salt marsh is kind of a delineation of the wetlands. There is a
upland here. Uh we can do that and we'll definitely remove the 10x10 fix platform. Uh other than that we'll probably just ask for continuance to the next meeting for revised plans. >> Chris, >> Mr. Chairman, John and Ellen Foley 246
River Road. This is a notice when 10 application filed by Northeast Consultant Engineers and Consultants rather Sean Leech present. Report date is April 15th, 2026. There is a file number SE82831. Um Mass DMF comments also I believe are
on file. The owner has recently purchased the old Penny property at 246 River Road. The site is located on the west branch of the Westport River. The proposed plan does not delineate any of the wetland resource areas that exist, the wetland and or salt marsh. The
property is currently contained with electric fencing. Uh there really wasn't an access path to to actually exist and allow the dock to be constructed. Um potentially wetland vegetation will need to be removed. Uh and and this really wasn't clearly identified in the
application and I think that needs to be clarified. Uh the dock is proposing a 10x10 deck at the beginning extending out to a gang way and float. The float will be suspended above the bottom of the river with float stops uh due to the very shallow nature of this location. Uh
the location up here is very shallow. There you go. And the boat may sit on the bottom at low tide uh potentially further impacting shellfish habitat and the public's ability to harvest shellfish. Uh the design height for the pier currently is five feet uh
separation and no public stair access is needed. Five foot height ab of the dock above the marsh is a minimum height requirement. Uh resource areas to be impacted is land containing shellfish land on the river flood zone buffer zone riverfront and
potentially wetland impacts. I recommend for the board the West Conservation should request the applicant continue the hearing uh delineate the resource areas and provide a plan that accommodates accessing the water. A deck attached to the dock uh should not be considered under the waterways
regulation. A dock is for access to the water and not necessarily for entertaining purposes. I think that kind of would be what that would be used for. Uh through flow decking should be used in the marsh crossing. Um, so I
recommend the continuence to the next meeting or to when Sean can provide that information. >> We can make it at the next meeting. I can get that into the week. >> Is that enough time for you, Chris, if I get it? >> The deadline. Yeah, you got to get it in
by the end of the week. Would be helpful for me. >> Okay. >> I'm okay with that. >> What's What's the next meeting? >> The 12th. >> May 12th. >> 12th. >> All right. Do you guys have any questions for for uh >> how am I going to advertise it? >> What's that?
>> I have again >> the continuence on the next meeting. You advertise tomorrow. >> Okay. >> Right. >> Oh, we don't have to advertise it. >> No, you just put it on the agenda for the next meeting. >> Yeah. >> All right. Any questions, guys? >> Any questions in the audience? No. All
right. >> One question. What's the concern on your laundry desk? I mean, >> oh, I don't have a concern for him. There's no way to access the pier at this time. So obviously you have to make amends to make an opening in the electric fence to allow you to
>> take take the rail down. >> Yeah. Well, whatever you need to do. But again, I I know that the previous owner was, you know, concerned with gear and and that's totally however you want to be. But there needs to be a way you get out to the dock. There's no there's no
access currently right now out to the water. So physically if you need to cut shrubs or do you need to go over them that that needs to be considered? Yes. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Go. >> All right. Just one quick question. Is
is the electric fence to keep like livestock in or why >> keep them up? >> Yeah. Does a great job. >> Does it does it work? >> Yeah. >> How high is it? >> 6 ft. >> It don't jump over it? >> No. >> We had one in there on our camera. H out, but luckily he came in and got
>> but very rare. >> They actually have a cattle crossing on the road to stop the deer from coming from the street. So that deters him from coming in that way unless he jumped over it when the car was coming by like you mentioned. I don't know. But >> it keeps the dogs in it, too. >> Yeah. See, very good. Whatever works.
And I do understand those concerns cuz there are quite a population down there. >> You missed quite a few down there, didn't you? >> Yeah. >> There wouldn't be many that you could shoot. We need a motion to continue to uh May 12th. >> Motion to continue. Second.
>> That was Jake. >> All in favor? Opposed? All right. That's unanimous. >> Thank you. >> Good evening. Next, uh Timothy Twomiwami.
Notice of intent 39E American Legion Highway S8 2832. construct fixed pair on Saudi Pond. Miss you too, Sean. >> Y Thank you, sir. >> Here, Sean, I got a picture for you so you can tell me how he's going to he's
going to put Look at all those rocks, guys. >> I I know that's what Okay, I'll get >> Again, you can propose whatever you want, but I I think you're going to need some guy with some serious mouth gear when he's trying to drill through that cuz he's going to be chattering like
crazy. Uh Sean Lee's engineers representing Andy Brady and Tim Kumi uh at American Legion Highway E39E. This is down the lane way known as Burger on Lane on Saudi Pond 177 to these rocks.
>> This is a small lot with very small frontage on actual pond. All these lots are very small frontage and they've been delineated. There's massive boulders all through this area on this side of the pond. I size of small Volkswagens.
>> Uh the tum trying to for years had put boards and trying to get across and launch kayaks on this pond. It is nearly impossible with the boulders and everything. You look at the pictures, pictures don't even do it justice how many boulders there are. So what they like to do is span there's a small strip
about 20 ft wide of I would say what grass that they want to span and then go out over the boulders and just get to a point where they can launch a kayak. Basically, there's no float involved here. We're not too concerned. No title range, obviously. So, what we're doing is proposing a raised platform over the
salt mark, dropping it down to a point. So, we're one foot off the high water mark of the pond so they can launch a kayak. Basically, a float wouldn't work very well in this direction because of the nature of all the bottom here with the boulders and everything. Would be impossible to to put a float there and
realistically make it work. So they're basically just going to instead of a float have a platform on the farthest rock we could get out to it. It's a 78 foot fixed pier. Uh it actually spans about 60 ft from the marsh grass itself.
Uh this is a little different because it is a great pond. Sony pond is a great pond. So we we not instead of marine fisheries we notify basically fish and wildlife. uh they have jurisdiction over this pond and we have not also notified the city of Fall River who has the water rights to Saudi. So what they just
looking to do is come off their backyard steps put a walkway more than it is a dock out to a point where they can launch a kayak. Uh we get the mean high water by using the wear that dumps into the brooch out to and heads towards
southwest temple pond. Uh the water level at the time we did the survey was very high actually the yard. So we're well above that with the dock itself. >> There's no pickle weed with that dropping the dock down to above the water. There's no vegetation and only in that
>> Yeah. There's no I mean there's so many ripping it out. >> You I was in with waiters and it was a tough time just walking around. It's like walking a bowling ball. >> Mr. Chairman Timothy to uh to
39 East uh E American Legion Highway. This a notice of intent filed by Northeast Engineers and Consultants. Sean Leech representing. The date of the report again is April 15th, 2026. There is a file number SE802832.
Um and Sean is correct. The owner is proposing a fixed pier access into Saudi Pond, a great pond. A great pond has the same requirements for fixed peers as required in the Westport River. A great pond is any pond that is 10 acres or
larger. The fixed pier is 86 ft in length and seems in my opinion excessive for the area. Shallow section of the pond provides little depth as it extends further out. Uh the rocky area will make pile placement difficult. What equipment
be used to construct the pier is is a question and also ice will be a concern during the winter months. Has owner considered a seasonal floating dock that may be better suited for this location. In addition, throughflow decking should be used for the pier section that
extends over the wetland edge. Um Sean did discuss with me helical piles. Um I I don't know how the applicant would be able to install the helical piles. I think I need a little more information how he's going to stand there. Is he going to stand in the water and do it
again? But seeing the bottom and how it's riddled with boulders, I I almost think you have to pick and choose the design rather than you telling me you can make it 86 ft out in length. So, um I have a place on a pond. I'm very
familiar with it. They're extremely vulnerable to ice, especially dropping the pier down to that height. If the pond ever elevates in a flooded season and we get ice, uh you might be jeopardizing that that whole section.
So, I think I would ask the Tums if they could consider something that if this is all they think they can get, then then I guess we can try to rule on it. But I believe the commission should continue and request the app and consider either
a smaller fixed pier, a seasonal float, or just a seasonal float given the difficult section of the pollen for piles. But um and if he wants to do helical piles, I'd like to know who will who may be able to do that for him. Um I'm not familiar with anyone that does
work on freshwater ponds per se, but >> that's all Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Okay. So, the heel compiles can be installed on the two men. They can just be screwed into the ground and that's what's probably going to happen. >> So, it's standing in the water. >> Yeah. Standing water. Yeah. Uh because that's the only thing that's going to
work. You're not going to be able to drive a wooden pile in here and try to keep it straight and shatter it basically. Uh, as far as shortening the dock, anything shorter than to here is basically unusual because the side size of the boulders and depth of water, the
whole point is to try to span to a point where they can get into the water. At that particular point, there's about 3 ft of water uh out this far. And that that'll work for, you know, launching a kayak in here. There's so many boulders. It would be impossible to even paddle a
kayak around, you know. So, that's why the desire is to go out that far. Uh, as far as a seasonal float, not going to work. You know, just putting a float out here, it just would sit on the coldest. It wouldn't work. Ice is a concern. That's why we're going to go with this
heel piles. I mean, that's the only way. We also considered a alternative design of having single heel piles to make it easier and just do T brackets cuz that would probably be easier than setting a dual set of piles going out. That's something that we've already talked to
uh waterways that if we change from this configuration to a single pile, they wouldn't have a problem, but they prefer us that we file with the double pile, one on each side rather than a single pile because if we go the other way, we'd have to go back and relic everything and also come back to the
conservation commission. >> Well, that's a big decision you have to make with your applicant and yourself. So, I'm not going to design it for the applicant. No, but I mean as far as what we're applying for is you know a typical dock the double piles. If we go single piles it'll be less disturbance. So I
don't think we have to come back to the commission. >> However they think it work it's going to work. I think no matter piles or notical piles don't go through rocks. So you almost have to stand with an aerial view and try to place the piles between um
given the kind of complexity of the site. So however you think you can get it. I just don't want you to experience uh ice and now you have, you know, that many more piles that you got to fix every time it gets tweaked in the winter. That's >> Well, because they're in the boulders,
the helical piles won't move for an ice. The ice won't heave them. >> No, if you get them down in, you should be okay. They just push sideways and and they shift. >> Jason pointed that out. Do you They clear that run out. Like there's no bulldo on that one. Yeah, that's because
neighbors created their own little >> Why do you think there's a row of boulders on either side? Because they that old couple must go in there. I was going to ask Sean, my next comment was if he was going to do the same thing. >> Yeah, it looks like a runway. >> It does. No, but people actually by you can see the pile of boulders. Someone
actually physically sat there pulling boulders and moving them. >> It's very common both South Dakota and this all a sudden you find a row of boulders that everybody cleared out the front of their own section without filing. Well, it's a violation, but yes, it may be common, but if you move in habitat, >> that's basically that's basically what happened here.
>> The crayfish will just move to where you make it a better wall. But I I mean, Sean, yeah, this is a difficult the African bought this place and and again, doesn't guarantee you that >> no, >> you can get wonderful access to the water.
>> I have a question. >> Yeah, they're not going to put boats in. >> Let Phil have a comment. Yeah. I'm So, how far above the water line used to the dock? >> It starts off It starts out 4 ft above It starts 4 ft above >> Yeah.
>> the water line and then drops down to I'll call it a platform to a point where you can get off the dock and get up. Now, that's one foot that's 1 foot above being high the mean highest high water you can have in the pond. And that is one foot above the weir which puts it almost up against 177 if you can picture
how high that is. So technically when when we show this one foot with the mean high water, >> it rarely reaches that level. It might reach it once every 10 15 years maybe, but it'll be probably more like 2 or 3 ft at the highest in the spring. In the
summertime, it'll be 3 or 4 feet. >> Three or four feet below the water line. >> Yeah. At its highest level, it would be it will have a foot of freeboard. We >> require that be obviously above the beam highest high water for the pond itself.
God bless him to get in and out of a kayak that you know from that height. I mean it's floating in the water and you just drop it into it. >> Yeah. >> Good luck. >> You're putting a ladder. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> You put a ladder. >> Good luck. >> Well, yeah. They may be able to put some
way of getting >> a ladder or something or something. Maybe step >> but >> that's all that's all they want to do is get his kayak out of >> I know. I get it. Yeah, >> I do a lot of kayaking and I >> can paddle through their runway
>> unless you've got it all tied off. And >> I've actually spoken you saw that. >> I actually spoke to the Keeves. You might know the Keefs. Uh Dennis Ke. I've actually spoken with them and they were wondering what was going to happen tonight and they were also thinking well we
>> Is that the old couple from Boston that >> Yeah. that they do all kinds of things then they ask later. >> Yeah. because it would it's always better on communities like this when you have you know 40 >> do you know from that point to their water access is entirely a spagnum swamp and I I still don't even know how they
made that path to what they got in the water there but they're resilient but they've been there for 35 years so I I won't make any more comments. >> We can move on. So, I just have one. I don't think we've ever had a doc license,
you know, presentation without a uh like a float at the end of it. >> Why Why wouldn't they want one? It if it it's it there's no advantage to having a float. In other words, you have to you want a float stop to keep it 30 in off the bottom. And the way the bottom is, I mean,
>> not you don't not on the >> you know, on a long on a low water thing, you'll think it might be tipping like this because there's a there's a giant hole here. here. Giant boulder here. Giant boulder here. And and basically it's something you have to haul out of the water cuz in when the pond freezes, you got to get the float out of the water too.
>> Season. Yeah, it's seasonable. But I mean getting in and out of the boat, no place to put the kayak. It's >> I mean I like them. >> We they took our suggestions. We suggest a seasonal float might be more better. >> We we made that suggestion that have a
float. We also made a suggestion to uh have some way of, you know, getting the float, just a small float up onto the dock itself. Just drag it up onto the dock itself so they don't have to haul it. Just trying to get it back up onto the yard. Yeah. >> Pretty annoying.
>> No, they make those black sections of docks now that angle where you can just >> because even if you just step off it, if you have 3x3 section, >> jet ski goes up on it, but you may be able to slide down it on a >> All right, we're going to go in the dock design business. That'll be our next thing. >> Yeah, we're going to go to designing
these so people as much money as we make here. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, >> we might. Maybe the applicants will give us a little extra 50% more doc. >> Perfect question. >> No question to continue. >> Second. >> You want to the 122? Sean,
>> why are we What are we looking for in the continuence? I'm not sure what the continuence is. >> I thought we're going to vote on it. >> You got to give us a plan that represents what you're going to propose. >> That's it, right? That's the plan. That's what you want right there. >> That's pretty much it. Yeah. >> I'm not sure what I mean, if you want,
>> you need flow through decking. You got flow through decking. So, you need to make a few changes to the plan. There you go. Continue to make 12 to add some comments to the plan and and ask the applicant if he would reconsider. >> I'd like to go out there.
>> Good job, Chairman. John, do you have something to say? >> No, I I mean, I'd like Chris to go out there with Chris so I could show him like where the dock is. We had a we had a stake stuck in so that you could see how far the dock went out. You see where it was in the boulder relation to the boulders. So, >> all right. Phil made a motion to continue to uh May 12th. Do we have a
second? >> I second. >> Jake second. All those in favor. >> That's unanimous. >> We need to add a whole >> Why did you approve my thinking? I broke my first time. Yeah.
Dr. Thank you, Sean. >> All right. That's fine. All right. Uh, next I'll take over for the chair. He has to grab a call. >> Okay. I we just want to wait for you or >> No. Okay.
Um, Lance Humphrey, 218 Hicksbridge Road, certificate of compliance. Mr. Chairman, members, Lance Humphrey, 218 Hicksbridge Road. This is a request for a certificate of compliance uh for file number SC802516.
Report date is April 8th, 2026 or out of the site as it was on April 8th. The report is dated April 15th. Description of work. The owner has filed a request of certificate compliance for coastal bank work at 218 Hicksbridge Road. The area has been reestablished
with native species and is fully established and actually being mowed. The Apple will be enhancing the area by adding some native perennial uh planted in the spring of this year and the fall. So I believe the project is substantial
compliance. I recommend the board, the West Conservation Commission should approve the issuance of a certificate of compliance for file number SE802516 as all work has been completed to stabilize the area for Lance Humphrey, 218 Hicksbridge Road.
>> All right. Is that the first property over the bridge? Yes. >> On the left? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. I thought so. Any discussion? If not, a motion. >> Move to issue this certificate of compliance. >> Second. >> All right. That was Phil and Bert. Leon
favor. >> All those in favor? I >> opposed. All right. Unanimous. >> All right. Thank you, Jason. >> Next, we have Jonathan Levy Alivi SC80243 418G Gford G Drift Road. And we're going
to continue that to May 12th. >> Correct. >> So, I need a motion to continue to May 12th, 2026. >> So moved. >> We have a second. Second. >> Second from Jason. All in favor? I
>> Okay, that's unanimously. Next, we have um Olivia McCulla, SE82769 942 Drift Road. >> 942 Drift Road. Mr. Chairman, correct? Bond number SE802789 Olivia McCulla 942 Drift Road. Uh the
report date is April 15, 2026, and a site visit was conducted on the same day. The applicant is filed requesting a certificate of compliance with the dock they constructed at the location of 942 river. The work has completed according to the plan of record. Float stops are
installed and public access is in place. Uh I believe a certificate compliance is in order for conservation issue a certificate compliance with file number SE802769 as the dock has been constructed according to the plan of record. That's
942. Drift Road. >> Drift Road. You said River Road. >> Thank you. >> Moved. >> Motion from Phil. Second. >> Second from Jason. All in favor? >> Post. All right. That's unanimous. Now,
>> so we have an extension for Warrenburgg, SE82693, 170 East Beach Road. >> Warrenburgg, Mr. Chairman, is 170 East Beach Road. This is an extension request for order of conditions se2693.
Um, this is a oceanfront trailer lot report date is April 15th, 2026 as well. Description: The owner has filed to request a three-year extension to the order of conditions for beach maintenance. Uh, the commission has been very favorable allowing these extensions
to be given. So, the Westport Conservation Commission should issue a three-year extension. the file number SE802693 with compatible cobble material only. Uh, and I'm going to make that very specified on the orders because we have
some things occurring on the beach this season that uh are not necessarily permittable. So, >> all right, we have a do we have a motion? >> Move to issue a three-year extension. >> Second from somebody. Second,
>> Jason. >> All in favor? Opposed? Okay, that's unanimous. >> All right. Bills Town and Westport, East Bay Media, $322.50 for advertising. >> Motion to take.
>> That was uh Jason and T. >> All in favor? I. >> Okay. Next, we have Serpid. What's the 3285? This is for the uh updating of the open space plan, Mr. Chairman. This is uh payment towards surfid for their
assistance and uh giving us help and a grant for that renewal. >> All right. >> This comes from the wetlands fund. Mr. Chairman. >> All right. Need a motion to pay. >> Motion to pay. >> Second. >> Yeah, that was Jason and Tom. All in
favor? >> Oppos? All right. That's unanimous. Next, another bill from East Bay Media for advertising for hearings 19350. Any motion? >> Motion to pay. >> Motion, Jason. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second, Tom. All in favor? All right,
that's unanimous. We have a emergency certification form. Chris, what's this? >> Uh, Mr. Chairman, I wish to ratify emergency certification I granted to Bay Breeze at 2065 Main Road. Uh the owners
of the property have a licensed uh bulkhead and the wall had a few sink holes along the public access uh section which is right along the top portion of that wall. Um so I'm asking they
basically remove the material. Uh they placed a uh Marafi product to keep the fines in and they back filled with crushed stone uh and replaced the um granite caps that are currently there. Um so they basically just uh fixed the
sink holes to ensure that nobody would be getting hurt by uh walking in that area. So I'd like to ratify that before the commission with the signing of that emergency certification for 2065 main road. >> All right. Any questions? Anybody? If
not, a motion. >> Motion to uh ratify. >> Yeah, ratify the emergency certification. Yep. 2060 2065, Chris. >> Yes. >> 2065 main road. All right. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> That was uh Jason and Tom. All in favor? >> Opposed?
>> All right. We have uh minutes. Let's see what we got. Let's see what we can get out of here. We have two minutes. Let's see. One is 3:31, myself, Phil, Tom, Kevin, uh Jake Magguire, I don't know him,
Burton, Brian. Okay. So, we can we can vote on this. You are not here, Jason. But we can we can close out. So, we have uh 331 minutes uh that was sent out to you guys. No changes. Need a motion to approve. >> Okay, that was Tom. Do we have a second? >> Second. Second from Phil. All in favor?
Opposed? >> Thank you. Let's see what we got here. We have uh 317 minutes open by myself, present with Jason, Jake, Burton,
and so we need Jake back in the room and we can vote on these. Is he coming back? >> I'm not sure, Mr. Chair. He walked out. >> Yeah, he had to just chat with Sean real quick. >> Oh, okay. We'll go back to that in a second. Then we have an enforcement order here. Chris, what's this for?
>> Mr. Chairman, we have a current violation that occurred within the past year and it's gotten worse as it's progressed. This property was owned by Warren Messier in Heritage Drive. It was sold for $20,000$10,000
each lot. The lots were sold as unbuildable. Uh and Anton Pereira um who has residents on Sanford Road purchased the property with this indication in mind and he is totally removed every tree, stump and everything on the
property. So I would like to submit an enforcement order notifying him that he has altered a border vegetated wetland and he is entitled to be replicating uh the area in accordance with the wetlands protection act.
All right. Some nice pictures down. Uh Jason's going to be passing down. >> Do we have any questions on that? >> I mean, I would say just because it's a little bit more authority. Should you bump that up to D with that? >> Um I would say D would only get involved
if he did not respond. So, let's give him a chance to respond. I can say for the record that Mr. Pereira has been in trouble before on his property on Sanford Road. So he most certainly is aware of the processes that uh are
required and um that's why I am requesting the enforcement. >> All right. Motion >> motion is issue the enforcement order. >> Okay. Motion from Phil. >> Second. Second from Jason. Second from Burke. All in favor?
>> I opposed. All right. Um we'll go back to the minutes. Jake, we have minutes from 317. It was um myself, Jason, you and Burton. So, I need a motion to um approve the 317 minutes. >> Approve 37 minutes.
>> Second. >> Second from Jason. All in favor? Opposed? All right. And lastly, we have a a letter in our packet. Chris, you want to go over anything to go over that? Well, I'm just going to enlighten you that this is a
neighborhood dispute uh where the state has just recently issued a superseding order. Uh the uh person that appealed that um doesn't necessarily understand that the commission loses its authority
or its oversight when that happens. He is chastising me and the commission for not um taking enforcement action against um I'm not sure what the applicant has gotten approvals to do the work. Um this
uh a butter has filed everything he can to stop the work and now he has been standing in the way of machinery um as they try to do work. So, the police department's involved.
Um, I believe that this gentleman is pursuing land court. Um, his concerns or the concerns that this section of Lone Street is private and that the applicant uh Mr. John Fiverr and Tracy Fiverr have
no rights to use it. Um, however, under the statute and the regulations, this is a pre-existing subdivision from 1925, this roadways and all the roadways within that development are accessible
by anybody within this development. Uh, and that goes to the py. Although the pipe is bought a site that is landlocked, there is still these public ways that are recorded at the registry of deeds that although they're not
built, uh provide access to this site. Mr. Piva petitioned us with a notice of intent, we granted him to use an alternative access of Lone Street, which uh negated him filling wetlands off of
Register Avenue. So, this was the best scenario for accessing the property. This land owner just doesn't understand the regulations uh and he wants me to go and implement activities or more enforcement on
uh everything that was approved by the state. So, um I will go take a look at the site, but again, I am only providing this for you just forformational purposes. He has tried to supersede the
original order by going to an adjudicator hearing and that acceptance is pending. Right now the u Mr. Sors has asked for some extended time to present his case. So he has done everything he
can to stop the project. Um, so I don't know why he wants to try to use the commission uh when it was given a nod of approval by Mass D as a buffer zone project. So um again, this is just
bringing you to light uh of where um this correspondence >> this is the property they combined a couple lots together and >> correct and found uplands on one of them and found a way to get to them and it hurt and it meets the setbacks. it it meets everything, but the neighbor just
doesn't uh again wants to concede to that. So, >> all right. What else you have for us tonight, Chris? >> Um, that's somewhat what I have. I I think there was a discussion maybe U member Phil wanted to bring up for some
of the a couple concerns he had. >> Um, I yield. I'm I'm good. >> Phil, you want to discuss another? Yeah, I um so one was just a um related to the DCR situation and it was just kind of
update folks to say what I was doing because um at the end of the hearing um I was still really um confused
for a lack maybe a better term as to uh or I lack clarity um because it seemed like there was this real factual dispute between um members of the public and some members of the
commission about whether or not um there really was a safety public safety basis upon which to justify the expansion of the roadway particularly in the western section that DCR was proposing. whereas
members um you know staff from DCR were describing the situations that they were confronting uh to deal with uh the problem of you know the ambulance uh turning around. So, just to say that I
reached out to Tom Valent um and uh and I asked him a bunch of specific questions about uh to document, you know, what was happening uh you know, where the rescues were taking, the
number of the rescues, um the ability of the staff to uh train be trained and if they had um you know equipment to deal with the um you know with the public and also why they couldn't open up uh Bridge
Street and um so he responded positively and said he was going to get back to me with information and then I think that when that um comes in um I will give that to Chris and then Chris can
circulate it um and uh you know that's it. I mean it's an it's a uh so that's that part of it. So um so I hope you get some clarity as to what it
you know whether they um rationale that they are relying on um you know is documented in a way and um what's odd about this is that if they
had not uh poorly implemented the project that we had approved I'm just going to pass it. >> So, so we're kind of in this situation where we
um approved the the expansion of the road. We approved it to happen under an O and M plan. And so, had they done that right, we wouldn't be where we are. Okay. They they did it wrong. Um, and now
we're kind of looking at it as if they are coming for approval almost like it's a new project. And so, you know, but and I don't have a problem with that. Um, because they filed a new NOI. And so, anyway, so that's what I'm doing. And
hopefully, um, we'll get some information that we can then decide what to do. And then the other issue relates to the uh uh planting versus the uh fence. And so
I asked some questions about that as well. So that's that. Phil, just to piggyback off that, I have spoken on the side to public safety officials in town um and they were actually insulted uh to the point that
they were basically told they without the road being widened, they cannot perform proper rescues. Um our public safety here in town is trained to use the necessary vehicles to to access people. Uh, and the fact that that was public safety was used as an excuse um
was a little bit insulting and disheartening to our public safety officials because they don't see that, right? We're talking about a road where in order to get over that dune and go perpendicular to the to the shorefront, um, you know, they have the materials, they have the gators, they have the backboards, they have everything
necessary for that and they're trained for that. Uh, so it was a little bit misleading with respect that they made it all about public safety because when I did speak to our public safety officials, all of them pretty much said that that was a poor excuse for an expansion of the road.
>> Yeah. Well, it's kind of Yeah. I >> And that's they were more insulted by the whole situation, >> right? Right. Yeah. >> That they were that they needed this. Correct. >> Yeah. >> Um Okay. Well, I won't I you know >> Yeah. We won't debate it tonight. >> Yeah. I only really won't dwell on it.
Yeah. And uh so so the other the other pieces relates to the Corey Wells. Um and so uh I think I so I don't know if Chris has really um talked about talked about
this but um so there was a site visit um you know that Chris attended um and I wasn't able to be there and um there was uh what came out of it that I wanted to
talk about was that um at the P staff person said that um basically what I what I thought was going to happen um because now he's looking at
the SOC that uh Buzzard's Bay um coalition appealed when we granted the right for uh ability of Corey to to build a pump house and to put structure
But nothing about the operation of the wells because we were all engaged at that point uh until Buzzard Bay appealed that. But there was still all this confusion if people remember about um
the fact that that the well test that was done by the D water people was all screwed up. And so we went back and did a whole new water test. And because the the our position and I think Buzz Bay's
position was um you know that the operation of the well um could affect the wetland and also could could affect the Angeline Brook. It's cold water fishery. So, what I took from um Chris's comment was that D
um was going to rule on the SOC and they were going to include the operations part of it as well as um the uh whatever will be improved as far as the infrastructure part. And it was
always my impression that we would then we were going to go back and because the water supply people said there's too that the pump that the pump rate was too small to qualify for cold water fishery
analysis under the water supply regulations that we would be able to do that here. And so Brussels Bay had their expert and we had George Campbell as our expert. and um and he wrote a report back in um I think
this original one after uh it's not this is a draft so it's not dated in which um he said that um you know suggests that over long-term pumping durations vertical leakage could happen and he was doing
some recommendations um but now the time to submit our comments on this test passed. So D said you have until April 15th to do this to submit anything. And I guess I was just raising whether or not I don't
know we don't have to decide tonight but but whether or not it would be worthwhile to um make the case to D um even you know to accept this as a late submission and submit our documentation and um you know and get
this issue in front of in front of D because subsequently Chris told me that the plans for the development on this site are very very intense development. um you know which is going to demand a
lot of public and uh so uh so I just wanted to bring its attention as to whether or not we should go back to George and say do a final report and then we should submit it and say you know we know it's late but here's the
circumstances and um since we're not going to have a bite of the apple in front of the applicant coming if if that's right the applicant coming in front of us uh so that we could have a chance to
look at these operational issues um like what if there's a drought or what if the u you know maybe they as a condition should do long-term monitoring which is what George suggests um and various things so I kind of think it's
worthwhile to you know uh take a shot at it because We put a lot of effort into, you know, doing all this and I just don't want it to, you know, get I don't know. >> So technical reasons. >> Are we going to send the comments we already have? Are we going to get new
You're saying we should get new comments from George? >> Well, this is a draft report. So, um, >> so you want to have get a final report? >> Yeah. So I because when I we had a brief exchange, email exchange and I think he said there
was some issues that he needed to um you know to deal with it uh to refine it more. The alternative because I don't think Buzzard's Bay has done anything because we they haven't submitted anything to us would be if we
didn't like the result um that uh either we or more likely Buzzards Bay would um appeal to have an adjudicatory proceeding which would be like it's like a brand new
>> trial. Correct. And we could just wait for that to see if that to see what DP does and uh and what Bard's Bay does. So
I just wanted to bring it to you know everybody's attention as to you know as to what's to what's going >> Chris. Do you think it would any harm if we had George just finalize his report and we sent it to >> No, we can submit it to to the D and in attempt to submit it under
uh late submitt as as um >> yeah, >> Phil mentioned. >> All right. Well, how fast can he turn that around? >> I would have to contact George and see how quickly he can get a he does have it 95% done. >> Yeah, I I I can't remember the specific
thing that he wanted to >> All right. Why don't you contacted George and see how motion and I show Mr. >> Can I have a motion to contact George Campbell to finalize the report as soon as possible >> so we can submit it? >> Second.
>> Okay, that was Phil and Jake. All in favor? Oh, that's unanimous. >> What else do we have tonight? >> Phil, just one >> one quick thing for Phil. Going back to the the DCR issue. >> Um I I bumped into Tommy Bton around town occasionally. I haven't seen him in a while, but I was going to ask him why he was even assigned to this. He's a
He's a a storm water runoff specialist. >> Yeah. >> So, if you're corresponding with him, I mean, he's a good guy. Just you just ask him like why this was even on his plate from day one cuz he is a stormwater
>> person and this is a civil engineer. >> Yeah. >> Project. I'm just kind of curious. >> Yeah. I mean, I can't understand if if you know, if the problem was, you know, turning the, you know, the ambulance around, you know, why you couldn't, you
know, just have uh, you know, you know, like a little extension that allow the ambulance to back up and go go around. You know, I don't see why you need to, you know, expand the road that much. There's no reason to bring the ambulance down there anyway. But >> no, they don't need. >> All right, motion.
>> We don't need it all. But then it's uh anyway, this kind of enigmatic. Is this only because they Oh, this is a good source of sand to to do the turns. Is that why they doing this or you know what's what motivated this? >> Correct. >> You know, it's odd. And I really again
>> left the state money lose. >> The guys who were sitting there who were the lifeguards really seemed sincere in what they were saying and distressed about the situation. I don't know if it was just a real oddity, but I I just didn't want to >> Well, there were no lifeguards here. >> Discounted. >> There were no life guards here at that
time. >> Oh, >> that was just a head of operations. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Anyway, so >> all right. And so >> again, but it' be really a different situation if this was coming in front of us
>> that as uh a new case, but we're in a situation where we approved all this and let them do it. It's only the fact that they screwed it up that we're now having this thing. Otherwise, we have to live with. So, >> all right. Motion to motion to >> second. That was Jake and Jason. All in
favor? Opposed? Thank