well is located inside the garage and it's too close to the CTIC and I have no room to go over here so I'm proposing to put a well in this location here across back across the street we install a 2,000g two compartment tank and pump the
effluent across the RightWay up to a distribution box in the up system here and um there is a relatively high water table 41 in this be and graded properly using PBC barrier to
keep things to a minimum the 100 foot buffer zone from the river this point right here is shown in yellow that's 100t buffer and this is the flood zone which is a ve elevation 16 that's pretty much it all Health approval I'm waiting for to get the
water tested oh that's okay thank you you did we try all right thank you letny um Chris read the Mr chairman and members this is Brendan Denio 104 Sylvia's Lane this a request for determination of applicability filed by
Westport environmental design the DAT of the report is March 11th 2025 required agencies to be contacted would be the Board of Health pending their approval um my site visit was also on March 12th 2025 description of the work the owner
has filed to repair the sew Disposal system on the property at 104 Sylvia's Lane the site vard is on the east branch of the Westport River all work proposed is within the ve elevation 16 flood zone and the riverfront Area Property consists of two lots the home is located
on the river lot and the garage is across the right of way the sess will be pumped and filled in place a new 2,000g pump SL septic tank will be installed 40 ft from mean high water mark and 12 ft from the edge of the right of way the
leech field be constructed away from the river on the opposing lot uh next to the existing garage erosion controls should be installed and remain in place until the area is stabilized and growing um this is no other work is
permitted on this except just the septic system repair resource areas to be impacted a Riverfront and flood zone recommendations Westport Conservation Commission should issue a negative box two determination for the sew disposal
repair again under the rivers protection act this is an exemp activity for an existing single family home so negative box two determination for that repair is sufficed do we have to include the pending Board of Health approval I would
say that in the motion that would be yes okay uh any questions from the table anyone in the crowd all right hearing none do I have a motion so I'll move to approve the plan for 104
Sylvia's Lane with a negative box two determination uh pending Board of Health approval second that was Phil and Tom B all in
favor opposed pass unanimously thank you thank you L thank you we do have the green cards for the next hearing already Mr chairman okay so the next hearing is uh Roy ala
and noi for 17 East Beach Road rebuild shed on barrier Beach and perform Beach maintenance come on up Sir just come on to the microphone Mr ala just state your name for the record um I can take it from there Mr
chairman this is one the East Beach Trailer lot so we really don't necessarily require a full-blown engineer drawn plan Mr ala recently purchased the property at 17 East Beach Road um this is a notice of 10 application filed by himself the report
date is March 11th 2025 there is a file number it's SE 82787 uh natural heritage and endanger species program comments appending uh site was site visit was on March 11th 20
2025 as well description of the work the applist purchased a parcel on the Le side of East Beach Road they would like to be able to conduct Beach nourishment activities with compatible materials the proposed area for nourishment is within the access driveway and the trail location uh this nourishment must be
compatible to what the existing grain size is on the existing Beach I explained this to Mr alera um specifically in our recommendations the Westport conservation to approve the use of a compatible similar grain size
nourishment for property located at 17 East Beach Road uh this conditions also reflect that a sample be provided to the office prior to be placing on the lot and this is also motion should be pending uh natural heritage final
comments okay any questions Mr you're good so Parcels on the left side need maintenance just as much as well as the parcels on the Ocean Side correct not as significant they don't necessarily receive as much alteration during the course of winter but that
storms we had um last year on December and January did cause him or that lot some damage but not to the magnitude he gained a little more material on that side so uh so he doesn't really need he's just looking
for a material to help you know ease you know the discomfort of the the cobbles and stuff that can be pretty difficult to walk on that's all any other questions from the commission this is just an annual request it this is a a three-year
approval and if he wishes to come back and uh at that time we'll give him an extension any questions from the crowd could all right do I hear a motion motion to approve second
that was Tom and uh Phil all those in favor I opposed pass unly thank you sir I will be mailing that order of conditions to you you to address okay thank you very
much all right the next hearing we have is Simmons concrete and noi for six Union Street install concrete pad and plantings for mitigation and Riverfront area uh we have Gard construction Allen
and majers do we have the green cards um I have the super you fine thank you uh good evening my name is Nicole Hayes a professional wetman scientist with G
Consulting here before you tonight with a notice of intent um as you are probably aware this parel was under um a notice in tense previously it which got a superseding order of
conditions heard that superseding order conditions the client um had per uh 1,927 sare ft of gravel to be put in this area we're here before you tonight
because instead of the gravel we want to do the concrete pad um the new concrete pad will be 4,053 square ft and that's outlined here in the gr once you take out the
previously permitted gravel area it comes down to 2,126 Square ft of new impervious surface so this work area is within the 200t riverfront area and within uh
bouldering land subject of flooding the analysis that we did to meet all the performance standards for the state and local have been explained and then notice intent but I will go I will go through an overview of them um
to do this impact we are proposing a planting mitigation area here's a little blow up um little section of it but it's going to be this this area right here which was cleaned and grubbed of all invasive species prior um and what's going to be put in
there is four black oak trees Six White Pine seven High Bush blueberry seven sweet pepper bush and four witch hazel shrubs that um mitigation area is greater than a
one: one replacement so this is going to be 2,126 square ft of new impervious surface and this new mitigation area will be larger than that at 2,867 Square
ft also this will impact boring land subject to flooding let me go back for a minute just explain how we are still underneath the 10% allowable impact for Riverfront area um the total Riverfront area on
site is [Music] 365,000 square ft in the um superseding order of conditions notice intent we proposed
26390 ft of impact um this new one like I just said was 2,126 for a total of 28516 Which is less than the 10% of 36,000 so we're allowed to do this under
the riverfront area our mitigation is a greater than one: one planting of native species um we are also going to be as part of the improvements to the
Rimer front area we will be um increasing the storm water sell here and this will also take into consideration the mitigation for the bordering land subject to flooding
compensation and those numbers so the proposed work which is this concrete pth area right here will impact 35,320 cubic feet of flood storage we're going to compensate at
110% for 36,9 123 cubic feet so it's it's greater than a 1 to one is a 110% so for that concrete pad we've
we've met all the standards from for Riverfront area and bordering land subject to flooding flooding compensation we are going to um increase the storm water um system on the site
and increase flood storage so that's that's really the project um overview there's um engineering calculations and flood um ation calculations in the
notice of intent package and I can answer any questions that you may have friend yes and then the removal of the fence is also a part of this notice tent and it's going to be this area right here this um currently is a fence that
we're just asking to to remove uh this this fence along the street is going to be removed and replaced but this one along the river just that are removed and that will help with Wildlife passage and all of
that thank you thank you Chris Mr chairman members uh Simmons concrete 6 Union na this is a no 10 application filed by Gard Consulting with plans designed by Allen and Majors Nicole Hayes is here representing Gard
Consulting the dated report is March 13th 2025 there is a file number it's se80 2786 um the site visit was also on March 12th 20 2025 uh a reminder as Nicole mentioned
this site was and still does have the superseding order of conditions um there was discussion with the state about trying to amend the application the state suggested this new noi uh be filed instead they felt the amendment was I
believe greater than um what they would normally allow in an amending situation so just a little history on detailed description of the work the owner has filed to make changes that were approved by mass D in the superseding order of conditions the owner requesting to
replace the previously approved gravel area which was 19 1,927 ft with a concrete apron this new concrete will wrap around the building and connect to the approved portion on the west side of the building this work
is within the previously developed Riverfront area and the combined disturbes uh in total as Nicole outlined remain under the 10% requirement under the weapons protection act a total Mountain disturbance will be further compensated with
2867 ft of mitigation plantings in the north portion of the inner Riverfront area the owner also wishes to remove a section of chain link fence that was approved along the River's Edge um this site will maintain fencing again along
Union have and will have a gated entrance as it currently does this basic request is to remove the visual barrier that uh still lingers for the owner along that far reach the storm waterer Basin constructed will provide also a
physical barrier between the development and the river uh there is compensatory storage as she mentioned provided to increase the overall uh ability of this area to maintain and contain any L uh that may be flooded during those events
all work will continue to provide a 25t no activity area along the Wetland Edge so they haven't further encroached any further than what was previously agreed to um and finally uh the site falls again with boarding land up the flooding and a need for compensatory storage is
required the design of the project has provided the flood storage compensation along the same hydrological connection meeting the standard uh 35 3628 cubic feet of fill will be compensated with 36927 83 cubic feet provided in this
design so they truly have met the requirements of the wetlands protection act with this design um and the mitigation planting I think are an added feature that we get for um what they're doing in mitigation which again was part
of the project was to remove some of those invasives on that superseding order which goes in hand with what the owner wishes to comp compensate or create on the property was more of a open visual aspect with Native vegetation um along the River's Edge so
I I think the design is definitely Falls within accordance of those regulations um again there is an open orders of conditions on this site that is still active um I do not know the file number at this time but it's not necessarily needed so recommendations
for the final um the West conservation should approved the proposed new concrete pad in place of crushed stone remove the Riverside chain link fencing with the requirements to provide mitigation of 2,867 square ft along the inner
Riverfront area and maintain a compensatory flood storage as designed in the plan um and also the mitigation planting as provided I don't have any corrections to the suggested species that is all Mr
chairman thank you Chris um so this is a site that we did a site visit on right with the yes you did you absolutely correct okay and so this is just changes to that in relative to what was already considered an approval so
again this gravel to concrete apron really doesn't impact the area as most historical people understand this site was much more utilized many years ago as the um um The Fish Factory that took
place in this area part of the building I think some of those remains were just recently dismantled down along the lower section of the property so I think it works well what's going to the ultimate use of this area he's he's using the building
for storage um that's all I really know correct he has installed new very architectual garage doors he's upgraded the stonework he's basically bringing an old building back to life that has sat
in very disrepair for a number of years so it's basically for storage of equipment and such I don't think at this time there is even a resonance up on the corner there that hasn't even been brought to life yet so that is the last
remaining older structure that well it's not the older structure that was more recent that's it any other questions does that uh storm water basin actually designed to take the runoff from so it's all sort of one system it's not just a
one toone area correct correct the whole storm water system that went with the prior approval was for the paving of the existing area that they were moving Paving to the west side of the building and that whole storm waterer facility was in installed for that at that time
the compensation there was actually very unsightly storage of uh utility trailers and tires and everything within that that area just above where that uh stor water basin is and they came in previous to remove all that unsightly as well so
the property is seen besides the trash removal on the opposing side of the river it has seen a tremendous uplift right any other questions from the crowd Protection District excuse me then
the oer Protection District yes it is correct any other questions do we have a motion so I'll move to approve the plan for six uh Union Avenue we have a
second second who Phil and Tom all those in favor I opposed unanimously you thank you thank you thank you thank you all right the next uh hearing we have is Paul jonus RDA 11 Sandpiper
Drive construct cement slab for shed and Disturbed area in flood zone and Riverfront area you have the yeah sure green cards no green cards no you not I'm sorry do you want me to put that in the folder or no Chris do you want me to put this
in the folder or just leave top okay go ahead John conch engineering um here on behalf of Paul junus the applicant for um 11 Sandpiper
Drive this is an RDA um that was previously approved and it expired it's uh um CHS in existing a disturb area a play area which is mulch
um and his proposal um was to put a concrete slab there for a future shed um and it was it was approved back the original plan date is 2020 um so I'm assuming it was approved back right
around then and would have expired maybe a couple of years ago and he's he's looking to reactivate the the project Mr chairman members this is PA jonus 11 Sandpiper Drive this is a request for determination of
applicability filed by scitec with John Connell representing report date is March 12th 2025 there is no file number required for this project the site visit was also on March 12th 2025 the descriptional work the owner has
filed to construct a cement slab within a previously used play area the cement slab will be 120 ft from mean high water and 90 ft from the edge of the BBW the railroad ties will be removed in the existing wood mulch the slab location will be adjusted slightly to maintain
the 10-ft property line setbacks work in the roof front may be permitted when the activity is at least greater than 50 ft from mean high water on a a structure or use bu it to 1996 the owner is utilizing again this
previously Disturbed area and replacing with a slab within the same dimensions I don't think he's contributing to any adverse effects so I would recommend the board Westport Conservation Commission should approve the request for the cement slab and a previously utilized
area for 11 sand pipe a drive with a negative box two determination that is all Mr chairman thank you Chris any questions on the table from the crowd I see none do we have a
motion motion to approve that's Tom any seconds second Bert Tom Bert all those in favor I opposed JIS thank you everyone thank you next one we have is Cherry Stone realy
trust noi 2040 Main Road construct fixed Pier gang way and floats in the Westport River that is slightly deceiving it's already appeared there like re just for the Reon
okay the green card there you go than you this guys like a pro thank you good evening Sean leech representing charfield development this is a uh 2038 20 and 2040 Main Road uh actually 2040 is owned by Driftwood real
uh this is a common dock for those two residents but is on the 2040 property so that's why we're filing it what's Happening Here is there two notice we fing the dock first or you want the dock is first the do first so there's an existing dock uh on the property extends
out it's just one float currently up to here uh the owner wanted to extend the float because there are two residences using it so they want to be a little more room when this was first approved the original license plan there was a twoot requirement separation between the bottom of the river and the bottom of
the float now there's a 30in requirement so in order to meet the 30in requirement what we've done is we've slid out 10 ft for 10t Section slid the dock out and we're adding these floats here so there's two spots for BS to uh tie up and this would meet the 30in requirement
not require float stops and not require anything else to do that we need basically four three extra piles that don't exist now in order to stabilize the float and two piles up at the what was the hard dock which comes off an existing seaw wall uh this meets
the requirement of uh chapter 91 and the Westport dock policy want to read your report Chris sure Mr chairman carstone realy trust at 2040 Main Road this a notice intent application filed by sea leech with
Northeast Consulting engineer engineers and Consultants rather March 14th 2025 is the DAT of the report we're still waiting a file number Sean yeah I don't know why um so this is all contingent on the file number on also on mass DMF
comments and Marine Services comments which we haven't seen yet description of the work oh I'm sorry the site visit was also on March 13th uh 2025 description of work the owner has filed to modify the existing license
stock at 24 Main Road the owner will install a 9tx 4T fixed Pier section off the existing seaw wall and install a gang way down to three floats the floats will turn and extend South along the property line this will allow uh a
better boat access the floats will require piles driven to refusal with float stops installed the new pier will will not extend further from Shore than what is currently licensed so I don't think the marine services director will have trouble with this proposal but uh
nonetheless we still are required for his comments our resource areas uh land under River land sub the coastal Stone Flowage Riverfront and shellfish land containing shellfish recommendations for the board the Westport Conservation
Commission should approve the proposed fixed beer gangway floats with standing do conditions pending the file number um pending Mass DMF comments and Float stops must be installed as well as
Marine Services comments that's all Mr Jim Chris just to clarify you're saying that it's not extending any further out but if you're doing a 9ft fixed Pier Off the seaw Wall isn't it extending a little bit further out into the water or no if again very it's very little out
it's very little it is very little actually the gray area for the other one is like yeah te right under that last Flo okay right there's a little there's a little slight it's slightly increased further out just pick up to 30 in and the only reason I mean it's kind of
crazy but we couldn't put two boats on this dock because it encroaches on the repairing rights for the dock next door and their ability to get to their dock so best way to do this was put an l shaped and not have to disturb any more than it's already you and again it's a common dot
for the uh right away with the house that's up here and the house that's being both of them are being rebuilt as we speak so okay how much closer does it get to the one to the South how much closer to the one to the South does it get if one to the South we're 25
ft off the or 19 ft off there and there's is 25 ft off this reparan right line so we're getting a little closer but they were also notified they didn't have any problem that long property they have a similar setup on their property over here okay it's the best way to do
it we we still need 40 ft of channel is the best way as you know this is this is right on the Cove between F Fontaine Bridge basically a butman and West for point and there's a little Cove in here and it's pretty deep water it's 9t deep in here which is pretty
significantly deep for that section but we've left that because there are other docks north of here correct and there is uh docks south of here and this rather than stick out further or rather than we try to keep it within the repairing rights for this particular
property okay right now it's the same distance off this property line it's just 4T that's the way it was approved quite quite some time ago any other questions no seeing none from the
crowd do we have a motion have motion to approve motion by Tom second second Phil second can you just Tom put pending file number and the comments needed from the state agent
uh motion to approve a pending file number and the comments needed by the state agencies thank you a second second Phil second all those in favor opposed it's unanimously thank you you get to stay up there all right
next we have same applicant Cherry Stone realy trust noi 2020 main road repair and maintain licensed stone revetment seaw wall in Westport River okay again same
same property uh same the reason we have two notice intents here is uh this is part of an existing license plan to maintain the seaw wall and if we did it all as one his ability to repair the seaw wall while he was waiting for the license would would be compromised so he
wants to repair the seaw wall so there's a seaw wall that exists the length of this property essentially and it's right now it's a uh masonary com combination concrete and uh small stone wall which uh is very low if you wish to raise it
up about 1 foot your current height is at 3.7 you like to raise it up to 4.7 uh also build it in a way that the Army Corp deems a better S A Better Way of Designing walls but not as a vertical concrete wall but as a what they call
breathable uh stone wall goes at a 1 to 1 to 1 and A2 slope down to the water it makes it more stable it also provides habitat for anything that's between mean low and meat high water we tend to keep all within the existing license plan uh
all the construction and activity into existing LIC plan and the work would be done basically at low tide with booms put in effect or anything they' done to replace the seaw wall what's the change relative of what will be required for the backyard are you proposing to fill
the back yard no to the top of the wall no we're going to keep the same uh elevation the back you're just gaining free board to the wall like right like similarly for the commission the southerly neighbors are all doing this as well so the Pauls and the neighbors
just to further south uh to that have also done this similar request is to raise the wall approximately a foot foot and a half to gain a little more cuz we're getting moon Tides flooding this area and then the water get gets trapped in there and it kills all the grass and
the the other problem not only killing the grass which is why you put in a scar and this one hasn't a scar and I think it's slate going behind the wall the waves coming up over are eroding behind the wall and compromising behind the wall also so building it in a way that a there the drainage layer behind the wall
with some geotextile fabric and building it not a vertical kind wall because it takes a beating from every wave uh we'll make it last hopefully a bit longer longer I don't know see level rise how long that will last least my lifetime
anyway very thank you Sean Mr chairman uh Cherrystone realy trust again for 2040 Main Road this is a similar notice of intent filed by NEC with Sean leech representing report date is March 14th
2025 there is no file number it is still pending uh this is also pending Mass DMF comments the of marine fisheries through a detailed description of the work the owner has filed the repair and maintain a stone revetment along the River's Edge of 24
Main Road the site has an existing stone revetment that will be repaired in place with no expansion proposed only raising that height uh the plan lacks detail on how the wall will be repaired Sean got wind to this and he has provided us a
much needed detail of that cross-section of the wall uh it does provide us with an elevation and uh shows us how there will be Stone and marafi fabric installed behind the rock uh to stop those fines from washing out and causing
that wall to be undermined um so thank you for that Sean so disregard uh that comment um this again is land under the river land Ser the coastal storm flage Riverfront and land containing shellfish um recommendations for the
board for this particular project uh the West par Conservation Commission should consider approving the proposed license and maintenance of the existing Stone revetment pending Mass DMF comments file number and standard dock conditions
apply all right on on that wall is it just it just free rocks or is it actually held in with motor or is it's both it is both at now it is what they're doing is is going to be a stack okay yeah it depending on how you construct it the size you need bigger
Boulders basically this is like Field Stone you know concrete which is not heavy enough nearly and the concrete is fairly weathered and fairly old yeah so what they did in the past was they cap it with concrete and then they would have a masonary guy try to come and
the outside of the wall and the concrete gets and deteriorates the so this is a much U friendlier system as Sean mentioned and stuff that can be detrimental to the the small
invertebrate species so and also this does provide some crevices so the water can flow through then to to that fabric that will be in that stone yes okay so there is certainly cuz high tide is going to come up to Sean says 2.6 to 2.7
right and a moon tide Moon tide is up the top of wall over and flat coming off and it's way up in the yard they're hoping to build obviously a little higher uh don't forget a moon tide with a storm like last year well that's that's part of the problem with all
these seaw walls on especially uh along this part you may not be maintain it over every event but this is going to be majority of them right the idea is larger Boulders as opposed to what most people have with basically Rubble walls and everything because you need a 3ot
wave can push a 900 lb Rock m so it doesn't take much to move a Fu Stone okay any other questions from the table good do uh have a motion so I'll move
to approve the um dock restoration plan at 24 day Main Road uh subject to uh Mass uh uh D file number comments from from marine fisheries correct and um and
with standard uh do standard conditions applying beautiful perfect do we have a second that was Phil and Tom all those in favor all opposed
[Music] unanimously just not on this one put 2038 sl240 cuz yeah we'll put it on both yes just to reference that there are two properties of the same
ownership you the do the wall both of them off both of them can you save me that crosssection or you gave me one I gave you one I put one in the box of thank you I put two actually Bo you need it I can give you can take this no I'm good
as thank you Sean all right thank you we have uh I believe another continuance we have blue cat Pine Ridge Estates 46 to 52 Gulf View Lane Westport Lanes file number SE 8
2697 uh we continuing that do you know the date yes that is to be continued to I am giving it to April 29th they haven't come forward from the um parties involved in this project so okay I know they have extended to I believe June
with the zba so that's my recommendation is ail June well again I'd like to be conservative not knowing where they stand so for now I'd say the 29th of April and okay till I hear from them do we have a uh motion to continue the blue
cat Pine Ridge Estates April 29th speak on it I know you have right so I want to give you that moment at least if you'd like are we not continuing it what's up are we not continuing no this is an
autter so someone we are you can make a motion to continue and then we can listen yes okay absolutely so so moved Phil uh made a motion second that for continuous April 29th second that was Bert so Phil and Bert all those in favor
I opposed is unanimously own just state your name uh for the record and um you can go ahead Brent perrera 26 Westport Leakes Drive I just uh have two quick questions just uh curious if there's been any Headway regarding any previously involved
agencies that uh I brought up with uh the concom in the recent weeks well you received my email sent to Executive Office environmental Affairs we have not heard anything back from them okay I have given the owner of
Westport Lakes currently Mr DG Amo as I I also CC you with his reference for him to look into what is required to get his final approvals from Mass D for the outstanding superseding order conditions
that was issued many years ago for this project so that is the only things right now okay I I guess the question would was uh the main question is will this fall definitively under D or will it will will it fall under local concom
meaning the the project with the proposed 40b because that I guess the question is is all of the land was initially enveloped with the D D and I
my understanding is that um the applicant was here last month and they were filing an noi under local concom my question is is should should that is is that an inappropriate procedure because
the original land mask all fell under Mass DP and also fell under well along with theep they were to conform with superseding order for that's a good question superceding order condition is issued after a a
butter May intervene or the state intervenes themselves in this case this was an appeal on numerous occasions actually there was two appeals from The Bu for this proposed project in the very beginning if a new proponent comes in
for a project it comes to the local commission first so it it never would go right to D so they are required to get approvals through us if that doesn't come by our vote then they have the right to appeal to the state so I
understand you're claiming that all the property was originally under that but remember they withdrew that Phase 2 development which wasn't really even propos osed on the first order of conditions they totally waved the rights to make that area developable they they
waved it and they called it right they called it that it wasn't going to be used and it was a single family house lot the only strange part about this is that Gul View Lane was never constructed which infringes in my professional
opinion because now the state has a superseding order with them having permission to build that road which was never built so the state has to issue a certificate of compliance that lists what is being approved and what is not
been commenced because the order has expired so the there are conditions where the state could say we're approving what currently is in place but all the things that are not done are not approved on this so they would have to go back and refile so right now we have
a 40b filed for the creation of Gulu Lane and the extension off that for 38 Lots so it does overlap I do understand why you asked that question and I'm curious
to see how D would reflectively comment I guess I guess the the concern that I have is that the town is kind of looking at it as two different things now right the problems that we currently have on westw Lakes Drive subdivision uh
and its non-completion over 18 years and then the new 40b proposal my argument I guess is that they're not two separate things they weren't at least in the
beginning and there are a number of confusion and questions and things like you just spoke about that clearly need to be sorted out but you understand from me and you do have a lot of knowledge on this project this project has been
change through that process three times so this is a very confusing and I I I've reviewed this application this whole folder because now they're coming back on me as they can't find any in this paperwork who's that I'm sorry through the chair M Mr
dgo that currently is the one that purchased the 17 Lots so he bought this with the understanding that all this was satisfied to his knowledge and none of this was ever done
he wasn't even aware that the new proponents or the original owners of the property attempted to do perks on the North End Beyond this existing CAC he wasn't even aware that that was done by the Sante family recently as in last
fall or last summer so I'm not defending anybody but you also understand the planning board is also under review because of their existing Covenant expiration um again so I am trying to find the best solution for what is
currently there and and I have I hope you to your support I have tried to reach out to these entities I do I do appreciate that to try to get this resolution stated what Mr Pereira is also referring to is in the original process this filing triggered Nea so
they had to go through uh final environmental impact report in that final impact report this area of this Phase 2 development where now we have a 40b was pulled as part of their
review under this impact statement and in their final approval they said that if this land is ever reconsidered for development you have to go back to meima for a notice of project change and this
entity of the 40b has not spoken on this matter or hasn't even discussed that so that but they're required to do that I believe they are so I have I was going to bring it up later but I will now I have forwarded a letter to the Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs citing um the number that they have for the project I didn't write that down and requesting them provide us comments if they believe that it does need a notice of pro of change based on their prior
decision do you feel with the push from from the state on 40b housing that you probably may not get an answer that I don't know if we wouldn't be given an answer I think they'd be entitled to respond but I think that there could be
some concern with that respect that there is a need for housing but again that's what the 40b triggers and allows so we lose local authority authority accept conservation and the Board of
Health but from a conservation standpoint where you know where where does our we're pending a review of this based on this blue cat filing but I think in properly for me I didn't realize that this mea comment should be
coming out so I think before we proceed with anything that they're presenting to us we need to have that mea determination and if they do not need another project change change then we can proceed uh and move forward with once they gain the zba's final approvals so I
stated in the previous meeting and my concern is how do you put that type of essentially high density housing and support all those houses with groundwater for and 38 individual Wells within probably less than 100 foot
radius from septic systems all the way through the entire development well no the septic system has the radius CU it put the combined system the well radiuses each other may become influential I mean Wells draw to a
certain distance and the more maybe one household draws could affect others so so do we have the authority to do an analysis like we've done on here on Main Road for public water supplies and various other things the impact on the groundwater that even though it's not
even though it's not a public water supply do we have the authority to no well I think the is going to weigh in on whether or not the configuration that they're proposing um needs to be regulated as a
public water supply I believe Phil is correct I think the Board of Health on their end is looking at this and requesting their opinions on that very fact correct okay and they're staying under the gallons per day which triggers
them to be to a sew treatment facility so this is all contingent on gallons per day number and that's just based on bedrooms for household yes that's state state regulations five bedrooms for household so if you only have two bedrooms you
could have so this I believe the capacity is to that borderline level okay could I they haven't come before the Board of Health or indicated what their actual formal plan is I mean the original I'm sorry to me to interrupt you to say I think the original plan
or not the original but one set of plans was to have shared Wells that is every two homes would have would share one well I don't know what is now currently being proposed still shared Wells at this still shared Wells that's that's
incorrect they they intend to put 38 individuals 38 individuals so I just you know and um yeah so I would just like to respectfully disagree with something that was said earlier as
far as just because they removed that parel from the from the phase 2 Association it was still I I I argue that it's it's still encompassed by the entire look over by meepa and Mast
EP just because they removed that from the potential buildout it definitely created them the ability to do what they did back then but I would argue that just because they removed the construction from that doesn't mean that
that parcel does no longer fall under the D and I think that's that's my concern as as far as how do we who determines that and and again like they were here last to file with local concom and if that's not the case if they
should be going to De because it once fell under that and it still does in my opinion but you never go directly to deep that's that's not the process the process goes to local first cuz it's being considered a new project it it's
again the property lost a lot of environmental issues it lost the species of concern that the state had designated when they originally went through this project they inter turn found vernal pools on the property and
they found spotted Turtles but they didn't find the box turtles that were what were the crucial species they also found four to salamanders within one of the breeding pools uh towards the west side which is closer to your backyard so
a lot of things change in the property as I previously mentioned including that big environmental issue because that's why they were doing a preservation of almost 200 and something land uh Acres with this original I'm not aru natural heritage component I'm not you're not at
no no I know you're not but I'm just trying to give the whole air of the thing so there's a lot of yes I think de should weigh in on this um and I know you have spoken to some people there so I am hoping again it's not for me to do
but I'm urging the applicants and the previous owner or the owner now to get this done uh and the last part of that is we both agree to this replication that was never commenced for this division or this Crossing Westport lak
SP in um and that's something that needs to be done so they're not going to get away with not doing that the question is where are they supposed to do it because they put all so everything is again so I came up with this issue on the last planning board meeting when
um the West ball leag subdivision came on the agenda where um as far as finishing it because it has been been unfinished for 18 years and I asked some questions about permitting and then some
requirements like the the replication That was supposed to be done and who's going to keep an eye on that and the planning board and I understand everybody has their own their business to to watch over and probably they don't they're it's not their business to keep
an eye on those things but correct those things all exist and then the allowance to release the road essentially or finish the road all of those other things are important to get done as well where where I'm just I just need to make sure that that stuff is being kept an
eye on to where it seemed to be honest I'm not my feeling I got from the planning board was that we're just going to allow them to finish the work and I asked the question about permits and they don't deal with the permits portion of it right the planning board just says
yep we approve this and then you go to the permit process my argument to them was they had permit expired permits under a a number of different state agencies I just need to make sure that those that that's being follow through
on correct where I I even even with the mass do permit and I know this isn't this is going away way off the tangent but they have a mass do permit for the access to rout 177 that expired and then they're supposed to start construction back on the road again and my argument
is well did they rescure those permits with mass Highway with d with with everything um they are moving forward with that but I agree with they a little late so again I am not going to let this drop because this has been brought to
light fully now so I do say to you that this development is sat idle for 18 years or plus and I came into this after it was already developed so I wasn't aware that the replication was not done in all honesty so so we have we have
five houses now on the roadway over the last 18 years that that that are that are relying on uh SMS construction that was never certified and it was never maintained but maybe one time the whole entire time my argument is was that they shouldn't allow any more building to be
done until that stuff is is finished and certified well if you saw in my letter I did say to Mr DG Amo that I am not allowing him to do any work in any sense until he can do work in the roadway but he can't do any work within my jurisdiction which is the buffer zone or
within 100 feet of any of those Wetlands until he satisfies these concerns so okay I guess my only my only last question and and I guess I would assume that this is a is is a is a direct conservation um issue is um as far as work being permitted in buffer zones I
understand that it can be allowed but how how much can you allow half of this project appears to be in a buffer zone like like almost all of it the storm water basin is more closely related at ated to the wetlands the roadway itself
is not sections of it are but not the majority of the roadway but they are they are all definely within buffer zones like well within buffer zones but I mean how much is allowable where where it starts to not make sense where we have such
significant construction and in roadways and house lots and all that stuff within the buffer zone how much of that at what point does that become an issue what goes beyond maintenance like I said to you prior they're allowed to do certain amount of Maintenance to an
existing storm water basin which they no no no I'm sorry I'm sorry my further expansion further conru further expansion this question was specifically for the 40b for the 4 application that project is so substantial in my opinion
where and and the density of that is so big so so dense where 38 houses on these on this little t-o that's all dead end with circles and hammerheads um and I understand the 40b process allows waivers for much of that but I guess my
my my question is how much at what point do you say that even though you're not in Wetland or if you're like right up against it and then clearly then you're now building roadways and houses foundations in buffers for a significant amount of
that project how much does the board go okay this is too much before you go we're we are now making significant construction within almost within the with almost the entire well I don't want to speak incorrectly
if you if you review the plan you can see that much of the roadway and much of the Eastern houses on all those lots and those Wells they're all in the buffer zone correct on that new proposed development yes I guess my my only question is how much of that building in
the buffer zone at what point do you go this is too much there's thresholds and a projects can be considered approvable just based on that it's not we have to determine there's a total adverse effect that's going to seriously affect that
resource area to sustain itself as it is now either they're going to you you do lead to some things they could be drawing too much water they could effectively dry out maybe uh the way that Wetland receives its runoff because it's a higher area a lot of that water
groundwater seeps in that regime and comes down into that lowest section so there's a impact wise it's very difficult for us to to determine that that overall impact is going to be that detrimental to and and part of it is is
that we condition the construction projects to you know ensure you know that as the that the acts related to the construction do not um impact the
Wetland right in terms of um you know the trenching that they do the storm order that they need to control um I think it gets more complicated when you're saying well you know they're creating impervious area in
a you know and um because it's Upland it's not in the Wetland and um and so the standards kind of acknowledge that and there are certain activities like roads
that um you know are acknowledged you know uh you know to be permissible you know under certain under certain conditions but it's like the devil's in the details I mean and that's we really have to get the det the det W Rags is
will it alter the Wetland and as you build more and more stuff in the buffer Zona what point is it going to alter the Wetland yeah it's hard to determine well again above his own are area where you're allowed to do certain uses and activi so I understand what Brent was
leading to they've already cut off some of the some of the some of the engineering standpoints where they would reduce like roof run off was supposed to go into specific they've already they're already cutting that off they already took it out that
may be something that we requireed though so yeah absolutely we always have you recharge ground water with the roof leaders into dve understanding is they already took it out of the pocket well that may be not the benefit of them per se I I thank you for your time no I
appreciate you coming in I think you're a good concerned Citizen and I'm trying to help you out as as best we can through this confusing process but okay thank you all right thank you okay um that's it for got one last
one Mr chair oh I'm sorry we have a COC that the last thing we got compliance second and put the pap fa pleas I don't have that in my packet you want to do it this is Rory
cier this is a request for a certificate of compliance for 4880 County Road file number se80 1753 this is a Reiss issuance of a previously issued certificate of
compliance um the applicant has applied uh for file number SE 8753 um again description of the project the owner is requesting the commission reissue a certificate of compliance that was previously issued and not recorded
the commission this needs to resign with a full certificate of compliance release uh recommendations uh this is when the head store was created so this is when that he initially um did some Renovations in the septic system to upgrade the property to be what it is currently
today um so the Westport Conservation Commission should vote to reissue a certificate of compliance for file number se80 1753 that was previously granted to Rory catori at 488 Old County Road and this would be resigning of that previously
issued certific compliance right thank you Chris we have a motion move to issue the certificate of compliance Phil and Bert all those in favor opposed it's
unanimous I that was it's okay Jason was here figured it [Laughter] out all right
that's it for the agenda and and the uh correct smart agent remarks we have one bill the East Bay media for a total of [Music]
$369 do we have a motion to pay motion to pay second that's Tom and Phil all those in favor opposed it's unanimously does everyone need to sign
this Chris just you need to sign it okay I'll pass it around everyone can sign we did make a motion in the past but that was during Co just something uh we have a bunch of minutes which we cannot go through uh we don't
have the appropriate attendees we had one individual attend but then everyone else did not show up so so so it is is not Mr Merchant's fault today it is everyone else's fault even though we were saving it was when he wasn't here
but other than that nope not him today all right uh Chris do you have any new business or unanticipated business um I kind of did mention to you that I did issue that letter to the executive office environmental Affairs so that
basically is all I had and also just to add to that that I also emailed the owner of Westport Lakes to um uh to determine the mass dp's uh superseding requirements and make sure he moves ahead with that uh to get this site into
compliance that is all Mr chairman all right do anyone have anything else at the table move to adjourn second here a second that was Phil and Tom all those in favor opposed unanimous all four voted to
leave