so we have the April uh 15th meeting of the Conservation Commission we're going to stand and salute the flag please 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 [Music] okay so first hearing tonight is going to be West Paul Landing Commission RDA0 Hicksbridge Road widen the existing entrance and ramp at the Hicks bridge landing anybody here for that
come on up Jeff all right yeah please thank you a simple magnet to the desk [Applause] good you can stand right at the microphone so they can hear you on TV they should have be watching and just uh
describe the project for us jeff C i brought my pointer oh that's fine you can do that too whatever you want [Music] i am the chair of the landing commission this is a project with the select board because the property is actually
partially owned by the select board partially by the landing commission as you're aware the old exit that was used is on property not owned by the town or the landing commission and the
property owners were not willing to negotiate a price for continued use of that so we had to come up with an alternate plan as we have studied the alternate plan I know there's a concern about public
safety it's actually safer it's hard to understand clearly but if you look at what the old plan the old exit was here and it doesn't show well but the
distance from the line of sight from cars turning here to the old exit was 272 ft so it was still a problem the line of sight from
here pulling occasionally into the wrong lane as they go east is 440 ft random people would be coming downhill would be an issue but we feel like it's easily as as safe as what we
had been doing uh what we're proposing at the moment will be done at a saving of over $100,000 to the town because the highway department can do it and we will get a chance to kind of review the performance before we go on to the major
project which is maybe 3 years away maybe never if we can't get grant money uh so again the plan is to use what's currently or was just an
entrance but was used last year as an entrance as an exit without accident we're going to widen that improve the lines of sight move the the uh the barrier further east uh that's the main
plane the pipe the drainage pipe that goes under there will be extended and uh we'll get a chance to look at all of this again when we go back to you fairly soon for the major project to redo the entire landing
because we're going to start the permitting process on that soon all right chris Mr chairman members Westport Landing Commission this is uh the Hicks Ridge Landing request for determination of applicability report date is April 7th
2025 um site visit was also on April 7th 2025 the town has submitted a request for determination to have the highway department widen the existing entrance of Hicksbridge Road to accommodate two lanes the work will require excavating
and removing approximately 10t of material the guardrail will need to be removed temporarily to allow the work the entrance access is in need of the increase as the other entrance is on the mason's land and as Jeff mentioned are
not willing to negotiate for a permanent lease or use of that area um recommendations erosion controls will be installed on the lower side of the entrance grading and seeding of the area immediately after completion will be conditioned to stabilize and prevent any
erosion this is a uh riverfront buffer zone and flood zone uh area recommendations west Conservation Commission should approve the widening of the Hicksbridge landing with a negative box 2 determination with the condition that erosion controls be
installed and maintained till the area is stabilized and seated that's all Mr chairman all right so Jeeoff I mean it meets our regulations i mean just from a usability standpoint not that it has anything to do with conservation but how do you I mean you're going to stop parking on the one side so you can make
the swing with your trailer to turn around i mean when you come up when you come out of that the ramp how are you going to make it up the the exit i'm just It's cuz sometimes where people park in there you don't have room to maneuver well that's what I've noticed just out of curiosity again that'll be
part of the entire review process but uh all of I mean there will be reduced parking here partially because of this but it was inevitable no I I get not be as many trailer spaces but this area here will all be
striped and uh you will lose like one or two trailer spaces here and that area will be striped so you know so that you come out realistically you're going to have to come a turn and go you're
probably if someone's parked there uh yeah you might if it depends on when you come out of the water uh and where the ADA ramps are and stuff yeah all right um do you have any questions on what Chris what Chris uh his report
i'm as clear about it as I have the the ability but I'm sure the highway department will be clear because this is what they do this is not what I do all right does anybody else have any questions for Jeff while you're here well the audience I have some questions but I figured we give the the audience a shot first
so who who's opinion is it that these lines of sight are safer is that does that like a traffic study done public safety opinion who who came up with that well I I personally measured it and uh we spoke with our
engineer about it and the landing commission met this afternoon and approved going ahead with this all right i I've been in the boat business since 1995 and I use that ramp a lot and I
don't see any way possible and I just I went down there three times this week there's no way possible to pull a boat out of that water off the ramp and somehow maneuver some kind of U-turn while you've got cons usually trucks and
trailers on both sides there's no room to make that swing and even if you have the room it's going to have to require the collaboration of just about every user that's there on a Sunday afternoon for example yep no one can move until
this guy goes and that guy and we we already have the police there a couple times a year without this debacle is I don't see any way possible for it to h for it to work and also with
a steep gradient on the east side so as you're leaving the ramp it'll be on your right that's your as you're leaving the ramp take taking a right i I live on Pine Hill Road so I when I come out I take a right y so it's so steep how how
much material are you bringing in because this there's a utility pole that's got to be moved the guardrails got to be moved and I mean it's going to be thousands of cubic yards of material to build up the grade to widen the
driveway it's it's it drops right off it's it's a steep my understanding from the highway department looking at the amount we're intending to widen the driveway at this point is that he has the material in stock uh will be no cost
to the town um and I know the long-term plan is to dramatically raise the grade of the boat ramp and this entire area so the water will be shunted off into into treatment
on these sides because part of the plan the larger thing and now we're talking about the plant and not just the exit yeah well it's just But have they have has the highway department
really looked at it or ha or is this in like the preliminary phase because I it's going to require hundreds of cubic yards of material i I I was at three times this week appreciate your expertise this is
beyond when All right so when you you let's assume we can make that swing and then we go up onto Hicksbridge Road when you pull out um again I was visualizing me hauling a
boat and I'm I'm I'm on the compound but I'm also a concerned citizen because I Yeah and I I I So when you come out you the you the way it was all last summer you had no choice but to go into oncoming traffic to make the swing yep all right so let's assume we widen the
road a little bit and we It's exit from the road the the exit right it might get better but it's still going to be impossible to make that swing without at some point going into oncoming traffic and I stayed there for a few minutes
waiting for cars to come over the crest coming down and that's why I questioned the line of sight safety thing um you don't have enough they don't see you and you don't see them soon enough to avoid a collision when you're coming out and they're coming down and you've got a a
boat behind you we're going to have a situation where someone with a truck is going to be in the um westbound traffic lane and we're going to have that on and and then we're going to have a police situation where you've got you know a guy with a boat in the other lane and
then who gets sighted it's going to be a public safety thing so there's a lot of things to look into and I and I I don't think that enough effort was made with the Masonic lodge to put this issue there's got to be a mechanism where we can work something out with these people there has to be it
that it worked fine for a long long time and they don't have any plans to use that land i I think more effort to resolve the issue would be a great place to start versus this plan here that plan's not going to work appreciate your concern about the plan
and not just the exit i know it's not ideal and the mason's been very clear for a number of reasons probably not appropriate to speak about this meeting okay all right any other comments thank you
quick question on are you losing spots in the entire lot because of not having that obviously upper level and all that there going to be less parking spots spots so is it all permitted parking there or is it a mix of I mean can you
have a trailer and no trailer what is the what are the rules of that landing for parking the rules will be up to the select board to figure out i expect that there there is some car only parking uh we are expecting to open up parking on
the other side of Xbridgeidge to help with the fact that we're losing but those will be car only parking and uh again the select board may decide to allow cars to park
in trailer spaces if they park each other in but that's really again down the road all right anything else situation but what we have now is very dangerous and there isn't a clear alternative to
this beyond if you want to join the Masons and have a vote there all right any other questions if not a motion i'll make a motion to continue this two weeks so that we can hopefully sort some things out and seek some public safety opinions
and maybe an opinion from the highway department just a twoe continuence would give us some time to sort things out that's that's not I mean you guys can do whatever you want but that's not really in our purview i mean our purview is not public safety but if we if we vote it in All right so if we
vote it down and it gets appealed D doesn't care about traffic schemes right so so if we vote it down then it gets appealed and D overrules us which they probably will correct then we get a
situation that is irreversible that we're going to be stuck with well if we continue two weeks it's going to be it be the same as last year maybe a little better well but I mean I know what you're saying but it's it's not in our purview to to to talk about public safety i mean we ask those questions we can ask them but it's not really to make
a judgment on public safety it's a judgment on if it meets the the state's requirements or the the town requirements and that's really what we're supposed to be voting on right our job here is only to determine if it will affect the wetland i mean there's very real practical considerations that have
to be dealt with well I mean I that's I mean that that's our job well I feel strongly enough about it that maybe at the next meeting I sit over there instead of here because I mean I I've done this I've been in this racket a long time trying to I don't disagree with you but I think that's something you go to the luck when you have to deal
with okay and if I could say something I certainly appreciate your concern we're trying to advocate for the people of Westport to continue to use the river and at the moment this is the best we've come up with i will say that this is on
some level not necessarily something you're stuck with forever if something dramatically changes with the Masons certainly what we do here could continue to be just an entrance and there could be an exit somewhere else or
if the town comes up with an extra $300,000 to build a second bank and lose five more spaces something different could be done we have looked at this in a number of different ways and I'd be happy to have your reaction i mean I think you get a sense for how I'm going
to vote on this right i mean I I I and I I I will always prefer to do a continuation to give people a chance to sort things out um but if these these my colleagues may feel differently we all
have a vote is there any dialogue with the Masons at all is there for about 14 months so I've been a couple meetings well I mean I'm I'm just going to say this if you if you decide to vote it down you're going
to have what you had last year at least if you vote for it you'll have somewhat of an improvement it's not going to be ideal but you'll have somewhat of an improvement so I don't I mean you can do what you want to do i'm just going to I'm just giving you my opinion that voting it down is not necessarily the answer we are under a time crunch and it's already potentially too late to get
this work done this spring so we have another more dangerous situation if this doesn't get done so So at that point it's not I mean I think public safety is going to squash it anyway so it this I'm confident that
that it's not going to pass muster once they really take a look at how the traffic flow is going to work but it's not done this project may not get done in time for the summer then at this point the widening may the overall project in general was designed for ADA
it may never get funded although we the seapport bond bill did pay for this design avenue that Jeff has undergone with the landing but are we are we looking at and again this is not within our purview but I think it affects enough people in town
where we can devote a little bit of time to this tonight are we taking state money to improve that ramp because if you take money from the Commonwealth it's open to all taxpaying residents of the Commonwealth that's the reason that ramp has not been wellmaintained once
you take the state money which they'd be happy to give us and rebuild that ramp but then it's open to the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts and not just Westport my understanding is that it depends on what kind of state money you take
and my understanding is what we've done so far is that this will continue to be parking only for people in Westport any ramp anywhere in Massachusetts that access the
Commonwealth anyone can back their boat down that ramp they just can't park there correct so uh we will we're not intending to any money that compromises the people's of Westport ability to use it and but people should
also appreciate that the existing ramp is halfway failed at this point if it if the last section of it fails and falls into the river then you will only be able to go in at high tide very high tide
and to fix that it's another 100 plus,000 to drag the cement slab out of the river so it's a little nonsense no no one no one would dispute the need to repair that ramp it's just it's just who
we take money from to do it that that of that that's the that's the that's the only reason it hasn't been done already you know it would have been done a long time ago except you know you can you forfeit use of the lot different kinds of state money yeah okay and but this will not just be state money this will
be all kinds of money okay all right so we have a motion on the floor from Jason to continue it do we have a second for that motion could I have a point of order i ask Chris yeah i thought it was our our
understanding vote up or down that the that the commission cannot make a motion to continue we have to vote up or down we have to vote up or down that's a good point exactly we have to vote it up and down we don't have the right to vote to
continue unless the requires it well we can suggest it he can accept it right okay yeah not in the form of a motion you can ask would you be willing to make So would if I made that motion not we're going to have to vote it up or down yeah would you be willing to allow us to
continue it in which case we would continue it two weeks and just not vote on it or we can vote on it as I said before I think it's a mistake to to continue it because it makes the work less likely to happen okay okay all right do we have another motion do we
have a motion either way somebody Well in the interest of moving to a vote I would and based on the fact that uh on Chris's report um to give it a negative
box two from a weapons perspective I would uh you know I would vote to issue a negative box two with the conditions uh of erosion controls being installed or maintained all right do we have a second second okay all in favor i All
right opposed i opposed so that's that's three opposed tom what do you I Okay i want Are you approving it i approve okay so that's let's um four people it's so it passes it's uh three yeah against it is uh uh
Jason Jake and Kevin and negative yes motion passes motion passes by uh me Phil uh for and um so you can you can still sign yeah at
this point all right you're all set Jeff you can see Chris paperwork i don't know tomorrow maybe railroad Park realy trust anrad zero highland a z maple street zero railroad park zero railroad park annex to determine if resource areas depicted on
the plan are accurate no sign you have green cards yes been given students I see okay thank you to who is me phil
how you doing hey pretty good evening matt height from South Coast Engineering uh here on behalf of the applicant um the intent of this plan is to provide a graphical representation of the resource areas uh within the site so the site's located on the west side of Highland AB
just north of uh I1 195 uh site contains several lots within map 50 and map 10 so in regards to the resources the wetlands were delineated and located by Southwest Engineering in August of 2023
sheet one contains several uh primes series uh 200 300 600 700 400 and 500 and sheet two
uh contains series uh 100 so sheet two is the southern portion of the lot sheet one's the northern portion of the lot um so these lines were uh later reviewed
uh by the Westport Conservation Agent and at which time uh suggested a change to line 600 uh that change was recommended and shown on the plans here and um that's really that in a nutshell so
turn over all right thank you Chris mr chairman for the record and for people that are in the audience there's no work proposed with this application this is specifically just a request to determine the resource areas on the property so uh
we have no idea what is proposed with this property at this time just for the record this is Railroad Park Realy Trust Zero Highland A zero Highland A indicating that it's made up of small parcels as well as a larger parcel surrounded by as you can see here some
individually owned parcels within this approximately it's this this portion is 60 there's another portion that's uh south of the railroad that's not included okay thank you so uh zero highland adise this abbreviated notice of resource area
delineation with South Coast Engineering and Matt Pike here tonight the date of the report is April April 10th 2025 we do have a file number Mr chairman it's 802793
2793 thank you uh site visit was also on the uh April 9th 2025 with the representative detailed description of the work the AANA has recently acquired a large group of parcels that exist in the wooded area beyond the existing locks on Highland A
the property does have frontage on Highland A in two locations the wetlands have been flagged in the field within the properties owned by the applicant the wetland lines were walked in the applicant's representative on April 9th 2025 the wetland flags were mostly
accurate as they are shown with a few minor flag adjustments uh in that 600 series these changes have been provided on the revised plan before the commission no work is proposed only to determine the resource areas on the property the site also does not contain
any estimated habitat or certified vernal pools um a a physical boundary of this property is route 195 so the property's kind of trapped against the old highway and the railroad park uh definition or name comes from uh the
origin of that development in the uh early times of Westport that extended over towards Route 6 um recommendations for the board the Westport Conservation Commission should approve uh for the file number
SE02793 and issue an order of resource area delineation approving the resource areas as shown on the revised plan dated 49 2025 and that would be 100 series 200 series 300 series 400 series 500 series
600 series and 700 series that's all Mr do you have any questions i do not all right does anyone in the audience have a question [Music] i have a question you can come up stand up here sorry just say your name for us
and you can ask your question and just just to remind everybody this is only to depict what wetlands are on the property so they can now go back and make a plan on what if anything is usable there so we have no idea what's going to happen there right now that'll be the next set of plans yeah my name is
Russ Fiveres i do live on Highland Avenue i'm just wondering uh you said there's access to this on Highland Avenue whereabouts is it uh there's one lot um right there and
then the main section there so Bentley Lane does not own that land that is previously cleared okay so and what is this lot he said this lot here i don't know what that is actually it's vacant there's no address it's vacant land on the other side of the gas line
on the other side of the gas line meaning the north side or the south side south side south side of the gas line the existing residence is right on the side of the gas line right just on the opposing side so there's existing access
here at Lane right and here as well and here as well three access points and then these are these are these are developed lots Costa 492 Highland a trust and then these lots as you mentioned interior lots that are
that owned by owned by I thought there was two question you're welcome sir anybody else have a question you come on up here sir can just state your name for us and u can ask your question please can Can we bring a mic can you I
don't have a mic um you want to you can ask it from back there my name is Dave Duza 460 Avenue and uh there's been a barrage surveyor all up on trespassing on our land and actually cutting shrubbery and stuff that's not
on their land it's on my land and that can't be replaced but with the with this it'll be another barrage of many of people to come back there also trespass and not not uh not recognizing the no trespass signs i
think as they say they're surveyors they have the right to trespass on people's land so I respect them to respect my property lines and not trespass on my land i have cameras back there and numerous times I've been back there and you know to see who's been on my land
there's been surveyors and they're way off the they're way off the property line okay they're lost they have GPS's they're lost and so when they cut a clear line just recently they've been back there and they cut a clear line from the gas line all the way to almost
the railroad track it's about as wide enough to get a cheap to some of it's on my property so I didn't appreciate that and when you say there's three accesses I want to know what between what addresses between 460 490 three spots on
the road doesn't mean anything to me because that could be three empty spots there's a lot of a lot of woods on that road i don't know where three empty spots are is it between 460 420 485 there should be something to tell us where those as far as the access points
once they develop or once they put a plan to develop that then they're going to have to show how they're going to get to the developed lots and that'll all be in a a much more detailed plan well what's their property now they show three three entrances or three exit points where do those fall well they
they they just read them all they're just showing me spots on the map i need to know addresses so when I drive down the road I can say "Okay this is 490 this is the Can Can you let me talk can you let me talk?" Well I'm trying to finish my my Okay well you asked the question what the addresses are yes he read the two addresses one's a realy can
you read those two addresses again please so this address here is 504 and 492 so that's one of the spots and on either side of those two on either side 504 and 492 there's no three in between one on
each side of those two lots so there's three entrances one on either side of those lots where's the third one so one to the north of 504 one in between 492 and 504 one to the south of 492
thank you thank you so they're all approximately really close together in reality in reality M so there 440 ft of frontage 240 and 120 so they're pretty well spread apart that's less than a quarter mile
all right anybody else have any more questions and again the once they they put a detailed plan together they're going to have to go to us and most likely planning notified and border health and different people and you'll all be notified again and then you'll have the detailed plan of what they're
going to be doing and at that point you'll be able to see what the drainage is going to be like and any other issues that you may have well right now this this today is only to approve where the wetlands actually are mr chairman just before this meeting
closes I also for the record this property has considerable title issues the people that purchased this bought this property with title issues it not going to do anything to it till they clear title to the land so they bought
this with the hopes of getting that title cleared um the Messia family acquired a lot of this land because it was had title issues so these people are willing to sit on it and see what they can make of it and follow through land
court proceedings so that probably would take up to 3 years in some respect so that's just to give you a little history of the property at its present state so this not something that's going to happen next week that's all Mr jim all right and I would
just add that nothing the conservation commission does can affect the title correct that is we don't have any jurisdiction over title whatever we approve is subject to whatever land court might decide as far as title goes correct
any other questions all right that's being said do we have a a motion okay so I will move to approve the issuance of the ORAD as set out in the in the in the plan uh dated
[Music] 4925 Pilot Avenue is that you second from Kevin all in favor opposed post jake closes all right thank you
moving forward we have James Milky and Kathy Joe Martin notice of intent 88A Hillrest Acres construct single family dwelling with pertinance in the front uh in the riverfront area buffer zone and VE zone and replace existing septic tank
in the coastal bank anybody here representing the I think he you have a you have a do you want we can't talk about like the merits of the project but if you want clarification about how we look I curious most everybody approved
except that guy right here he cannot I would like to know the reason why well you can you I mean you may want to I mean I don't know if that's something I can ask well I mean it's probably not appropriate during the middle of the meeting but he's a selectman so you can You can probably contact him and and that would be a good idea to ask you can
ask him why he didn't vote for it he's your newest selectman by the way jake jake so you can maybe email him or something or through the town i'm not sure if you want to give me a number or whatever
privately good mr p uh good evening matt fight again on behalf of the applicant so this notice of intent to you want to go talk to you can I'm sorry go ahead Joe and sort the
reconstruction of that house at 88 Hillrest um so the property is at the west side of Hillrest uh but does not have on the west river the land uh so this land separated by the west road by this land
here identified as map 72 lot 1 AB um so on locus property for resources we have a river zone uh nearly the entire lots within the 100 foot zone a coastal bank and a V zone elevation 16
um there was there's an existing house in this parcel prior to the demo excuse me there was an existing house in council in prior to the demolition request was owned varants was submitted to the west EVA a determination was made that since the new house will be on the
same footprint same size variance was not required um that determination was provided with this bill and so now it's the owner's intent to build a new house as shown here um and that'll be in conformance uh to
the current building code in relation to the velocity zone and uh the new house will be on piles at the lowest horizontal structural member would be at elevation 20.5 which exceeds the minimum requirement of twoft freeboard from the flood elevation to the lowest horizontal
structural member um in addition to that the owners are also installing uh a denitrification tank as I understand on report to replace existing tank and um that's something been forwarded to the
port health uh in addition to that roof runoff will be charged by cotch infiltrators as shown on the plan here with two cult systems um the structural plans have also been submitted under separate code of the
commission and those have also been uh reviewed by the agent the the work in the coastal banks limited to grading around the new tank um the work at the new house is limited to the installation of the piles so the
new house is predominantly on the 100 foot riparian zone um but as uh previously stated the footprints elevated to bring to bring the structure to conformance with the current building code um lastly regarding the riverfront and alter alternatives and analysis has
been prepared and submitted to the NI and with that I'll turn over to the commission all right thank you Chris mr chairman James Milky and Kathy Joe Martin 88A Hillrest Acres this is a notice when 10 application filed by South Coast Engineering with Matt Pike
representing report date is April 11th 2025 file number for this project is SE2794 with no adverse comments uh the site visit was also on April 10th 2025 the owner has filed to replace the
home with a new structure elevated above the VE or velocity zone flood zone the structure has been removed after the ZBA approved the new dwelling in the same footprint the new home will require the installation of 18 concrete piles
extending from concrete footings the lowest floor member will be at elevation 20.5 as Matt mentioned this is well above the two twoft freeboard that's required new construction would also require a new septic tank equipped with ditrification
this work is within the riverfront flood zone and buffer zone to the east branch of the river the property does not extend to the river it is actually separated by a privately owned property coastal bank is shown on the site plan with the existing home um constructed
right along the edge of that existing bank this coastal bank is a stable and actually within the existing lawn area the coastal bank in my opinion is not acting as a vertical buffer or is it subject to title action so this bank is
stable and not contributing even as a settlement source to the area the proposed project will not affect the ability uh stability rather of the existing coastal bank it must be however conditioned in the order per 310 CMR
10.303 303 that no coastal engineering structure uh a revetman or seaw well shall be permitted on an eroding bank at any time in the future to protect the project allowed by disorder conditions so that would be a condition on the
order um FEMA regs also there was a concern uh they were proposing or considering concrete underneath this structure um this plan represents gravel i did speak on and review the FEMA regs a slab could not be allowed underneath
this structure so it would have to remain gravel um the homeowners did ask that question so I want it on the record the FEMA regulations would not allow it because the lowest flood the lowest floor member would be that slab and it would be considered below flood elevation so therefore you can't have
anything tied to that structural component of that raised elevation uh so therefore gravel would be permittable um there's also roof drains that we've added to the project to try to give this some infiltration which was lacking on
the older project also with that the homeowner is considering rain gardens with those infiltration units so for the record I'd like to have either infiltration or rain gardens be uh considered for that approval so recommendations the Westport
Conservation Commission should approve the proposed elevated home on concrete piles with the conditions that follows the stockpile of soil must be contained within the limit of work no postal engineering structure to be permitted in the future uh to protect this project
allowed by this order uh and no cement slab permitted at grade uh must be crushed stone and lastly infiltration basins or and or rain gardens uh can be utilized on the property that's all mr
chairman any questions no thank you all right so the elevation overall is going to be 20 and a half ft but like how how high is that above the actual ground the ground itself i don't know what the elevation of the site is just out of curiosity approximately 13 so 13 ft in
the air yep no excuse me so you're at 13 oh you're at 13 mostly okay all right all right anybody in the audience have a question all right uh table well I have a um so there's a there's a property in front of this property correct land
trust yes on there yes pro I guess in front and in back so in front mean towards the river or front yeah closer to the river to the river yes and how how high are those piles we have to have some fairly recent
projects in that area like h what are the some of the butters elevations my understanding that the that the property to the west is undeveloped yep and it's it's a and none of the other structures adjacent are on stilts this will be one of the first ones in this area to be
raised on they in Hillrest so if they wanted to have that structure quite a bit lower would it be permittable below 20 feet i guess my
point is are they going 20 feet high to be compliant or are they going 20 feet high so that they'll have a view and they'll have a view if they went up 2 feet okay so so you're at you're at V16 yes
so you have to be So the bare minimum it would be for the lowest horizontal member to be at 18 18 would be the minimum minimum they gave a little more free board so they went to 20 so they gave a little more just which Yeah i mean it's
not trying to be poster resiliency I think okay okay not trying to be a hard I just you know like it that changes the character of the east branch of the river when we have these you know things going up that look like Eiffel Tower so right like wind turbines like wind turbines and and houses that are
probably built where they shouldn't be but well thankfully it's only like 4t 6 ft above the ground level it's correct it may seem higher than it is right my point was I wasn't sure if there would be if this was a a preemptive strike to have that structure high enough so that
if someone built in front of them they wouldn't lose their view isn't Isn't the water in front of the land trust you said "Yes it's privately owned by the West Land Trust." So it's just going to just to meet the requirements and give it a little bit extra yeah okay no that's that's right okay any other
questions um I just I I I would just suggest an additional condition of approval by the board of health 104 all right so you're going to add that just Yeah i have no problem with that condition all right anybody else there is a septic tank involved
anybody else have a question all right if not a motion please okay i'll go for three um so I would move to approve the plan for uh uh construction of an elevated uh home and
uh replacement of a septic tank for 88A Hillrest acres um subject to the conditions um that stockpiled soil must be contained within the limited work no engineering structure be permitted in the future to
protect the project allowed um that would be gravel and not slab um or uh gravel across stone and not slab um supporting the uh the pillars um that
there be inflation uh infiltration or rain guards and subject to board health thank you do you have a second second was that Bert yes all right all in favor opposed all right that's unanimously on
thank you thank you William Wixs is that how you pronounce it wix william Wix notice of intent 374 River Road install two piles for floats for an existing license dock
good evening Sean yeah he's got my I saw him oh all right make something easy sean let's go well Sean's doing it so it's not necessarily easy this is This is a very simple project uh
this what they all say just wait this is uh a previous license dock jetty and structures uh they did a repair wall a short time ago now they want to put add a couple of
pilings to stabilize the flow structure this flow structure the same footprint on the license plan just adding a three pilings here to stabilize it uh and basically stop it from what it used to be doing for slapping back and forth along this side of the river so they're
just adding three pilings to 2992 number 2792 2792 thank you so Sean I'm quick i might have missed it but is that are you adding the filings now are you coming to us or is the 91 already reflect those filings or do you have to refile the 91 is that an amendment we're going to file as an
amendment we're not increasing the footprint on anything we're just actually just adding piles right now they had an anchor out on one side in the pipe and then it doesn't hold up obviously yeah I would imagine all right you all are you good okay Chris Mr
chairman this is William Wix 374 River Road this a noseman intent application filed by Northeast Engineers and Consultants sean Leech here representing the report date is April 10th 2025 file number for the project is
SE802792 uh agencies required to be contacted with the the excuse me chapter 91 waterways program uh the site visit was on April 9th 2025 description of work the owner has an existing licensed dock and seaw wall and is proposing to
install two additional piles to hold the existing float float is designed is becoming stressed from the tide pulling on the float as Sean mentioned uh so these additional piles will be installed from a barge and we utilize to stabilize that float from twisting uh when the
tide changes uh resource areas this is land under the river land containing shellfish recommendations for the two piles the Westport Conservation should approve the request to install two additional piles into the West Branch of the River for William Wix 374 River Road
uh for file number SC802792 that's all mr chair questions from the audience come on up here sir you can state your name if you don't mind how are you hi gabriel I'm actually one of the
buddters um we have uh this new the new dock that was installed or pre-manufactured um some of the issues we're having right now the properties in this skew uh we've had several surveyors come in we're waiting
for one more final surveyor to come in there are two attorneys involved in this project right now uh one of them is coming down I believe tomorrow uh the original surveyor uh Mr sean Leech is also coming down tomorrow uh we have a
new surveyor coming in uh from my attorney uh because there is a a twoft offset questioning on the frontage and the side markers of the property lines uh there was also an encroachment um put
upon my property of about 4 ft uh so the seaw wall uh was actually not built as a repair it was it was the permit was pulled as a rebuild and this is a total new
construction approximately doubling in size which according and again I'm not professional on this uh to section 404 by wetlands that this should have had some type of approval from the Army Corps of Engineers to be done in the
first place there was such uh so much above the size that it was uh there was so much construction done um so my only asking of the council is that the discovery be done by the attorneys
before anything gets approved any further because there is a land dispute in this in this matter uh we there's 2 ft of property missing we don't know if it's on the right side of the property we don't know if it's on the left side of the property so we aren't getting a third survey to it come in and have the
property surveyed again um other than that um there's also uh it's also pending my my attorney is also pending the damages because the builder of the seaw wall uh encroached onto my property
damaging my property tore part of my seaw wall to my stairs took out a fence um and miscellaneous other damages to concrete i had seaw walls so basically I'm I'm not here really to to say no not
don't do this project or or to do it i'm asking just to put a hold on it until the attorney sort this out and that's it so and this is let me question Sean this is already all this is all done right the seaw walls everything's done yes
everything's been constructed including the J when was it all done what's that when was it done uh last fall uh I don't know any it was yeah it finished then by before the end of the year and we approved it originally the project
originally yes we approved the project was all permitted correct and the land dispute came up after disputed line that we're talking about this one here it has no relevance to the dock oh the dock is on the north side of well well the re
the relevance is there is actually 2 ft of my property missing now whether it be on the south side of my property or the right side or the north side of the property i cannot answer that question and that's why I'm I've hired another
surveyor to come in and check this uh but the encroachment onto my side and the seaw wall was definitely built onto my property and there are other encroachments on my property in fact I have a letter that I was served uh
within the last week by Attorney Kelly so I'm local in town and um they are going to claim some eminent domain and push this forward so again I'm just so I I I'm just looking to
clarify everything before we proceed i'm just going to say those two pilings the dock's already there those two pilings and where the dock is now if there's any issue where the seaw wall is not in the right place or was overbuilt that would be something you should report to
waterways from the state the D because this this needs to come down and get inspected has this been inspected by waterways yet for the 91 no we haven't asked for certificate of clients uh Mr gabriel is referring to uh the installer did go over the line a
little bit to tie in the two seaw walls no I know that but he also said that the the the the jetty was built too big or bigger than it should have been and should have needed i mean that's all that's all issues seaw wall itself was dropped no I understand that everything was approved initially by on the initial
license back in 93 right but that all needs to get a certificate of compliance from the state from the waterways so if you have any kind of concern about the the the jetty the seaw wall or anything like that not being built to spec or too big or whatever the case
that has to be inspected by the state which is the waterways up in where is it lakeville yes Lakeville that would be um I you would send them a letter expressing that because they will have to come down and inspect this and let them know that you believe I mean they're not going to get involved with a property line dispute or anything like
that to be honest with you but if you believe that has been not built to the specifications of the plan that the state approved because ultimately it gets approved by the state then that would be the place to look for that but but as far as the the lance dispute and the two pilings I mean I personally don't think it really has any bearing on
it i think whe if if there is an issue whether it's with the overbuilding of the project then that's an issue for the chapter 91 waterways license that's my opinion well like I said I'm just I'm I'm just concerned on you know
I I don't blame your property i mean you need to get that straightened out and I I you have every right there i mean if it was 6 in honestly I I really wouldn't it wouldn't matter for me but I mean it was way overbuilt on onto my property and there was destruction and damages
caused by it so the true property lines still are not there uh even the plan that was submitted to the state did not have any surveyor marks on it uh there there was which I as I am to understand plans that are submitted should be
surveyed before they are submitted and should have actual measurements on it and the five the plan that is on file with the town has no measurements on it and I have original pictures also to the dock and I understand that that part
goes to the waterways section 91 um but again I'm not disputing i really I I'm more concerned about the attorneys when the land dispute and at that point I would have no concerns at all i mean all right I I
appreciate your comments but I would show I would certainly take your other your concerns up in ' 91 chapter 91 waterways in Lakeville all right any other questions from the audience all right thank you all right
any questions from the table all right need a motion i'll make a motion to approve the file oh we have the file number don't we yeah we have that 2792 yeah it came in all right uh that was uh Tom and Dor all
in favor opposed all right thank you Le thank you whoever been a hell of a night all right peter and I'm solving the Yeah peter and Barbara Humphre RDA lot 113 Mac Humber
Lane River Road and a Coxit Road construct single family dwelling advanced treatment septic system well driveway storm water infiltration system associated grading and landscaping in the flood zone it's a mouthful
this is supposed to be lost by crowd yeah so I should have Valerie you need to go out and hire some people to come sit in the audience so a great crowd before so when I when I gave him an opportunity to clarify that should have gone through the chair so I overstepped
my bounds that's fine i'm I'm I'm used to you overstepping your the chair so you told me I could excuse myself he gave you a bald ass just trying to go by the rules in case you're a little Listen I I try to be as accommodating as possible
go ahead sir good evening bill Smith from Civil Engineering Concepts uh property is owned by Peter and Barbara Humphrey it's located at zero Mumbre Lane uh it's also bordered by Cozet Road which turns into River Road at this
point it is it's uh lawn right now it's not in any resource area it is within a flood zone it's in an AE7 flood zone so we we'd like to build a single family dwelling
uh advanced ditrification septic system well driveway and the associated infrastructure to go along with that um we've got a again advanced treatment septic system driveway coming in um rain guard
and detention basin over here for the increased runoff from the new impervious surfaces um again this this portion of the property is within the the AE17 flood zone and we've constructed it so that
the lowest habitable floor and it's at elevation main house would be at elevation 20 um and so that we're we're well above that grades on the property now we've got a 16 over in this corner it goes down to an 11 down in this
corner of pitching generally uh northeast to southwest it's before the board of health right now uh for their approval it had been previously approved when it was uh owned by Sally Brightton um and
they've sold they sold the property last year um the great application uh was before the conservation commission it was around 2017 um and it was okay so this is this is
similar house house has changed a little bit but essentially it's the the same the same general um issues all right thank you thank you Bill Chris Mr chairman members Peter and Barbara Humphrey Mackham Lane Zero Zero Mack
Lane Zero River Road as it kind of touches both areas this is a request for determination of applicability filed by Civil Engineering Concepts with Bill Smith representing the report date is April 7th 2025 i I put board of health approved
but I I thought it was it's previously border health approved so that's kind of somewhat what I was thinking um site visit was also on April 7th 2025 description of the work the owner has filed to construct a single family
home septic well in grading in a flood zone the lot is located across the roadway from uh house number 832 River Road lot is vacant and has frontage on Mac Lane and River Road the work is within an Azone as Bill mentioned will
not have any adverse effects to the neighboring properties as designed there was a previous determination uh negative determination issued on file but it has expired as Bill mentioned uh the lot has changed hands so recommendations for the board tonight the Westport Conservation
Commission should issue a negative box two determination for the single family home in the flood zone pending board of health thank you any questions Bill no okay questions for the table if no questions a motion motion to approve second well
the dynamic duo strikes all in favor close all right thank you very much thank you Bill thanks Bill i just didn't want to be a munching the whole the whole night just only part of the night i don't like munching on i mean Phil needed to drink a whole bottle of water
to make all the motions used in this museum what's that i got Leon water i should have All right dug into like the Rogers rules of All right caroline stand
Caroline Conway certificate of compliance SE8 340 136 cabinets necro that's an oldie caroline Conway Mr chairman 136 Catherine's Neck Road this is a request for certificate compliance report is April 9th
2025 this is an extremely old file number from 1986 it's SE80340 uh originally went under a FA who was a previous owner to this property the report date I mean the site it was on April 8th 2025
the current owner has found an outstanding order of conditions SC8034.0 still uh recorded at the registry of deeds they are selling in need a certificate of compliance for this very old filing dating back to 1986
so Westport recommendations Westport Conservation should issue a certificate of compliance for work conducted in 1986 file number SE80340 with a full release of the certificate compliance all right do you have a motion motion to approve second
all in favor that was uh Jake and Jason you're all welcome all right big night tonight Tom big night buddy june 11th meeting 10:00 yeah we see him again after this june of
20 be quiet all right all right I'm going to get to that first in case in case he tries to skip out on us don't worry all right minutes from uh June 11th 20
1924 2024 that's it june yeah 1924 2024 present for the commission were myself Mr powell Mr mcgwigan and Thomas Merchant clear i had a few questions about a hearing
that I would just like some minutes do we have a motion to approve motion to approve Jason i make a motion to approve tom it all in favor opposed okay that's unanimously clear you can have the brownie eight
months in a minute i'll see you next summer all right uh March 4th 25 meetings present from the commission were myself Mr mcwigan Mr weinberg Mr brian oh look we're all here see that so we can make a
we have a motion to approve those minutes for March 4th please approve second all in favor opposed all right that's was amazing all right let's make sure I put my T okay what's the other date of those 2024 yeah
24 [Music] uh let's see so we have uh February 4th 2025 present were Jake Kevin Jason and Phil motion to approve second
all in favor opposed well you get the signs off to Jason all right that was a smooth meeting we had real leadership that night yeah just All right notice you don't post that on Facebook 91724 another another oldie but a goodie
presents were Jake Jason Burton yes sorry burton and Thomas merchant wow you've been you you've been the lynch pin for a while Tom tommy yeah so we have a motion to approve go ahead move to approve second
all in favor opposed i mean okay that's nobody opposed okay you realize we get paid $0 per hour so you're missing all that money all right leon's going to Leon said she's going to split overtime brothers don't worry
about it all right we have What is this supplies from what was this forestry Supply oh forestry supply okay uh total of 70 let me get this right $78.58 flag flag okay flagging tape 7858 made a
motion to approve approve all right all in favor opposed all right beautiful we have no more forestry supplies is this the same bill no um I probably got it in the mail in the
7858 yeah it's the same this is the Let me just make sure it's the same bill hold on yeah one's an email and one's an actual invoice so order 670300 it's why they pay me the big bucks Leon i catch these clerical mistakes same town this is like I'm like Doge of Conservation
isn't that It's the same one resident fishing permit with a truck stamp no no okay just making sure just making sure all right please finish signing that please we're going to bypass this one since it's due okay next we have Postmaster $450 for
stamps for sending out all the beautiful mailings that we do we have $250 in $5 stamps and $200 in $2 stamps we have a motion to pay motion to pay motion from Jason do we have a second second second from Tom all in favor opposed all right
that's unanimously all [Music] um okay w Mason we have a $42 credit efficiency at its finest and then we have East Bay Media
$246 for advertising for the hearings for the hearings this evening a matter of fact so I need a motion to pay motion to pay thank you okay Kevin and Phil all in favor opposed all right that unanimously oh one more minute here we
go april 1st fantastic it was opened by chair the honorable chair esteemed chair Paul Jonas uh present were myself Jacob Jason and Burton so we have a motion to approve motion to approve
second all in favor opposed all right that's unanimous you know so I said honorable and esteemed uh you did uh that was Jake and Jason jake and Jason the honorable highly
esteemed vice chair all right so I think that concludes my meeting for the night but Chris what do we have this evening i have nothing for you all right Phil do you have any tidbits from the board of health you want to share with us no I I've been away for a while so I don't
know what's going on beautiful all right another way all right well if that's the case we're looking for a motion to adjurnn then motion to journ second from Bur all in favor opposed that's unanimously