This is the November 25th meeting for the West Park Conservation Commission. We'll begin by saluting the flag. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. We have any uh any discussion? Um, no we do not. Mr. Jim, >> we have no septics.
We have one hearing for Richard Matus. Anybody here? Richard Matus? >> Yep. >> Put your mics on. >> Oh, yeah. presentation plan to make it a little bit easier for me to look at. >> That's fine.
>> Would that be okay with Yeah. You know, >> under the Okay. >> Just said put a blow on the ground or on the easel is fine. These are so we could see it or >> on the board itself on the chalkboard.
>> Yes, sir. >> My big head will block it. >> I just have the green receipts, right? >> Thank you so much. >> All right. For the record, uh Nate Silva from Farland Corp representing our client, Richard Matus. Um this real our client's
just looking to get this wetland line approved. Um he's looking to get an O-r issued um as they intend to sell the lot. Um this BBW was flagged by Brad Holmes of Environmental Consulting and Restoration back in May of last year. Um we prepared the plan following the
delineation in our field survey. And on this plant here, the BBW is delineated by that pink line you see and the 100 foot buffer is that the blue line that you see on that plant. I'm open to any comments or questions. >> All right, we'll let Chris read his
report. >> Mr. Chairman, members, Richard Matus. This is Main Road. Doesn't have an address. Uh this is abbreviated notice of resource area delineation filed by Farland Corp with um ERC Brad Holmes um
that flagged the delineation report is dated 1117 2025. Uh there is a file number to this. It's SE80 uh 2819 with no comments for that. Description of the work the applicant has filed to
approve the wetland flags placed in the field on the property. The site's access is located between Cumberland's and Bettton Court parcels. It extends towards the west abuing the Westport land conservation trust parcel further in the woods. The wetland line was
delineated by Brad Holmes with wetland flags A1 through A61 and an isolated vegetated wetland flags B1 through B9. The flag line was walked and no changes were made. The line was determined to be accurately representing the BVW on site.
The property contains natural heritage and endangered species priority habitat and any future construction must comply with the natural heritage um uh notification requirements. resource areas to be impacted. There are none, but there are BBW and I isolated
vegetated wetland recommendations. West Park Conservation Commission should approve the delineation and issue an order of resource area delineation approving the line as shown on the plan dated May 21st, 2024.
>> That's all. >> Any questions? >> Yeah. What's the access to that property? You want to explain the access, Nate, to get into the park? >> Yes, the access is on the the frontage right along main road as uh Brad and um as Chris had mentioned, it uh butts to
come in farms. Um it's currently just a vacant lot >> just because in past years, no one's ever been able to uh access that with enough width to to access all of a sudden it's accessible now.
Dr. He could do anything with it because he didn't have enough width there for what's what's the width of a roadway to access property 20 ft. >> Yeah, off the top of my head, the
required frontage for um depending on whatever they intend to do with that lot, that it's not what I'm familiar with currently. You know, I don't know if it's different when at different uses it is or, you know, it's not commercial. You need a wider access, but was never
accessible. And you can see it narrows down towards the uh from the road and it was never wide enough. So, I'm just curious why this is just going through now. >> Is this coming in like be before your like before or after?
>> Right between him. right between and right between them. >> If you look, it's about uh it's the frontage is only 70 ft. >> It's less than that. >> I I'm just looking at the gold. Yeah. So, here's compens.
>> So, I mean, but so this is only to approve the wetlands flags. This isn't approving any road construction. There's no plan. So, any any construction plan would >> a whole Yeah. Yeah. This is just the
wetland flags. That's it. >> Well, this this is kind of a logical first step before you did anything about a road, you would want to delineate the wetlands first so that now you know, you know, even if you were thinking about doing another access.
>> Sure. >> You know, you'd know where you can't go and where you can go. >> You can use your hands. >> Yeah. Yeah. This is like a green light coming right in the middle with the the purple line that's all wetlands. >> There's the red is wetlands.
>> Correct. So there's really very little usable land. >> Yes. And you're in natural heritage jurisdiction. So there is some requirement where there may be a give and take in order to develop the property. Uh I believe what Mr. Bettin Court's trying to give the commission
attention to is the well actually it's the same owner. Rich Richard Matus is in the a doctor within the same practice as Dr. Kalen. And when Dr. Kalen developed the Westport medical property, they
looked at this as part of an exit for their development if I'm not mistaken. >> And and they realized that it narrows to 38 ft. >> Oh, I see where you're at. Okay. instead of being consistent 40 and there was concerns that that wouldn't be
acceptable for use. Second of all, there are three entrances side by side by each. That also makes entering this property difficult for traffic purposes. So, that is not relevant here, Mr.
Bettton, but I appreciate you letting us know. I know I spoke to your wife and and she was concerned the same and and they're kind of relaying that to you to verify that there may be some constricting that >> the planning board you know may wave but just to bring it to your attention
>> other than that we are here just for a delineate there is no work proposed this evening >> okay appreciate you bringing it up >> and you'll get notifications for any future >> yes you will get notic >> correct see what it's all about.
>> Yep. >> Thank you. >> Planning board is where you're going to be want that. >> So, I'll move to approve the delineation and issue an ORAD uh uh as shown on the plan dated 52124.
>> Second. >> All right. Those in favor? >> I opposed. >> All right. That's unanimous. Thank you. All right. >> Thank you, bud. >> You guys have a good Thanksgiving. You as well. Thank you, Nate. You too. >> Yeah, of course.
>> All right. Continuences. None. Certificate of compliance. We have one Allen Harrington 1278 Drift Road. Certificate of compliance. Mr. Harrington
1278. Drift Road has requested a certificate of compliance. Um, Pritsby Engineering is the engineer of record. Report date is 11205. The file number was SE802731.
Site visit was on 1120 uh 25. The applicant has filed to obtain a certificate compliance with file number SC802731 for a dock constructed at the residence. The design engineer has provided a written letter stating the project is in
compliance with the design plan. The 47 ft pier gangling and float have completed in accordance with the plan on file. Recommendations for the Westport conservation uh should grant a full certificate of compliance for the uh release of file
number SC802731 and issue a full certificate compliance. That is all >> discussion. If not a motion motion to approve statement compliance >> second >> and Phil those in favor >> opposed.
All right that's unanimous. Um any unanticipated anything else? >> Um I'm sorry pass that down. >> Yeah, you got to pass both of them down. This one too. >> Yep. I would ask that you go through the
bills and then we are going to enter into an executive session. >> I'm going to there's a little brief language you have to say before we go in. It's that bottom sheet there >> just cuz we have to state that and then do a roll call for going in and a roll
call coming out. But right now there are a few bills in our folder. >> Okay, we've got some bills. We've got 4225 for WB Mason. >> Motion to approve 4225. >> Second. >> Those in favor?
>> I >> opposed. All right. And these just just one signature if I'm not mistaken. Right. >> Oh, you can pass. They all can sign it. >> Okay. All right. Uh, forestry supplies
$74.93. >> Motion approved. >> Second. >> Okay. Jill, those in favor? >> Opposed. Okay. What are we doing about this letter from Jeff McGee? This letter uh references a application
we just received from the mass DCR. This is a response letter that I am asking that they uh comply with. First of all, their application is to uh start over the removal of sand from the
access emergency access way within the DCR um reservation from where they left off on the west side all the way through the campground to the uh entrance at West Beach Road. So, this is a
significant additional amount of sand to be removed. After discussing this with the CCM representatives that give us uh advice, um they advised the commission that the DCR should be going to MEEPA uh
for a uh request for comments for they exceed a threshold under that review process for coastal dune alteration. I also have concerns for the delineations of from mass GIS. They are not field
survey delineations. I do not agree with them con calling that roadway a public way and trying to apply under the limited project criteria. And I had one other comment. The last one
>> that from Jeff from Tom Bolton. >> Yep. The last comment. Let me read it. The last one is the 21-day waiver form uh must be returned to the commission so that we can wave our requirement to hold the hearing within 21 days. So I had
asked the commission to make a motion to sign that so that we can uh get that project reviewed under MEPA and see if it passes muster and that also allows other state entities to provide written comments as well.
Obviously, obviously the commission has a lot of concerns on this and it's that we're not in a public hearing, but I think this is the first step before it comes before us uh to look at really what uh they kind of ignored it the first the first time around. So, I agree with what Chris is
doing to hopefully get some clarity on the front end and then it can come to us here. Yeah, I thought there was enough discussion on this a while ago to kind of throttle back on that clearing, but apparently not. Um, okay. So, so, so
we're looking for the commission's motion to approve that. >> Motion to approve to submit this letter. Yes, >> submit the letter. Okay. >> Motion to approve uh Chris's letter. >> Second. >> That's Jake and Phil. Those in favor? >> I opposed. >> All right. That's unanimous.
>> You can sign it, Jason. And >> um >> even though it says Paul, just scribble your name. >> Probably have a lot more club with my name on it anyway. >> Mhm. >> You do? >> No, I do. >> That'll wake up.
>> One of those personal injury commercials. >> Okay. But we don't have to pass that around. >> No. >> Okay. The other two things are just signing for our sick time just so we can send it back to the accountant >> for my hours and Leoan's hours remaining.
>> So I'll be uh technically the department head correct. >> Yes. I'm going to leave John has some space to sign as well. >> And there should be two of them I think. One for me, one for >> 596 um unpaid leave sick leave for uh
that's for right. >> Yeah. and uh 875 for Chris. >> Um the last thing we have a minute. I don't know if we can get rid of >> We have minutes. Oh boy. Let me see. We've got Jake
Phil. No, we No, can't do it. Can't do it. That's WB Mason. Okay. So, are we ready for >> Yes. >> executive session? All right. So there's no one else here in the audience. So um Val, we're going
to shut the cameras down for we have to >> you have to state all that and then we'll shut down. >> Okay. So we're going into executive session um the um
>> for a matter relative to >> you can read the whole thing. Uh, well, it didn't really there's not really a um it's it's a it's a it's an explanation of the of what we're doing, but it doesn't give any specifics about the case.
>> No, we're not really specifics on the case. We're just stating for the record, we're going into executive session because the matter that we're going to discuss, litigation with with town council may be uh detrimental to the
public being heard at this time. Okay. >> And you required to make a roll call to go into executive session. You also make the statement that we will return to a public meeting after that session is
completed. >> But there won't be any more. There'll be no more hearings or anything after executive session. >> Correct. We'll just be we'll be just closing the meeting. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. All right. So, we'll go into executive session um discussing
something that will um be done behind without cameras. Then we'll come back into a meeting and then we'll journey meeting. So, we'll take a roll call. So, um just take your name and say hi. >> Yep. Yep. So, Jason Powell I.
>> Jacob I. >> Phil Weinberg. I Brian. Yes. Okay. All right. Um, we done executive session. >> We are in executive session. We're off. Okay.