Okay, this meeting of the Westport Historical Commission is called to order. Um, members present are Caroline Wolter, Timothy Bryant, Erin Stuck, Deborah Golie, Mark Thompson, H sorry, Ward
Mooney, Mark Thompson is an alternate and will be voting for um Katrina and he will be acting in Katrina's place. >> Okay. >> Um, so the um first >> said drive safely.
Bill Kendall said he was coming so maybe >> Okay. So, we're we're expecting Bill Kendall, but he's not here. Yep. >> Not here yet. >> Okay. Um, first order of business is the meetings of January 7th.
You should all have a copy of that. I had a few comments. are mostly just um typos um changing u is to was inserting preposition by in a few places. Um what's substantive is
um in um section one 1A second paragraph um second sentence raising the building would impact existing steps and trigger ADA compliance requirements. I don't think we know that for sure. So add the
word could. Joining us now is is uh Bill Kendall, vice chair, and he will also be a voting member tonight. Okay. Um further down on that page um there's a sentence that starts accept proposal
like for like styliz. So strike that sentence and say um GS summarized the parameters worked out during the discussion uh semicolon the colon um PVC painted trim etc.
>> Uh and then further on in that paragraph uh DC moved to approve the certificate as amended. at the certificate. >> Next page. Um, similar change of the sentence that starts accept proposal
like for life. Strike that sentence and um going on CB move to approve BK seconded unanimously approved. Roll call vote 70, etc., etc. Um, sorry. Okay, so back to the second
sentence. CB moved to approve the certificate with specific door to be approved by monitors and then strike that door phrase from the end of that paragraph. That's all my comments.
Any other comments on the minutes? >> I added the list of attachments. I don't know if you got that copy that's in there. Okay, good. Any other comments on the minutes? I hear a motion. >> Motion to approve. >> I second.
>> Okay. All in favor? >> I opposed. Motion passes. >> Okay. The uh the next item uh is treasures report. There there's no treasures report this month. I did not receive a u an update from accountant.
Um, next item, applications for certificate of appropriateness. Uh, 1996 Main Road, Emory and Jared Marcus, uh, replace six windows. And, uh, I should say that this is a, um, reapplication
for a certificate that we issued when, December. Anyway, it was it was more than 12 months ago. and and and our rules say that if a building certificate is not applied for within 12 months, the certificate lapses. So, um uh Emry is
here to is it? Yeah. Yeah, you can come to the podium, please. >> So, the only So, we couldn't find a contractor, hence why we didn't complete the work. So, we now have a contractor. The only thing that's changed is the original application we were doing six windows and now we're doing 11.
But the windows are the same. We're replacing them with Anderson Woodright windows which are like for like two over one panes. Um the what they're standard white that they come in only one white otherwise nothing is different from the
original application. >> Can you show us on a on a um on a drawing which which are the five windows? >> Yes. Make sure there's this. So these are I think you all should have
this but this is copies. >> We have these three pages. Perfect. Okay. So the new windows one is
this small one on the second story is right here. Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. Let me just circle these so we can >> So before it was >> Okay. >> And then the other two I believe are
these two on the upper story. >> Yeah. You already had those out once. >> We like did it so long ago. >> I have the original application. I just don't have the original one of these.
The original was two west facing windows. >> These were west. So it would have been the ones on the lower ones on the back here. >> And then two south facing windows would have been
>> this is the south side here. >> The it was probably these. This one might have been an addition. And then the east facing windows >> back. I'm sorry. I'm like I'm confusing the hell out of myself right now.
>> But I mean effectively they're all the same with the exception of this upper window is just smaller >> than that. But it's the original window. I think it's actually the window that was original to the house. >> And you are replacing it. >> And we are replacing So everything that you're that is circled in red here is
getting replaced. Correct. Are there other ones we should outline >> that are being replaced that are not >> identified here? >> No, you're looking at the the the one from the current application. Correct. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's it. Yep.
>> So everything here is correct. >> Yes. >> So you're counting these these are these count as two. >> Those count as two. >> 2 3 4 5 6 7 >> 8 9 10 11. Correct. 11 windows. It's a lot in my notes. >> Oh, you've got that. Okay, great.
>> So, you guys have passed the looks like they're the same same. So, same before and after. >> Now, um these are window complete window units. Correct. >> Correct. >> And uh you will match the trim then it's
there. Oh yeah. And then there >> can I see that? >> Sure. >> We'll put two over ones in there and the 19 10 or 20 whenever this was built. So
they replaced them at some point and that seems like that's period for the for the time. When was the building built? Do we know? >> It looks like it was built as sort of like a summer cottage. >> It was um
>> it was part of a a unified property that's now then divided. So it's right behind the old point store. So, legend is it was one of the corn cribs. The second the lower level that doesn't have a second floor I know was added later,
but I don't know when. Uh, some of the windows that we're replacing are the originals and some were replaced in I want to say 20 like 2005 maybe around there. That was I wasn't the owner of the house then. My mom was.
So, some of them four over one and some of them are two over one. >> No, they're all two over one. >> Okay. I'm just seeing one up here in the upper story. That looks like >> storms. >> Is that a >> Oh, yeah. There's storms. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> So, the storms will be removed when you get the new windows in. >> The storms will be removed. Yeah. >> The new windows are a little bit more energy efficient than what we have now. Okay. Um, this requires a public hearing. So, the public hearing is now
open. Are there any comments from the public? >> Okay. Public hearing is then closed. Any further discussion from the commissioner? >> Pretty straightforward. >> Yeah. I mean, we did approve. We did
discuss these I mean six original six before. So, Uh, do I hear a motion? >> I move to approve the certificate of appropriateness. >> Second. Okay, let's do a roll call vote. >> Ward Mooney, I. >> Mark, Mark Thompson, I
>> Deborah Chi, I >> William Kendall, I >> Timothy Bryant, I >> Caroline Boulder, I thank you so much. We need monitors. >> We need monitors. Um, did we assign monitors last time? I'm sure we did, but I don't know.
I think Katrina and I are the ones. We did assign those last time. Then it's me and Katrina. >> The other Katrina. Yeah, she's the other one. >> But um can we sign off on this? >> Yeah. >> You want to sign the actual um plan of
Windows? This one. Keep tripping over this core. I have to fix this. Okay, all set. Thanks. Okay, the next item is uh 2015 main road rubber brona. It's called pool complex
and perlite. And Sean, before you um before you present, I I just want to say a couple of words. Um so the the um I just wanted to read into the record the um paragraph that was included in this application as
a brief description of proposed work. Um so um here it is. Proposed pool with apron on at on/about grade level with raised patio at previous grade against house. Raised patio will include pergola
and cooking area. Work will include cutting existing concrete wall provide landscaping and stone veneer on all walls that will be above grade. The submission of this application for a certificate from the commission is without waiver of the positions taken by the applicant in connection with
previous applications for building permits and certificates of non-applicability and appropriateness for a modified project on the property. Applicant continues to reserve and preserve all rights, issues, and positions taken and/or asserted with respect to those prior applications and
the pending Bristol County Superior Court litigations relating to the sale. Um, and Sean, you hold on just a minute. I just wanted to to um also read into the record the the documents that we
received with the application. Um, so we received a u a proposed site plan. It is an aerial view. Um, we received a south um proposed elevation.
Uh we received a um septic design drawing. Uh we received an existing site plan drawing. We received another existing site plan
drawing. We received a um dock layout plan. And we received a dock detail plan. Those are the documents we've received. Okay, go ahead. This is Sean H
presenting one second. >> Um, I just like to say before we start that, um, this is an application for a certificate of appropriateness. Correct. >> That's correct. And it's a it's a new >> Yes, I know. But it should be a
preliminary review. >> The plans that we are being shown are engineering plans. And we have asked for plans by a registered landscape architect. So these plans are not
uh easy to read for a butters. >> Yeah. Let let me just say let let's let's save this for the discussion. Okay. This is a new application. >> I just wanted to say that >> this is this is what has been submitted to us. There was a preliminary review
conducted in uh I believe in any case. last fall. >> Yeah, it was in the last year. >> Um, okay. So, Sean, yours. >> Okay. Uh, I think everybody in here has more history on this particular application than I do. So, we're going to need to go over the history of this.
Uh, we're all I think we're all aware of what's existing on the ground right now and what the problems are. What's being proposed here tonight uh is basically cutting the existing wall which is at elevation 16.4. >> Sean, can I can I just interrupt? And I
I think we should be um careful about our language because uh what we're reviewing is a proposal, >> okay, >> for a new structure. There's nothing there that. So let's use the word existing to refer to the property as it was. >> Okay.
>> Before any structure was made that'll just make things clearer for everyone. >> Sure. >> Furthermore, one can't get into the property to see how what is existing. >> Well, I mean, I just want to make sure that we use this term in so
I wasn't part of uh prior history. Uh but the the reason I put this proposed dock plan is it had an existing condition. So what was existing prior to any work being performed it basically consisted of the house no changes uh a
mounted septic system in this area between the house and then sloping out towards the water uh the way it is. There were a couple of existing retaining walls I've highlighted in yellow that were part of the part of the house existing prior to any thing being
done. What's being proposed tonight is basically a similar thing. We're taking and putting a wall or having a wall that's at elevation 11 12 and it's labeled on this plan 11 12 because we have to be slightly above grade at the
downhill side. so that at the uphill side we don't have a problem with drainage of water pouring onto the pool slashpio area. >> Uh there's going to be a patio that will be slate or some type of stone up here
which will be at elevation similar to the elevation of the mound and similar in scope to where the mound existed prior to anything happening there. There will be a pergola proposed and the pergola uh will have lighting in this
lighting plan uh basically and an area here. But from here on must be add grade. Uh there will be a concrete wall that will come out and taper down as close as you can following existing grade. Uh and also
because of this the drop between what is existing or what was existing which was elevation 17 1/2 down to 11 12 there's a significant number of steps that will be hidden behind the wall. Basically that wall will be a stone veneer. Uh it will continue as far as up here where the
house is there's an existing greenhouse, right? And above that there will be a patio uh deck so to speak at the same grade as it was. This green line you see highlighted here, this heavy dark black
and green line with the grade prior to anything. We're going to mimic that particular grade except where we have to uh basically have a pool uh where the grade is dropping off towards the water and where the pool is that grade. This grade will be down below up here and
basically just extending out a little bit. So the elevation at this corner up here which is 9 and 1/2 the grade the grade of the pool the top of the will be 11 12 and that's due to the septic system the new septic system
denaturation system over here that is significantly higher than the grade over here. So, we're trying to mitigate any storm water that may come around here onto that uh because that would be detrimental obviously, but also just
keep the grade as it was um when it was existing right now. >> Is is this are you showing us the entirety of of everything that you're planning to build? >> Well, it is again this is everything that was missed in the pool. There's an
equipment room that you won't see that'll be hidden in the house. But there's cooking area. There'll be steps coming down, steps coming up from the side. Cooking area will be about a half a foot below the existing house as was the grade prior.
>> Any any uh details of of those features? >> Uh >> do you have any details of those features >> of the actual? No. As far as you know, as far as feeling for like uh what it's going to be made of and like a detail. No, we do not. >> Um, any railings on this pool?
>> It has to be railing. It has to be cable railings on the pool. >> Are those in the drawing? >> No. >> Any um Does this pool require barrier fence? >> Excuse me. >> Does this pool require a barrier? >> It requires Yeah, it requires a 3-ft fence around the
>> Where is that barrier? Is that >> It's going to be uh wrapping around the pool. >> Is it in the drawing? >> It is in the drawing here. There's that ball. There's like a line that has a ball. Uh >> what how what's the design of that barrier?
>> It's a cable. It's a clear cable uh fence. >> Is that Is there drawing of that here? >> It's called out, but there's no detail of that. No, >> no detail. >> No detail. Any drawing of the Any details about the railing? >> No. >> Okay. I think we've asked you before in
the preliminary review. I mean, two years ago, year ago, you know, we've asked you for details on all these things. >> I wasn't involved a year ago. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Other comments from the commission? >> Um, also the lighting on the patio and
the pergola, there's no detail provided on that either. Yeah, I do have a uh a lighting plan that was on a previous application submitted and it's going to be the exact same lighting plan. A couple of downward lighting on the >> Okay, I just want to clarify this in in
this is a new application. New fee was paid, new drawings are being submitted. So, this application needs to be complete. >> So, if you want to submit these additional details, we'll take them. We need to review them obviously, but
>> and I don't mind continuing for another hearing. So you're allowed to review anything or anything that you might need from us. >> So you're saying there was a significant number of steps from the cooking area down to the pool deck. >> Mhm.
>> And I don't see that many. Uh but the calculation would be at a 6-in riser, you'd have approximately 12 steps, right? >> So that's significantly larger than what you're showing here. Uh I don't see what those are. 10 in 10
in uh riser or 10in tread. >> Yes. >> The 10in would >> 12 of those coming out. That looks like a lot longer than what you're showing there, which looks like it's about 5 ft. So that won't fit there. So that doesn't show us what we need to see. And it
doesn't show the wall that's hiding it. And we don't see where the pool deck the pool is. And we don't see what the equipment size looks like. And I'm not sure if we're looking at this fence, it's already starting 3 ft out of the
ground at the bottom. So that's pretty significant. Uh, and I'm not sure if I follow your logic on keeping it this higher at 11.5 for drainage purposes. I mean, that's what sort of civil engineering is for,
right? To sort out the drainage, >> right? And you can do retaining walls perhaps in certain areas to mitigate the drainage as it fits closer to your septic system. So I don't know if the we don't know what the stone is going to look like. We don't know what the
railing is going to look like. We don't know we don't know where the pool's going. I don't know how big the equipment is. So, it's very difficult to assess exactly what you're proposing here other than the notionality of this deck area that's being cut down, which
is all fair enough, but I think the commission should be aware that you've got a chunk of this deck hanging out 3 ft with a railing on it that's at least uh 3 ft tall. So, you have 6 in of visual, even though it's a clear cable
railing, you're going to have stansions on that. So, you're going to see this thing that's all this wire 3 ft out of the ground with not sure what sort of stone or what whether there's no detail on on any of that. So, it's very difficult for
and I'm an architect, right? I can understand this barely. >> Okay. >> I mean, it's not for the commission members that are not architects or engineers very difficult to understand this. So the visual information on the presentation of this case is really
really key. So one of the reasons why we're here I think is the the lack of clarity of the information. So this was and this is a following in the footsteps of the lack of clarity for a for anybody
a butter or layman to fully understand what you're proposing here. So notionally a number of steps we need to know well what what how is this all being put together? It's it's a bit of a mystery. >> Okay, I understand it. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I don't know if you want me to address
every one of those. >> Well, the civil engineering part I think I can address the 11 and 1/2 in and why >> how do you get it down below 11 12 because you're 3 ft out of the ground further down closer to the water. I mean that is another 6 in higher than this
cable. And one of the things in the in the in the laws is saying uh it's got to be in in grade. So what constitutes grade here? Is this an average grade that's worked out in your range calculations or is it a a a height that
you picked that made more sense and thought that we could go 3 ft out of the ground at this other area? Cuz I think you could make an argument for a slightly different type of retaining wall to get the pool down at grade level so you don't see this thing rearing out
of the ground which is what this whole thing is about in the first place. Uh so addressing that issue so the bottom of the uh which we can't fool with the grade on the uh second field which is just north of the pool area I'll call
itself is about elevation 11 and a half. >> So so sorry I don't I don't mean to cut you off but when did the septic system become the cart driving the horse here? I I don't I don't think it necessarily does, but it if you put the you can't
cut into the slope of the septic system due to regulations. So, you have to maintain the slope of the septic system as it is as it was designed. >> Yeah. Couldn't couldn't you put a retaining wall uh to above the septic system to solve that problem and then
have a separate complex of uh lower retaining walls that have subsurface drainage system involved in it where you know I maybe there's another proposal to get uh uh storm water runoff going down and where does it go into dry wells or
does it go straight out into the bay? >> Far the storm water here. >> Yeah. Yeah. There there is no drywalls. It's it's basically running across the lawn. >> Okay. So where you're saying that it has to be 11 and a half to work with the septic system and also for storm water
runoff and I'm not so sure that's the case. >> Well, yes, >> it's a storm water runoff from the septic system. So this is very high. This is very high elevation 13. So if you can picture water coming around the side of the house, this is 11 and a half at the bottom of the septic system which is in this location right here.
>> That's fine. Yeah. Okay. So to get so the water isn't pitching down, we already already have a problem where the threshold of the door here is 10.7. >> Yeah. >> Say 810 a foot low to get it. So this keeps going this way as opposed to coming back around into the existing door. >> Yeah.
>> You have to kind of maintain that 11 12. >> I got it. I got it. But you could put a wall in there, divert all of that, and then have a separate deck level that is lower than the 11 and 1/2. So that's 11 10 9 8 and a half, right? That's what
we're aiming for. >> Not to believe that point, but you really can't put a retaining wall in there. And because you have a a required distance of breakout, and even though you can put a uh retaining wall to reduce the breakout to the existing septic system, we require a variance
from title 5. But if 11.5 is the height of the deck, right? You're saying that's the height of the retaining wall or is it the deck? >> That's the height of the retaining wall. The wall that goes around the pool. >> So, what's the height of the pool deck? >> The pool deck's just You mean the
>> the apron? The apron. >> Well, we I don't really know. Can't tell where the pool's going, but there's no elevation. It just notionally it says cut this wall down to 11 12. And it doesn't say what height the pool deck is at, does it? or does it?
>> Well, the pool No, it does not. But the pool and the pad the apron itself will be at 11 and a half the top of the pool. >> Well, what I'm suggesting is that you could drop you you could separate where the pool equipment area is, keep all your retaining wall system in place up
there to solve this drainage issue. And then you could uh evaluate how to get that pool deck lower whilst solving the the drainage issue at the same time. I mean, that's that's the problem here is that we we're looking to
see not this deck coming out of the ground 3 ft >> with a 3ft railing on the top or 42in high railing on it. Um that's not the look that uh that we're we're anticipating. So what we would prefer is to have that
deck level down as low as possible and then perhaps the reta perhaps the fence is not a cable fence. Perhaps it's landscape. Perhaps it's something >> well there will be landscaping. There is landscaping bushes proposed in and around. >> Yeah. But but this is this is all wonderful. It's kind of exciting to hear
that you're going to think of that. that needs to be woven into this presentation so the commission can understand what's being proposed because I can't understand this. >> Okay. >> And I I'm a licensed professional >> so I it's no offense but uh
>> understood. Yeah. >> No, I I I understand. I >> again we can continue and provide these details as needed. >> Like do you have the ability to make a model because most people can't think in 3D. So we see these two-dimensional
plans which uh are very very technical very very difficult to understand and they don't give us any sense of amassing they don't give us any sense of anything and the amount of money that's being spent on sorting this case through is uh would certainly support
some money being spent on a model that completely explains what's going on here because visual information is lacking on on this presentation. I don't, you know, there should be pictures of of the current retaining wall that's been built there. And I mean, this is what I need
to see in order to evaluate what I'm looking at. I don't even uh you know, landscape plan's a great idea, but you know, it seems premature. Uh and I think um that's that's what we need to understand. And I think a model would
would solve that problem. >> Good idea. >> No. Okay. No, I understand. not a requirement but when you when when you look at what we need to understand >> we don't have the correct tools to say anything >> this work >> understand no I understand I understand
what you're saying you wanted you wanted to be very uh >> visual I guess >> all right so can I add to what you just said okay >> what we're here for >> we have photographs >> Oh wow okay >> of what it looks like now what I'd like to understand
do this >> I'm gonna bring these over to the Maybe you can get a magic marker. Excuse me. You can draw on these pictures what exactly is going to happen to this bunker that's been built. That's what I
want to know. >> Okay. >> And may I ask a very very simplistic question? When we're talking about 11 ft, are we talking 11 feet from sea level? >> Yeah. 11 11 1/2 ft from sea level,
right? Basically, >> uh it's it's that gets a little maybe get technical, but 11 1/2 ft is the datam, the NABD8 datam, which is the national vertical datam. Sea level >> uh >> when you say sea level, you're saying you're thinking zero sea level.
>> It's a it's a data basically. >> Yes. Right. >> So basically mean low water is at minus 1.3, mean high water is at 1.7. >> Yeah. So, we're going to be at elevation 11 and high water. >> What's that? >> Oops. So, it's 11 and 1/2 ft from where?
Mean high water. >> It's going to be about 8 ft from mean high water and about 14 ft from mean low water. If you can picture that >> 14 ft out of the ground at that water level
>> when at mean mean low water, >> right? With a fence on it. >> Right. So that's uh a lot of what we're looking at right now if that's not completely clear. So do you know what that grade is at the uh corner of the
structure if I can I come over? >> Oh sure you want to >> No no well I I just want south southwest corner. >> I just want to understand myself exactly. So
this right here is >> 8 and 1/2. >> This right? >> It's >> Is it this? It's this, right? >> Yeah. >> So So >> So I've got a finished grade here labeled on the profile. 82.
>> So So if that's 8 and 1/2, where is 11 and 1/2 on this? It's somewhere here. This is out of the ground. 3 ft right here. If you look at every one of those I'll say those little squares that you can see as part of the form. >> Yeah, >> they're a little bit about a foot and a half. So, it's going to be about here.
>> So, so that this the proposal is to cut this wall down here, but we don't really know what's going on over here. This is a bit of a mystery. >> Well, it's going to be that and it's labeled here. So, it's going to be that elevation coming wrapping all the way around to
this bush. >> Draw that on there. So, yeah. No. So everyone can understand that. Can you see that everybody? >> No. >> No. >> No. I'll draw up all these that worse. >> I mean, what we're doing what we're doing I'm sorry, but what we're doing
here just doesn't make any sense. We need the drawings. It's a waste of our time and we we wasted a lot of time on this project. >> Uh I was just merely trying to understand. >> No, I know. >> Yeah. uh and really what was being proposed and then to bring that to light so the commission can understand that it
is a significant departure from what's there and it but still has some issues >> right >> so I don't know whether you can solve this drainage >> well there's nothing that can be done here like here's the septic system this is the septic system >> yeah so you put the septic system here and then when what's wrong with having
some sort of drainage and then a step down so this thing is down at this level that's what we're looking Well, >> I think >> okay, I I won't belabor that point, but Right. I know what you're looking for and I understand completely what you're looking for it, but it's kind of it's
still going to cause a problem with the water coming across basically. >> Maybe you can't build it. >> I've been saying that >> I don't mind bringing further details and more visual stuff at a future
meeting in LA. I I have in the past found that models were really really useful at seeing things ordinarily that you may not see. So I'm a great believer in them as a way of conveying visual
information. >> I think this would be a good time to hear some comments from the public. Um so public hearing is hereby opens. >> I'd like to make one more comment. I think while a model would be good, I'd like to see sections that actually cut in the various uh
places >> going this way cross-sections this way >> that are that are going to expose I think exactly what the model will be doing but the model can also muffle it and I think that sections >> I think visually you don't see scale on the model >> well scale
>> I would say let's put them together >> get the model in the section well we can we can come back to this but let's let's uh once again >> open the public hearing and um are There comments from the public. >> Just state your name for the record.
>> My name is attorney Robert Fineold and I represent uh some of the abutters. >> Bob, can you speak into the mic, please? >> Um, one question I would ask is how does the conservation commission
uh play into all of this? because what we found out is it's in the V zone, VE zone, and the VA AE zone and the river protection zone. And the way we look at it, it definitely needs an notice of
intent and an order of conditions. So, does it make sense for us to be looking at this now here without knowing what Kong would allow in that area? >> Yeah, I think we addressed this at the preliminary hearing and um
We our purview is is is separate from the purview of the conservation commission. Uh these two um oversight roles can proceed independently >> with the certificate of appropriateness if ever issued. Would it be conditioned
upon concom? you wouldn't be conditioned on it but but the project the building of the project itself would be conditioned on >> the other the other thing I would like to say is the concerns that have been expressed here are our concerns too I had written to council asking for more
information twice and got nothing >> other comments from the public I Hi, I'm John Morardi. I'm an intervenor and I have uh my property is at 1935 Main Road. Um this is a long step from
where we were. We agreed that there's a lot of detail missing like all the detail. Um but lowering our original concern was that this the contention was that he was building an ingground pool and the idea was that
if it's not an ingground if it's an ingground pool it doesn't come under the purview of the of the historic commission. It's clearly not an ing it's not an ingground pool and every effort to get closer to ingground pool is something that we're as as interveners are in favor of exactly what you just stated is that you can get this lower.
We can't let the cart of a recently replaced septic system drive what happens here. If he needs to replace the septic system again to get what his desire is architecturally and satisfactory to you, then that's what he has to do. That has to be part of the
project. I think you cannot separate this from concom because the entire project is within those zones. >> It's not like a piece of it and we're all sitting around saying, you know, this is reasonable. He's 10% into this zone. I mean, it's it's a tiny bit in or it's in because of an unusual uh
topographical feature that makes it impossible to do. It's entirely in the zone. 100% of this construction is within the setback. So, no work should be allowed to proceed. Work did proceed erroneously and we need to know and this
is why I would I understand that that the um the roles are different and the purview is different. I understand that. I think I understand completely but not how exactly what the process would be. But anything that's approved that includes a right now this patio out here
which we are happy that he has reduced the size of provides 500 cubic yards which is the same as 50 concrete trucks worth of fill to create that patio in a zone where you're not supposed to be able to do anything. So you know I think that's why I I'm
interested in more information and more data. But I'm also very happy in the direction that we seem to be going, which is that we're getting this pool lower. It's less offensive. The other thing is that this almost unseeable railing that we're talking about, um, which is supposed to be I think thinking
about a cable railing. I don't think you're an architect. I'm just a contractor, but it has to be a non-climable railing to be around a pool. That's not a cable railing. You can't do a non-climbable cable railing. know the thought that's in somebody's head that we've been asking for for two years and can't seem to get a picture of
yet if that's what he puts in front of it, we're going to need another delay because it's not going to can't be acceptable because it won't be the it won't be the built Massachusetts building code. So, I would just like to see I think the model is a wonderful idea and I think we need to consider the fact that we would be it's not that 500 yards is going to affect the river 500
cubic yards of material. It's the incremental complete paying no attention to these rules, right? >> Which will force us to go to the state and we really do not like to do that. Forget about any of the implications. We this is a community that we want to be part of.
>> But we need to respect these rules. And if you came to us and said we can do this, this and this, and this requires this, but there's been no attention paid to that. And in fact, on the drawings, these lines were mentioned in a little tiny note that I can't read. And the lines that were put across that that
that were drawn were incorrect. They stopped and they were incorrect. So there was an effort here not to show the whole story. So I think the model shows the whole story which I'm fully in favor of. Easy to do now. Completely can can be done completely electronically right
with 3D printing. Not a big deal. And with the model we can all see the impact of all of this stuff. So I just would request that you do the model and request that you not go forward till we understand how we can get this pool. This the climates were made earlier. by commission member about there is a way to get this poolled down and and solve
the drain drainage problem. So, thank you for your time, other comments. Okay, hearing no other comments, uh I will close the official part of the public hearing. This doesn't mean that we might not um entertain comments from
the public further on in the meeting, but the official public hearing is now closed. >> Um >> seems pretty >> other uh other comments or suggestions, discussion from the commission.
I would like to see a full application presented including a model, including the sections that you asked for, including the lighting plan, including the landscape plan, including the patio, kitchen, what it's going to look like.
We need to react to what is going to actually be built and and how the existing structure that's been created >> on property, how you're going to mitigate that existing structure to create something new that could be
acceptable. At this point, we can't make any decision on this project because although I I agree with what John Morardi said, it's going in the right direction that you're willing to take it down to something approaching at grade, which is what was represented in the
first place. It was supposed to be at grade. So, you're getting closer to that. That's great, but it's not there. And we can't make a decision based on what's presented. So, I think you need to go back to your client and get more data that we could actually
>> we could provide that data. I I don't disagree with that. I mean, I' I've listened to Mr. Bryant, yourself, and everybody. That's that's not a pro that these issues aren't, you know, insurmountable, uh, so to speak. So, um, you know, I would, you know,
respectfully just request a continuence to, uh, I'm not sure how we can pull if we can put all this together by the next meeting. So maybe we kick it down the road further, but I'll ask the cl I'll ask the client if he can pull some of this together. >> Yeah, we can continue as as long as as
you want to continue. >> As long as he agrees to continue, >> right? That's I have to He's not here tonight. He had to travel on business, so he is not here tonight. But I I don't have a problem. I don't think he has a problem. I think I actually speaking with him Tuesday uh
we anticipated that some information might be needed as as this proposal is uh albeit it's considered a new proposal it's a more of a different proposal than a new proposal and that some things are still not tenable to some people and
that's fine. >> Yeah. So, I mean, we've we've talked about what's missing, you know, we don't even have a picture of the pool. We don't have a we don't have a a west elevation. Uh we have almost no detail even from the south elevation. We
have nothing about the pool railing. We have nothing about the pool barrier. That hasn't been presented in any of your presentations. That's going to have a big impact. And I mean I I I just want to um may maybe um
I mean Tim has said what we want. I'm not sure that we all agree about what we want. Um I mean I think >> I think it's similar. Some well I think some of us um may believe that that the that the total you know mass the total
um you know square footage uh of of this project is is I mean we're not we're not working from what's been built there. We're working from what was there before, right? there was nothing and and what you built I mean you've built something that was that was not
authorized um that is massive >> ugly >> and uh >> it does have permits >> cutting it down is is not uh is not necessarily going to satisfy us I mean we've talked and and we've talked about this you know even with with the
original application it's not just about how high that thing is it's about the total mass the total impact of it Um, I mean, we we we didn't even talk about the the pool barrier. That's that's a part of the project. We've never seen what that's going to look like, where
it's going to be. >> When you say pool barrier, what are you referring to? >> This is this is required by code that that there must be a pool barrier. >> Okay. Of a certain height, the fence, right? >> 42 in, right? Yeah. >> 42 in fence, right? >> Roger, can you
on this? Well, the the building code, so the Westport uh bylaw refers to the sixth edition of the Massachusetts building code uh specifically, not the current code, but the sixth edition of the Massachusetts building code for uh
pool protection refers to barriers. I think that's >> it's a fence or something else. It's referred to as a barrier under code. Um and you know that's what would have to >> it can be a chain link fence, right? has a self-closing door on it. It has to
enclose the entire area or be connected to the house somehow. And if you connect it to the house, you might need to have alarms on it as well, depending on how uh and there are systems uh that you can put in in the pool to detect anybody in
it at some point. So, you've got all of that which should be part of this submission. Um >> and and this and this is part of the impact. I mean, this is something that is required by your pool. >> Understood. >> So, this is something that we have jurisdiction over because it's it's an
essential part of of this project and it's going to be part of the impact and and and the bigger this thing is, the bigger that barrier is, >> well, there's railings all over the place, right? So, this upper area, there are railings as well. So, you're going
to have all these railings sort of stepping down around this entire complex. Uh, and I I don't know what you're putting around your pool equipment, but that's going to have a fence in it, too, right? So, you don't want to see that. >> That's going to be hidden. That's going to be hidden in its own separate room,
basically. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, we know all the stuff. Just need to see it. >> And then, uh, is the front yard setback uh drawn on this drawing? I only see sideyard setbacks. >> Well, front yard setback as much as
there is a front yard is a dash line you see here. It's >> I see those, but I don't see one from the water up. >> Well, the water up. If you consider a rear yard, it only has to be 6 ft. We could never build anything within 6 ft of them. >> I see. And then so this uh other element
of the flood plane and all of those things that Mr. Marotti brought up is a very important thing, >> right? And that's I don't fully understand all of that. So I >> velocity zone he was talking about with the water coming through. >> So which is why it's and as far as the a
zone because there was a giant mount here existed previously and it's just being replaced today. It's a light like light situation uh as far as the impact and the fact that we're cutting into the slope a little bit with the pool where we're raising it above mitigates the
volume between the two. The cuts and fills are equal. So basically it's a wash wash thing. at the way this sits right now. >> So I was thinking when you were proposing this, you were saying that you have to be at around 3 ft. So your cut and fill, if you took that 3-FFT end
down and dropped it, then you could maybe work up another solution that solves that. That's where I would that's what I would focus on, >> I think. Have you been to the site? Uh,
I stopped at the top. Uh, I looked down. >> It's helpful to see what's going on with the grade, the way it drops off. >> No, I I can tell what's going on. And I I've I've worked on projects with complex grade problems before, so this may require some terracing. Now, I'm not
saying that this is uh how I would solve this problem is to look at some way to mitigate this far end that's out of the ground and terrace it somehow where you solve your you solve for your uh septic system and then you solve for the fact
that we're looking for something on the ground, not out of the air. that should be informing us on this and it might need some more steps from the upper deck. You know, another several it might need a landing and then you're going to have to ask the commission whether we
can build all the steps and everything to get down to this thing. So, you know, maybe um this does get steps down to a pool area that is a lower level and that solves the problem. But trying to have all of that at one level with the
pergola and all the other stuff. We don't even know what the pergola looks like, but that's going to be hanging out of the ground uh significantly higher than this grade over here, which is 11. You've got 18 plus what's the height of the pergola? That's going to be 8 ft
tall. So that whole thing is really quite visually cumbersome to really consider. And that's going to have lights on it. >> It's going to have toward lights. Yes. So, it's going to is that going to look like, you know, the the the cousin's pizza place with the, you know, lights and things on it? I mean, you don't
know, you know. >> No, >> but I I just had this problem come up with a submission that I was making to a project where people were really super suspicious about what the end result and usage is going to be. You know, you're going to have parties out there, you're
going to have lights, anything's possible. So, if there was a solid fence put around this, would it be under your jurisdiction? >> I my my view is yes. >> Yes, I think so. >> If if it's if it's something that has to be built because you're building the
pool, then it's under our jurisdiction because it's part of the overall impact of the project. >> How does it differ from the solar field up the street? >> I I'm not going to compare projects. I'm just I'm what I'm saying is because
according to the bylaws, if you put a fence around it, it's you can't see it. It's not your juris juris jurisdiction and you've previously made rulings along that line. >> So if if um if you come to us with a project that requires you to build a
fence, that fence is part of the impact of that project. >> Well, we're not required to put a fence, but we can put a fence. >> You That's right. You're required to put a barrier. That barrier is >> but we could put a fence around the barrier. >> Anyway,
>> I mean you're required by the building code to put to put a barrier. >> Okay, >> that barrier is part of the impact of the project and therefore it's under our jurisdiction. >> And let's just say that we need a fence whether it's chain link or solid and
it's non-combustible. Then we might say, well, we need to landscape that. we need to put uh you know box hedge in front of it and and to hide that um to soften the impact on you know what everybody's seeing from a distance which
is what why we're here. Uh and that's typical um whenever a project is being presented to show how you're going to solve the problems that you have to have to solve and mitigate. So landscaping is
a big key component of that. And and just and just so we're clear, you know, the 11 and a half wealth have children that is lower than the walls that surrounds the property. >> Yeah. But that still doesn't solve the problem, right? So we're sort of we're being uh shouldn't even have a wall that
high right now. So sort of saying, well, cut it down. We much better than it was, so therefore maybe it's okay. That's that's not why we're here. Uh, but an intelligent solution to this would be to
get that down as far as possible and figure out how to weave the whole thing together and say, "Look, we we've got the septic system. We can't fix that, but that's that's going here." And then this is what we have to do to make this whole pool deck work. And I know I'm
sure the owner doesn't want to walk down, you know, uh, 15 or 18 steps to get to it, >> but who would? But that's what you've got to deal with. I mean, I I'm working on a project right now that has the same thing, right? So, you have to walk down
all these legs to get down to this lower level. You can't there. You can't raise the grade to solve the problem. So you have to um cut the clock to suit. >> Anyway, >> understood. >> Um so, uh
>> I just had a question. We heard about the pool room, a pool equipment room for the first time. I'd like to know where that's going to go. >> It's going to go right inside the underneath here up in the corner. It's going to be hidden underneath the decks of the house. And
>> how's it going to vent? So you're >> it will be it's it open right now. It's the air. >> It's open. So but you if you have the pool deck and 11.5 and then you've got this thing buried underneath that some. >> No, no, no, no. It's going to be up against the house cuz this retaining
wall at the house right now over here and it's going to be up against that retaining wall. >> Good. Isn't the owner worried about all the noise that that's going to generate? It's unsightly and noisy and >> Well, it's hidden. It's the the best place to hide it from everything basically because you can tuck it in the
corner. But the power the noise that's his >> or on the other side of the house to me it's the neighbor's problem. >> Well, they're not going to hear it cuz it's hidden behind retaining wall behind a 16T mound behind a four foot wall. >> But you can look down on it. It's going
to be horrible. Uh >> anyway, no problem. Well, >> okay. Well, again, I guess I I don't know where we stand. I I just respectfully request a continuence to provide as much information as I can
remember now on this. I'll watch the tape again, but it's >> been very helpful. I mean, you've been very forthcoming, which is good. uh and all this is very much a lot more useful than what we've seen so far. But that's allowing us to you know
uh coales our thoughts and you know we really do need to know these other things. Uh it's just not enough representation and this is a massive project. It's going to take a massive amount of work to get the detail that we need. We want to see
elevations from every side um and and possibly details, you know, certain parts of the of the project, stairways, railings, tables. >> Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. I mean, >> it's I mean I mean I'm frankly appalled at what you presented tonight because
you you've been I mean this has been going on for a couple of years. You came for a preliminary review. we told you we needed more detail and you come in with with basically three or four shabby drawings. I first I take offense to that and
second second of all the client is trying to work with and as a taxpayer of the town of Westport trying to work with the town and the commission to do to get this to a a resolution. And I think he made a good faith effort here to spend a lot of money to get it
to that point and make it work so it can work both engineering wise and granted you may need visual accompllices at this but when say shoddy looking drawings and stuff like that then I'll take an offense because this commission is notorious for being sued
and I take offense as a town of town of Westport that you're spending a lot of taxpayer money based on you know things that are semantic and not actual. pool. >> Our railing is semantic. >> The semantic is no one here is going to
going to see this pool at that level. >> Y >> you can see it from main road. >> You can see it from main road. You can't see the house from main road. >> You can see it from the river. You can see it from the river. >> You can see it from the river. >> I'd like like to give Susan Mley a
chance to comment. >> Um I I have a question. I was to ask this question before to the Can you come? >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> State your name. >> I'm I'm Susan Montgomery. I live at 1913
Main Road. Um, I've been kind of confused and perhaps Sean can read your minds, but I I would leave here not knowing exactly what you're asking for. I And then this question about what do you mean it
doesn't matter what you can see? That completely threw me. So bear with me. My understanding is that because this is visible from the water and that visibility from that part of the water, the harbor is considered a public right
of way, that it's therefore before you or should be before you. And so therefore, I assume that what you're looking for is what one could see from that public right of way.
That's what I thought. But then someone seemed to indicate that the height of wall that goes around the property doesn't matter or that something that's behind bushes doesn't matter.
So I'm I'm genuinely confused about what would be satisfactory. Is it what's visible from the water or what's visible from a drone? >> Oh, it's what's visible from a public way. That's what we have jurisdiction over. Yeah. and and and the landscaping
doesn't matter. I mean, it it it could be a condition that we impose. I mean, as as we did with the with the solar array, we we imposed a condition um you know, to to minimize the impact of that. So, we might impose conditions um uh you
know, conditions that are associated with our approval of the project, but um but generally speaking, landscaping uh is not considered. You have to imagine the project as if the landscaping isn't there. Is it still landscaping? It's not there. >> Landscaping landscaping isn't a
permanent structure. >> Thank you. >> I think Mr. Leech, what chair was trying to state was that uh the information is incomplete, not that the drawings are shoddy. >> No, that's what he said. >> They're just not they're not developed.
>> I heard what he said. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. No, I I >> I've heard what this commission has said on numerous occasions. >> Thank you, Tim. Um, yeah, I mean, what I what I was referring to was was the lack of of detail. >> That's not what you said.
>> Yeah, I said what I said. And um and that in that sense, I mean, to to bring this to us with such a lack of detail is is appalling. So to get past this meeting into another
meeting, maybe the next meeting or the one after that, we do have to do a continuation, >> right? >> And in that meantime, we'd like you to talk to your client about creating a model. We think that's certainly helpful
to visualize what this might look like from all directions. It's 3D. We also need a lot of detail. And I and I did email with you a couple times on the different details that we do need. >> Right. >> Lighting is an important element here
because the point as you know >> is very dark and that's on purpose. I mean we specifically have purview over lighting for that reason to keep the point at a very low level of lighting. So if there's a lighting plan we need to
understand what exactly are the cut sheets of the lighting. We have that and it was previously. So >> where would they be installed? Would they be on the pergola? Would they be low? Would the pool be lit? You know, where are all these lights going to be? So they should be marked on the drawings
as well as >> we'll do a lighting plan with lumens. >> Yes. Yes. Exactly. And the barrier that Garrett has referred to is fence components. Whether it's landscaping in front of a fence or in front of a
railing or whatever it is, the whole package needs to be identified so that we can understand what's ultimately going to be built there because what's there now has to be taken down. We all agree with that. That should never have been built. We we understand that that's
a structure that was never approved by this commission. So that's a given. That structure which we call a bunker cuz it looks like a bunker to us. >> That is not an inground pool. We want to see what an inground pool would look
like. And if you can provide us with a model, the house as well as the pool as well as the pergola and the outdoor kitchen and all of those elements, then we can have a significant conversation about what we could or may or may not
approve. But it's really impossible at this point to do anything else but just tell you that. >> No, I understand. I understand what you're looking for. I I do understand. >> Okay. So, as far as getting the continuence, the applicant is supposed to sign it if you're authorized by him, you can sign it.
>> Yeah, I'll let me do this. Uh, if you I'll sign it for a month because I don't know what he wants to continue it to. And then I if you can get me a form, I can give him and have him continue it if he wants to go 3 months or 6 months. I'll leave that up. >> Have this one signed for the next hearing.
>> Okay. Yeah, that's fine. No, that's fine. >> Okay. Um, so I think we need to uh vote. >> We have to vote >> on whether to um >> continue >> whether to continue to the next meeting. >> So
>> So do I hear a motion? >> I move that we continue this application to the next meeting. >> Second. Okay, let's do a roll call vote. >> Ward Mooney, I >> Thompson I. >> Deborah Chelby, I >> suck. I Kendall I. Uh, Timothy Bry.
>> Carry I. >> Okay. So, the um commission is approved. Continuing the >> uh this matter and and Deborah is filling out a form for you to sign. >> What's the date of our next uh our next
one is March? What th >> It's Wednesday. March something. March 4th. >> Check calendar. Fourth. >> Yes. >> Fourth. >> Yeah, I was going to say it's fourth.
Yeah. >> I'm supposed to provide a date by which you're going to be submitting the model and everything else we talked about. So, >> I don't know if we I can submit the information. I don't know if we want to submit the model or just read the model week before that hearing and then you're going to come
back. >> Well, I'm going to ask the client if I don't I don't know if everything can be put together in 3 weeks. >> So, but I don't want to promise you that either. >> This is yours, right? Thank you. >> This block out people's views.
>> You consider that blank. >> Um, so I think just the day >> that's the March 14th. >> So this was considered at at the meeting today. Sorry. >> Sorry. February 5th. Yeah, actually I couldn't read the name
of of the trustee on that. Do you know know the name of the trustee sign the application? >> It's Rob Branka is the trustee of the ANC nominee. Nominee trust me nominee trust.
Okay. Sean, you want to sign? >> Sure. I'm going to sign it and I go put F4 A F10. Thank you. What I'll do if you give me a blank form or >> a blank form? >> So, or if and I'll have him fill it out
or email you if he wants to continue more than one month. I don't know if you have to go open. >> Well, no, cuz we have to vote on this stuff. So, we voted on that. Okay. >> If that needs to be changed, we'll have to take the vote. >> Right. I just think in the 3 weeks won't be enough time to pull everything
together in blank. So do that. You email me, let me know what's going on and we'll take it to the next meeting >> and somebody's going to have to sign a new continuation. >> All right. >> No problem. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thanks for coming in.
Okay, next item on the agenda. Uh, number three, preliminary reviews. 2028 main road minor alter minor alterations presented by Pitwise. Somebody else jacket. >> Oh dear.
Um uh I'm Kit Wise. I'm architect for this little project at 2028 Main Road. Um this is a house. >> Oh no. Oh no. Your keys too. Who who might have been dead?
>> Who was here earlier? >> Case of a missing jacket. Sorry. Sorry. >> Um, we did a project on this house about 10 years ago. Uh, put a small addition on the east side and did many renovations to the existing house. Uh,
there are new owners and um they want to change uh two sets of windows. Uh, one, if you look at the at the first drawing, um, would be windows in a dormer on the south side of the house. This, and I've
marked it, uh, you can see the existing dormer and then the proposed change to the dormer. Um the room inside this space beneath the dormer is the master bedroom and it has a dormer on both sides, similar dormers on both sides
which means that from that room the only views out of the room are these high up windows. Um so the um owners would like to modify the dormer only the one on the south side not the one on the north side that can be left alone. Uh modify the
one on the south side. Um, the face of the dormer is now set back a foot from the face of the house below it. So, the face of the dormer would have to be moved forward one foot to put it in the plane of the house below it. And that would allow us to extend proper
full-size windows. Um, uh, so that's the that's the south side of the house. And on the north side of the house, uh, you can see the similar dormer um that we would not uh change. But in the small addition that
we built 10 years ago, there are currently three high windows on the north side. And I think the original owner did that for privacy uh to the north from the neighbor, but the new owners would prefer to have full-size windows. So, we're proposing to change
those high windows to three regularsiz windows. And that's that's the entire project. >> Kit, what I don't understand is where you have these three little windows here and then they're going to be full size windows. Yes. >> It it looks in the drawing like they take over the gutter.
>> They do. They would cut right through the gutter. >> They cut right through the gutter. >> They cut right through the gutter. Yes. If you look at if you look at the um uh north elevation, there's a little shed dormer with one window in it that does the same thing. >> Yes. Oh, I see. >> And and in fact, that detail uh occurs many times up and down the historic
district. Uh for the formal presentation, I'd bring uh photographs of of similar kinds of situations. And the windows that you're using are what brand? >> I I don't know yet. We haven't gotten that far. Um it will be something
similar to what we've used on the on the house before and what we've been using in other projects in the in the district. >> What are the windows that are on there now? Do you know? >> Um I can't remember. Well, they're they're old windows that were there
before. Um well, I I'm not actually sure of that whether we replaced them or not. I think they're the windows that were there before we even started the project. I don't think we changed those windows. >> They look like a single glaze. They're very thin mountains. >> Yeah, I think that I think they're the
original single glaze windows. >> Wow. architects. Uh, I think it's good. It's an improvement. >> Well, it'll make the room nicer. >> Yeah. >> It'll make the room meet code, too, because there no no code meeting egress
windows in that room. >> So, there's no window on the >> There's a there's a little window on the on the on the east side as well, but because the peak of the uh the little link um >> it won't allow it to go down. >> It won't allow it to go down. So,
>> you could notch that roof and make it work. >> Uh, you could. Yes. >> But this this is this is the most important view from the house. >> Is it? No. It looks very nice. I think it's an improvement. >> Definitely an improvement. >> Okay. Good. >> I think >> and the windows will match the windows
in the house. >> Yes. Yes. Of course. >> What's nice about it is that this dorma was this dorma was added on top of this roof at some point to make it work. and it's got that sort of feel to it, whereas this feels a little bit more
integrated. >> Um, and certainly going to make the interior space. And that's really quite a a very nice composition in terms of uh the whole layout. >> Well, I'd agree that it has a certain improvement. There's a certain
quaintness about the the attic uh appearance of the smaller windows, but I think for those who live in it, um it will certainly be um they won't have to wear helmets as they move around.
>> I'll I'll bring you photographs of the interior of the room for the for next time. >> Photograph of the front of the house. >> What's that? >> The front of the house? >> Oh, I'll bring I'll bring full photographs of the whole house. Yeah, this is just preliminary >> site plan.
>> Yeah. And a site plan. And >> so I take that as a positive response to what we proposed to do. >> Good. Thank you very much. >> Come back. >> That's relieved to have a project. >> That's pretty straightforward. Joseph.
>> Okay. On to general business monitors reports. Are you ready? >> It's getting too cold. >> I I walked down to um 1878D drift road and solar panels and it all
looked good. >> I should mark the 1878D. >> Yes. >> 1878D drift proof. I think there was an email about that. Didn't she email you? I got copied on that. You were new and Katrina, I think, with the launchers.
>> I just I just went by myself, but I I wasn't. >> So, they're all installed. >> Yeah. >> Okay. That's checked off. >> Uh other topics. So, something I've I've been I was been thinking about um you know, just kind of going through the materials for tonight's meeting and uh
that is I I think that's that that some of our rules could use updating. uh for example we don't have any rules about electronic submissions and I think maybe it's time we do have some rules about electronic you know about um
>> digital >> you know say require I mean possibly requiring um documents to be submitted digitally as well as as >> yeah I mean otherwise I'm scanning everything be useful some people do send them but they still have to send an application that's signed which is fine
but if they could email as well >> right and and it's almost certainly those digit those documents already exist in digital form. They're printed out and then we post them in scan. So anyway, you know, things like that. I think there there's some things that we could >> well well it's it's
>> incumbent on us to print this at full size to read it. >> Yeah. So >> which is the >> Yeah, they did supply two copies of that which one Yeah. One was up at the town hall. >> Oh, I didn't know that. and it was on display. So you actually pull down a full size. >> Okay. So
>> yeah, they do have that requirement to supply three copies full size. >> So So what I what I'd like to suggest is that um is that we uh we all we each think about this before the next meeting. I'll put it on the next meeting
as an agenda item. uh we can discuss it, maybe appoint a subcommittee to you know distill what we talk about at that meeting and then we'll have to have a public hearing because the rule change requires a public hearing. So, so I had
I've been wa watching this sort of disparity of submissions um >> and it seems like despite the fact that we have a list of rules, people choose to sort of interpret them, >> right?
>> Uh I could not get away with that in any of the jurisdictions that I practice in by making a submission of anything like this. >> So, >> yeah. So, so bring bring those ideas to the next meeting. >> I mean, I'm like, how how could you submit this? We just reject it. >> Yeah.
>> Uh because it's it doesn't give us the information we're asking for and it's clearly stated in this official document. So, why >> we had a meeting a while ago with Chris Skellyy who advised us on how to conduct this sort of procedure. >> Yeah. and um he was explaining to us
that Westport is a little bit unusual that we don't have a planner that does really what I do as clerk. Yeah. Because the planner would sit down with the applicant and go through that and give them real advice on gee you should change this drawing and this drawing
should be more detailed. I'm just looking at a checklist and say can you please just give us more data? They sometimes do they sometimes don't. I guess our our reaction to that could be >> we're not going to have you come in for a hearing. >> Yeah. You get the submission >> if we have a Yeah. If we have
>> we all look at the submission and say this uh this is not complete. >> It doesn't we we don't have the information we asked for. I mean know some of these things like we have a little shed that someone is telling us it's going to be nice and just trust us. Uh >> yeah. So, so I I I hate to cut off the
discussion, but I think it'd be good to have it on the table and we can have this discussion. and see there's one one point u which is that >> in this town um as a non-archchitect you are allowed to present a project >> and uh in order to gain the capacity to
do a digital or electronic presentation I think you're going to turn out some of the uh people that would otherwise uh really not be able to do projects on their own which I think u contributed somewhat to the
character of this town and I'm not sure that we have to relate the two and what is cause and effect but I I would concern myself that that we would be eliminating uh people who have some sense of design some sense of the
character of the neighborhood and want to echo that in their their projects and but otherwise u are going to be held back because they don't have the skill sets to to provide this in a way that they normally would.
>> Well, anyway, let's let's let's let's discuss this at the next meeting and it'll be on the agenda. >> Everybody will have a chance to think about it. Yeah. And and please do rule read our existing goals um to see see where we stand.
>> Yeah. So, uh anything else that wants to bring up? >> No, thank you. >> Okay. Uh, do I hear a motion to adjurnn? >> I so move. I move that we adjourn. >> Second. Okay. All in favor? I opposed.
We are journed.