Good afternoon. Welcome to the November 4th meeting of the Westport Landing Commission. And we are all here. Here comes our treasurer and >> member Sue Brighten. >> We will start with the pledge of
allegiance as how we do it. I alian to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
>> If we could quickly go around the room to introduce the faces here that would be great. Starting on my left with Miss Brighton. I am Susan Brightton, treasurer colle >> and member of the landing commission.
>> Yes, that too. >> And Wendy Henderson, member of the landing commission. >> My name is Jeff Bull. I am member and currently chair of the landing commission. >> Brenda figuro landing commission. >> Elizabeth Pollen landing commission.
>> Dick Brewer. I'm selectman and I represent the select board as a leazison to the landing commission. can gravitas to that dick. I like that. >> Yeah. >> Okay, I'll keep working on that. >> Uh, first on the agenda is sign
installation. I met with signature signs. Uh, I have in my possession. I meant to bring it tonight to show you. It looks very nice. The sign for West Hicks bridge which will be installed by the highway department when they install
everything else hopefully in the next week or two. And I've met with one of the managers there and have marked the other two locations for uh Emma Trip on East Beach and Adam Landing. So I expect we'll be seeing
those in the next 5 days. She'll send me photographs to confirm that they're up and we'll be organized to take probably take the East Beach one down for the winter at some point just so it doesn't get destroyed.
That's pretty rough there. So that's finally done. >> Long process. >> Yes. >> Head wall repair. Wendy Henderson. >> I did speak with Joe Woodall, the
contractor that did the west wall repair back in 2020. And um sent him some more pictures and he's going to get back to me with a date to meet him on site. And I took a bunch of pictures that I sent to all of you in
the last few days um showing a number of locations that are definitely tripping potentially uh ankle splitting um voids in the in the work. And that's mostly because the stone, the uh small
crushed stone that was used as back fill has washed into the river because the uh chinking in the original walls wasn't adequate to hold it back. Um and Mr. Woodall um wanted to see the pictures and then said he'd call me to make
arrangements to meet there, which I'll let you all know when that is when I hear from him. Um, and but I did want to bring to your attention in those pictures are, and I apologize, Mr. Bur, I don't have your email address, but I if I get it, I can forward them to you. >> Okay.
>> Um, because I think it's an issue the town needs to address. Um, I don't, you know, maybe we should have a safety officer look at it or something. But >> my own thought is you could you could lose a small kid down some of these holes. I mean, you could get them back,
but they could be stuck for a while. Um it it's you know there's some that have really washed out considerably. And I was noticing on the design um from 2015 was when the original design was done that there was a call for a um
a permeable barrier trench to be put inside the wall between the grass and between the wall. And that was to to allow water and wash to move through without the dirt moving through the the voids in the wall. Um, and I I don't see
any sign of that barrier being there. And um, I think it was Sean Leech that did our re our uh, inspection at the end of the construction process and whether he couldn't have seen that at the time or or what. It may be there and it's just fallen down, settled or whatever.
But it's part of the reason why this stone is washing through the voids in the wall is that the imperable barrier is not the permeable barrier is not doing what it should be doing. So I would suggest that I don't know if it would be appropriate to ask the safety officers to look at it and see what they
think, but I my own thought would be that it should be cordoned off right now or a few signs put up to say danger, stay away from this. um you know somehow taking action to prevent other problems. And the original what brought this all
to our attention was Mr. Branco's um concern about the stairway um having collapsed and the edging of the stairway had collapsed um partially into the river and then ultimately all the way into the river. Um and that's been taken care of pretty well. I think
the town or someone put some crushed stone. Yes, it isn't the same type of crush stone that if you crush some Westport stone, it's blue stone, but it's crush stone. It's doing its job. Um, so that's that's my report at this point. And any questions um or if you
want other pictures or something, I'm happy to do that. But >> no, I remember speaking with Joe Wood all a year ago and he offered to come back and look and I expect I know his concern was that the specification of
the size of the stone was small and said, "Gee, it should be bigger. Should have been bigger, but I went with what was specified." >> And so I can see why maybe that washed out. >> So if the wall was chinkedked appropriately, that small stone wouldn't go through it. But the wall really
wasn't chinkedked with it. A lot of the chinking was just pieces of stone that were put between rocks. It's not they're not weightbearing, so they're not functioning well. And so they've washed into the river, they've fallen down, whatever. I've got pictures from shortly after the construction that that shows
that. I don't know how in given he's already been paid for the work and it's been signed off one. I don't know if how much we can expect him to redo for free. >> Well, when you and I met with him in 22,
>> he said he would be able to get over there and do it as soon as he finished the herring run over in the West Branch, but that was a few years ago. >> Yep. Understand? I mean, we still have money for that project left over. So,
and I guess when we meet with him, some of that will be negotiable, I would think. Uh, cuz I expect he would do some out of a feeling of obligation, but this is 6 years later.
>> I'm not clear if we do additional work if we have to go out to bid or not. >> Oh, god. >> You have any idea? >> I have no idea. Yeah. At what point? >> It depends on the value of the work, too. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, keep you all
up to date on that. >> Moving on to number four, Xbridgeidge Landing. Uh, >> thank you. >> Yep. um
our engineers have met with two state regulatory bodies uh about our design and they had a number of problems with it. So we are now kind of at a point of rethinking the design. Um
the current boat ramp is 12 feet wide. We had specified a 24 foot wide boat ramp, which is sort of more the standard even for a single boat ramp in the state. They thought that was excessive given that we've been living with a 12oot one
for years. And a wider one will be more on top of marsh grass even though we planned on replanting more marsh grass to compensate for that. So, one of the things for us to think about
today and make a decision about is are we willing to fight for 24 ft or back down to 18 or 16 ft. Uh, in my use of the landing, it seems like I mean, I
personally was surprised that 24 that it was specked as 24 feet wide. I mean, that's almost as wide as this room is. Um, And I think given that we would have matching floats on either side and we'll never be able to get two trailers at
once even down a 24 foot ramp. I would think that 18 would be adequate and and our engineers felt the same thing. And if we are forced down to 16 maybe, but we're try going to try to hold it at 18
if people feel that that's okay. I've passed this information on to the harbor master because this is really his and the select board's call. We only really advise them on that because it's not our boat ramp. It's the select board's boat
ramp. But that's one issue that we're facing. If people you two of you here use that boat ramp quite a bit in and out. have any particular thoughts about going from 12 to 18 instead of 12 to 24?
>> I I wouldn't have any problem with going from 12 to 18. >> Um, yeah, that's it's not wide enough for two to go to the 24 really. I you could do it, but given the experience I've had with people going in and out there, it's not likely to be a common
practice. >> Okay. >> So, I wouldn't have any problem. >> Anyone else's thoughts about >> I agree. I think 18 is >> plenty. >> Okay. And so we'll try to hold at 18 then and not
go to 16 because the other issue was they didn't like the idea of paving it. Uh paving is sort of unpopular with a lot of people who are concerned about the environment. However, speaking with a number of environmental scientists,
they have pointed out that by paving and redirecting the water into treatment before it goes in the river, it's actually much more environmentally appropriate than dirt and the current.
Uh but again they didn't like the idea and they didn't like the idea enough that we are considering backing off on the pavement. What that would mean would be that there would be there would still
be a paved apron and obviously the paved boat ramp and there'd be a paved area for handicap parking. Um, but the rest would be graded dirt, similar to what we have now, except that
there would be some kind of curb that you would kind of bump up over as you were backing down onto the boat ramp. So that as the parking lot in a rain event washed west, as it will do because it
water goes downhill, the sand and dirt that it carries with it will back up against that curb and then the highway department or someone with a shovel will or backho or something will come around every month or two and
push those findings somewhere else instead of them washing the river as they've been doing for the last 50 or 100 years creating a sandbar out there. Uh the the other two impacts of going
staying with a dirt driveway instead of a paved driveway or paved parking lot is that uh they'll be the utilization factor will be slightly smaller. won't get as many trailers or cars in there because
people won't be as organized about parking between the stripes. >> Uh even if we were to put headstones in, >> I think it's unlikely that people are really going to pay attention to those there. Um um so it'll be slightly less
utilization. And although we've seen I've at least I've seen and taken pictures on really crowded weekend holiday weekend days, people are jamming their cars and all over the place. Uh it also won't be possible, I would
expect, at that point to distinguish and identify trailer spaces compared to car spaces. It'll be a free-for-all, kind of like it is now. um which in some ways is good. The other
reality is that it will be about $500,000 cheaper because it's very expensive to pave and then all the assorted plumbing that goes under the pavement to guide water into a
rain garden will not be part of the project. And given that funding sources are not as adequate as they were after COVID, uh that's a plus that it'll be that much cheaper. And so he's
so people have thoughts about paving compared to currently what we've got now. >> I wish we had pictures of the doughut brigades, the trucks that go in there and rough that up. That's that's that's a half of the problem because they they
essentially rotatil that area up and make all the gravel loose and so when we get a rain it washes that all into the river. I understand that you're going to we're going to contain it somehow but yeah I mean you know the wershed was very much in favor of paving it given
the erosion that we've had and there is ways to but it's a maintenance issue for the town then a constant ongoing maintenance issue. So, I I don't necessarily support it, but if it's the only way we'll be able to fix the landing, then it has to be. But,
>> well, it also I mean, it's it means we don't have to fight the state about this one. Uh, and it'll also I mean, we'll need some amount of town matching funds. So, it'll be easier if we need to return to the town for some matching money at town
meeting. It's certainly easier. And in many people's minds, they really like the way it looks just being a dirt parking lot compared to paving. >> Any other thoughts? >> Well, I saw what happened on Westport
Point. I mean, it's the same thing. We had a dirt parking lot. >> Actually, it was it had been tred maybe a hundred years ago, >> right? and paving it certainly made parking, if you park in the lines, much better.
And I can imagine that if there's a lot of cars in a wet ground, dirt parking lot, it's going to be very messy. >> That's sort of what it is now. >> Exactly. But, you know, that's not an improvement then. >> Yeah.
>> That's business as usual. Why even bother? >> Yep. Well, the big thing is fixing the boat ramp which is about to fall into the river. >> Yeah. >> And that's a major expense. >> Would that minimize the um wetlands um
storm water management? >> Oh, yeah. >> Because >> they would still have to do storm water management, right? I mean, because we it would get regraded so that it isn't directing everything. some, but there would have been a a drain. I'm
forgetting what you call it, but going across the entire uh parking lot, >> there was a underneath the asphalt or there was a a grid that went across >> that would have carried the water
>> north >> to the bill there. >> That item alone was $120,000. So we won't need that at all. >> Doesn't work if you're working >> because that I mean as all that water flows toward the river, it's going to go
over that burm at some point. I mean >> true. >> Unless that burm is really high. >> No, it will go over in big rain events. Yes, it will wash over. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I hope they I hope the state comes out and at least looks at the situation
before they make that final decision. >> Yeah. So I guess then we should probably because we're going to need to make a recommendation to the board of selectment about this.
Um feels like there's mixed opinion about >> dairy >> boat ramp relative to paving. >> Mr. Chairman, uh that brings up a point. Uh after the last meeting, you know, I was commissioned to speak to the board of selectment about Hicks bridge and the
point and I told them regarding Hicks bridge that it's owned by the town and really the select board should take over the management of that and the oversight as you had put forth. U they they were amendable to that. We didn't go into details as to who, when, what, and how,
but um at the appropriate time, maybe a presentation or a letter or something, but uh so that that was discussed so they would be aware and uh already that we might have requests and ideas that they have to start thinking about and maybe this paving is the first issue for
them to have at. >> As a practical matter though, we we now have a new town administrator. >> Oh, we do. >> Yeah. based on last night's open meeting. Um, and um, I don't know what the dates on that will be. Uh, Jim
Harden agreed to stay longer as needed. So, we have to orchestrate that. I'm actually on a subcommittee to make that happen. But, uh, so I don't know if that'll delay things. I don't know if it'll be Jim's last tasks or one of the new gentlemen's new tasks.
Well, we'd like to move ahead because we need to start raising money and asking for money and so we need to have an approved plan. >> Yep. >> Uh so I'd like to get it on the next whether the new guys here or not. I mean Jim's been in town >> a long time and it's familiar with the
area. It's hard for most people to because it was hard for the state to appreciate that this isn't your regular boat landing. This is a hole in the earth. It's not a naturally sloping area, which most most parking places are. This is
something that was dug as a gravel pit 100 years ago. Um, and I mean I can we can go back and speak with the engineers again, but I think it's the the paving is going to be potentially a tough sell to anybody
uh at the state and maybe to the taxpayers at Westport because there might be some amount of matching funds that'll be required. But >> anyway, you can they're prepared for you to come forth whatever you want be on the agenda. >> Yep. I'll try to get it on the next agenda then.
So, I think I would like a separate motion on the width of the ramp because it seemed like we were kind of in agreement about that >> compared to paving. >> We were going to go to 18. It's now 14.
We were going to go to 18 and proposal had been 24. It's now 12. >> Now 12. >> I had trouble backing down that taking my boat out two days ago. Is there a motion?
>> I move that we um let's see >> adjust >> adjust our our specifications from 24 to 18 ft for the ramp. >> I second. >> Is there any discussion on the motion?
>> Hearing none. All in favor? I >> I >> I >> And now a separate motion. >> I don't need to have a motion on this. >> No, I don't think so because if we're going to pass it along to the selectman to make the decision.
>> Yeah, because we don't. So we have a mixed re. So I can just report to them that >> uh What do you think? >> Yeah, report to them that we're not happy with the idea, but >> it's up to them, >> right? and I will touch base with the
conservation commission because this I'm sure is an issue for them also. >> That's a good idea. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Great. >> As I said earlier, the West Hicks bridge
uh landing is ready. It's all painted out where everything is going to go. It's just a mount of I've got the sign, got the granite posts. So hopefully that'll be installed in the next week or two and we'll announce that and
should be good to go. >> Sounds good. >> Item six, Brenda, hoping for initial report on your details about parking at Westport Point. >> In what respect? I thought we were
putting this off till the next meeting. as well as far as a major really getting into it. I think we do need to have a special meeting basically just for that and we'll have to get various parties involved in that.
I just didn't know whether you had any other whether you had reviewed some of the documentation. I have reviewed some of the documentation >> and you have concerns about chapter 91 licenses and >> well yeah there are a number of of
violations of chapter 91 >> okay >> that's a state issue >> and how about the with the tax assessor why the property kind of got >> according to the task assessor we that property is owned by the town or
It's still town property. It's not being paid according to the assessor's map. >> Okay. >> So, um I don't know what that other >> cuz one party thought that had been >> that other party I I see no other than
on his monitor. I saw no other indication that that was the case >> cuz the public should know that the GIS maps on your computer at home or in this building are not necessarily exactly where the property lines are.
>> This isn't a question of exactly where the property lines this is. This is a very much of a change of the property line >> to encompass the entire the abutment >> right >> as as being owned by a piece of property.
>> Now I saw that on one monitor but I didn't see it on the assessor's monitor. >> My question is what's that to do with the landing? There is nothing to do with the landing basically other than the fact that um it abuts the landing and it
would make I don't know it makes more sense to have it be part of a landing than floating out there and being nothing >> especially if nobody's going to take care of it. >> The landing was established >> right >> back in 1700. >> So
that's that's all that we have say our control of. We have no say or control of anything else that is down there in the point. >> But our concern that's been raised with us because people don't understand that
we only have half of that a diagonal half of that parking area is that some people are claiming ownership of that. And so our concern for the select board is to be clear about what is public park and what is not. And as an
abuter since that is continually raised with us, we're just raising that. >> I don't I think we just need to refer it. Whoever wants to bring up the issue needs to bring it up to the select board because it doesn't pertain to us. >> And if people come in to complain to us,
>> unless they're complaining about the landing, >> right, >> then the landing itself, >> we should, you know, hear hear them out. If it's pertaining to any of the other
parking issues or anything anywhere down there, it needs to go to another board. >> So, >> it's not our board, >> right? There were 12 months of meetings about related
issues down there and there were proposals that came out of those meetings and I've brought it to the attention of the select board twice in writing perhaps more times that it seems like the agreements that there wasn't full
followth through on what was discovered at those. So, and we can certainly encourage the select board to do that and any any citizen can go before the select board to get an item on the agenda, I believe. Right.
>> Not necessarily. It's up to the chair or us in general, but we tend to entertain such requests. >> Well, I certainly um asked the town administrator to look into it three months ago. >> You did? >> And nothing happened. Yeah, when I spoke
to them where I also spoke about the fix bridge, I pointed out there were previous communications and I had the letter with me. >> I think it was July or something and everybody nodded, but they they understood that they're going to that this is going on. They got to be
supportive and it'll be coming back to them again. So, >> okay, >> you know, I don't think I have to say that three times. And I and certainly I would encourage people who live on the point or live anywhere in town that are concerned about access
to be to go to the select board and be express their concerns >> because it's I mean it's it's also an issue on the west side of Main Road the leech property.
>> Yeah. Uh, I believe in the chapter one license you can actually park on that property and go out on the pier and it's a public resource. Um, it's a little scary to do because you may >> fall in a hole.
>> No, no, no. You just, it may not be that pleasant when the person who thinks they own it says something to you, but that's what we face. >> Is that a town landing? May >> No, >> no, >> no. It's uh A lot of properties that are right on
the water when they were given licenses to be there, they are forever open to the public. They cannot be closed off. Well, they can be, but it's against the rules. >> The leech one, I remember we looked into
a few months back and that one said to pass and read pass. It doesn't say by vehicle. I believe it said by foot over the property. But the whole end of that which is I think it's referred to as Cory's >> Wararf. >> The whole end of that is public.
>> Yeah. And you can pass and repass over the property to get to Cory's WF for purposes of >> fishing and Yeah. >> Because I know we had discussed a bench and at that we were discussing benches at that time and we and Right. It said
clearly that you couldn't put anything on the way >> pass and repass but not sit >> sit not sit right. You can't >> put a bench and sit there and so forth. >> Well, actually it says that the passing and repassing has changed and you can I don't know if you can put a bench there, but you just can go down there and stare
at the water. >> Mhm. >> You don't have to be fishing or following other. >> Yeah. I mean, yeah. >> And so you can go down and pass and repass over it, walk over it and stuff, but you can't park cars on it. You can't put a bench there. You can't do those other things.
>> I think you can tie a boat up to it >> up to the W. I have no idea. >> I believe >> makes sense if it was a chap. I know that the other one when um the the one that's on lees you can tie up
>> or theoretically you can tie up because when they originally gave that license or that ability to build that building to the Mayhews in 1831 they said they could put a building on it but they could not at at any time keep anybody off of it.
>> It was still public property. So at that point they could put things like pump houses and little buildings on it but they could not own it. >> Mhm. Well,
>> so anyhow, if if members of the public are interested in that issue, I suggest they get involved, contact this point probably the new town administrator >> because I know this will be a
given how lengthy that the meetings were in the past, I would expect that'll happen again. And I'll only say as treasurer, it sounds like it's going to be a legal battle. And as treasurer, I
will say we don't have the funding. >> Wendy, >> I just want to say that it's public property at a Butel landing commission property. We don't have places to put our boats in from landing properties for the most part. So, I think we should the
land the future landing commission should keep their eye on it as well because maybe it could become in a dream of a future another place to put a boat in in this town. >> The abovement. >> Yes. It doesn't have to stay the way that it is.
>> Oh, you mean you could like put a ramp in there or something? >> You could do something so that the water was accessible by >> boat. >> Well, here's an interesting factoid. Um, from what I have been told, there's supposed to be a 25 foot on either side
of any landing access. Um, nothing can be um in the way of that, but they built a dock across it. >> So, within that 25 ft. >> Well, no, within within right across it. >> Yeah. With a license. Huh.
>> But they had a license to do that. It is actually ab budding the landing. A house abudding the landing. There's a house that pre pre-existed. >> The land did not pre-exist. The landing going in in 1700.
>> The landing didn't go in in 1700. >> It did. >> The landing went The landing went in in Well, wait a minute. Are you talking about the the abupment? >> The abupment? No, you said the landing. the landing you said he couldn't have anything 25 ft around it >> right so the I'm talking about the
abutman >> that okay that was yeah I don't know the >> the bridge I believe was after the >> I >> I don't know it's not I don't know when the bridge was built originally
>> you could trade the abutment for paving at Hicks bridge and make the abupment green >> there you Anyhow, obviously this is a complicated. >> Yeah, there's a lot down. You know, I all I know is that the landing was created back in 1700
>> for the purposes of everybody moving their stuff up and down the river and over to Dartmouth and so forth. It wasn't just for fishing and so forth. It at that time they would ship everything over water, >> right? >> Wood. So, it was a place to load cargo
and >> cargo, all sorts of cargo. It was a place to store cargo until the ships could take it in and out. It would quicker to move it from the point to New Bedford that way than it was to by horse and buggy to get all
the way around. So, that was the original point intent of the landing. And then years later, I mean, I know at one point there was whailing ships down there and I'm sure there was a lot
of whaling um barrels and oil barrels and etc. down there and you don't see any of that anymore. The point is evolved over the years. When I was a kid, it was all um offshore boats.
>> Mhm. Now there's hardly any offshore. They're all bay fishing that are down there in the point. Um, you know, the whole point has changed significantly since I was a kid down there. >> But land doesn't.
>> But the land the land is the land. But what I'm saying is the point and how it's used and how the people use it has evolved tremendously since the, you know, even going back to this, whether you go back to the 1700s, the 1800s, the
intentions of what everything was in the 1700s. I mean, even now we're looking at the landing that the landing that was created in the 1700s for the purposes of moving cargo from one place to another
is used for a parking lot. >> Mhm. >> Well, and I >> and that's, you know, reality. That's >> So, what I read was that the Elmmeies or Nelie gave the landing to the town, but it was much later than that.
It was more like 1928 >> 17 >> 1700 there was nothing like that there. There wasn't even most of the landing was I mean most of the the dock was >> the landing was if you read the documents I believe I've read the documents I believe the town of Dmouth
established the landing >> did it did >> and that was we town of Dartmouth >> gave it to Westport in the 186 18 >> 17 it was part of it became part of Westport >> 1764 something like that >> 1787
which is when Westport was founded >> so it was created in 1700 as part of Dartmouth and then Westport that so it continued on. >> Correct. >> 17 whatever the early 1700 >> but that that part that I think was the
gross entire area of the of the of the point. >> No, the landing was specifically laid out differently from as a portion of the point. Well, I appreciate >> and what I'm saying is the landing commission needs to take care of what's the landing comm even half the landing's
gone >> because half of it or most of it a good portion of the landing we have this triangular shape shaped piece now it was originally more of a it was a rectangle >> then >> that's what I mean then the road >> and the road and so forth is all there
now >> y so again I think we need to pass this on to the select board and interested people are certainly open to follow. >> They're aware. So, >> okay, >> we're ready. >> Good. >> The chair knows I have a family
commitment. I have to leave early. So, good to see you all. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> We are moving on then to item seven. Every year, people from this commission have to decide whether to run for
reelection or not. And then in the past I have to go and try to find people to fill their spots and offer to sign their papers. I believe the two of us are up for reelection this year. >> Can you
>> and may not be coming back >> and will not be coming back. So, I encourage members of the public who care about these issues and care about water access from a range of opinions to
consider running for office. I know at this point I'm feeling like I may not run for reelection. So, uh, I may be available to help with some of the following through in the Hicksbridge design issues and fundraising there, but
I'm realizing that perhaps younger people should be doing some of this work that are part of the future of the landing. So, those who are out there, consider it, please. It's usually pretty easy to get elected
because nobody else will run. Uh number item eight on the agenda is past minutes. I believe all you all have copies of those in front of you. People have anything >> beautiful work as always.
>> Any points about these that need to be talked about? >> I did not find any I have no discrepancies with what our secretary has proposed. I will entertain a motion then
for approval of the minutes. >> Can I move? >> I think so. >> Okay. I move to um accept the minutes as written and I have to second that. >> Okay. >> It's been moved and seconded. >> Discussion. >> No.
>> No discussion. No discussion on voting. Just >> quick left finger. >> It's fun. We have planning commission. Even the person that's doing video is smiling. See, now she's laughing. Yeah. Turn the camera on you. Anyhow, uh all in favor of approving the minutes.
>> I uh number nine on the agenda, other business not anticipated at time of posting. Uh just an FYI, I have received on behalf of the landing commission a
check from Andrea from uh saying and a note saying thank you so much for the granting us the use of the landing at the head. We enjoyed another beautiful summer of yoga by the river. All the best, Andrea. And she
sent us a $500 check which has been since >> great properly deposited. Thank you. Thank you, Andrea. >> I see that we have a member of the public sitting in the public spaces. Do
you have anything you'd like to share? >> Any microphone. >> You have to dig your button on. >> I'm Cindy Zebo. I live on River Road. Um, and I arrived late because I went to the wrong building. Uh, so I think I
missed the um item perhaps that I was interested in. Did No. Okay. A different meeting. Is it still coming anyway? >> Okay. All right then. I don't really I just But I do have a question if you have a moment. Is there any middle
ground between I would imagine you would have looked into it, but is there any middle ground between paving the entire lot at Hicksbridge Landing? Is there any middle ground for water treatment? I know they mentioned the burm that would somewhat they can't put
any drainage in if they don't um pave the whole thing. >> I think you need to stabilize the hardware. Gotcha. >> is is the issue and the hardware is like $100,000 and it needs to be set in
place. So, you know, we will ask, but my guess is no. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, we can set a next meeting date. >> I will do that. Did we want to talk about the doc vendor as a possibility?
>> Could that come up as other business not anticipated the tournament posting? >> Yes, it would. >> Um there's I think there's a need um seen and expressed by voters that there's no cushioning on the exterior of
the dock. So >> it's just the corner bumper. >> Yeah. >> There's nothing below it. So I think um is there any sort of way to go forward with putting some sort of fender system around the dock? Um does
that and then and then also who would be responsible for that kind of a project? Is that select boardharbormaster? Um >> uh realistically it is the select board
harborm's responsibility. I mean legally, realistically this commission has sort of been doing it. >> So uh it would be an additional financial item. So, we'd have to approve the money for it
>> and get a specification for what was needed. And if it's being requested for I mean, what what was done is is the standard for for floats. As I've looked around at commercial floats and the
Westport Yacht Club and floats and stuff, you get a corner bumper. That's what you get. I I realized the old floats also had old fabric fire hose, >> correct? >> Screwed lower, which provided some additional cushioning.
>> Um, that was not part I'm not sure old fire hose exists anymore, but I'm sure wider rubber bumpers do exist. >> Tires. Uh, no, just the same stuff that's on the corner, but that's just
slightly different design. Basically, like I think it's called B form. So, you know, it's it would be if this is the float, it would be an additional piece of bumper like that.
And so, there would be an expense and we'd have to figure out who's going to pay for that. I think Wendy had looked into some of >> Yeah, I had contacted the doc builder, Brendan Lond at um Bordon Light,
>> and he sent me pictures of a couple samples and I looked at the measurements and then looked at the way the the boats that use the dock most often, seven days a week now, um sometimes a couple times of the day. Um, between the the two
different styles of boats that they use, we would need 7 in. I think the full the full wood needs to be covered. The lowest stories end up just coming to the bottom of the dock structure now. And so it would be about double what Brendan
quoted us. Um, but there I think there's other other things available. I haven't I didn't get back to him because I didn't have any money to do it. So, I figured I would just give up on it at that point until somebody else wanted to work with it also. Um, so my thought is
I would contact Brendan Lond again and see, hey, what else is out there to show him some pictures of what I have for the two boats the way that they come up to the dock and looking at other boats that came in too. I just the the day I was starting to do the measuring and things, a little skiff came in and I took a look
at that and it could have used a different bumper system as well. Um, so anyway, I thought I would talk with Brendan first because he had good samples for me to begin with. I think he sent me what he had on hand there. Um, but I've haven't found anything seven in so it would require two layers of what
Brendan showed us, but I think there's other things available. >> The the fire hose isn't the best situation. And I know that Armic Voyages boats are responsible for ripping a lot of that fire hose off because their orlocks got under it and and then you
know as the boats tipped they pulled up on it and pulled the screws out and you couldn't get the screws back in because of the way it was installed. Um, so that's that's my thought is we need to come up with what would work if that's okay with the landing commission. And I don't know who's going to pay for it,
but at least find out what we need. >> Was the when the fire hose was in place. >> I don't remember that being that deep. I remember it being maybe >> it was it was it was just about just about that depth. It's pretty. It pretty
much the whole piece of wood was covered with fire hose. >> So, it was two layers. >> Nope. No. Fire hose is pretty big stuff. I think it was probably at least 5 in. >> Yeah. Or maybe it waved a little bit as it got ripped off especially. >> So,
>> well, why don't you do some more research on that? And um certainly whoever pays for it, it's going to be cheaper to install once the floats are out of the water. Mhm. >> That was my thought also because Brendan's price was kind of high for the installation part of it, but that was
because he was going to have to bring a boat and people and hold the boat and hold the dock and hold the stuff and >> um >> so I thought I should also bring it to the harbor master's attention to make sure he's okay with or maybe he'll have suggestions. >> Yes,
>> I would expect that he would >> and I would think for the expense of it you'd have to get it approved through the selectman. Is that >> Yeah, it unless they give that authority to the harbor master. In the past, we put some railings on the dock and the
harbor master decision. >> Whichever department >> Yeah. >> is paying for it, that's okay. There has been also um like Dharma Voyage has suggested that they might be interested in helping with the funding
of that. But I think what I'm hearing is that we need to get our ducks in a row in terms of materials >> and then be able to have like an idea of what would be acceptable >> and then go forward with the discussion about >> Yep. >> Yeah. funding >> or potential donation or whatever.
>> Yep. Yeah. Or some combination, >> right? Okay. So I'm happy to take on talking with the harbor master in in Brendan London. >> Great. >> Sounds good. >> So,
>> oh, date next meeting. Let's >> see. December 23rd, two days before Christmas. >> No, the 24th. >> Oh, yeah. The date. Christmas Eve. Let's have a meeting on Christmas Eve. I'll bring eggnog.
So, how about the 16th of December? >> Okay. >> Most parties don't start before that. >> Okay. So, December 16th, 4 PM here.
>> Would anyone like to make a motion to end this meeting or do we want to spend all night here? >> That's generally um I move that we adjourn. >> I second. >> Second. >> All in favor of adjourning? Hi. >> Hi.