Okay. Would you please rise and join me in the pledge of >> allegiance? I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. Okay. Uh first up uh by the way we're being uh videotaped and sent out live. Um so first is two discussion topics. Um the
first is Zero Horse Neck Road file number 26-3U request to determine the adequacy of a way to provide access to a parcel off of Horsene Neck Road at map 45 lot 8.
Do we have somebody here for that? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the board. Uh, for the record, Mike McVey, attorney Mark, um, Marky and Walsh, New Bedford, Massachusetts. Um, I I have a Dia, I'm sorry. I have a
PowerPoint if it's convenient at all for later. But um I am here on behalf of the owners and applicants. Uh Robbie Haynes III and Shauna Wacaser. Uh they're a local couple. They live
here in Westport. Robbie uh works at a family-owned uh business here in Westport. And we're here this afternoon to ask the board to determine that there is a uh that the way has been in existence uh prior to subdivision control and also that it is suitable for
its intended purpose which in this case is for a single family house. Uh just some background on the property. It's been in the Hannes family um since 1973. Um the intention was always to build
someday a single family house. The intention is not to subdivide the property or to some type of development is to build a single family home with some you know relative seclusion. Um property has been through concom to have
its wetlands delineated. Uh it has had a perk test which was with the results were positive. Um, when we talk about the way and why it's been in existence before subdivision control in 1953,
uh, I was able with Greg Nicholas's help, I found two deed references, one going back as far back as 1836 in a deed from Wilson Wing to Luther Wing. Um, and I have some excerpts on that plan on the U PowerPoint.
Uh it's referenced again in 19 exactly 100 years later in 1936 uh using similar language but it references the prior uh granted easement from the from the wing deed in 1836. >> Thank you. >> Mhm.
And then this way is I mean the way is shown um you know all throughout um you know the 20th century but prior to 1953 the way was shown on a on a USGS uh quadrangle map
um that was surveyed in 1939 and 19 between 1939 and 1940 revised in 1951. Uh if you go two morehead this sorry I'm apologize one back please. This is the 1836 deed. I I tried to clean it up as best I could using some Photoshopish
tools. Um, transcribed it at the bottom and then the f and 100 years later, please in 1936. Now the these two deeds are conveying a 3.5 acre parcel
which is today um I think parcel 45-10 which is owned by Mr. Guptal. It's a wooded parcel about it's about 3.5 acres in in um in size. If you go back one I'm sorry. So I did the best I could with the the quadrangle is a four part map.
Um, and instead of just dumping it like I tried to do originally, um, I I I zoomed in. This is a this is an excerpt from 1951. The revision shows the unimproved way. You can see the elevation lines
and you can see the bumpout which still exists today. Sorry, you go forward one. >> This is from a recent just snippet from mass mapper. So that's uh, you know, on the ground today. I didn't have the ability, you know, to to sort of overlay
the two, but I did the best I could. As you can tell, this is the this is the Hanes's 10 acre piece right here. And, you know, if you go back and forth and back and forth, you can see I'm sorry, if you you can see that the unimproved way would go right through it. And and that's consistent with the maps and the
plans that have been provided uh subsequently, including the one that Mr. Nicholas did in 2024. So, I think it's clear from the deed references and from the map uh and the plan that this has been in existence.
Now, a house was built along the the way uh in 1935 um which will come up in a moment. It's actually pictured right here. This is a this is a photograph on the way um looking eastward. You see the yellow
building in the center of the screen? That is uh Mr. Guptal's house at 98 Old Horseeneck Road. That building was built in 1935. Uh later on another slide I'll have I I'll show
um actually would you mind going ahead one? I'm sorry. Thank you. And then again uh so this is I'd like to focus on this. So, when we talk about uh consistent with its intended use, which in in my clients uh you know, they only
intend to build a single family home from what the best I could tell about 100ish feet away from their property line is Mr. Guptal's house. Again, on the left, that's I'm sorry, on the on the middle, that is the main house that was built in 1935.
Okay, that alone doesn't create the precedent um according to town council that the way was in existence. That's fine. Um this building to the left was an additional roughly 800 ft of new construction that was done in 2007. So
obviously there was some inclination to consider this way passable and usable for um residential use. And then it it's worth noting that Mr. Guptal, generous guy, friends of the of my clients, has
generously donated a large portion of his backyard to Habitat for Cats, where they have several different um I'll call it sheds, but it's basically a feral cat sanctuary for folks in uh in the new greater New Bedford area to come and
bring cats. When you when you search for this stuff online, you know, they thank Mr. Guptal and they're always looking for volunteers to come down the way to deliver cats or to welp. Mr. Guptal, it's worth mentioning, is in his 90s.
He's very elderly. Um, lives in the home alone, I believe, right? Um, so he still drives up and down the way. Again, it's just about 100 ft across a another parcel to my client's property.
And I also I think it's and it's ahead further in the slides, but I think it bears mentioning now that he is regularly serviced uh by um wind waste. So big trash trucks come down the way every week to service his property as
long as well as a propane company. Um I guess can you go back one please? So when we talk about the width grade in construction, the width begins, you know, over 16 feet around the entrance uh and it narrows as it approaches my
par with my client's parcel. Uh the the grade is consistently flat and even and it's created it's um constructed by crushed gravel and dirt. It narrows as it approaches and and enters into my client's property. And um these are
>> Does that show old stone walls on both sides of the way? >> Correct. >> Along a portion of the way, >> right? And when I when I took a trip um with Mr. Haynes a few weeks ago, we you know, I I got as far as the the snow
would allow. Um but in my view, and I think Dia has been on the property and maybe she'll speak to it, but it was it's completely flat. There was at when I visited there were volunteers or the let's call it the public was um visiting
Mr. Guptal's house in some capacity. So uh it's regularly um traveled. >> Can you go next? Uh two forward please. >> Um and then the remainder of the slides are just um there's three plans which
sort of con when you look at them they conjoin. They show the the the way as it approaches. This is the most recent site plan that was performed by by Mr. Nicholas, South Coast Engineering. It shows the way uh if you don't mind just going forward once.
>> This is a if you take a second, you step back, this was a a plan, a recorded plan that was uh recorded in and and made in 1981 that shows sort of the entirety of the way, right? So, as it travels through Will Cox property, Smith property, um this right here is Mr. the
Guptal house that we just spoke about and this this bump right here in entrance into my client's property if you go back one >> is is this exact bump here. >> Okay. So, you know, when we talk about buildability, this obviously there's a lot area that's been satisfied here. Um
I believe with the wetland delineation, there's enough space on the property to build this a modest single family home. And if this board determines that this way is adequate, we would have it who would have enough frontage on on the engine. And that's the essentially what we're
here tonight to talk about. Um, as far as I'm aware, he has complete support. My clients have the support of all the neighbors, including the Will Cox. um folks who own that big parcel to the west. And I think the only other slide that we
haven't seen is a 1980 um plan. This one right here. This is just the same thing as the as the 19 It's a little more uh confined than the 1981 plan. I'm happy to take any questions from the board. >> Yeah. Okay.
Um could you go back and and show two or three slides the uh which >> yeah that one. Um attorney could uh two questions. One uh does the way pass through this lot and could it serve
other lots uh to the east of this lot? That's one question. And the second one is can you on this uh map point out where the single family home would be built and again where Mr. Google's house is just general
>> if it's okay I I can answer the first question no problem it it passes through the way right here as the northeast south >> and Mr. Nicholas here who generated the map can speak. >> What was your second question, John? I'm sorry. >> Uh yeah, if you could show where uh the
single family house would be built, where Mr. Bull's house is >> and then my question is the way serve any other lots to the east of this lot? >> Would there be traffic on this lot going
to the east? You know, for another lot >> you're talking >> Yeah. Right there. land trust land. >> Yeah. >> So, I don't think they're going to build anything over here. Okay. >> This does continue. I've never followed it all the way out, but I believe it actually goes out to which would be division road. >> Oh, wow. >> I'm not really sure. USGS back.
>> I saw I saw I did see a reference that I didn't want that that talks about it connects between old horses neck and division. >> Wow. Okay. Lo up those houses here. The assessor's maps aren't really close to what this look like. Stone walls around here. The second piece they talked
about, we briefly mentioned the wood lot is back up here somewhere. >> Correct. >> Um, so the area of that he would build would be right around here. There's wetlands this way and there's wetlands back over here. So it's a path you have in here. It's going through an air rand.
And I'm sorry I don't have that plan here, but there's a wet land line here, wet land line here, and the area in the middle would be sufficient for >> So how would he get access then to the house? I assume he's not going all the way to the end of the lot. >> So, there's a proposed easement, Mr. Bullet. >> Yeah.
>> Right. And there's also a deed which the owner of this property gave Mr. Haynes basically unlimited rights to use this property to access his land. >> Correct. >> We wanted to find this over here because eventually the utilities and whatnot be a little bit more restricted.
>> So, the the way that's the east half of the way really is going to be used by >> uh for access. Correct. >> Anything else? It's just a legal way. >> That's exactly providing in front. >> That's exactly right. >> You're not using the front. >> That's not the plan. Correct.
>> Yeah. Gotcha. >> Thanks. >> Um, yeah. I I just got sort of along John's line, but I'm also having trouble putting together all the pieces of the puzzle because you have these various I thought first of all you were referring
to the uh you've got some maps of a 3 and 1/2 acre parcel that go with the 1836D, right? And then there's the 1936 de which also refer to the 3 and 12 acre parcel. Where is that?
On this 10 acre parcel. >> So that that that parcel is right up here. And where this branches out, I believe, is right about here. It would be about here. The 3.8 acre 3.5 acre parcel has historically been tethered.
And today is still owned by Mr. Guptal and it's been that way is for a long time. >> So that has nothing to do with where they're trying to with this lot. It's just to demonstrate that the way >> the way had been in existence and and and in the conveyance of that 3.5 acre
parcel it had been referenced. >> Well, it would be helpful if you had one plan that showed that show the houses which >> at the time the way to reference 1836 was a Luther wing to >> Wilson Wilson winged Luther wing
>> and they own both sides of that. So when he conveyed one of the wings and I forgot who it was who it's written down here somewhere. Uh he conveyed these two pieces out to a family member, he afforded him the right to use his access through his land. So that's why when you're talking about the reference of
the 3 and 1/2acre piece, you're correct. It has no bearing on this. But in 1836, it was all one piece in one family, the Wing family. and he conveyed one person named Wayne conveyed to another family member these two pieces and afforded him the right to use this this way.
>> But that the way that you're illustrating here doesn't touch or doesn't enter this lot of up there. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> But as you were asking,
>> it gives them legal frontage, but that's not what they're using for access to the lock. So, you're going to come off of that way. I can't see, but there's some red line right in that. >> Yeah, this is this is the location of a proposed easement. And like Greg Greg said, there is a
>> a very general permissive easement that's been granted prior from Smith to Hannes, his father Haynes. >> Yeah. >> And his successor. So, we just we put this on here as sort of an illustration of where they're actually going to be pulling off and driving into the
property. And then one last thing. So that gravel crushed gravel lane that you showed with the two walls >> those photographs uh that condition exists at this point where the where you're going to have an
easement coming into the >> it will >> to this buildable area. >> It will >> and it and it exists all the way out to old horse neck in in that condition. a level graded crushed gravel road bag.
>> Not quite. >> If your question is is it does it exist today? No, it does not. If it will it it will. >> So I am a little confused. >> Um so the the lot that you're saying is Guptal
is a triangular lot uh north of this boundary by So >> couple hundred feet. >> This is this is Mr. Guptal's lot right here. >> This is Mr. Guptal's building lot,
right? >> Which we saw pictures of. >> And it's not 3 and 12 acres. It's 52,000 square ft, >> right? But he also is the He also owns the 3.5 acre piece that's up here, but that's just wooded. >> Where
they have the assistant. How do I Okay, I found it. It's It's not touching that lot, but it's further east. >> Correct. >> Um, and I don't think it touches this this
proposed roadway either, does it? >> No. Oh, there's a fork. >> There's a fork in the road. If you go back to my plan, see that? >> Yeah. So, it's that square piece up there. >> This is what's showing us a triangular piece on map. It doesn't work anything
like a triangle whatever. >> This, I believe, is the actual road that goes up to the uh >> the grip piece is a fork. So the the references in the two older deeds that you've shown showed us uh is
for the stated purpose of collecting wood basically. >> All right. it says in the deed. Um, and so but you've also said that
>> and anything else is >> you can use for the intended purpose and it's that's not a stated intended purpose. And on the older uh uh topographic maps, it shows I think
the part of the road that has the walls and then it has beyond that just a dotted line. And I don't know how that really describes a road uh except for like a
farm path to get to the woodland to collect wood. And so maybe you can explain to us how that enables you to say that it's an ancient
way in a way in existence. >> Right. So just to be clear, the the 1836 deed says to pass and repass at all times for the purpose of getting off wood and timber and anything that is wished to be taken. So to me that is more expansive than
just timber. Um but when we talk about a deed reference which which which makes reference to an existing way at the time um I'm not aware of any um use restriction I guess that's put on
to the reference. So if at the time 1836 if if the use, you know, was to to cart off wood or or or any other minerals or anything, I don't know if that's instructive or or it holds us to the use that we're looking for in 2026.
Um obviously in 1935 this this way was sufficient to build, you know, an 18,800T home. So, I mean, if if the town made a mistake in the past, doesn't mean they have to keep making the same mistake.
>> And then in 2007, they allowed an 800 ft um you know, detached twostory barn. And then, um I guess they're allowing a pseudo commercial Habitat for Cats sort
of operation to to proceed. That's across the right across the way. So it >> So but you you still haven't convinced me that it's an ancient way. So how do you how do you do that? And this
way only goes to the Guptil property, the square piece from a fork in the road. And um we have some pictures of the road beyond the stone wall part.
And it's really I wouldn't call it a road. It looks like a a path. >> Go ahead. >> All right. Um I appreciate you saying that. I I think I can shed some light on this. Okay. So we have an undeveloped
piece of land here in 1930. >> So subdivision control comes into Westport 1957. >> Okay. >> So there's this house here and it's completely landlocked and it's being serviced by this laneway. That gravel laneway I would say ends
around here. Okay. Over this way it's essentially a car path. You can follow it. But could you get a car through? No. So to address your concern, the house is built there in 1935, a landlocked piece that would establish that it's a way in existence prior to subdivision control.
It's not an ancient way. Ancient ways would be a dedicated piece, a dedicated way that the town >> was forced to accept. Okay, by 1849 and essentially would be a public land. That's not what we're saying. So the fact this house was built here in 1935, completely landlocked and it has access
to get here with a road that's constructed roughly up to this point would be my argument that it is a way in existence prior to subdivision control. Now whether or not it's suitable for future development, that's up to this board to
decide. it had to be improved. But I would argue that yes, it was in existence at least up to this point for servicing this house that was built private. >> Any more questions? How how far is it from the
uh old horse neck road to this point that where you intend to access the >> I'd have to look >> um do you mind going to the to 1981 plan? >> Yeah. So wondering I mean just
we is there any issue being a dead end considered a dead end lane? >> They're not suggesting that they're going to build a road. So and they're saying that it exists already. >> Well yeah. >> So and then the question of where they
get the frontage and I guess they get it because the cart path crosses the corner of the lot at the north eastern corner. How much frontage? How much potential frontage do you get from that process?
>> Over 150. >> Well over 150 ft. I'll have to get you the answer to the distance. So, is is this is this way what you're suggesting is a way in existence going to provide
uh frontage for Mr. Gul's other lot, the square one? >> No. >> And are there other landlock pieces up there that are going
to claim frontage on this. >> Well, like Mr. Nicholas said, the Westport Land Trust owns a lot of land in that >> beyond, but up through does the way go through Mr.
Cup's other lot? >> I did I did not research that. >> Can I answer that actually? Yeah, if you could come up and identify yourself. >> I believe I'm sorry. >> I believe if you go to the GIS map um
all the parcels of property that that lane will continue to run through this way all the way to division road are actually all um trusted to the land trust. >> What is that? What is that? >> So I think it goes through here and then
goes to this parcel to this parcel and then actually I believe that that is also right there is a reference to part of the way that eventually continues through division >> and then there's already I believe buildings on the division road side.
>> Yeah. >> So there wouldn't be any further >> but Mr. Cup's square lot up there. >> One of the one of the branches is going through there. >> We haven't measured the frontage on his actual lot. But then
>> and there's other lots around GTO lot. >> I believe that those are all trusted to the West Portland trust. I think you can look at the um >> that one is and the one below that is Y >> that one both land trust >> and I believe that either I don't know
if it's this one or this one but it's also trusted land uh land trust. These three. This one is somebody else. >> Somebody else. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Chicken deli. >> Thank you.
>> And do you know the status of the one that's owned by Jane Rebella? The one to the west of uh the square love. Uh she has a single um I know she has a
another piece of land locally to that where she has a single family home and we don't know the status of the small So in the interim is uh the planning your department have a >> so I saw you all looking through the updated memo that I had sent out which
includes the pictures of the way um so just as a recap the applicants are requesting the board's determination of the adequacy of the way to provide access and frontage for lot buildability um so up until the ease the proposed easement
let me put up the map up until the proposed easement the way has um adequate construction, somewhat suitable grades and um sufficient width to provide for the needs. But once it hits this easement,
um the easement does not have sufficient width construction or grade. And you can see that in the photos I've attached. The first three photos are pictures of the easement. One out during a rainy day and it's got some ponding and then one on a drier day. You can see there's no crushed gravel put down or anything. Um,
so staff recommends that this easement a be recorded and then be brought to rural residential lane standards for a graveled roadway which asks for a traveled way width of 20 ft and um 15 in of compacted gravel. Um staff also talked with the fire department and the
fire department asks that the easement be at least 14t wide um and recommends a construction of a hammerhead or a wide turnaround for fire department access. So, the fire department expressed some access concerns, but feels like if the road is brought up to standards, it'll
be um sufficient. And then, yeah, planning staff finds that while the way does provide frontage here as it crosses the property, um it would need to be yeah, upgraded to rural residential lane standards to provide sufficient access. As it stands right now, it does not provide sufficient access.
>> Can I ask a question to you? >> Yeah. Uh if you bring the the part of the driveway that's on this map >> Yeah. >> up to standard. >> Yeah. >> The long long driveway that you need to
traverse to get to this >> Yeah. >> How wide is that? >> I think at its widest they said they're measuring up to 16 ft. Um and then it tapers to about 10 when it comes to this easement. So, the reason I'm asking is um
it doesn't seem to me to make sense to have something at the end of the driveway wider than the whole driveway you've got to drive on. >> Mhm. Um, >> so if you can drive on that long
driveway from Horses Neck Road, >> then uh and I think your point is that that road has been deemed acceptable uh in 1936 before subdivision.
Uh, and therefore I I'm just wondering, are we trying to make the last 5% of this driveway >> different or bigger than the first 95% of the driveway? >> Yeah, that makes sense. Like I said, the
fire department asked for 14 ft, so I feel like that might be more in line with what the existing conditions of the um gravel roadway look like. 60 ft to 14. The what what you're saying is in your suggestion in the report >> was to upgrade just that section.
>> Yes. >> To the rural residential requirement. Yes. >> Or the whole thing to horsen. >> I was thinking just this section because previous from this easement to horse neck it's it's it's sufficient. Um but if the board would like the whole
roadway improved that can also be part of the motion too. Um, but I I agree with John's comment that maybe it can be upgraded just to at least be the width of the graveled roadway when it meets the easement and not be a reduction to 9 ft cuz 9 ft is not wide enough.
>> But the base should comply. >> Yeah. >> So, and the rest of the road that goes around and comes and gives them frontage. >> I haven't been able to see it um based off the deed references and the exhibits
shown by the legal team. Um, I found that it was in in existence prior to the subdivision control law. So, I find that it could provide legal frontage, but um, I don't feel that it if they used it for access as well as frontage, I don't feel that this northwest corner would be
sufficient for access, just frontage. >> Mr. chairman. The the difficulty I have with this is is that um it's it's not a public way. So we we can
well I have two issues if if this is an existing landlock parcel and they're not trying to subdivide it. So I that that puts in a little different
category, but for us we we if if this were a subdivision, we we can only allow the division of land on public ways,
ways that were shown on created under the subdivision control Right. And um ways in the opinion of the board meet
standards for adequacy. And when I look at this, the frontage that they're claiming is is is way down on that end of the road, which which which gives them the frontage on the way that they're saying
is adequate. And I don't know I don't know what that looks like, but I think it it's just a cut road in the woods. I'm pretty sure that's what it >> Yeah. And um
the fact that they're building at the other end where the road looks more between two walls, you know, the road the the road that has the two walls on it and the and and it's serviced by trash trucks, the house and everything.
They don't front on that, >> right? They they front they front on the piece that's a cut road in the woods. >> Uh they don't front on it legally, but
their access will be on uh depending on how they build that easement uh will be on the road that the trash trucks and everyone else uses. Right. Why is
why is this before us? What are we what who >> So So the I I think the the issue is they're unable to get a building permit, >> right? >> And I think I don't want to speak for them, but I assume that they've been
sent to the planning board to get a determination whether or not this way is adequate. And they have legal frontage. So, I guess the other question just for everybody's knowledge, uh, for a
building lot, uh, for subdivision control, you have to have 150 ft of frontage and 60,000 square ft of area. Uh, I don't know if you need that for a lot existing, >> right? Just not being subdivided.
>> It's not being subdivided. We're not creating a lot. So, do they need the frontage for a building from them? I don't know the answer to that. >> It's never come before us before. So, >> well, >> I don't know.
>> If I may, Mr. Chair th this actually this situation not exactly this but happened in the neighborhood I lived in in Attboro where a folks we had to go over the adequacy of legal frontage and ultimately achieved uh they they get
it through where I live and that wasn't ever used they have a um practical um appro access through a different part of a different road which in which they didn't have front of John. So, but what you mentioned a moment ago about we're
just here to achieve legal frontage, that's that's exactly it. And the practical frontage we you know is is right there and can be improved and tied into what's already, you know, a very welltraveled, very relatively
improved way. So is the building inspector, the zoning enforcement officer uh denying the building permit on the question of he doesn't know if we have legal frontage or we don't know if we have adequate
way to get there. >> So I would say it's the former it's the first he I presented uh a version of what I'm presenting tonight to him originally. He said a lot. He had some problems with how reading the old deeds
and so did your so did your town council. I went back and I tried to clean it up and I talked to really right off the bat I talked to Mr. Burus who was extremely helpful and he advised me that eventually we would be in front of you folks here. Um so I think that was a
necessary step being here. Um but the fact that he denied just to answer your question, he denied um for lack of explanation as far as legal frontage. He couldn't he couldn't >> couldn't see it. >> He couldn't read the deed. Yeah. >> And I think I think we have the same
questions. The question is we're going to have to make the determination. So John, >> um couple of things. one, uh, the roadway that would be constructed is, as I understand it, that short
easement that comes down, uh, which the easement shows 22 almost 23 feet at the southern end and 26 1/2 ft at the northern end width. And that connects to an existing way
that is well traveled. Uh, and so, uh, I'm thinking that easement provides enough width to, uh, gain access, not
frontage, but access to, uh, where they want to build the house. I and when I look at the idea of building a single family home on at this
location on a 10 acre lot, I I think that is a use that enhances Westport. Do you like cats? >> A lot of cats. And uh but you know, you you're going to
be neighbors to a 90s something year old man, which I think is a good thing because otherwise he's kind of isolated. >> Uh and so I don't have a problem with what they're trying to do. I I guess the
question is whether we can differentiate between access and frontage. I think it would be a shame if the cart path got improved all all the way because right now it's a cart path. >> That would be that would be silly. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> There's no reason for them. >> So the question is with that easement connecting to a welltraveled way do do they have access to this 10acre lot to build one house? >> I I I don't think the access is is
really the issue. the issue is is it's coming down to the frontage and does that car path I I assume Greg you've you surveyed that if you have it on the plan? >> Um I I understand your question.
Um, for what it's worth, and it's it's a different different location, but I know of one lot that we surveyed off of Drift Road, and it crossed about, I want to say about 1,000 ft of wetland. Frontage is on Drift Road, but the access comes
off the system farm lane. I think we talked about this very briefly. Um so thinking that way they have access usable access off a different different road qualifying
frontage is on a different road. So I was kind of looking at this the same way. I think the issue of frontage is a determination that's going to have to be made even though it's kind of walked away from it by the building inspector whether or not he's going to issue a building permit. Is this something that
this board generally deals with? I thought it was just a way itself whether or not it provides adequate access. >> Well, I guess my question to you is, you know, you're going to get there, you're going around the wetlands. Mhm.
>> That's why it's that little lot is the way it is because they have to get around stay away from the wetlands which is to the souththeast
of of that and that's why it goes way up and comes back down. >> Um, >> but does it actually exist where you're saying it exists? And have you been out there and surveyed it? And does it look the same pathway all along or is this is this
wishful thinking? >> No, I actually want to submit it. >> I can tell you um you're talking about really about the stone walls. There's beginnings, you know, they started to build stone walls all along this and never really finished it. Um
it's very easy to follow. You can walk through here. You can see this is definitely an old way going through here and I'm talking a deer. There's a big stone over here with Don't ask me how it happened if the saw machine's sitting on top of it. >> Yeah, it's kind of a strange thing to
find out in the woods, but um it >> Yeah, it's um I did physically go survey this. We actually started going up this path which is not shown on me in the plans um thinking where is this going and then
that's the wrong one. started going up this way and that's how it came out. And it's it's easy to follow, but you talked about the wetlands. This doesn't go this area here. This cop path goes right through. There's actually uh a stone small stone bridge that you go over.
>> Okay. Can you bring up the one that's on page 20? >> Page 20 of the packet. You said >> Yeah. Is this what you wanted? This is page 20. >> Uh, it doesn't look like it.
Let me squeeze it down. Um, it it's a topographic map. Yeah, that's it. >> Oh, okay. >> So, if you could >> squeeze it into the lot or where where the
right there. >> Oh, here it is. >> And come in. You're right in the center. So, come in further and come in. Come in. So, you see the The road with the walls, I believe, is
the one that shows up as a road going east. >> Yep. >> And then it starts to dot. >> So, where is the lot? I think this is the same you're asking
about right here. Yep. >> This is the same bump, I believe, that's shown on on Greg's plan. So the lava would be about big here. >> So it's south of that south of the >> and when it turns when it turns south
it's now coming onto the pel >> and did you say it continues? Did I hear you say it did continue east to division road at one time? >> I I didn't survey it. I did see it in some of my research the references to going division. >> You
>> I had seen a reference in something that I took today that said it connects horse neck to division. >> Well, this shows that it almost gets to it elevation 123 to the right stops.
Yeah. >> Could that presumably be improved all the way through >> from? Yeah, >> I think it goes through somebody's yard. But uh you can see these houses. There's
a house right on this whole map. There's a house right where it comes in. >> But but I mean you could buy that lot, tear the house down and build. Could you, my question is, can you improve this way,
this ancient way to the three-way subdivision standards to a town standard? >> I think I think the big piece of property to the east of theirs
is land trust land. So, I think this goes through land trust land. So, it can't beat the bonds at least. I think most land fresh land can't you know I
Mr. Chair, I I I think the board is illquipped to make legal determinations and u and I am mindful of you know it's it's Westport and we have people that have
mild mile long driveways and you know but but some of those exist for quite a long time. Um so I mean if the building inspector is asking us for a legal opinion I don't think we can give legal opinions.
Um, if he's asking then I guess the question is he's asking for a road for us to make a judgment about a road that doesn't exist. That is the the thing that will be built
inside the 22t ement. Is that adequate? Right now it's woods. It's not a road. I suppose we could can we could condition that with
fire trucks fire department standards or something if we I mean I'm I'd like to help the people. I just I don't know if we have any ability to help the people.
But I I have a question. Um from Mr. Cup's driveway to where you going to I assume that's where the easement starts to this lot. How far is that?
>> 80 ft. >> It's a stones throw. Yeah. It's not very far. Um in fact, we currently use it. Um it just naturally was there um from the past people using it. Um and you can
turn trucks around. In fact, the Habitat for Humanity um cat sanctuary, sorry. Um they park down there while they're visiting Guptail and tending to cats and often times we have to move cars around just to um because they just park kind
of out in the open but they actively use it as extra parking area. So I guess it still comes down to do we decide that the path is on their property and that is sufficient
for us to determine that there is front on a way in existence or a way that used to exist. So, Michael's talked to town council about this or not?
>> We haven't we haven't sent it. Would you like me to make the request? >> Yeah, I'm sort of going back to what Bob just stated in the making a legal determination
here. I'd like to have the benefit of our town council's input. >> Yeah. If I may, all I can share from previous correspondences, I have correspondence from the town council before. He disagreed with a few of my
points, but the thrust of it was he couldn't read he agreed with Ralph. He couldn't read the deed. And he um but he made clear in bold that you know that the that what we're asking for could be
conditioned on in relation to the proposed use of the land. He put that in bold. Um, and then he went on to speak about, you know, deed references and how they are case laws accepted them as existing. But I, in my view, I think this board could
make that determination. You know, either way, I think you're well within your power to make the determination. Um, >> so I I I think it's not a legality. It's a question of do we consider this card
path a former ancient way and that I'm sure there's a multitude of case laws about this kind of stuff. The problem that we also have is if we
if we make a decision, there's a myriad of um lots that are have no no access, no frontage in Westport.
And there's all kinds of farm paths through the woods and How do you determine basically, you know, I've read stuff that says, well, if it was on an old map that the town had, then it's an ancient way, but I'm
sure this was not. >> This is right up there through 1977. >> Yeah, I'm talking about 1700, 1800, stuff like that. Well, you you've certainly got a if I may, you certainly have it referenced on a plan on a USGS
map that was surveyed in the 30s. But yeah, but I because it's an old plan, I have it in front of me. Um the USDA, uh I really can't see where this lot
really falls. Um, and does that dotted line cross the corner of the line? >> I I would take the view that that shape that curve that that mirrors the same
curve that's that's in existence today that Greg that Greg personally surveyed. Mhm. >> And and just, you know, not maybe not to belver the point, but I would say to any folks out there that have may have a car path, you know, you know, um this board
is always it's a case-byase basis and that and those applicants would have to do the deed research and and the and the plan research. >> Mr. Chair, I wondered if uh if we might
uh make a ruling with uh some conditions uh that said uh that based on the reference uh in historical deeds uh to this path
uh that uh we determine that this path uh provides uh legal frontage. But uh
that determination is conditional on uh this being uh used as one lot for one house and access being provided as shown in the map. So that the uh cart path is
not developed. It frontage but it should not be developed. And so our I don't know if we can uh uh make that finding whether that would allow Ralph to say okay that's what I
need. Um and then what you're securing as the conditions are two things. one that the cart path does not get developed and two that the 10 acres doesn't get subdivided. I don't I I don't think we can make a
determination that that the the cop path by legal frontage but but but I could I could see a way to
say to have a condition that if they build the easement and it's 14 ft and there's gravel and there has a T turn around at the bottom for fire trucks and you know open up all that kind of stuff. We we could determine that thing. If
they did that thing, it would be adequate to have one house on 10 acres that that I think we could go there, but I don't think we need.
>> So, if we did that, um would that be adequate for Ralph? >> Oh, I it may not. It does not answer the question. Is this the basic question he's asking is is this a building lot because it doesn't have any frontage on anything, >> right?
and and you know we're going to make you know then you know and then you know so now we're going to say that that that that cod path in the woods when you when you look at some of the photographs you know
it's really a for path in the woods and it's got water standing in its ruts and no I I agree Um, so I guess I would entertain a motion to do what you suggested
uh and let them see if that would be adequate for Iran. I mean, and say we have no problem with them building a one family house, one on the lot with no other houses.
um and say that obviously it had been determined that it's a it's a way in existence up to 100 ft from your lot and you're going to improve the access to the lot to the same
standard. Do you pull up the plan that shows that easement? I I don't you know I mean there's there's nothing before us that's that says oh yeah they have a right to that easement and we don't know who's
granting that easement to them. We don't none of that's before us. So we you know I mean this idea that oh yeah well that that's all okay. I I don't I don't you know as I sit here I don't know that's okay. I don't >> can May I
>> Yes. There there today exists DD rights very general very permissive easement between the Smith property which would be burdened by that specific easement and the Hannes family. So that exists today. What we would probably try to achieve is
to get a a more specific which I don't imagine would be an issue because there are friends and this is already exists a very general easement but if the question is I don't know if there's there is an easement today right now I have a copy of it right here um that allows uh ingress and egress over the
Smith property to gain access to the Hannes property. >> So I think we need to upgrade the easement to >> I agree. >> Yeah. I mean, that's just that's two two lines. >> The ability the ability to to upgrade
the the easement to the same standard as the rest of the road with the same with their same the same dimensions of the way in existence up to that point, but with uh
the details of our base material for a a gravel road. >> Understood. Does this does this plan have a title to it? What how what are we what are you referring to?
>> This was a site site plan of land and easement. >> But this is not recorded, right? This is not a recording. >> It's not recorded. >> Yeah, it was drawn for this. >> Say again. Sorry. >> It was it was drawn for this application. >> It I don't know why it was drawn. It was
it came along with the ENRAD plan. >> That was just a plan showing proposed eastment. >> Okay. >> A survey plan of the entire land. I just added that eastment to show this is where the driveway and utilities and whatnot going. Bearing in mind it was a generic eastment to say you can all this
other property to get there. >> And Greg, this is a 81X. This is an existing lot line. >> 81. I'm sorry. Oh yeah. Yes. Yeah, it would be. >> Yep. >> Cuz um I don't believe that property was ever surveyed besides the notes that are
on that plan 17 something or there are monuments out there and the side by office is actually the registered land plan that you found. >> U Mr. Mr. Chair, I I'll offer a motion
that um and you forget the uh if if the uh easement shown on and dear, you have to fill in whatever that title of that plan is. Mhm. Mhm. >> If the uh 22 ft wide easement shown on
plan, you filled in the reference were to be developed with a gravel way connecting to
as as shown to the existing gravel way. um that um the board the board would would determine that that provided adequate access
for a single home. part of it >> and it goes to the second page too because it relates to subdivision control. >> Yeah, I don't I I don't think we can say it because this is this way doesn't exist.
I mean the I mean the thing we see in the photographs exists the thing with the stone walls that exists but the thing that's giving them adequate access the 22t wide easement
>> that that's that's if if that were to be connected to the the gravel way that has the trucks on it and everything that if they were to build this to be 14 ft wide with a stable grappled surface and um connected
to the road where it it is developed that that would provide adequate access for a single home on the 10acre lot that I think is something we could do and it doesn't make a judgment about
whether that access is legalization. So, uh, this says in our agenda that this is a discussion topic, not a ruling, right? And so, what uh Bob has suggested
is guidance uh for them to come back with how that easement would be constructed. And uh if you did that then it seems like there might be a sense on the board
that we would uh provide the ruling. And and I think it may be good uh to have planning staff talk with Ralph about uh you know what
what does he think he needs from us? So that when we craft a motion, when we see the specs on that 80 foot by 20 ft easement, that uh we'll know that the
motion before us is something that Ralph says, "Yep, that's what I need." >> Okay. >> Does that make sense? >> Yeah. Is this a discussion item or is this >> um so >> I put a motion in
>> Yeah, I'm sorry. I don't typically do the staff report. So, um I it was put into key action items, but in the past we've motioned on this kind of determination. Um, >> so uh
I think do you you have an idea what where we're going? >> Yeah. >> And I think what I would like to do is have a motion to continue this to the next meeting. >> Okay. have time to talk about it in the planning department and with town council
>> and with Ralph >> and have you come back at the next meeting? >> Would that be acceptable to you? >> Can can I have a moment? >> May I ask a question? >> Mr. Chair, would that uh motion be on
the condition that the applicants resubmit um a plan showing the easement, the proposed changes to the easement? Okay, >> Mr. Chair, can I do the meeting after your next meeting, which which is when? >> Absolutely. >> When is that meeting? >> Sorry.
>> No, that's okay. Give me one second. >> Be the 21st of uh April, >> please. >> Tuesday 21st of April. >> Yep. So, >> okay. Motion to continue. >> A motion to continue to April 21st,
2020. >> I I make a second, >> chair. I make a motion to continue this to the April 21st. >> Second. >> Second. >> All those in favor? I >> thank you very much. Thank you.
>> Okay. Next is uh it's not a discussion topic even though it's labeled as approval not required. ANR 38 system lane farm file number 26-3729. A request by Vanessa Carmelo for
endorsement of a two lot plan of land located at 38 city farm lane dividing assessor's map 51 lot 44M into one building lot Nicholas of South Coast Engineering. Uh
if you recall I was hearing last week to discuss the um feasibility of this plan which is on the um on the table um to see whether or not it was entitled with an endorsement. The question we had was
the fact that there's a stone wall built out into the um right of way. So there it is. So what we have here um we have an existing 4.2 acre parcel of land and the
proposal here is to subdivide this into two lots. One with the existing house well septic system is actually right here. That would be lot one with this tail over here to make up the area. Lot two would be the remaining land which
would be accessible off the existing system farm lane with the edge of gravel right over here. Drive and be built to the building site to be down on this area. We do have an excess of 150 ft of furnage. We do have um well over 60,000
square ft and well over 30,000 ft of upland. As I mentioned at the previous hearing, this land uh the line land line has gone through conservation. It's been approved by ANRAD. We have four successful Perfect sites on the um on the property. So, without regurgitating
the whole thing I said last time, that's pretty much it. >> Okay. So, uh uh Mr. Nicholas appeared before us at our last meeting and went over this. Um and I misspoke. It is dividing this into two building blocks,
not one. Um and he was here for a preapp application which was uh we appreciate that a lot. >> Thank you. >> Um and u one member wasn't here for that. Uh but I don't know if you have
any questions about this. >> No, I think this is straightforward. Yeah. >> And and this is a a way that was created under the subway. >> Correct. Yes. Got a motion, please. I
>> I move to endorse the ANR plan for 38 Sison Farm Lane 26-3729A pursuant to Mass General Laws Chapter 41 section 81P. >> Second. >> All those in favor?
>> I thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Next is the 6:15 public hearing only an hour late. uh for zero hybrid road file number 26-3482
SP- FFF request by Eric and Jillian Reposa to modify the conditions of approval for a special permit flexible frontage requesting to strike any reference to a future common driveway
from item number 1D map 42 lots 1 T3 7 and 8-2. >> Hello. >> Uh my name is Ryan Dvali with Heritage Realy and Custom Homes. I'm a real
estate agent, also a builder. Um here to speak for the owners, uh Eric and Jillian, as well as I have uh clients that are looking to purchase this property. Um, and within our due diligence, we we spoke with Greg
actually with the owners and with planning board staff uh just to get some clarification on the decision for the fle flexible frontage that was granted in 2023. Uh, Mr. Burus actually issued us an opinion letter uh which I don't know if
the board has um basically stating he does not believe that a special permit or the construction of a shared driveway is required uh per the decision. Um however with the the buyers uh obviously outlaying a significant amount of money
and consulting with their attorney just as a matter of kind of dotting our eyes and crossing our tees. Um there's some generic language and a couple references in the decision um about a shared driveway to be built noted on the
plans and such and such as that. Uh Mr. Burrus did insist that that wouldn't be enforced. A um shared driveway for this property would not be required, but I know planners can change, building inspectors could change. uh I saw the only path forward to just protect my
clients was to have a conversation with the board either as a modification or a uh amendment to get the decision just clarified because it was uh everyone discussed it as kind of a gray area. So just to make sure that that we were covered. Um I do know that when the the
hearings were held there were some other restrictions on the property clearing areas and and things of that nature that you know meets the requirement of the bylaw. the way it was written and the the way the property is, um, you know, trip counts, all that. We're talking
about a couple houses, none of that's affected by the shared driveway. It still meets those requirements. So, just wanted to have the conversation with the board and make sure we were on the same page. >> Okay. I I think I remember this and I
think the shared driveway was put in uh hoping that they would have a shared driveway instead of two separate driveways, but you're telling me they don't want to do that. I guess >> that my purchase is at least correct. They do not want to do that. They would
not move ahead to purchase if they had to do that. Um, and if on these properties, to be honest, if we zoomed in a little at the frontage, I've built plenty of properties with shared driveways. A lot of times you're going in 200 ft with a shared driveway,
maybe for three or more parcels, and then you might split off from here. Here, it would it would literally come in and immediately V off. There would be no practical benefit to a shared driveway. It would be in name only. Um so for that reason I would you know ask for
that language to be stricken mainly because it's it's doesn't serve a practical purpose in this case to eliminate imperous area or anything in my opinion. >> Okay. So you have limited frontage on the culde-sac for for
lot two and lot one. So how far apart would the driveways be? Um, we would typically if I was building on both properties, which I wouldn't be, but if I was, I would I would go near the center of the frontage. And typically, we only have about a 15 foot
curb cut, just enough for a 12t driveway with radi. Um, it appears this one is about 50, and this is about 30. So, if we went in the center, uh, 25 about 8, 15, they'd be 20 22 feet apart,
give or take. nothing I don't see pretty frequently in a lot of subdivisions that I do where you have driveways around culde-sacs. >> So I I I believe that if we didn't have a shared driveway
uh agreement uh the the listing of the shared driveway on the plan is meaningless unless you really want to do it. Do you? >> Right. So, the original decision references this future common driveway
without requiring one. The approved plans for the special permit for flexible frontage don't require or delineate this common driveway. Since potential buyers are confused, the seller wants to mitigate that confusion. So condition of approval item number 1D would be amended to say on the approved
plan sublotss one and two shall incorporate clearing areas marked on each proposed lot to restrict clearing of the vegetation outside of the defined area. This would include the building envelope. Um I've talked with staff and town planner and um we don't see issue with this modification.
>> Any comments, questions? >> Do these lots one and two have required frontage? for flexible front. >> For flexible flexible frontage, >> so it it stays. Okay, I get you. Yeah.
>> You know, versus lot one is 5 and 3/4 acres. >> Yeah. >> So they got to have 30 foot frontage. >> So you the way the B bylaw works is if the lot so large we can shrink the frontage requirement.
>> Okay. Yeah. And lot two was eight acres. Yeah, there was originally, as I recall, there was a a yield plan showing an additional lot, right? >> Correct. Yes. >> Correct. Okay. So, >> you want a motion, please? Uh, I move to
approve the modification to the conditions of approval for special permit flexible frontage file with town clerk on October 4th, 2023 and with the registry of deeds book uh 15159,
page 271 to strike any reference to a future common driveway from item 1D. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Have a good week. >> Yep. >> You too.
>> Thank you. Thank you very much. >> Okay. Next is uh the 6:30 public hearing for 854 State Road file number 26-3302 SBA Minor. This is rescheduled for March
10th, 2026. Applicant is requesting approval to construct a 30x60 storage building to be used for general storage and light welding activities. >> Good evening. For the record, my name is Peter Celino. I'm a lawyer. My address
is 550 Locust Street in Fall River. I represent the property owner applicant, Mr. Msceto, and with us is Kevin Silva here from SK Engineering. Okay. >> The proposal before you I think is somewhat simplistic. Uh my client is a
mobile welder, so he doesn't have any employees. He does residential, commercial, and marine welding. Um he does things like railings. Uh so he might put them together in the proposed structure and then bring them to New Bedford and fasten them to a ship. What
his objective here uh is is to build this structure, which is 30 by 60 as indicated. Uh he would store in that structure his personal tools and vehicles associated with his business. Um the size of the structure is really a product of him wanting to work and keep
things out of the weather. Uh as the board knows, if he was at 1,000 square ft, then uh he would not need the approval of the board, but he's looking to go with a 1300 uh square foot dimension in order that he can fit his
trucks and still have a workspace in the uh premises. the I have seen the comments uh from the engineer and obviously our engineer is here to respond to any comments or questions the board or the assistant planner may have for us. Um but in terms of the scope of
the project, it's Mr. Msceto. He doesn't have employees and the reason he's doing this or requesting this is in order to be able to store his work vehicles and equipment in this location. And I should also note for the record,
zoning is proper. It's a pre-existing non-conforming structure. Its own business, >> right? And on the property, there's already a garage in a house, right? >> That is correct. There's a multif family style structure close to Route 6. Uh there is an existing garage. One of your
consultants comments was show trees on the site. Those trees have been cut down. I think they probably look at Google Earth, >> so the trees are actually not on site. Uh but that was one of the comments that >> Where's Where's the road? Is it to the uh left on that drawing
>> the access in front of the dwelling? >> Uh so Route Six is here and then Washington is the side street. The proposed structure is as depicted here. The driveway as proposed is 47 uh 47 ft. >> Yes, I'm getting Yes, it's 47 ft.
Okay, we have um an extensive uh review by MBL, our consulting engineer, which you have a copy of, right? >> Is this the uh Mr. Chair, the January 16
version? >> Yes. >> Yes, I do have a copy of that. >> Okay. And I don't need to read through the whole thing, but uh they have
uh some flags about storm water. Uh and I think basically the the big issue is the storm water uh where where it's going is too close to the well is from what I understand.
That's how I read it as well. >> And um it's a state law. It's not our law. And it's something that they tell us that can't be waved.
So the question of how to move things around so that the storm water infiltration is not too close to the existing well um is something that can be done by
reducing the u imperous surface. So the calculation would be different uh and then you wouldn't have a problem. Um, so the expert on the board just returned.
I'm not sure he's had a chance to to look at this uh plan. U but I think they've had just Dia can tell us they've had lots of back and forth with a consulting engineer.
How how can we get around this problem? And so from our perspective, we want to encourage businesses here. We want this is from our perspective, this is fine, but it's
not going to meet state storm water standards and therefore wouldn't be allowed. So >> may I respond? >> Yeah. Oh, >> okay. I'm sorry. Dia could give some feedback on the give and take
back and forth with the consulting engineer. >> Do you want me to comment just on this um storm water recharge issue or do you want me to present my whole review at this point? >> Well, let's start with the recharge. Sure. That's the most important thing. >> Yeah. So, there are kind of three main issues that staff finds with this
project. Number one being the location of these recharge chambers. MA storm water and well guidelines um don't offer any waiver from these setback regulations. So the project needs to result in a net decrease of imperous surface to eliminate the need for recharge on site. Um so that's how we've
concluded to um get around those setback requirements which we cannot wave. There's one option to convert the proposed driveways to gravel and reduce the impervious area by an additional 200 feet on site to result in a net decrease of imperous surface. Option two, which I
find is the one that I would recommend, is to keep the proposed walkway and the proposed unit and eliminate all rem all remaining proposed impervious areas. Um, that would leave an additional 983 square ft of imperous surface to reduce. The engineer might have to verify those
dimensions. Can can you explain Dia uh where they propose reducing imperous surface now >> and then what your recommendation is in terms of additional uh removals of
imperous surface? >> So they're recommending removal. Can you see my cursor? >> Yeah. >> They're removing it here. >> Yeah. >> They're removing a section here and then they're adding a section here and here. My recommended choice is to keep this
proposed walkway for access to the proposed unit, but to eliminate the remaining proposed areas, mainly being this curb cut here. Um, and then they would have to convert an additional 983 square ft to um to or convert it from
impervious to non-imperous. >> And where where would they get that? >> They could reduce the size of the structure. >> Mhm. By how much? >> The engineer needs to uh verify the
findings, but the consulting engineer gave us a number of 983 square ft. >> I think there's also an existing >> total impervious area they got to reduce. >> Yes. >> Based on this plan. >> Yes. >> With keeping everything else on the plan
that they're >> so that would reduce the garage by half. The first option that was proposed was converting both these driveways to porous pavements and then they just have to reduce the impervious area by 200 ft. But staff finds an issue with this
proposed curb cut already, which is why I went for the second recommendation to remove it. >> So what you and Michael are suggesting is not have that curve cut on Washington, not the new curb cut,
>> right? just use the old dry, >> right? >> Yeah. >> So that would reduce a lot of >> Right. >> And also >> I don't know. I mean, so the the driveway now goes between those two red
blocking things right there. >> Arbo VT. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Could they have that whole end of the uh what's that? the west end of the building, you know, maybe have two doors or something. So, you've got that open up.
>> Mhm. >> So, because you're going to you'd lose these uh access doors >> on the south end of the building, the long side. >> But if you increase the openings on this western end of the building, would that
give you would that give the applicant enough access and out of the building? Can Can you turn the building? >> Can I >> Could we have a chance to respond, please? All right. So, Kevin Silva, SK Engineering. >> For the record, Kevin Silva, SNK
Engineering. Um, as far as our last question, turning the building, it will not fit because of the uh septic system that's there currently. >> Okay. And in regards to the infiltration field, this uh
this is a clean roof as they quote in storm water management and it's to a drywall. It's not treating a galvanized or a copper roof. So you don't need the setback reduction as if you were treating um like a
driveway and and trying to infiltrate, you know, beneath the ground. Same thing with a galvanized or a copper roof. So my understanding of the storm water management is that it's a it's a painted roof as and it's clean water and they don't need
to infiltrate it. We were doing that to get some credit because we were adding the driveway to access the building. In regards to uh eliminating this this he would have difficulty getting his trucks in and out
of here. uh to go to work every day because he has several trucks that he has all equipped depending on what he's welding. So driving straight in is more convenient and more beneficial to go straight in without having to block. This garage will be used for the his him
and his uh partner um to put their cars in residential. They live there. They actually live on the property. So he's just trying to keep everything combined in here. And this if we didn't put the infiltration field, this water could
just discharge onto the ground and onto the grass and over to the well as if as this this roof is less than 50 ft away. Uh and then roof water goes onto the ground and towards the well just the same.
So, you're saying that the the uh Massachusetts requirement for storm water uh infiltration setbacks is different if you have a painted roof. >> Well, my interpretation, my experience,
if you have a clean roof, >> what they call a clean roof, and it doesn't have to be treated, it can be just discharged. If it's if it does if it's galvanized or copper or if you're using an infiltration field for a parking lot or a driveway where you're
picking up contaminants, then you have to treat it, keep the separation 2 ft above water table. And this is simply just to slow the water down that's coming off this new uh garage area and give it a chance to infiltrate. It's
going to have overflow on the down spouts which eventually if it ever does flow it'll uh just go onto the ground like a conventional down spot. As far as the impervious area we are eliminating this was a parking driveway area to
access the original business that was here. We're eliminating all this impervious area in front of the building and putting a lawn and landscaping to make a better appearance. And and then part of removing what as uh she she
mentioned, we're removing these two concrete pads um to give back some impervious area in so that we can construct this. >> What is the garage at the top left?
>> That is that's built into the ground. It's kind of it's just been there for years. It's like a it's built in. It's right up against Route 60. Is it used? >> Uh, are you using it currently? >> Not at the moment, but I'm going to probably put my lawn mower, stuff to
clean the yard with. That's kind of the intention. It is a little rund down, but >> if I can do all this eventually, I'd like to put some money in that garage. >> It's very small. It's almost like a shed. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, um
I guess we have to do some more back and forth with the consulting engineer to determine this. Uh the other issues do you want to go over? >> Can I can I just ask one? How many trucks do you have that you'd want to put in this? >> I have two trucks right now and welding
machines and other equipment. That would be nice to, >> but you're saying with two trucks and a 30 foot wide building, you couldn't come in the 30 foot uh the wall to the west. How did the trucks get in the way if there's just two of them?
>> Well, that 30 ft. >> Well, the shop's going to be filled with uh steel cutting equipment, and I'm going to use it as a small fabrication shop. So >> to have access to all those doors, you'd have room in the shop to maneuver,
you know. Well, I mean, I think you could park the two trucks on the west side, side by side, so you can take out either one you want and then do your work area to the east of them and you'd have the same amount of room. You're just coming in
from a different direction. But it's not that you'd have to move two one truck to get your other truck out. >> Well, in my opinion, you you know, you'd probably, this is how I look at it, you'd park your trucks here. I'm going to try to put my brake press here, my
shear here, and you have your small access work area here. Welding tables, iron worker shear, some steel racks. You know, it gets 30x60. If I could go bigger, I would. But that's, you know, that's all we can fit
on the property. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Very, you want to go over the the other comments? >> Sure. So, I'll share the two other issues that staff finds and then I'll go through the review, but I'll I'll try and be a little fast because it's a thick review. Um, the issue number two
would be the curb cut. So, site plan approval does ask for typically one entrance or exit on a property or on a lot. In addition, staff and highway do find that the dimensions of that proposed curb cut will lead to either vehicular turnaround in the roadway or potential points of conflict with the
inter uh intersection with Route Six and Washington Street. So staff finds that an elimination of that proposed curb cut would probably be most beneficial to the site. Number three, drainage. Drainage from that curb cut to Washington Street must be mitigated and
retained on site. and drainage from that swale on the eastern side also directs right into Washington Street. We didn't get any comments from Mass D, but Highway did confirm that they would um need that storm water to be mitigated as well. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> May I respond to some of that? >> Sure. >> This trench, this is a stone trench also picking up the water from this huge complex that's all coming off the hill coming this direction. This is a a stone trench that's just it's set up like a
swale with this two-foot stone trench proposed to absorb the water and then again infiltrate anything that's coming on from other properties to help counteract uh the impervious area that we're proposing.
Now, my client could and is willing if if the board is really hung up on that portion, we could make this portion of the drive with stone to smaller the curve cut. But if even if we use this access, he's still going to have to back
his truck out as he does now. He's eliminating this curve cut. He's he's eliminating the use of this for his trucks. Uh and he's going to be using it here. He parks him. It's not like it's put traffic in and out in and out of here daily. It's when he gets up
and goes to work, backs out and leaves. >> So, is the trench proposed or existing? >> Yes. I'm sorry. >> Is it proposed or existing? >> Is what proposed? >> The trench. >> This is proposed. >> Okay. And so, how do how do you deal with the storm water that comes off that
hill now? the salt water comes right out to his his property and just sheds off. So, by adding catching it and and deterring it to this trench, it'll absorb it, delay it, detain it a little, and then allow
it to infiltrate. Uh, this catches the roof as it's called a dry well, if you will, for that section of storm water that they refer to. Um, and that that'll absorb the water and as well as detain it. So it has less runoff. Uh it's sized
to hold one inch of water on the entire roof. That's how much capacity is there with the stone. Um >> and after one inch of rain, what happens >> after 1 in of rain? It'll depending on I
I was I didn't do snow measurement as we were directed. We didn't need it for this project. So uh I would imagine after one this I'd have to figure out the infiltration rate how much gets infiltrated. So I don't know how much
would even be I don't know how much capacities could take without calculating the infiltration rate. But if there's overflows on the down spouts, which what it would just fill up fill up all the piping and then overflow through
the downspouts >> as it does now come back out onto the property, >> right? And >> go on go on to Washington Street. >> Well, it all flows to Washington Street currently. The purpose of these two uh
drainage structures is to detain it so that it simulates what's there currently. >> Right. So do do this is a minor site plan or a site plan? >> This is a minor site plan. >> Can I ask a question?
Can I Sure. >> Uh this is uh to you and to Dia. Uh you you said that you're going to do a clean roof, which is painting it white, which gets you some relief in terms of it's
clean water that gets discharged. My question and I don't know the answer to this is uh do you get relief if instead of doing a clean roof you do a green roof that is with uh planting beds
succulents it's not a lot of maintenance but what that does is absorb the water uh so it greatly reduces uh storm uh runoff. >> Correct. The green roof is a whole different angle. Yeah.
>> That uh that is adding impervious. I mean uh obviously you probably know that grass and landscaping on top of the roof. Yeah. >> That increases the style of the structure. The expense to build it. The structural members in there have to be
upsized to hold the earth uh that's going to be on top of there plus the snow load. So it does create a a huge expense on top of this. Um this infiltration here that we're proposing in this little drywall is to simulate uh
the dry to the pinous area that the green roof but the green roof water would sit on there on top of the roof and the plants would basically try to eat it and evaporate drink it and evaporate. Uh, but it still has an
overflow as well that would go out to >> Yeah. >> down spouts on the bigger stones, >> but not as much. >> Uh, I don't know about as much. I I personally haven't >> tested one. I don't particularly not a fan of a green roof.
>> Uh, tell that opens up to complication. >> Yeah. >> So, is this a flat roof or >> This is got a minor pitch to it. >> A minor pitch. >> It's a It's a pre-ordered building. uh steel building. Um
and he bought this property to because its own business with the intent to uh get his business here. >> Okay. So, uh do you want to go over the other comments?
>> Sure. >> All right. Um I'll try and be quick. Just a little bit about the history and proposed use. The current owner owner bought this property in 2025 and the new ownership's not reflected in the mapping database as of yet. Um, the plaque
contains an existing dwelling built in 1910 in two garages. The smaller garage not being in use and the larger garage currently being used for storage. After the after the proposed storage unit is built, the larger garage will be used for parking and the storage unit will be used to store commercial equipment for the applicant/owner's business clients
will not be accessing. When it comes to the intensity regulations for minimum law area frontage and setback requirements, the lot it is non-conforming but no new lots are being created and the non-conformity will not increase. Um and then it meets all the setback requirements. When it comes to
section 8 general regula general regulations, excuse me, of site plan review um waiverss, no waivers are proposed for per performance standards. There's a proposed driveway which includes a pedestrian walkway to the entrance of the storage unit. The
existing concrete driveway to the garage will be resurfaced and improved for safety and quality. The existing paved walkway to the dwelling is to be removed and seated as mitigation for the proposed impervious surface. Planning and highway staff find that the public roadway could be utilized for site circulation which is not permissible
under the site plan rules and regulations. So it would be an inappropriate use of town road that would create negative impacts to site distances and create additional points of conflict at the Route 6 and Washington Street intersection. So >> can you repeat that please? >> Sure. And basically what I'm going to
say is staff recommends eliminating the proposed driveway and utilizing the existing concrete drive and proposed walkway as access. Um because planning and highway staff find that the that the public roadway of Washington Street could be utilized for sight circulation off of the existing off of the proposed
curb cut which is not permissible under our rules and regs. >> So explain that. So highway you're talking about our highway >> our highway department. Yep. >> Is stating that that that they're going to use that for circulation. >> They Yeah. They felt like the curb cut
didn't have a large enough dimension to accommodate for vehicular trucks like parking and unloading. And they foresaw that those trucks would be potentially backing out into Washington Street. Um and Route Six's the turning radius of Route Six into Washington Street could
also create points of conflicts if cars are turning around right at the intersection. So if he's taking his material from there to the Bedford to use, he's backing out once.
>> That's an issue. >> I think staff highway was concerned, you know, if other people are dropping off materials for him or any kinds of other vehicles that would be use accessing the property for his storage purposes. in
five years. Uh if we were to use this driveway that's there now, they would still have to back out on a six, which would be closer, I mean out to Washington Street, which is closer to the entrance of Route 6. So, by pushing
it over here, the minimum use of this driveway, like you just mentioned, once a day, come back at night, and when he leaves, it's it's only one in and out, and he's backing out and going. If he goes over here, he's still going to have to back out as well.
>> Why? I I don't understand why that's the case. Why couldn't he back out the short end of the building and and back up and then drive forward out out in other words back towards the existing garage
and then drive forward. I don't understand why he has to back all the way to Washington Street >> because he's his his trucks are full of equipment. >> Yeah. So >> So they back up, right? >> They do. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> But he's going to have him parked here and this is just for him to access to do room to get into his building and do his work in this area. >> Well, he could work in the other area though. I I I know you have the idea of
how you want to set that up, but we are talking about an alternative way because of storm water. So I think what you need to do is think about is there another way to get this done that still provides the enclosed work area and provides
parking for two trucks. There may be another solution than what you have laid out. I I I hope you would consider the possibility and that would include backing out the the uh uh left side of the building, backing towards
the garage so you can then enter Washington Street going forward instead of backing. I don't understand why that's not possible. I'm not saying it's not possible, but it's it's just not convenient for what he's trying to do.
>> And and the the other question is um if you turn the building uh you could have the one skinny end closer to Washington Street than it is now. Uh >> I don't have the distance from the uh
septic system. If I turn the building in and the and the offset from the road >> I I don't see how that can be. I mean what's the it's a corner lot. So is the 25 ft setback from both streets
or is it just one >> from both? >> Okay. Gotcha. >> It says in the case of corner lots there shall be a setback requirement of 25 ft from the street line to the side of any building or structure. Right. >> As the um consultant said about the
storm water management, I if I read if you want to read that again, I believe they said that we're compensating by getting rid of all this impervious area for this and we could we could make this a two- bay garage for him to get his
trucks in and make the rest stone if that would satisfy the board's concerns. Um, we could make that third bay just stone as if it was like stone landscaping >> or we could leave it at grass and if he's got to use it, he's going to he'll drive over the grass. It's just a
cleaner a cleaner operation and for clean up in the winter like we had if it's paid. Stone is just a little more difficult to maintain. >> Well, you could have pvious pavement, right? >> But you could Yes, >> you have that. You'd mentioned that
>> as one option too, >> right? >> Does that give you any any storm water credits for previous pay? >> I'm not really the looking for any storm water credits here. I was just looking to eliminate the previous area versus
the storm water. Uh we're trying to infiltrate the roof here to eliminate the runoff concern of the roof. Uh, I didn't do a stove wire analysis on this parcel uh because it takes a lot of time
and money and we said we didn't need it. So, I didn't want to take my client. Um, >> so we're we're just we're not asking you to do a storm water analysis. >> Okay. >> What we're trying to figure out is there
a way to make this plan compliant with Massachusetts. So the infiltration uh that is required or that you're using >> is further away from the well and that's
that's it. So how to do that? You can either reduce impervious surface so that you have less water going into the well and I don't know what that means. You can move it somewhere else. >> Well he does have tunnel water here. >> Yeah.
>> That just got brought to his property. Yeah, it's not hooked up to it yet, but he does have it available. >> Well, that would change a lot. So, >> but you have you'd have to tell you'd have to part of the approval would be that
you're hooking up to water. >> I haven't thought about it too much. >> Uh, I don't know. The well works pretty good. Uh >> so the water >> so I guess I'd have to think about that. >> I understand uh they'll bring the pipe right to your building
which is unusual. There's no betterment which is really unusual. So all you have to do is pipe it from where they drop it off into your building. But then you have to pay the bill every month.
>> Yeah. Again, we didn't even think of that because this is considered in my eyes, in my interpretation, a drywall, it's not a treatment. It's not to treat this so well. It's just to store it and allow it to infiltrate into the ground.
Again, if it was galvanized or copper or if I was infiltrating the driveway, then I would say you'd have all those concerns and setbacks. I mean, unless there's a regulation that I missed somewhere that says that's you cannot do that. I I read it over the one he quoted
and if you read it um you could see the regulation from storm water, the storm water handbook terminology does say that the uh if it's not copper or galvanized, you
could discharge roof into a dry weather. And this would I I would consider more of a dry well as acting as a detention point, if you will. >> I I think they could solve their
problems by connecting to the public water. That would be a solution. And if they want to keep the well, then I think they have to shrink it. It's 47 ft wide. The lanes on the highway are only 12 feet
wide. You know, that driveway is 47 feet wide. Truck's only 8 ft wide. >> Yeah. So, so for me, I mean, it would be more of loading and unloading your truck. I mean, that space gets very
small very quick. >> I mean, you mean you'd load and unload it on the driveway? Is that what you're saying? Well, that wouldn't make sense to me cuz if you know you have a table here, I mean, the space gets filled up. I mean, you'd have your truck >> over here with the door open. You pick
uh you all the machine up with a forklift and put it right on the truck, you know, and that doesn't happen every day, but to to maneuver that in the building uh probably wouldn't happen considering it's a 30x 60.
I mean that that's so the drive I mean I'd be open to make this gravel. I don't know if that changes uh anything >> porous pa wood >> buildings or >> cuz gravel's considered like as
>> we're not going to solve this sitting here. So what I would suggest is we continue to the next meeting. give your engineer time to talk with our consulting engineer to come up with a mutual solution, but bearing in mind
that we don't have the ability to wave the requirement if you're subject to it. >> Okay. And then you're referring to the will for that requirement. Is that what you're referring to? >> The the distance >> to the well >> to the well.
That's the main thing. And then the other things are, are you suggesting some vegetative buffer and stuff like that? But >> yeah, vegetative buffer. They didn't realize there is a fence here. >> Okay. >> A PVC fence that's currently here, brand
new. It's 6 ft high. Acts has the um barrier. He's proposing another over here to sec keep his backyard private. Um so he is proposing some vegetation here. He's putting the lawn and vegetation in the front and landscaping
that as part of this >> as he develops. >> Okay. Before we talk about continuing, do you have more comments? >> I do. Um, let me try and um kind of breeze through
them just so we're all on the same page before you know any motions >> come through. Um, so the proposed structure and use is screened by those arbor vite that front on Washington Street. We find that there's potential for those trees to create sight distance issues. So we're recommending shrubs
instead. Um, let's see. The fire department, sorry, never mind. Staff recommends eliminating the driveway utilizing the existing driveway. No comments from the fire department.
Um you said that the trees we said that the trees that are going to be filled need to be proposed on the plans. It seems like that's already incorporated. Those trees have come down. Um the recharge chambers, there's a comment about relocating the recharge chambers.
The building fits in with the surrounding area. The board of health had no comments. Um just making sure that storm water needs to be retained on site. Um installed lighting must be downward cast and fully shielded. No lighting plan was
proposed. Um no waiver sought. All right. Not applicable pedestrian circulation and then I'll skip to the findings. So the summary of findings from the zoning bylaws. Number one, the staff and
highway department agree that there's the potential for the public roadway to be utilized as an extension of the proposed driveway. We've discussed this already. Staff recommends eliminating the proposed driveway and utilizing the existing concrete drive as access. Number two, the proposed structure and use is screened by Arborvite. There's
potential for sight distance issues, so staff recommends shrubs. Number three, the highway department is concerned about potential drainage impacts to Washington Street due to sheet flow off the proposed driveways. The planning board site plan's rules and regulations require on-site storm water management.
Number four, the proposed driveway does not provide adequate space for vehicular turnaround. Staff recommends eliminating this driveway and utilizing the existing driveway as access. Number five is about the trees, so I'm going to skip that. Number six, no lighting plan is submitted. Fully
shielded downcast lights um shall be installed as a condition of approval. Number seven, the highway department being concerned about drainage impacts to Washington Street. Number eight, the proposed recharge chambers not u meeting the setback requirements.
Number nine, the arbor vite again. And then number 10 is about drainage. Number 11 is about the two entrances delinated on the plan. Staff recommends eliminating the proposed entrance. Um number 12, the parking area does not provide ample space for vehicular
turnaround. And these are pretty much a repetition of those. And then the consultant review had some additional findings that the deed book and page information is not labeled correctly. The zoning isn't labeled correctly. Um >> that was all correct. I remember yeah if
you got the new >> I don't think I got the new own representing the old one but I know you've incorporated it. So I I did address that. >> Perfect. Perfect. Thank you. And then MBL also recommends using um you might be able to speak to this HDPE or SH40
PVC piping. >> Schedule 40 SDR35. >> Yeah. Instead of SDR35, >> I upgraded it to schedule 40, but there, in my opinion, I use SDR35 all the time. Okay. All the sewer pipes in most of the towns are SDR35. So they there there's
going to be no traffic on this except for under here. But to to satisfy them, I did upgrade it to the schedule 40. >> Okay. >> So that was >> um just add one expense to >> So I just drew Oh, thank you. some
sample of conditions of approval which hopefully kind of bring us all back to the same page and I'll show them here. The plan including the following missing elements upon resubmission. Existing impervious surfaces to be removed prior to the construction. The driveway to be
removed. The reduction of additional impervious surface. The site being allowed to reveate um permanently the piping. Redesign the storm water system as to not discharge to the state roads or Washington street and to submit all
applicable permits with mass DOT. So if the board feels that a continuence is recommended, um I think their plans to resubmissions should include some of those missing elements and um work through the recharge the recharge on site.
>> Okay. So um I'd like to continue this to either the next meeting or the meeting after to give you time to talk with the the guy from MTL or woman from MTL.
MBL and um come up with a satisfactory way to get around the the mass law, whether it's the painted roof or getting rid of impervious services or
however you do it. That's >> or or tie into town >> or tie into Taiwan. >> Okay. And as far as this driveway, if we were to get rid of what would be the board that allow for a
driveway over here, we are eliminating this driveway that has access and use for parking. >> Y >> that's right up against Route Six as well as there are many other businesses on along Route Six that do the same. Um and this whole watershed I don't know
you can't see it here but if you look at the whole wershed of the area contributing to Route 6 the difference in the impervious lot coverage added by this project is going to be minus compared to the whole wershed that's contributed to Route 6. Yeah,
>> would the board be satisfied if we uh cut a big section of this 47 foot, made it just wide enough for the two bays and made the other one stone. >> I think that would help you get rid of impervious surface. >> Yeah.
>> Uh and that's what you need to figure out how to how to do. I mean it's it's not our requirement for this for the uh storm water infiltration away from the well. So you can change that by getting town water or
you can change that by getting rid of impervious surface which would allow you to do a different way to get rid of the water with regard to the driveway and on Washington Street. I'm willing to listen, but I think so if
you if you narrowed it down some, that's going to help you. And also to have a smaller curb cut is always better. >> Yes. >> For safety reasons. >> Uh Mr. chair. Um I I certainly am um
um approve continuing this and I'll make a motion if you want, but um I I'm not sold on your need for that new driveway. Uh the staff has recommended
that uh you can eliminate that and should eliminate that. Uh I think the new drive the driveway as you propose guarantees that trucks will be backing onto Washington Street. Uh whereas if
you lay out the garage and use the existing driveway, I think you can back using the existing driveway and enter Washington Street driving forward. Uh now that's only one of the findings. the
arbor body. You know, I so my I I really think you need to look at addressing the staff findings. Uh and if you want a motion uh along those lines, Mr. Chair,
I' I'd make it. Do you have a a date you'd prefer to come back? >> Uh I do and I have a question. Um, I think it needs to be more than two weeks, right? >> For the >> Are they two week intervals? The hearings?
>> Uh, we have, uh, April 7th and 21st, >> right? >> So, you think you could be ready for the seventh? I'm not going to be here. The 21st is April school vacation, so I won't be here for that. Um, so the kids are out of school that week, so I won't be here. But,
>> and the next one after that is uh all the way to May 19th. What's it >> April 7th? >> I could Yeah, I think I mean provided I can get it. >> So the applicant will ask the board for April 7th. >> Okay.
>> Okay. And then my question really because it drives this whole discussion and I don't see it answered in the comments. What is the law specifically the CMR that says that the radius is what it says in these comments and why
it can't be waved. So what the comment says is he talks about or she talks about a handbook and recommendations. So if the law is that that 100 foot is mandatory in a CMR then I think we start the discussion with you can't wave it
and therefore we can't ask for it. >> Right? >> If this is a recommendation that's different than the law and I think that drives the discussion maybe in a different direction. So, I think to analyze all facts, I'd respectfully request that somebody can provide us a CMR and we don't get into his
interpretation and your interpretation. It's the law. >> And I think that's a reasonable request to be in a review memo. >> I agree. We'll try. >> Okay. So, the applicant then uh would request April 7th if the board would be willing to make that motion for a
continuence of this matter for us to con uh reconvene the hearing. >> Okay. You want a motion, please? Uh, I would move we continue the public hearing to April 7th. Do you need a time on that? We've just we didn't uh continue the other public hearing to the
7th, right? We did it to the 21st. So, this is the only public hearing, right? >> So far. Yeah. >> So far. So, 6:15 >> that uh April 7, 6:15. Uh, and required the applicant resubmit a site plan with
staff findings addressed. Now, I think we've talked, you know, from connecting the town water all different ways of addressing the staff findings. There's not one right answer here. There's probably five right answers here. So, it's a question of figuring out what
what's the right answer that addresses the staff finding. So, that that's my motion. >> Second. >> All those in favor? I >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So, next is the
planners report. >> Let's skip over the planners report for the assistant planners report. Thursday. >> Okay. So, assistant planners report. We due to
the canceled meeting because of snow and then a canceled meeting because of a lack of a quorum. We had four approval not required plans of lands that were administratively approved. So, we'll just quickly show you what happened. Um, the first one is going to be on Elise Michelle Way/Nathan Kaplan Way. This is
a private way right above Omry Petty. Um, so they divided basically two big parcels on Nathan Kaplan Way into six lots. And here you can see them detailed. Nothing too crazy. >> So this is along the east side of the
Balon. >> Yes. >> Saudi. >> Saudi. >> Yeah. >> Nothing we can do about it now. And then we had one at Sodom Road. Basically, they took this lot one and then took out these two parcels, lots
three and four, which front on Sodom Road. Both buildable lots. >> And whereabouts on Sodom >> 1017. >> Um, >> it doesn't help. >> Let me pull up to you. Here we go.
Right where it right a little bit where it comes from Adam Adamsville pardon >> on the right. >> Yep. On the left. >> On the left. Yeah. And what did they do? >> They basically took out two parcels here to to make two buildable lots. Here we
go. Lot three and lot four. And there's nothing there now. They've got these. Okay. >> Then we had one for Marott Drive, the ex
that subdivision that's going on. They split land off of Lot 7 for um access and drainage easement for the town because their intention is to submit this to the town. Now whether or not the town's going to accept accept that is a separate issue, but they were able to separate off this part of the of the
land off of lot 7. So let me know if you want me to zoom in. >> So that's the the buffer zone from the abuted property owner, >> right?
>> And but they still own it even though they split it off from the land, >> right? What do they want to do? >> Their intention is to give Marco Drive to the town. So, this um parcel that they just split off has um access and drainage easements um for maintenance of
the roadway. >> No way. We're taking it, >> right? Okay. They'll just have to manage that. Then we had one on Adamsville Road at 304 Adamsville. This was quite a large parcel that they divided into three buildable lots as you can see one, two,
and three. And then two parcels that are going to be conveyed to the abuters. Parcel A to be conveyed to this northernmost of butter, parcel B to the one right below. >> And where is this on Adamsville? >> 304 Adamsville. And let me I'll put it up on map so we can get some context.
Here we go. So now we're looking up at Adamsville. Adamsville to the top. Um, >> this is where Main Road is. So, this is right before Grace. And here's the
the plan. It's rotated. Nice. >> Where's north again on that plan? >> Um, yeah, >> left. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yep. So which which lots were created? >> This lot three which has a lot of
wetlands, lot two right here and lot one are three new buildable lots and then parcel B and parcel A are conveyed to these abutters right here. These adjacent abutters. >> Okay. >> Mhm. So those are the ANRs. Um we talked a
little bit last meeting about the climate resilience report. So we're working through populating a template for chapter 7. We have the next meeting in April. Right now the subcommittee heads are all hard at work um incorporating some of the feedback from Jeff and getting these chapters into a
template that we can kind of move forward with. So working through that. Um the coastal relocation network was last week. that was the second annual workshop for like coastal issues in managed retreat in Massachusetts. Um we were able it's a
really good um opportunity to kind of connect with other climate resilience professionals in the state and see what other municipalities are doing in terms of um managing um sea level rise at at the coast. So, we talked about some strategic framework principles, the
sequencing and timing of these conversations, an equity and justice lens, and having institutional readiness for conversations like manage retreat. Um, of course, Westport is a couple steps behind. You know, we're still um kind of at the forefront of that discussion. I I think places like Rivier
are already, you know, upgrading uh raising utilities, that sort of thing. So, it's it's good setup for whenever we're ready to take the next step. I was also able to attend a southeastern Massachusetts planners roundt discussion. Um Sarah Raposa, if you remember her, is the one who organizes
those. So that's great. Just another networking event for me. Um we discussed the new DOE permitting guidelines which are still somehow confusing for everyone. >> And then lastly, so I connected with SERD because they produced an evacuation routes um map for the South Coast region
and I wanted to see okay, can we make one at the local level? And after my discussion with them, it was actually kind of great. They're like, "We're going to assist you in creating a local level evacuation routes plan." They've already created the data. So that's kind of an ongoing project that I need to touch base on, but I thought I'd just share, you know, something helpful.
Evacuation routes, I feel like, are something we're all always wondering. Do we have them designated? Do we have an official? >> So, wasn't that itemized in the hazard mitigation plan? >> Yes. Yeah. So, this is hitting a couple things. >> Were the roots laid out in the hazard mitigation plan?
>> No, it just said we need them. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, yeah, that's definitely a great ongoing kind of small project. Um, and yeah, and then that's all I have for the assistant planners report. We don't have any correspondence. >> Okay.
>> Do we have minutes? I I didn't couldn't find them. >> So, the minutes aren't ready just because um >> they just weren't able to. I'll I'll bring them for the next meeting. Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, other business. So, in in in the vast auditorium here, we have two two
candidates for election to the planning board. And I'd like to invite you up to introduce yourselves. Maybe ask questions or have us ask you questions. >> After tonight's meeting, both you want to still
withdraw. >> Jar Piger, I live on uh Drift Road. um professional engineer uh uh chemical engineer by trade uh currently employed in biotech industry uh doing project management mostly uh
running global projects. So um thanks for having us u my name is Ros Underwood um from Westport. Um, I own one Prospect A and I've always just had a interest in what happens here in town.
In my 41 years of knowing Westport really well, I've seen some things change and uh, uh, working in real estate, I really want to focus however I can. if I'm elected onto the planning board and kind of preserving
what makes Westport different and special to me and a lot of the people from here. Um, but hopefully Jared and I at some point can both join. We'll see how things go. But thanks for having us. Okay. Any questions from the board? Like
>> I don't I I do want to I'm glad both of you uh are interested in this uh position. It'll probably take both of you to replace Mark. Uh maybe three or four to replace Mark. But uh
I I had uh Mr. chair been in touch quite a bit with uh our other board member Manny Sors and um at one point he he said he wanted to resign and I was in
the midst of trying to get a letter signed to the town clerk to that effect but my last conversation with him he changed his mind. Um and so um
I think that's unfortunate. Uh but you know that that's his choice unless um I guess that there are there may be other options if he can't attend meetings, but we don't know that yet.
I'm not sure when he goes to trial, but >> um >> so h having a second opening is uh right now uh problematic. Now Manny may change his mind again. Uh but that's where it
stands as of the last time I talked about it. >> Thank you for that. I I I think it's unfortunate um what's happened with Manny. I think Manny's been uh when he's been able to come has been
good on the board and a contributor to what we're doing here. Uh and it's uh just to add what what's what's happened and what's happening. Um,
I would um like to to give you folks another opportunity to speak to the audience because we have a vast television audience and not just to us. So, if you'd like to make your appeal out to the public,
that would be >> um >> just uh you you probably want to look at >> audience. Okay. Um I uh coming from Westport, my
experience has, you know, been very fortunate in the fact that I get to enjoy everything here in Westport. I went to the high school. I have a lot of friends from town and um been able to see Westport and all the four seasons and the river and it's a beautiful
place. Uh I think the planning board has a opportunity when applications are coming through to review and hopefully guide people to do what they want to do and um you know make suggestions in an effort to preserve what what makes this
town great. Um, but I I think my hope is to do um a great job of informing the residents, the voters, the taxpayers here of what's happening and get them involved. Um,
just in the last few weeks, you know, I I think this is true for Jared, too. We've gotten to know some of you um some of the select board uh members and candidates and um I I think there's a younger group of
people who want to get involved in managing this town and not changing what you guys have been able to do but you know keep that um keep these positions occupied with people who care about the town. Um, I I
also, you know, look forward to creating a little bit more transparency the way that, um, I've noticed at least between social media with, you know, the select board member Jake Mcwigan, I think he does a great job. Regardless of what you think of his policies or him, I think he
informs people and I think that's helpful. So, that's something I think that the planning board would benefit from, too, just so people understand what it is you do here and the staff. um and just making them aware if they have concerns, these meetings are a great
opportunity for people to understand and participate. Um so I think it's also worth noting this weekend on Saturday um there's uh Q&A uh information that's going to be available uh for all for
everyone uh at the new high school at noon on the 28th. I think it's a good chance for people to talk to Jared and I ask questions and get to know who is on the ballot. So hopefully people can come to that too. >> Thanks.
>> Thanks Ross. >> I don't know how to take his suggestion that younger people might be here. >> Still thinking about how how I'm taking that. That's why I let you go first because I
would reach though. Uh first I wanted to thank the board for inviting me here tonight and Roz as well uh for attending. Uh I just want to say that you know as professional engineer as my background in that's why I feel like I wanted to step up that's I felt that
this is the best way I could get back be able to use my professional experiences to help the town. uh coming in I've you know have the opportunity in my career where I have the ability to have some more time to look at these things and that's where I kind of decided to make this make this opportunity to run for
planning board I believe I when uh a couple meetings ago in in early January around that time you guys were giving Mark a hard time cuz no one had pulled papers and were really saying well if you don't if no one runs we're just going to re ask like where to reappoint you and that was kind of like that was
where I started really started thinking about it and then kind of been watching the meetings for quite a while and going through that and seeing how the process works. Um, we have a great uh town of it's very rurally diverse. We have good heritage from an agricultural marine
aspect uh maritime aspect and I think we need to really foster and control that and keep that. Uh, while some things, you know, have changed or are going to change, I think we have the ability to control all that. And I think the planning board has a very big part of
the future of Westport. And I think that's why it's so important uh to have this role these roles filled. Um and that's why it's good to have open dialogue around what these potentials are. So um I also think that 2026 is a year for the master plan and I think
that is a big a big task for the town. um it really can set our agenda for the next 10 years of what we where we want to go and what we want to do and how we want to, you know, protect our protect our current town as well as grow it from certain aspects. So, I think the board
has done a great job of trying to balance that and I really appreciate the time. Thank you. >> Thanks. Thank you. >> Could I just say one thing to the two of you? uh regardless of which one ends up sitting here or maybe both of you be
here uh I think you will find it to be an extremely rewarding experience and uh you can't get a board in town my own humble opinion with three better these are the
three wise men right here and uh really um this is a we've had one woman who came who's very active in town politics and I remember the evening she came before us and she said she looked at us
she said you were the best board in town. Now maybe our people in in television land will take exception to that. I take pride in the fact that these guys really, as you heard them in action
tonight. Um they know a lot about how to administer the rules and regulations that we have and they're always thinking ahead to how can we make adjustments that will be
that will better some of the issues that we face in this town which are pretty formidable in many ways. So, um I just I I just have been so impressed with the uh the dedication of these guys and uh
there's you you'll learn a lot and uh you'll bring a lot to the board, but uh primarily I think having this this core group here um will stand you in goodstead. And uh don't worry about
their age. Don't let that fool you. These guys are wise beyond their years. >> Are you saying I'm old? >> Yeah, that's two people now. >> Well, I put myself in two. >> Yeah. Do you
>> want a motion to adjurnn, Mr. Chair? >> Move we adjourn. >> Second. >> All those in favor? Hi. Uh, thank