Please alth for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, I'd like to open the December 2nd uh planning board meeting.
Um, and I don't have an agenda in front of me, but >> right there it's pretty easy. >> Okay, first up is uh by the way, we're being recorded and sent out live probably at the same time. Uh call to
order is then Corey Ridge Estates endorse Corey Ridge myar. >> Yep. So um the appeal was dismissed and we didn't endorse the myar last meeting. So we just need one more signature and I've got the pen case.
>> I think we need signature and >> we got signature who's on here. >> Yeah. Jim and Mark. We could get Bob. >> That's Mark. >> I I believe so. That looks like an admin
instrument. >> Maybe it's under the porch. >> A lot of time. While we're doing that, next is our 226 2026 uh annual town meeting warrants
disappear. It should be on on your iPad. >> So for I just want to give some background on the process. I know you all are familiar, but just for the sake of anyone who may be listening or watching, the planning board tonight is
going to talk about zoning amendments and then tomorrow we'll submit the um the finalized list to the select board to request that a public hearing is opened. Um and then that will happen at
their next meeting. So, it'll be two weeks from yesterday um that they will consider that and then tonight we'll decide on when the public hearing should be held. Um so there are two possible dates we
can consider January 13th and January 27th. We can go into February if necessary, but the way the paper is published and how many, you know, I have to give 14 days prior and
when the paper's published, we had to go out into January for this. >> Um, >> January 13th, which is a planning board meeting and what was the other day? >> The 27th is the next option. Yeah.
You both work for me. >> I know it's the the holidays, so I don't know if anyone's going to be out during that month. >> Either one. >> Either one. >> Either one. Either one. >> You available?
>> So, what's your choice? >> Uh, the 13th works great. >> Okay. Can we get a motion to have the recommend to the select board that the public hearing is on January 13th? >> I move that uh we recommend to the select board that the uh zoning
amendment public hearing be held at at 6 p.m. on September on January 13. >> So why is it that we have to recommend to hold their own public hearing? No, we have to request that the um
>> Well, they have to send it back to us, right? We give it to them, >> right? >> So, what data are we going to give it to? >> Uh well, we'll give them the what was the question again? >> When are we sending it to the select
board? >> The We'll send it to the select board on Oh, well, let's give it a little bit more time than tomorrow. Um, well, we could we could I mean, we can send it to them tomorrow. I can take any
amendments that any changes to this tonight and and get that incorporated, although Sean wanted to provide some additional comment. So, um, >> so I guess >> we can I I can do it really any time as long as it meets the the statutory
requirements. So um it has to be within >> what's your concern? >> Well, it has to do with when the public hearing is. So and then the other question is I think the one of these amendments that we
might want public input before we send it to the select board. Um, >> see and >> so >> and I think we talked about that before
that maybe we want to have have >> an open discussion in one of our meetings about that before we write it up and >> it right. So, it threw me for a loop for a minute. So, we can um still plan on January 13th for the public hearing. We
have plenty of time to do that. >> And and after the public hearing, >> we still have to send it to the select. Right. >> Presumably after we if there's any amendments, >> right? Right.
>> There we go. Yes. >> That has to be within a certain time frame of town meeting. Right. It's 180 days. >> So, >> we're okay there. >> We have time. >> Yeah, we have time. >> We can skip that. >> Right.
>> Okay. >> So, there's a motion I made to send it to the select board. >> Um, we don't need to send it to the select board yet, actually. So, >> Oh. >> Um, >> we can just have this public meeting. >> We're just going to send a public meeting,
>> right? Yeah. >> Oh, that's right. Sorry. The motion was to set the public uh meeting for January 13th, >> right? >> Yes. >> Second. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I
>> So I think the date you said December 4th is the discussion, >> right? So, this isn't a formal public hearing. It's just us discussing what should be on the docket for the public hearing >> on December 4th.
>> Yeah, which is tonight. >> No, sorry. >> Oh, sorry. My dates. Sorry. I >> just want to make sure you weren't calling us back in Thursday. >> Sorry. >> Another thing on Thursday. That's >> I do have something else on Thursday
that must have been on my mind. Sorry about that. >> We can discuss it at the climate resilience committee. >> Okay. >> Okay. Well, let's talk about the amendments. I'm sorry. Uh for getting those dates mixed up. So, the the first
one um we're going to talk about is a small change in uh the table of uses, which is in section five of the zoning bylaw. As it relates to dog kennels, there was an act um to increase kennel
safety that was signed last year which is nicknamed Ali's law um change kennel licensing requirements from three to four dogs. And so it was requested that we change our from Matt Armendo in the uh board of health to change our bylaw
from require requiring a special permit um from the board of appeals for the keeping of more than four dogs but less than seven um in accordance so that we're consistent with what's required with state licensing.
So, if you have four dogs and they're all pregnant and have a litter of six, you have three months to get rid of most of them
because it says 3 months or older. Yes, but that's not that's not proposed to be ch the what is proposed to be changed is just the number of adult dogs being kept. >> Do you need motion on each of these
separate? >> No, we don't need motions on any of these. I just wanted to get the board's feedback on on these. >> Yeah. my my feeling on it. So, how do how does cuz I had this exact situation was one of my problems with Matt cuz I have four
dogs. I have two addresses. Actually, there's six at the location. >> So, my my problem was I had no problem going license, but they wanted I have to you have to go to ZBA to get the license. So, that was $500 to go to ZBA to get a license for my kennel because
then he said, well, um and he's got to come and inspect it. Mhm. >> So, I mean, I I have a pretty nice setup for my dogs, but they're actually pets and they live in my house. You know, we have a we have outside kennel runs. I have an acre fenced in the back for them. >> Um, actually, in the spring, I'm going
to build another a whole another building for the kennels, but I was under the assumption we could go to the state and get a 25 dog license. How does that affect with this? If I get a license from the state for 25 dogs, what what's the board of health have to
do with me? >> I'm actually a farm. >> I'm not familiar with the licensing requirements for large number of dogs. Just >> this is to change it the require the requirement of keeping more than three dogs
used to require a permit at the appeals and now it would be changed >> because he said you couldn't you couldn't just if you had four dogs that was what it was. If you had four dogs, you couldn't register the dogs. You had to have a counter license. >> Yeah. >> So, if you have 25 dogs, how does it Do I still got to go to the ZBA to get a
license to get my state license for 25 dogs if I'm a farm? >> If you're a farm, I don't know. But the way this would read that if you had 25 dogs, you'd have to go to the board of appeals
for that. the board of appeals or the state. >> Uh that's what the >> or the >> the table of uses the table of uses requires a special permit at the board of appeals for the keeping of more than >> four dogs. >> What about
that zoning? We can't be affected by zoning. I don't know if that particular situation would be exempt under the agricultural >> as I mean I can see this in when you're in like the tight areas in in in the north end and you got the small lots and
all the other stuff but like me I have 16 acres. I think it's worth a question. So, somebody hat would be able to tell you what he would do cuz I was actually I was all set to go get get the kennel license
until they said I had to pay $500 to ask for it. I'm like, I have no I even was all right with him coming and inspecting my house, but >> sure. >> Then at that point, I told my wife, I said, don't I'm not getting it. Just register three of my dogs. So I guess I
was breaking the law on the third door. >> So this request is from Matt to change this, >> right? >> So that what the the town requires for licensing is consistent with what the state requires for licensing.
>> So this this applies to only people that have five and six dogs, >> right? >> Only five and six. >> Only only five and six. No, it doesn't. If you have if you have less than four, it doesn't apply. If you have more than seven, >> seven or more,
>> right? >> Yeah. >> Seven or more goes to the state. >> It says more than four and less than seven. So, >> what fits between those two numbers is five and six. >> Only people that have five and six dogs.
this uh is pretty straightforward and not controversial to me. Liberalizes a little bit. But I think the question that Manny raised if this comes up at town meeting, we ought to be able to answer the question,
what happens if I have more than seven dogs? >> Who do I have to vote for? We should just be able to answer it, but it's not really relevant to this. But someone will ask it and uh we should be able to answer it then. >> That'd be a good thing to push by Sean,
too, cuz Sean has a lot of dogs. >> Mhm. >> Well, I think Matt on my knows this because he made this proposal, so he must understand, you know, what happens when you have seven more.
We Yeah, we should get that information from him. >> Yeah, especially since I'm not allowed to talk to him. You're good. >> So if you >> if you go by this, do you just license the kennel? You don't have to license the dogs.
>> I think you have to always license dogs. >> Right. >> Right. >> Even if you have 25. >> Yeah. >> So I think the whole idea of the kennel licenses, you don't put individual licenses on the dogs later.
>> Like a lot of our dogs, we chip them. You know, so you and that they actually scan for that now, too. >> Well, what happened? We've got a couple of kennels, big, you know, commercial kennels here in town. >> They have a license to operate. That's a
kennel like the one across, >> right? >> Yeah. >> I Yeah, >> but they don't have to have each dog. Well, they have their own requirements. When you want to bring your dog there, they want to get vaccinated and
>> that kind of thing. Maybe they ask to make sure that it has a license, too. I don't know. But that's up to the owner of the dog to do. >> Yeah. And if you bring it to the vet, the vet might have 10 dogs in there
overnight. So anyway, okay, >> let's let's not get stuck. >> All right, there are two in section three, the definitions of the zoning bylaw, there are two definitions that
relate to building height. Uh, and they do conflict with one another. This was request from the town administrator Jim Hartnett to strike definition number one up here which is the vertical dimension from the
lowest point of the building structure or wall exposed above the ground surface to the highest point of the roof parapit wall or uppermost part or chimneys vents or utility service structures shall not be included in the measurement of the vertical dimensions. He asked for this
one to be kept and to strike definition number two which is the height is described as the vertical distance between the highest point of the roof and the average elevation of the naturally existing mean grade. The measurements taken at the corners of the
lot prior to any excavation leveling, greeting or filling at the building foundation exclusive of chimneys, air shafts, ventilators, vents, lightning rods, or similar items which may be of the height required for proper operation or use. Building height applies to all
buildings and/or structures. The building shall remain in compliance with the height requirement after final grading. This second definition is problematic because if you have a a lot
that is um situated on a on a bluff, for example, and it's 30 feet above sea level, but then part of your lot is at one or two feet above sea level. you take the average of that and then add the town's height of 40 feet, you're
going to have a very, you know, probably unreasonably low building height after you do that calculation. Um, so the town administrator requested that the the simpler definition is what's kept in the the um in the zoning
bylaw. >> Well, there's a problem with that. I mean you you don't want to just have number one because it doesn't define height above ground properly. This number two in fact does describe you
know the the circumstances how you measure height above the ground except that I would not do use this uh average of the corners of the lot. What you normally do is it's you have a site plan
with the contours. You locate the footprint of the building on that and you take the average height of the building above the ground above those natural contours around the perimeter of the
building. >> This is my lot which John was explaining. I go from sea level to probably 50 ft under the roof. >> Yeah. >> And my house isn't that tall, but it
wouldn't it would not fit. >> Well, it's a maximum height restriction right now. >> It's a maximum. >> Yeah. So you're just uh because you're on an elevation,
it's easier for you to comply. >> So Mark, you're saying that that would be better to actually take this definition and just modify it slightly and you'd have a more accurate um approach for the building inspector to measure this. Yes, I would strike the
parentheses the measurements taken at the corners of the lot and uh say the measurements taken at the uh corners of the building. >> Mhm. Um because you want you want that
measure off the natural grade and you want it prior to as it says excavation or leveling grading because I've seen cases where they you know build a house up and above grade and then they come back with four five six feet of fill all
around it >> and they say oh no okay so from that fill they measure up and say oh yeah we're 30 feet 35 whatever. Yeah, I I would think that you have to do it that way though because you know I I have a problem with the
naturally existing average grade. Um because the naturally existing grades, not necessarily the proposed finish grade because you get title five regulations, you get all that other stuff that govern the height of the lot. Um the distance above the water table
for the basement floor. Um I don't know if Westport has one, but Diamond has one. you have to be like a foot and a half above the water table. So that's going to set the height of the house on that. >> Um, so I I think you got you got to say maybe say like 50 ft around perimeter of
the house because you're going to have to grade for water runoff, all the stuff that they've been building detention ponds on the side of the house. This could all cause a lot of problems. >> John, um, I prefer number one, although I do have a question on it. um in terms
of definition and the reason I prefer number one is uh that it may be at some point in the future uh will either require or insurance
companies will require or the homeowner will just want to elevate his building. And uh our building's on piles, you know, so it's a certain amount above. Uh and so
you build a building under one set of rules and uh measure the height to make sure it conforms. And then if there's sea level rise and you want to elevate that building another five feet or 8
feet, uh you don't want to put the person in a uh position where well, I've got to elevate the building, but I've got to lop off, you know, the attic or the roof because I'm measuring height from the
top of the building to the ground as opposed to what the actual building height is. And so it's what do you do with buildings that are on pilings or buildings that will need to be on
pilings in order to allow storm surge. And I think number one doesn't penalize that situation. Although I think you you need definition in there that the building the bottom of the building is the plate, you know.
>> Yeah. Not uh not the bottom of the piles, >> you know, like when you got a foundation, you like a regular foundation on a regular eye, you're usually like 8 in to the weather. >> Mhm. >> Um when he's talking next to the water, I don't know what is it now. Is it still elevation 18
>> for your for your first floor? >> So you're already starting off at elevation 18 >> I think for the velocity 16 or 17. Uh in other areas it might be 15 feet but it's
>> that you also have to have two feet of freeboard now too with the new building code. >> Two feet of freeboard on top of it. >> Yeah. >> So um >> for regular foundation to the to the weather 2 feet is code. >> Yep. Well, maybe there's an exception for
buildings on pilings, but frankly, I I think when you see these buildings on pilings in a community where they're all the other houses are sitting down at the beach and then there's this one house sticking way up, I I don't think that's attractive at all. But and uh but you
could make an exception. Uh but generally speaking, if you don't have if you're not if your site is not impacted by flood flood levels, then I think you got to measure off the height of the existing grade. >> I don't know. I would never been able to
build my house. >> I got a 10ft wall in the front and my septic's actually a foot higher. So, um, so do we need to alter number one to to make it explicit about
houses that are built in the flood plan? >> You can't use the ground level. >> Yeah, I think we have a couple different issues here. one is one thing that John has brought up, but then we also have these competing definitions for height
that we need to >> either go and what >> we we shouldn't have conflicting definitions in the Bible, right? Number number one. >> And then >> um you know what Mike's description is
pretty much what most zoning bylaws look like, the average grade around the building. Some of them allow that to be the finish grade. Some of them around the natural contours. But I think if we
but but measuring the four corners of the lot uh you know yard lots a good example. River road is is th those are all those lots that have the big driveways going up on the towards
uh old harbor. you know, they none of them none of them would fit into the second definition, >> right? They couldn't build houses. So I think um I think the four corners was a lot
stuff should go away and I think maybe leaving it some ambiguity in the first one but but but also taking John's point of if you if you are within a a flood hazard area there's an
exception for compliance with the FEMA standards or something. So that and if we if we look at in the total land area um it's it's it's a it's a relatively
small portion of the total land area of the town that's in the is in that flood risk area. Mhm. So I I think you know number one eliminating the uh the um the conflict
and then if we use the first definition but provide some uh exceptions or and then just let you know something reasonable. But I I
agree. I mean, you can you can look at at um you know, that that little stub of West Beach Road, you know, on as you as as you go over to um
you know, over to Goose Perry, you can sort of see the history of of the FEMA flood storage. You got houses that sit on the beach. You got a house that's on, you know, a 4 foot pile. Then you got a
house that's on the 15 foot pile. >> You know, and you think, you know, if we if we keep, you know, expanding the velocity zone, you know, and these are these are side
by side houses, you get all of these different interpretations as someone rebuilt. >> So I I guess the the question is uh First question is, do we need a building type restriction?
And if we do, why is that that we need it? And what is it achieving? And third, uh if you're going to build on 15t piles and have 2 feet of freeboard
and then go 35 ft, on top of that, you're up to 52 feet. Do we walk two foot structure. >> Well, the freeboard would be in the 15 in the pile itself. I want to be additional to that. >> Well, 50 ft or 52 ft doesn't matter. I
mean, so do do we want 50 50 foot structures along the beach or do we want to make it lower for that? If you have to go on pilings, then you can go higher, but you can't go to 50 ft.
>> Yeah. where you go on pilings and you're restricted to one story or one and a half stories. >> That's what I'm That's what I'm asking. >> With a flat roof or something. I I don't I think we should be careful about
because these flood co um you know the flood risk codes uh as we've said they keep keep increasing and and there's the probability that the regulations for how many feet you have to be above flood
zone will be increased and uh we could end up with some very very uh unattractive situations. I think that's my own person. >> No, I I think that's >> Well, that's why I'm asking the question. Should we should we have a
different metric for not using the ground as a as a determination? I think there there's a also another avenue for relief when we're talking about structures that may need to have
the um the additional piling uh constructed to raise the structure out of the velocity zone. I think if they're existing structures, they could go to the zoning board of appeals and request that relief. Whereas if you just allow
it more generally, you could have new build structures that are then in that sort of scenario that you're talking about. the uh uh uh I think I'd make the point again that
uh Bob's I'm sure right that this is a minority of houses but some of them are on pilings where they would want to be elevated higher and others may be uh buildings that
aren't on pilings but in order to save the building someone wants to put it on pilings to raise it up. Um, and the building's been designed, it's been built, probably has a gable roof,
and if you're at maximum and you raise the piling 5T and now you're 5T over, you're going to cut the attic and it's going to turn into a gamrella roof. And it reminds me of a fishing boat in Manimia that quits
a strider. It was 75 feet long and the state came out with a rule saying if you're 72 feet or under, you only have to uh pay attention to state law. So the guy just cut 3T off the bow and it looks
ridiculous, but he did it because not a height restriction, but a length restriction. I need to get under that. And so you could have the situation, we're going to spend a vacation down on an island off of Florida where
everything's three stories and everything's on pilings and everything got wrecked in Hurricane Ian. They're existing buildings. They've been there 40 years. They're going to increase the height of
the pilings. And um if you say, "Well, now you got to take the peaked roof and you know, lower it by 5 ft." Why? It's first of all, it's going to be ugly. Secondly,
it's uh why would you do that? You've got two things that are competing with each other. one to get out of the way of the water and the other is you want uh I guess the reason to answer Jim's question about why we have a height
requirement is has something to do with aesthetics. >> Yeah, I think um so there could be a difference, John, between buildings that have to be retrofitted >> Yeah. >> and buildings that are built new.
>> Yes. Uh, and I think that um it it just goes back to another question. Should we have and it's not germanine to this, but should we have a lot coverage
by law? We have one one building down in the harbor with a not perfectly house down and I've been building this glass rectangle
for three years now and I've done but it seems to cover 80% of the lot and I don't know where they have a septic system and you know it's really not fair to the neighbors whose
former ocean view is now at the back of a a hotel. So, um >> indoor septic system, they're the rage now. >> Are they? >> Yeah.
Everyone allow them. >> Is that another code for a swimming pool? >> So, anyway, I I think perhaps we can work on number one.
And I and I think I think uh the idea I think there's some there's something to be gained out of saying if you if you have an existing building in the flood hazard area that has to be raised then then then
you you don't have to tear your your building apart. You can you can jack your building up. But but building fresh I think also you can get to the idea of listen you know if you build a new
um first of all I think you know we we should be discouraging people from building in the flood plane then if they if they build a new and they buy a green field lot
and build a new then you have to be cognizant of the overall height. So they may in fact be a story and a half building with a flat roof. >> Yeah, I >> I would agree with that.
>> When you said definition number one, were you were you actually referring to number two? The one where you take the corners of the the building? Yeah, the corners of >> and then stick with that one and then Okay, I just wanted to make sure
>> I think that you know as to the issue of why do you want to have height restriction regulation? It gets to the whole issue of trying to maintain the character,
the historically agrarian character which were farm houses which before these building codes came into effect of course were all on the ground. So you never had any right >> tall structures. The tallest structure would be a sidewalk >> or something. And that's another thing I meant to ask. Does this apply to a tower
if somebody is the tower have to is that restricted to I would think >> it would. Yeah, it apply in the definition it says it applies to all buildings and structures. >> So, okay. But >> chimneys, belt, vents, and utility services shall not be included. That's
in item one. >> But yeah, tower would be done. >> Yeah. Yeah. But anyway, the point is that we, you know, I've seen driving on River Road. I think there's a there's an old smaller cabin house sitting at grade
and then next to it there's a larger house that was built up on pilings. It's you know it's that juxosition which kind of it it is not is not a good way to uh if we trying to
maintain a kind of um character more rural character to our town. So so there is all I'm saying is there needs it's a tricky situation. We need to find some way to accommodate certain um
uh exceptions but not allowing the town to suddenly start sprouting buildings of all different heights everywhere >> as we get more dense. >> Right. Right. >> So the the issues of the flood planes are coming up. There's a lot of that.
But uh to answer your question before, why are we allowing these structures on pilings so high? Uh it's because of the flood plan law. If we don't if we don't require that,
nobody in town will be able to get flood insurance. >> Well, no. I I understand that. I think the question is then how much higher above the the pilings do you want those houses to grow? Do you do you want them to be two and a half stories 35 ft above
the pilings or or would you be more restrictive so that they have to build essentially a one and a half story building a cape house. >> Yeah. So I guess to the exception would be for
retrofitting. Sounds like there's some cons consensus around if there's a a retrofit of an existing building in a flood hazard area. The pilings will not be factored into
the height calculation. >> It's an existing. >> Okay. I think Michael, I know you're going to do a great job taking all of these various comments and putting it into a paragraph and wish you the best of luck on it. And
the one thing I would also hope is that it stays as simple as possible and as short as possible. So we're not laying out every single eventuality and exception which turns into a fourpage
rule that started as a one paragraph. >> Sure. >> You you might want to look I'm sure you have looked at it already but like that flood plane elevation the way they call it out on that and see how they characterize it might be living space or whatever they call it. >> Mhm. >> That's probably the better way to do it.
>> You mean like in the residential building code? Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, 100 words or less. >> I'm I'm even confused now on the on the two for free board. I mean, is that that's something that just came out in the new code? >> I believe so. Yes. >> I mean, how's that like uh you know, you
got to uh it's like my apartment buildings, the handicap accessible, you know, we got um we got to come right to the top of the foundation and get inside the first floor >> and you got 10,000 foot building. >> Yeah. And you got all these other
restraints all the way around you. How do you You can't put a twofoot foundation on that. It's impossible. >> Well, we we shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel. >> Other towns, >> other towns, Dartmouth be interesting to see how they
regarding >> Sure. So, we do have some more, you know, some of the other coastal towns. >> Yeah, I'll take a look and see what other coastal towns do. I just seen something today on the not to change the subject but the constructive approval. I guess they just had one in Fair Haven
too that >> same kind of thing happened to them. So we do have some additional flood plane discussion although this is coming from the department of conservation resources and the town right now is
being audited by DCR um for its application of the model flood plane bylaw the mass model flood plane bylaw. So, as a part of this, they reviewed our bylaw for consistency with the Massachusetts model flood plane
bylaw, and they gave us a couple of findings um that we need to to correct. This is, as Jim had noted, we have to make these changes in order for the town to have access to flood insurance. Um,
and most of these these amendments are more technical in nature. um with when it comes to references in the code. Um so for example um when you're talking about
new construction, there's a section in here that they struck out and they're referencing one of their their technical manuals um in in the brackets there. So that's what that's referring to.
Um, and in the special flood hazard area, oh, I forgot to edit one of these, but the um the special flood hazard area is they they took out some of the in the
definition some of the um references to zones that we don't have in Westport. So, you'll see this consistently throughout these edits. Mr. Chair, >> y I mentioned this to Michael earlier
today. Um I don't have any objections with this. I think for purposes of the public hearing on January 13th uh and eventually the town meeting if we
had a map of all these zones flood plane people are likely to to read this and say well am I in it or not and maybe they already know that maybe they don't. >> Uh maybe they're not sure which zone
they're in. So if we provided a map, I think it would be helpful in terms of how people at the public meeting >> uh react to this. >> So would you say they're doing an audit of our bylaw? Are they also doing an
audit of how Ralph has interfaced with applicants with regard to this bylaw? >> Yes, they're doing that as well as with the conservation commission. They requested files from both departments. Um they
provided them a list of a number of different building permits and and concom reviews. I don't know if they've selected any to review them in detail. That was the last action was the building department and conservation
commission forwarding that information. I mean, the these I looked at these this afternoon or this morning, I guess, and they they look um mostly ministerial to me.
>> They're strike this word, make this deep, those kinds of things. Um but um it a thing that was sort of curious was how did this become the responsibility
of the DCR and I thought like you know like they don't they don't regulate anything and then suddenly they become the auditors of something they don't regulate. It just seemed strange.
>> I think it's because they're the interface for communities with the National Flood Insurance Program. So if we ha ever have any technical requests of how do I review this
particular building permit they have specialists who work with coastal communities and and I don't know the history of how they became you know how that became housed with them but that's how it came up is um >> yeah just asking questions about
permitting and stuff and then they they asked for zoning bylaw to review that. Okay. So, this next one, it's a just a changing of date from June 6th, 2021 to July, which is when
the Bristol County flood insurance study became effective. This next one is just striking the location of where FEMA region one risk analysis branch chief is located. um as well as the Massachusetts NFIP
state coordinator offices might change. So strike that from the bylaw. Again, this is what I referenced earlier. The NFIP coordinator recommended or is has asked that we
strike the um flood plane zones that aren't present in in Westport. So, it's only referencing the ones that are applicable to the town. This is kind this same story with those two references. Um, they also asked that
we add in some additional text to be compliant with the model flood plan bylaw. So, I'll read this one since it's a little bit longer. And zones AE along water courses that have a regulatory floodway designated on the town's firm encroachments are prohibited, including
fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other development within the adopted regulatory floodway unless it has been demonstrated through hydraologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the proposed
encroachment would not result in any increase in flood levels. within the community during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. So basically what this is saying is that if there's fill or new development in in
one of these regulatory floodways, the flood when it does flood, the flood levels are not going to increase from that development. the uh I don't have a problem with this other than the way they've structured
the length of the sentence grammatically is kind of odd. You know, along water courses that have regulatory floodway are prohibited for trying to figure out
What's on water courts that have a regulatory floodway designated on the town's firm encroachment? Should there be a comma there? >> Encroachments are prohibited. Is that what you're saying?
>> The encroachments are >> prohibited. Yeah. >> Then put a comma after they are >> prohibited unless you've done a hydraulic and hydraologic analysis. But I think if you added a comma after firm,
it would make that sentence a little easier to read. Encroachments are prohibited. >> Follow me. >> Mhm. >> Just put a comment after. >> Yeah. I will check with them to make sure
that's okay because if you noticed in in one of the the previous slides they did add in some quotations just you know because a lot a lot hinges on this. I mean we joke but it it is important because >> it involves people's flood insurance. So
I'll just check. >> Yeah. >> This would be known as the bullet amendment. >> Okay. So on the accessory dwelling units, this is back just because due to the way the attorney general's um the attorney general's office struck a
couple uh struck some of the language that was approved at town meeting last year. The the bylaws didn't quite make sense grammatically and so I just wanted to to fix that so it it reads appropriately.
So, for example, with the way it was this was struck was that it left um that a staircase must to the extent possible be enclosed and not change the general appearance of a house. Kind of doesn't
really make sense because what we're really referring to here is the principal dwelling. So, I just wanted to make sure this language was switched over and it's consistent that within that section we're referring to principal dwellings and not a house or
um yeah, any anything like that. So, >> I think I think it reads a little bit better this way. >> We wanted to be contextual with the house, the design of the house. So if the house is uh 21st century modern then the exterior
staircase is but whatever that would be >> right >> or if it's a colonial style house it would be a colonial style exterior external staircase I don't know how you do these things but
>> yeah I mean um on a regular house you got your means of aggressing one there's a deck off the back that's not enclosed So would it be easier to say instead of the principal dwelling just the building? >> Uh it has it
>> we should yeah we need to reference >> a dwelling unit >> the principal the the the dwelling that is been built on that property which then allows you to develop an accessory dwelling unit. So before you could just call it a house
because that's the only thing that was there. Now we have an accessory dwelling which is why this So if you got an accessory dwelling then you need to have a permanent dweller. >> And you can have an accessory dwelling to things that aren't a house. Um you
could have it uh as accessory to a triple decker. You could have it accessory to an apartment building. Um, a house is not really an accurate >> Yeah. >> term to put there. >> Yeah. >> Good.
>> Right. And then see >> that something that just that changed in this new thing >> because I >> Yeah. So, we got um notice from the attorney general's office that our zoning bylaws were approved and then
there was a bit of a pause on our accessory dwelling unit review because I I think because so many communities passed bylaws in the past year um on accessory dwelling units that they had some delays in reviewing it. And so they
struck language um that really was just something that I think we had had just looked over. It was really just an editing mistake that had reference to um to single family in here. So you can't
restrict a an accessory dwelling unit to single family units anymore. As I said, you can have, you know, all different types of um units that uh dwelling units that an accessory dwelling is an accessory to. So that's what the the
attorney general's office had struck from our bylaw was the reference to single family. >> So I don't actually understand this. is this. So if you have a freestanding accessory dwelling
and it needs a staircase, an external staircase to access it, this this statement that it shall not change the general appearance of the principal residence. >> Mhm.
>> What shall not change the the general appearance? the staircase or the accessible dwelling. >> The the staircase >> access. >> So the the staircase must >> the staircase is attached to the accessory dwelling, not the principal
dwelling, >> right? >> Well, if it's a if it's a >> Yes. >> Well, if if it's if the accessory dwelling unit is within the main building, >> right? >> Then it would be attached to the main the principal dwelling.
So this >> building, but I think your point is correct because what if you need a a staircase outside of the ADU? Does it have to be in context with the ADU? Because the ADU is supposed to be
in context with the dwelling or does it have to be in context with the main dwelling even though the ADU may be a different style? Do we somewhere define that? We do say as you just said Jim
that there's some statement that the ADU must be compatible with or general have the general appearance of the of the principal dwelling. Is that >> that's what item C says.
Item A, I don't know what item B is. Item A says the staircase has to >> Yeah. Okay. >> Item C says the ADU itself has to be consistent with the primary dwelling unit. So you got both of those covered.
So that's an attached ADU only. >> Mhm. >> It doesn't say anything about a detached, >> right? >> Because a detached could be a repurposed garage. Right. Right. >> Right. >> Yeah. So, I mean, I think Z is clear to
me. Anyway, I'm just still think A is a little muddled in terms of what we're applying this uh restriction to be it can't it cannot change the charact the general appearance of
the principle. I I think a can really only apply to attached units, >> right? >> You know, if you had a freestanding unit and you needed to get to the second
floor, you'd have an internal staircase. >> I think they're trying to get rid of fire escapes, you know, metal fire escapes that are not enclosed and not consistent. >> Well, yeah. So I think if you're you're right and and Jim if you just could we
just insert the word an attached accessory dwelling if an external staircase is needed to reach an attached accessory dwelling unit. >> Sure.
>> This staircase then I think it makes >> Yeah, it makes sense. All right. You mind taking Never mind. Okay, on to scenic roads. This is something that we've talked about at the last
uh over the last couple of months, actually at a couple different planning board meetings to consider a town bylaw that's submitted to the select board from the planning board. Um, and so the purpose of this would be to preserve historic resources and moral
character and defined corridors. And we'll talk about the corridors at the end of the bylaw. We have to get through some of the administrative stuff up front. And the only thing that the scenic roads um enabling legislation allows a board or committee to do is to
have a public hearing for removal of trees or stone walls within the road layout. So, the purpose I've drafted for this is to is that the town of Westport adopts the provisions.
Uh, okay. There's an edit in there that needs to be done. Um, the provisions of this bylaw to maintain the scenic beauty, aesthetic value, and historic significance of certain roads in the town of Westport by designating them as scenic roads. Sink roads must not be
altered by any person, organization, or agency in any way that requires the cutting or removal of trees, or the removal, rebuilding, or destruction of stone walls or portions thereof, without adherence to the applicable procedures, and without written consent of the
planning board, unless expressly exempt under the scenic roads bylaw. And this the authority is that these regulations are adopted in accordance with Mass General Law 40 section 15C.
I think this is good. You explained to me when I suggested we include things uh like stone bridges and uh uh guard rails that the only thing we're allowed to do under the enabling legislation is trees
>> and stone walls. So, if that's the only thing we're allowed to do, then I'm all for this. I I do have a question in the section on definitions where it defines a tree because we can regulate the
removal of trees. Uh any deciduous plant having a diameter of 9 in or more, it's measured 4 feet above. Is that required in the enabling legislation, that definition? >> It's not. And I think that's something that's worthy of discussion.
>> So the concern I expressed to Mike Michael earlier today was uh you know when you plant a tree it's usually 3 in in diameter. And if someone wants to take down a tree and it's 8 in
in diameter, he's going to say, "I'm going to take it down right now because I don't want it to get it to 9 in when it's protected. So, I'm going to cut down everything that's under 9 in. And um so I think that you know that 9 in
number should be significantly lower because you don't want an incentive. I hope there's a desire for people to take down trees and and it's not a huge number, but they're a
good number in the public way. um that are less than nine but still substantial trees. >> So I mean should we let anybody cut anything that's in the public eye?
>> Well otherwise you'd have to have a public hearing for removing even like a small >> sapling or something like that. I mean, weren't we supposed to have like a tree warden and all that stuff? >> You can have a tree warden administer
some of this and some some communities have some more complex definitions and regulations in it. Um, I think for the purpose of for our purposes, we probably want to keep it a little more simple because we don't have a tree warden. >> I think highway is supposed to be tree
warden. I I don't think they are. But >> but >> we needed we need a tree warden cuz one dead tree total my car >> one uh >> and there are others just waiting.
>> There are a number of people who are clearing the brush away from stone walls and revealing the stone walls which is kind of nice. You don't want to >> prohibit the cutting of of the vines and brush.
are certainly stone walls, but trees are a different matter. >> Well, we could quib quibble about the dimension of the trees. >> Did you look into what Damoth has on this? >> Yes, I looked into a number of different
bylaws in South Coast as well as uh in the Boston area like like L likeen and Concord. They have a very, you know, very robust scenic roads by law, as you might imagine. Um, but I looked locally as well. >> Damoth had a plan on um Donald Perry and
um that's why Dmouth pretty much looks the way it is. He he was a tree guy. I mean, I I've planted trailer truckloads of trees, street trees in Darmouth because of those guys. >> And right up from the 80s and none of them are 9 in yet. So that's a lot of
years. >> Yeah, that's my point. So, >> but they're beautiful. >> Yeah. >> Well, I mean, you start look you well, you start looking at them. Some of the ones I did in the early 90s, and it's a nice size street, >> but they're also planting that type of tree that grows that way on the side of
the road. >> Yeah, it kind of runs the gamut what some communities do. I was seeing anywhere between 6 and 12 inches. So, I just went in the middle for the purposes of having the discussion. So, if we had a tree warden, could we
palm off some of our decisions to the tree warden or would the tree warden be the one to go out and inspect when somebody applies to cut one? >> I think staff could go out, I mean, any any town staff could go out and and do
an inspection, but it's the the board that actually has to have the hearing for this. I uh we planted a birch tree 13 years ago and it's 3 in
maybe four, but it's 40 ft tall. >> I mean, you don't want somebody cutting down a tree like that. >> We we planted a sour wood when we built our house and the thing is probably like that. I don't know if it's 9 in or 8 in,
but it's like 60 ft. Huh? >> Yeah. >> I I've got to suggest we take that 9 in down to three. Right. >> Well, isn't it I always think of these this historic I mean maintain the
historic character of the tree of the sorry the roadway as being some I think of scenic roads having old trees that have been there for some of them a century or more big old uh maple trees or ash trees and so
forth. That's what gives the character, the historic character to the to the roadway. If there are younger trees that have been planted more recently, how historic is that? I mean, I I don't know. Um
>> well, in New Bedford there's a lot of historic trees, but they die and so there's very aggressive tree planting, >> replanting. Well, that's >> so if you want to maintain the character, you've got to account for the fact that those older beautiful historic trees die
or get disease and uh so you need you need a a tree planting program to make sure you can maintain that character. >> Yeah. So you're saying if somebody has replanted some trees and then the next owner >> Yeah. >> comes along and wants to cut.
>> Yeah. I want a better view, you know. I want to cut them down for a better view. >> Well, I'm all for that. I'm also think we need some because this is all about cutting removal of trees cutting of trees. What if somebody wants to plant a
row of arborvites to screen their >> I can't imagine where you're talking >> I know where talking it's not in the public way unfortunately >> you know completely obliterating what was a scenic view >> right >> every time I drive by there I want to
take a chainsaw >> I shouldn't say that we're recording scratch that I didn't mean that >> so I mean, don't you think we need some also if someone is proposing to plant >> Yeah. >> new trees along that
>> in within a scenic road, >> right? Maybe we should have also require that they get approval. >> I think that I think that that makes sense. I I think the issue is that the the law itself doesn't it's it's all about removal. It's not about, you know,
what people are planting in the road layout. So we can't do that because it doesn't conform to the whatever it is the state statute or whatever you refer to. >> Right. So the the we can only regulate what is enabled by the scenic roads law.
>> So do they do they enable us to remove trees that are planted in the road layout? >> You you can there just has to be a public hearing for it. And you can't you can also exempt the town if the town needs to do road work. That's something
you can build into the bylaw to exempt the town. >> And the utility company which cuts branches, that's not removal of the tree, right? That they wouldn't need permission to do the continuing work along roadways,
scenic roadways. >> That's a good question that I I don't have an the answer to. If if utilities would be exempt from that >> might be something that you want to add when they upgrade them to put them underground. >> They had that underground bylaw. They upgraded for all these solar facilities.
>> If you look coming out of Tividant, >> they put it all underground. >> So the other thing is talking about the town doing stuff in the road right away for instance along parts of River Road. You know, they've got a a brand new
machine that has a rotary thing on a articulating arm and it doesn't have blades that have chains. I think that cut everything, but it shreds trees. >> Yeah, they use that on 88, too.
>> And it is really ugly. >> They didn't used to do it that way. >> It's flea. >> Yeah. And >> it'll take down it'll take down six industries. >> I know. So I mean >> if we had a scenic
road designation then and if it was 3in trees or 5 in trees or 6 in trees that the highway department would have to come before us to be able to do that.
Provided it's not exempt >> any person or agency. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I don't think we should >> I don't think Would you say you don't think they should be >> accepted? Yeah.
>> Me I agree with you totally. >> Yeah. Because what you're talking about Jim I is absolutely horrendous what they do. >> They've cut along Gigsbridge Road going up to the dump the recycle center anyway that just destroy
these tree the branches of the trees >> the branches >> and leaves these short you know >> I mean rips the things apart instead of cut >> um they used to just cut the grass along
the side of the road those things so I'll look into reducing the the uh diameter of trees to to 3 in and see what's also done in some adjacent areas, especially in places that may be a little bit more restrictive. Are there any other comments on the definitions?
>> What about the line of sight? >> You know how we got the line of sight coming out of a subdivision? >> Mhm. Is there something that you sort of exempt >> that if it is if you can't determine whether it's on
the town right away or the private property, it's assumed to be in the town right away. >> Mhm. >> So because without doing a survey, >> right, you can I have seen communities that have put that into their safe roads >> bylaw. That would be very helpful. So
the answer to the question about utility maintenance trees maintenance trees keep them away from the utility lines I think is covered Michael in the definitions because it says the definition of cutting or removal the felling of a
tree. So if you're trimming branches off the tree you're not felling the tree. Right. >> Fair. Right. Um, if they said no, the trees got to go for whatever reason, then they'd have to come to us. But if they're cutting some branches, they
don't. So, should we should we say in the bylaw just so regular people can understand it what the town right away means that that it's usually 10 ft either side if they'll pay
>> well it's uh on a map it may be 10 ft it may be 20 ft whatever it is, but it's in the D >> that you know that's registered. So, we don't want to get a definition other than that, >> right? And we'll talk about that a little bit at the end of this about
which streets to designate, but we were doing research on road layouts and trying to find what we actually have access to. And there there is at least one or two that we don't have. >> It says this applies only within the
right way. Yeah, >> some places the right way is probably not exactly where the road is. >> Sometimes the walls are on the rightway, sometimes they're on private propert. >> Well, some of the new walls that have
been put up in the harbor are definitely within the the rightway. And so I asked Chris Gonzalez and he said, "I'll go look." He said, "No, those are out of the white right away. Obviously, >> they've actually made people take them
down in subdivisions that were in the layout. So, >> well, I mean, how about on Sodom Road, that big farm field? They took all the rocks. >> Yeah. >> That on that jumbled stone wall with all the bush. They took them all out. Took
them all away. And I was just field all the way to the road. No, no wall. >> Probably getting $4,000 a load. >> Yeah, that happened on on Horses Road across from Fisherville Lane. The
>> our neighbors farm own land on both sides of the road. They had, but this is years ago. They had all of those stone walls that lined the road removed. And uh I was driving through
Milton and I saw a sign of a house that had just built a new stone wall and it advertised >> Westport stone. >> Well, we probably know where it came from. I I think that uh section on designation
of scenic road and the the definitions are good. >> Yeah, that for section 4, it's to lay out some of the parameters should someone want to petition for a scenic road to be designated as a scenic road.
4.1 would give the considerate con the outlines the considerations that the petitioner is supposed to um take into consideration when making that proposal. And then for procedures, it's just outlining that
the um planning board, conservation commission, and historical commission can make recommendations for a scenic road designation. and a citizen petition is also an allowable form and it has to be approved at town meeting.
>> I have a suggestion in terms of addition to the list uh kind of two I'm thinking of the uh pathway uh along from the foot of Bridge Street.
Oh, for the Sorry, we're moving ahead to the the >> roadways neck uh which DC which used to be 10 ft wide surrounded by beautiful dunes and then DCR came in and
destroyed it and uh because it's I think DCR property I would think that makes it a public way and I don't know the name of that walkway, but they now want to make it 20 ft wide. I said that Jake Mcwigan, what
do they want to land a space shuttle on this? Why does that need to be 20 ft wide? And then I want to suggest that we modify the definition of stone walls
so that a dune could be seen as a stone wall made up of very, very small stone. and uh and nail them for removing those very small stone walls that we
>> dunes. We spent too much time in Washington. >> But mostly I just want to poke DCR saying you guys think because that's it meets all the definitions of a scenic way, right? In terms of historic
character blah blah blah. It's got all of the but actually I would suggest we add add whatever the name of that way is. >> Yeah. Bridge Street. >> No, it's at the foot of Bridge Street
and then it goes along the the in between the dunes that I I think that >> was at one time West Beach Road. >> West Beach Road. >> Allong the road. >> All the way along West Beach. all along.
It goes through the campground and then it becomes the little stub of it that's left >> at at the at the uh the far eastern end is still West Beach Road. >> Yeah. >> Right. I think that goes into the campground. >> Yep.
>> West Beach Road. >> West Beach Road. >> Actually, if you don't get a road that should be a scenic road, >> we'd get a lot. There you go. >> That parking lots are connected by that road. >> Yeah. Okay. So, the a couple of things
on 4.3 uh the list says crossroad. Which crossroad? We have two >> actually. I was talking to Sean Leech about that today and he he pointed that out. The the one that was referenced that um Mark had recommended in in a
previous meeting was the from um horse neck to division and there's according to Sean that was or I'll back up. What? That was one road that we had difficulty finding a layout for. Talking to Sean about it today. Um Sean Leech, he said
that he does not believe that there is a layout for that road. >> Which one? >> Crossroad. >> No. No. Which crossroad? >> Horses neck to division. >> Yeah. Horsene neck to division. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> What did he mean? I don't No, there's no layout for it.
>> There's no road layout for it. >> So it's not a town. It is a town way, but there's no defined layout either that's been surveyed or even described in text. >> That means that that's that that is not
extraordinarily unusual. >> It means it's old. >> It just means it's old. >> That kind of goes with John on trying to get into those archives over at the Marine Museum on some of the the old Dartmouth maps and stuff like that. It's probably could be on an old Dartmouth map. >> Could be. So I I would I would add in
there river road if you wanted to. >> I don't know what other people think, but I think that's >> Are there any parameters for where you want? Because River Road's fairly long. So are there any areas in particular that may not need to be in there? >> The the fork.
>> The fork. We got to keep >> the fork in the road. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Exactly. >> Um >> Yeah, I agree. We've got Old Harbor Road. So, River Road, >> River Road from Old Harbor to Crossroad.
>> The other crossroads, >> right? The other. So, I think I'd say both crossroads. Um, right now they're sort of protective because there's big land owners on either side,
but that's not going to last forever. So, River Road from Old Harbor Road to Crossroad and then Crossroad and the Harbor. >> Is that okay? >> Yes. >> I'm just looking for kind of Okay.
>> to the intersection of Holland and Old Harbor Road. I think this will be interesting to see whether people want to come and take roads off the list or whether they want to come and add roads to the list or >> the other one the other one I would add
is point road >> point road. Okay. >> Um and you don't have to go all the way down to the end but you'd have to pick a point to stop.
We we should have a map of the town with this just coloring in those those roads. >> Yeah, we'll we'll definitely have that for a public hearing. >> I had a question. >> I've been asking for that for 5 years. Nice map that you can >> Where's his way?
>> Are there any stone walls or trees on >> on where? >> West Bridge, but it's a scenic uh >> Oh, West Bridge Street. Yeah, it says historic significance. It has that
scenic beauty. Doesn't have tree canopy, but a unique character of natural features. It's got that in spades. Stone wall, if you accept my definition of their very small stones, yes. Um, culturally
important locations as it relates to the town's historic. Yes, absolutely. Public safety. I think that's why they're wanted 20 ft wide and consistent with other town policies. >> DCR plan.
>> Oh, I put it in there just if nothing else to get to. >> Well, make make the whole of the DCR property a scenic way. >> Well, that road, what did you say the name of the road? West >> West Beach.
>> West Beach Road. Not West Bridge. >> West Beach. >> I was going to ask about old P last thing. Maybe Old Pinehill Road versus Pinehill Road. Um, you know, I think that I don't know
which one you're referring to on the on the ground, but if you take uh Hicksbridge, I mean, sorry, >> road >> to the uh Pinehel gas station, convenience store,
>> and you were to continue straight north, that becomes, I believe, that becomes Pineh Hill road. >> So, old Pine Hill Road to Pine Hill Roaders along the >> That's That's the one that has views out of the river. >> Yeah,
>> sure. I just I'm not sure. I I think it's Pine Hill Road and not Old Pine Hill. Old Pine Hill >> Pill is one at the top of Division, right? >> Yeah, I think so. >> We don't have Hicksbridge Road on should we?
>> Uh Pine Hill does not come to division. Hbridge Hicksbridge Road continues to Gidley Town Road in Bartmouth. >> Yes. >> And there are three roads that go left off of it.
>> First one is Pine Hill. The second one is Old Pine Hill and then White White White, >> right? >> Yeah. >> You're right. >> Is the one that intersects with division. I'm talking about the one that
intersects >> at the gas station. >> At the gas station. Yes, >> I think that's goes north. >> Yeah, I think that is Pine. That is Pine. >> When I was a kid, my grandfather had a 1911 Maxwell and he said, "I bought this new."
>> Where is it? >> Uh, my cousin when my grandfather died took it. Uh, but what he's I remember him telling me is, "I filled this up with gas at the Pinehill gas station."
Uh, and every time I go buy it, I think of this has been selling gas for over a hundred years. >> But we don't have Hicks bridge on here, should we? It's got many It's got the handy house
for Pete's sake. >> Yeah, I think we should Hicksbridge goes across the bridge. So that's that's scenic over there up to Pine Road >> or across the intersection. Goes all the way to Gidleytown Road. I think that's scenic.
>> Yeah. Get rid of all those cars on the the repair yard there. infringe on the public way. No, just kidding. >> By the time we have the public meeting,
we're going to need a bigger vote. >> Yeah, we need a bigger vote. This is good, though. It'll be interesting to see how people uh >> I think the overunder is Oh, add my street. So the next section is just outlining
that a public hearing is required and that it's the responsibility of someone making any sort of disturbance to the the stonewall or the the trees on the scenic road that they have to file an application with the planning board as well as pay for the advertising fee for
the public hearing. It should be the should there be a MC for doing this without getting approval? >> Yes, at the end there is an enforcement section
>> which I think is >> $300 a day. >> That's just standard across the town's enforcement sections throughout the zoning bylaw. Um then the last section before you get to the enforcement
just outlines what the planning board is going to do during the the public hearing that the planning board will write a decision granting authority to move or cut trees within the scenic road layout.
Um, I put in here that a public hearing is not required when there are emergency conditions that necessitate disturbance to a um a stonewall or a tree within the scenic road layout. Um, it just needs to
be reported to the planning board within 24 hours of that work being completed. Mhm. >> And then the board does have the opt um has the ability to adopt a more detailed regulations for carrying out the duties
in the bylaw. So if there are other things that come up, there could be a kind of complimentary document that the board would vote on that wouldn't have to go to town meeting um in order for the board to promulgate those those regulations.
So if we convince the town that they need to fill the position of tree warden, who would they report to? Would they be in this mix or would they obviously report to the select board
like everybody else reports to the select board or >> don't they have like a list of committee on who's like supposed to be a police officer the highway? Yeah, I think the tree warden is supposed to be under the highway division. >> Well, but they had a thing on who's supposed to be on the board, though.
There supposed to be a board, >> right? Supposed to be three people. >> Oh, that >> Are you talking about the fence viewer? >> No, the the >> Or is there supposed There's supposed to be a committee for the tree warden. >> Oh, okay. >> A fence viewer, too?
>> Yeah. >> I mean, that one could probably be combined. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, I think they could. and they they should have a modest amount of money to make sure that he's on the job. So, >> fence fueling and trees would be very
closely related jobs. >> I mean, Ralph's trying Well, I think they just upgrade some of the fees to operate the building department better. Maybe the fees someday got an assistant in there could help with some of these things.
>> So, he doesn't want an assistant. Okay, we done with that? >> Yeah, that's it. So, if you have any comments that you'd like to send to me, um, please do so. I will reddraft all of this and send it out to you. Um,
and I'll also try to get Sean to give me some comments since he's on the uh historical subcommittee, the climate resilience committee. So, I think he'd be useful to to bring into this. So, once he sends me some comments, I'll forward that to you all as well. Okay.
So, what's next on the agenda? >> That's it. >> That's it. Okay. I just want to relate uh something. So last week I met uh I went to the affordable housing trust meeting
uh and offered the uh help of our office to write an RFP or RFI for affordable housing using some of the existing high school.
And um I came after the meeting and talked to Michael and Michael said, "Well, you should really get the approval from the select board since they're the ones who have jurisdiction over the high school."
So I did that. It went uh an agenda item last night at the select board meeting and we had a long long discussion about it. Uh, Mr. Thrasher had sent a a letter to
the select board which I got a copy of maybe 10 minutes before the meeting. I didn't get a chance to really go through it. Um, and uh the end result is the select board took
no no action. There was no motion made to ask us to do it and there was uh so no motion no no no decision. Um
and uh Craig Dutra, who is the chair of the of the uh affordable housing trust, um that was a 100% vote to ask us to help them do that
um at their meeting. And Manny, I don't know if you want to add anything to it. You were there. Yeah, I think I think um my thing with that whole thing was we should embrace that for more options on what we're doing anyway. It's not going to affect it. I mean, it's it's
not like what they were saying was going to >> I do think the idea of Council on Aging wanting to get in there right away is a good thing. It didn't save the part of the building we got now and >> phase it like we thought we could do. >> That would be part of the RFP. This is
what we want in the building also. But if you can think towards putting some affordable housing in, we'd love to hear from you what the proposal >> it only works for better like even like a fully assisted could be an assisted living facility. >> Could be anything. It could be veterans
housing. It could be work work force workforce housing, senior housing, affordable housing. Could be a combination of you know market rate housing and affordable housing. It could be anything. And we
just finished our housing production plan. Uh we really need housing. And I sent around a article from the New York Times of what's happening in Hollywood. And that's specifically what I'm afraid
of. Uh because they could do that here with 40. They wouldn't have to keep to the 35 foot height restriction or 40 ft, whatever it is. They could build 20 stories. They
could build it anywhere in town. Um, and >> I think I think that saves that is the affordability of building it once you start getting where you need to put elevators in and all that other stuff. But the the problem is the the the little subdivision we just approved and
finally got approval and we just signed the documents. They're already advertising the houses built on this property for $1.3 million each. I mean,
you heard you heard uh Steve Mader yesterday. I mean that was kind of dis discerning on what those houses how they've changed in five years. >> They've almost doubled in five years more than double. >> Mr. here. I think uh I don't know
whether Manny or uh Craig or someone can rebr up if they take no action. They didn't deny it or approve it. Whether >> sounds almost like it was tabled, but I'm guessing that that wasn't a motion.
I don't I don't think and Craig Craig would be Craig would be the one to push for push for that, but I don't think it was to restrict anybody from doing anything at we want to stop kicking his can down the road, >> right? >> You know, >> well, I think what Shauna wants to do is to have it go to town meeting with
whatever the the committee comes up with and uh I think assuming it'll fail, >> then we're another year down the road. It just seems crazy not to. >> It doesn't hurt anything to send that a thing, but I think they're afraid that
by doing that, they're tying the can to the proposal that's going to be there. >> I mean, I'm I'm even thinking, you know, when consent agent was talking about going in there and, you know, they they they're really good at raising money. I mean, they got in there. I mean, they could also do fundraisers to, you know,
I I mean, I think we got to get to get to them that we don't want to look to do a an override to build this thing. If by phasing it and keeping the building, we can work our way. You know, you know what else I found out today, too, is when they put that roof on the roof, the reason they put the new roof on was cuz
they wanted to put solar on the roof, >> which I mean, I prefer seeing solar on that roof than on one of these farm fields. >> And you think maybe we could look into that and see what kind of a offset we can get by putting solar on the roof of that school. I mean, that was the reason
they did the roof. So, at the meeting, uh, you brought up you weren't sure whether or not there'd be enough water for housing development on the property or if there's a place that you could do a septic system big enough. And I just
looking at the maps today, the town of Westport owns about a 100 contiguous acres up there connected to the high school uh, building and In my experience in the harbor and with
no joke village, uh people who know what they're doing can figure it out and not just take everybody's well, it doesn't work. >> Well, some of those things over there, it's it's um you know, it's like when you look at uh Swansea Mall, which
>> Swansea got out sewer >> and it's going up to that mall and that they had they had put a treatment plan. The mall has its own treatment plant that was done, you know, in the 70s when they built the mall. So, yeah, they can put a treatment facility and there's a couple of them like this uh long built
uh Jimmy Jimmy Jimmy Long was doing one in Dyton on the old golf course and they they did that, but they've been trying to develop that for it's kind of like 15 years now. And the cost of doing that part where it's the suture plant is so high. I mean, that's what ends up making
rents and everything so expensive. There's an interesting anomaly uh to you bring up trying probably doing it on an old golf course, right? >> Yep. >> So, they did that up in Lakeville. Um and I've been up to this guy who runs a
printing place out of his basement in this huge subdivision in Lakeville. >> I think that was Bob Long, too. Same same guy. >> Same guy. Yeah. >> And so they're getting they're getting the water service. So they're in Lakeville. They're like quarter mile
from the reservoir, but they're getting the water from from Taton because Taton draws out of there. >> Yeah. >> Um and just like Westport gets through with Fall River
water, they're paying like 160% of what people on top are paying for water that's right outside their door. It's crazy. That's actually in town. >> Yeah.
>> So anyway, there's a way to figure out how to how to do all that stuff. And I think it's much better. I think Jake said something about, well, let's give the the committee the task of figuring out
if we can put housing there, which is to me that's just another way to kick the can down. >> Yeah. Right. >> Let's just get a a RFI or RFP out there. See see what comes.
>> Yeah, that doesn't hurt. >> It doesn't hurt. H >> housing is the only thing that produces income that services debt. Uh the plan they've got has an awful lot of people
who want to use it but don't have money to pay, >> including town offices, >> right? and housing's the only one that act. And to if they think the town's going to do 60 million bucks, they're
nuts. And then they say, "Well, we'll cut it down a little bit because we'll eliminate all the town offices going up there, which is one of the major advantages of the plan to begin with was to get the town offices up there." So, and then sell these buildings, which
could provide some money. So, they're they're somehow not thinking about uh where's the money going to come from to pay for this housing can generate that every time you create a housing
unit boom it sells it rents and we need housing and the article you sent around Jim about California um I think this select board and town meeting
needs to understand that there are kind of two ways housing is going to get built. uh one we are going to build it uh with control by the planning board and the zoning board and the health department
or it's going to be built under 40B or it's going to be built by Andrea Campbell and the MBTA and but it's going to be built because there's a crisis in housing and if we think Westport can just say no we're not
going going to build housing. We're going to stay with our 3% uh of affordable housing. I don't think that's realistic. I think the choice is we need to build it. We've got a a great plan on housing
production. And if we actually meet those targets, we're controlling what it looks like. If we don't, we're gonna we're gonna be looking at all kinds of 40bs coming at
us and that's not the way to go. >> And there's a huge area up in the side and that's going to turn into a 40B. >> Yeah. >> Unless we figure out something else to do it because >> we can't say, well, we don't want housing anywhere, >> right? >> Because that's not going to be
tolerated. And I think Michael was saying today that if you do some kind of housing uh you can get money if you do it with a smart growth. Yeah, if yours,
>> it's the smart growth overlay which provides >> if we have a smart growth overlay, we can then and we we make it work, start doing stuff, we can get more money for the schools from the state
and that's what everybody is concerned with. Well, if you have more housing, you got more kids. >> You know, maybe the population is aging all the time. >> Just look in the mirror. getting old.
>> We need more kids uh to keep the schools open. >> So, I don't know. I mean, so that's just what happened. Um and I was a little surprised at at the reaction of of all the members.
Um but it is what it is. So, >> you want a motion to adjourn, Mr. Chair? >> Just a second. Yeah. >> Uh, no. I I said I I I can't imagine the town meeting
an override 48 or 50 or 64 or any of those numbers. Well, they somebody was saying that they're going to try to whittle it down to 20, but then what five of it's going to go to demolishing
half the place. And then you got 15. What are you going to do with the 15 that's going to be productive? That's going to build something >> and and you know the notice of interest or the RFP.
>> I mean with the with the things that we found with what we want >> I mean it's only going to it's only going to help. >> Yeah. >> I think that the uh it should be in a request for proposals, >> right?
And you state that the town's interest is having more housing and there's an interest in providing space for the council on aging if you will if you want to say houses for the offices for the school administration
whatever it is but leave it to the developers to propose and they may they say well I can you know I can do this with this building and I can provide this many housing units or whatever. It's it's their I mean they know it's
their prerogative to say this is what we can do because they'll crunch the numbers and some of them might come back and say uh you know even if it costs $2 million, $3 million to demolish the existing building.
We prefer to demolish the building, absorb that cost because we can save money by building new. And we don't care if we want if they want to build new uh housing and uh build new a new facility for the council on aging
>> offices for school administration. Great. >> As long as they absorb the demolition costs. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Because they may say the premium they're going to pay to renovate that building to accommodate these uses may be may be just as high if not higher
than the cost of of demolition. I mean, I don't know. >> Yeah, I don't know what the >> but we have to be open to whatever suggestions they >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I I think with the the cost of new construction today, though, that makes that prohibitive. That's why we were thinking that the bones of that building are good. You know, I mean, a lot of the
stuff today, you look at the box stores, they were only building them for 50 years, you know? It's >> okay. I would entertain a motion. >> Move to adjourn. >> Second. >> All those in favor? Hi. Hi.