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. >> Thank you. I'd like to open the Tuesday, May 19th planning board meeting. Um, we are being recorded and going out live as well. Um,
and I just like to welcome our new member Jared. Um, how do you >> Podiger >> Piger Piger? But welcome. >> Thank you. And uh first up would be
approval not required ANR for 121 Adamsville Road file number 26-4130 request by Mario J and Fatima Lewis for endorsement of a
two lot plan to increase lot 5 by 16,954.1 square ft to achieve quantity for land located at 121 Adams Road map 77 lots 5A
and six sir >> good evening Mr. Chairman attorney Matthew Asen on behalf of the applicant Mario Lewis um this is a fairly straightforward ANR there was an ANR originally filed in 1973 Mr. where Lewis has owned the property
for multiple decades. This is merely to put his current law where his dwelling is into conformity with the existing bylaw. He had and the the secondary reason is his um leeching field. His u septic system is actually on this new
newly created lot. So he's never developed that land back there, but so now we're expanding that uh his home to a area where his septic system is. So, it's going to 60,000 square feet. And again, it's fairly it's fairly straightforward. I think everything's in
order. Um plan looks complete from the engineer. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them for you. But as you can see, the up on the screen, it says parcel existing line right where the arrow is. This that's the old boundary line. You can see
there's a shed and the septic system is in that new that triangle that's being added to it which brings it over 60,000 square feet in compliance with current zone. >> Okay. Uh could you just orient me and tell me where on the road this is?
>> Mario can help us. Okay. >> I hate to admit I'm not from Westport. It's right after 113. It's about halfway down between Sodom and Central Village on the right hand side.
>> There's approximately, just so you know, it's approximately 31 acres all together. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Again, he's owned it for multiple decades and over six. >> Okay. Okay. I got you. >> Yeah. Here's the property. >> All right. So it's on the north side of
Adam Silk Road. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> It's just south east of Stone Crawl away. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. So this was a proposal to convey approximately 16K square feet of land
from parcel B to parcel A. So parcel A fronts on Adamsville Road and parcel B fronts on a way approved by the planning board in 1973. shown on plan book 9157. Um both lots meet the minimum frontage requirements um and the intensity
regulations. Adams Ward is a public way and staff finds that the proposed ANR meets the criteria and recommends endorsement. >> Okay. Does anybody have any questions? >> Want a motion, Mr. Chair? Please. I move to endorse the ANR plan for 121
Adamsville Road as presented, finding that it does not require subdivision approval under Mass General Laws Chapter 41 A1B. >> Second. >> If there are no other questions or comments, all those in favor? >> I.
>> Mr. Chairman, um I did not get the gentleman's name. >> You said it very fast. >> Yes, that's why I didn't get it. >> Which gentleman? Matthew >> Aston P. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> You have the plan. Do you have the mile tonight or No, >> it'll be available for you. >> It'll be available for pickup tomorrow. >> Tomorrow. Thank you very much. Have a >> good night. You too. >> Thank you. >> Thanks a lot.
Next up is uh Zero Horse Road file number 26-3U continued from March 24th rescheduled from April 21st. Request to determine the adequacy of a
way to provide access to a parcel off of Force Neck Road at map 45, lot 8. >> Good evening, Mr. chair, members of the board, attorney Mike McVey from Mark and Walsh. I'm here on behalf of the owners and applicant, um, Robbie and Shauna
Haynes. Um, we are here tonight to hopefully gain, uh, your approval for the adequacy of horse neck road to support the single family house. You may recall two meetings ago, this board was kind enough to let me skip the
meeting. Um I think over the course of an hour we established that uh what I would say both prongs of the test to determine a way were met. The first prong that it was in existence privacy control. I had a slideshow. I still have
it. Um and then second prong was met uh to Mr. Gupt's house as you recall um an improved way uh lined with stone um you know of varying degrees of width but
accessed daily by the public in order to reach Mr. Guptal and um who's in his 90s who has graciously donated a portion of his land to a habitat for cats. So the house is routinely and daily um accessed
by the public by large trucks. Um, so tonight, uh, in anticipation, I brought, I think, if helpful, a few more images. There's a video that may plug in a couple holes in it after I reviewed
the video from two meetings ago, I think could be answered. Um, at the end of the last meeting in which we were here, uh, Mr. Bullard made a proposal that I I thought was great. uh but before it it was endured discussion
um Mr. Daylor I think clarified the point and said I don't know if we can provide think if it's okay Mr. Fuller had said that maybe we can find that the the way provides the frontage. Um, you know, in my view, as much as I
think that that'd be great if you accepted that it doesn't have the suitable grade materials when it physically reaches my client's property. That's I think an undisputed fact. The fact is is that the easement in which we came to you last time with and which
I've show I brought a little clear map for begins literally steps away from Gulp's front property and I hope I can illustrate that a little bit tonight. But Mr. Daylor had asked and we sort of concluded the meeting with uh a request
that we come back with a more uh a more detailed exit plan which I have provided and I have here tonight. um uh some reasonable in my view conditions which we we have to accept. Um
and then in that case that this board could find that this way that's been in existence and has traveled could provide access to that 10 acre lot which is 80 ft away to to build
a single family house. Um, and I only recite some of those facts just so to get reacquainted. Again, I have some images. I have video taken today that might help might help the board if they want see what's on the
ground today. >> Sure. Go ahead. Do we have to >> We don't have it. Yeah. >> So, there's several items on here, but basically there's a movie. If you turn the Before we start, if you don't mind, turn the volume down. >> Oh, okay.
>> So, but uh Robbie, I think, can you basic what it basically you're going to see is a panning from Mr. Dunl's house. Bang. You're going to see the way as it goes. And then right across the street is the easement as presented uh and in
existence. You need to pull a copy off the flash drive and put it on your desktop for you have to maintain a record. >> Okay. Okay. >> So, if you don't want to go slow, >> there's Mr. Doctals. I think that's his
edition that was put on in 2007, right? >> Yep. >> There's the way >> continuing on straight ahead. And that is the that is how the what we'll call the not yet fully improved easement is on the ground today. That's
how they access their property today pursuant to an existing access easement with the property owner. So that uh uh brief uh show with the truck in the way that's on the way towards the road.
>> Correct. Looking fast. >> Yeah. Michael, if you don't mind, I don't know who's controlling this. Could you um after this, could you open up the easement detail plan? It's one of the files, please.
this one. >> Uh, no, I'm sorry. The the horse, >> right? So, it's a simple this. So, last meeting, Mr. Daylor asked, you know, during comments, you know, if they improved, and I'm paraphrasing, but if
they came before us with an easement plan that basically carried the same width and grade as the way, and again, I'm paraphrasing, we could accept that as access. Well, what we would do, what what the Hannes would do is to actually go from roughly 16 ft to 27 to 26 and
1/2 ft um with the proper grading material, gravel. Uh so they would be widening that act that uh driveway uh putting down appropriate material and you know basically reinforcing uh
what's now a driveway into like a real driveway that could support emergency um vehicles andor delivery trucks. Can I ask a question? >> Of course. Uh the people who visit
Habitat for Cats, do they go past uh the proposed driveway of the Hannes uh or uh or or do they access it through Mr. Gupt's property? >> Um so if you reflect back to the video,
I'm standing in the center of the road. >> They often park down my lane and they park straight because uh Lloyd Guptail uses the doors to his garage to get his car in and out. So they don't like to block him. So they continuously park.
>> So do they go down there to get the habitat for cats where we're now looking? >> Yes. So the cats are between the two structures in that large overgrowth and they park both way right right down into that grassy area and whatever. And then uh if you pan over, they're often times
parked in the place that we're using to access right now. >> The district builder, if you if you back it up, sorry, if you back it up just a tick, you'll see the trash receptacles, which is serviced by what? Wind? >> Yep. Uh windways services uh Lloyd as
does the local I think it's Eastern Pro. >> Yeah. So it's routinely accessed by large. So in that in that photograph the we can just scan back and to the left.
Oh, looking straight ahead. >> That's the way described on this plan. >> Correct. Correct. And it goes on. That is correct. >> So there's a way that is used right uh
to get to Mr. guptals from the road and then there's a way that exists but is not used because it doesn't go anywhere. Right. >> Correct. That's what I presented last >> the difficulty is that way. What do whatever we find the adequacy of that
way doesn't touch >> until way over here. >> It doesn't it it does touch >> but I further on where it's unimproved. Correct. >> The way touches the council
>> and and I'd be remiss if I could, Mr. Chair, board members, if I just add this. Just looking at the definition of a way in your bylaw because you struggle with this. Does it touch the way? Is it adequate when it does touch the way? Your bylaw provides that you in your discretion you can find
that a way is is in existence and it's adequate uh for all the needs relative to proposed use sick family um abuing there for for for properties that are abuing there on the way but and these three
words I think are key or served thereby. So in this case that fits this perfectly. It will be served thereby by a 80 foot driveway in which they already have a general and they're going to specify and include hopefully with
conditions that you can provide. So what you're asking us to do and maybe two different things you're asking one is the way appropriate for access to this lot
or two is it appropriate to use this way for frontage to make this a conforming lot. Mr. Chair, I wish I could ask you with a straight face for the second part. I can't. I think that that's been discussed. I can't say that it's
adequate when it physically touches our property. I can't say that. I would ask and just in in connection with what Mr. Daylor said last week that you find a way up into up to and a little past where we're proposing to put an ement as a as a as a way and we'll we'll we'll
approach we already have an open meeting with the ZBA and we'll approach the frontage question with with Mr. Susan. Um, I know that you're not we're not here asking to declare that this parcel is buildable. We're just asking that this is
that this can be determined an accurate way right past the point in which we're trying to build a driveway or have a driveway or will improve. So, >> so, so to be clear, uh, what you're asking us to do is just to say that
there's an adequate way to get to this line. Basically, >> that's my understanding. That's absolutely >> irregardless that it's a lot without frontage or are you
saying that it has frontage way on the back >> on that on that way that really isn't >> away really I mean so >> without so I struggle with this what I would say
is if this was a if this was a corporal essay, I I'd propose two arguments. One, I'd ask that you find it's a way in existence. I think we've establish that that it's suitable the entire way through physically when it reaches my client's property,
but we could I'm not here to argue that we could say that that's how it is. But in the alternative, in the alternate, I'd ask that you consider that it reaches it's definitely buildable. I'm sorry. It's definitely away in existence and used for
residential use past the point in which we have driveway now and will improve later. So I with a straight face I'd say that the second argument is the one that I'm here making tonight and we'll go before the building commissioner to to
figure something out for the frontage portion. Mr. Chair. Yes. I I think I made this point a couple of meetings ago. Uh, and I I admit to not feeling comfortable
about the legalities here of what we're trying to do, but the way I'm looking at it is we have a couple that wants to put one house on a 10 acre lot
and get access from would you say 80 foot easement? about 85 >> 85 foot easement uh to a way that has been used by people
visiting cats Mr. gut bill waste removal trucks for decades. And so it seems to me that um and you're not asking us to determine
that it's buildable. You're going to solve that with the zoning board or with the building commissioner. Uh people have been traveling on this way for a long time and
uh if they can get all the way to Mr. Guptal's over what has existed then it it doesn't seem to me you you build a two-lane highway for 80 ft afterwards. I mean uh
it the way's been used. it is being used every single day. It's being used. Um, and so I think this way has two parts as I see it. There's the undeveloped part that goes
to the east of the easement and intersects your property. Um, and that's debatable whether that's away. That's debatable whether people use it with vehicles, but you're not
asking us to determine that that part is away. You're asking us to determine what's to the west of your easement. And that is something that's been used by all kinds of traffic for a long time.
So I, you know, again, I I don't know how we base this, but I don't have a problem with that because I don't think it's adding significant traffic. And as I said two meetings ago, I think it's awfully good that 90year-old Mr. Guptal
has some neighbors who are going to be neighbors next to him. Uh, I'd want that. >> Yeah. Well, I I appreciate your thoughts. But I also would like to have some kind of idea how Mr. Guptal's
access isn't a driveway as opposed to a way. And you know I I think a way historical way if it's a historical way it should show up on old maps. And I don't believe that
this does. >> It does. It does not. >> It It does. >> It does. >> It does >> as a car path or as a road. >> Well, it shows up in I mean I can we can open up the PowerPoint from last meeting. I've got deed references from
1836 1936 USGS maps. So I I would respectfully disagree there that I I believe we've well established that it's the way in existence. I would I'm almost willing to cons we are basically conceding that we can't it's not suitable for single family
house when at from basically here to when it goes to the property. Not I'm not going to not here to argue any anymore about that because I can't. Mr. Chair, the the difficulty I have
with with this proposal, the the argument that you're you're making is yes, we we have the ability to in the definition of ways that there's
there are things that we can we can improve, you know, land on public ways, land on ways that show on on approved subdivision control plans and and and all of that stuff. And finally, we can
approve ways um that abut, you know, we could we could find a way this way is adequate, but it's really ways that abut the property.
I mean the fact that it's adequate for Mr. Cuptil's property is fine but but he he actually abuts the way the historic way this property
where the way is where we could find the way is suitable this property doesn't touch that. So this is this is the difficulty that we that that you know president setting we've got back farm
lots all over this town that that have woods roads and old cot pass and old historic farm roads on them and you know we you know it's a very difficult president setting
You know, but it it's almost irrelevant if if that we find that way is adequate because it it doesn't we we could find that most road is adequate but this property doesn't touch road either. It
does doesn't touch this driveway. That's that's the difficulty is that is that that definition of way talks about the property of budding those ways and
and I I think you're reading and served by them is not a separate category. It is the a budding way serving the property. It doesn't it isn't oh any way that could serve the
property is another category. I think I think the the a budding test is is an actual test just like frontage on a public way frontage on the way showing in a subdivision control plan us finding
the adequacy that way has to touch the property that we're we're >> I just as an I would disrespectfully disagree just >> just a simple reading of the way I think doesn't leave much ambiguity Right. I hear from planning department what their
interpretation is but or serve thereby and and then that's not in connection for the installation of mutual services because that says and so >> and this I I understand your opinion. I
I respect your opinion. I just disagree with it. That's all. >> Mr. Chair, can I >> Yeah. Uh, >> can you can you please I go to the microphone to identify yourself? >> I'm Robert H. I'm the property owner. I just have a question to bring forth on
that note. Um, that would I agree with with a lot of definition you're saying. Um, however, like we brought up in the last uh meeting that we attended, Mr. Gutsel property is incredibly small
and is served by on the maps the same shown lines that we are. >> So that would have to mean that his is defined that means that lane is defined in some way in the same pattern that ours is. So if that would mean that
Gupta's house is on a car path because he has zero frontage on horseback road and not enough frontage on the lot as by subdivision control all these lots of pre subdivision control on the same if it is a car path.
So I just would like to clarify does that mean that house is that car path serves him? However, other than the fact that he's 90 years old, it's well overgrown, but there is
you can you can clearly see the same driveway that he has to be on a map as a car path from the end of Wilox's continuum. Well, even Wilcox still shown as the car path.
So I I think uh the question of whether or not Mr. Gun is in in has a house in accordance where there are are requirements. Um is not a factor.
>> Um and I don't know if his house was built before zoning. It could have been and therefore it wouldn't have had to comply. Well, >> briefly, not to be compatible, but he his house was built in I think 1935, but
the addition was allowed to be built >> 15 years ago. >> That's not ours. >> No, I just there's a lot of activity on this car path. >> Can I ask Sure. question and I'm I'm asking it of of the board. Um,
the way attorney McVey presented it this to us, hope I'm accurately reflecting your presentation, is that their uh quest to build on this
property has two parts. One is to have the planning board determine that this is a way and secondly and that's all we're determining. And secondly to go before the building commissioner and the
zoning board to determine whether this can be made a buildable lot that he's not asking us to determine that. And so it seems to me that if we can define this driveway from the
west of the proposed easement as a way uh in terms of how it serves Mr. Guptal and Habitat for Cats, then it seems why isn't that make it away? And we're not
saying that uh that makes the lot buildable. We're just saying it's a way and it's been used as a way for a long time. I think what the attorney is asking us to do is to take a very narrow look at
this uh not a comprehensive look at this. If if you represented Mr. Gutil, I would say the way is adequate. because he has direct >> because because I think it is adequate for for
serving single family home and it has historic property and it has the advantage of that property actually touches the way that we're finding. >> So that's that's the that's the critical difference. I'm I'm perfectly sensible.
You know, I'm I don't have any problem with them building on on on the lot. I I I just I I just don't want to be standing here, you know, looking at pictures of of
deer paths and people saying, "Well, this is a historic road. you know, we'll we have plenty of you know, there has to be some, you know, this the property actually has to touch this this thing.
>> I I would just add Thank you, Mr. Taylor. I would just add um you know, the no board is bound by precedent. Every person every applicant needs to come up here and present this >> and and and second, it just occurred to me, you know, if these folks made an agreement with Mr. Smith and they came
out with a bulldozer and they improved this way and they spent all this money and they disturbed all this land and they walked in here, you know, in a year and said, "We have suitable grading after tearing up all this green space."
That that just to me seems like a waste. Whereas I think what we're asking for, like Mr. Bullet said, is just a narrow and and I think an accurate reading of the way respectfully that it is served there by by an 80 foot 85 foot existing
and for who knows how long driveway as opposed to saying you know what let's go spend $150,000 and let's grade this thing out knock some trees down get permission we're going to come back in here and look we built the highway and now we have frontage so we're we're
checking that box that to me is wasteful and unnecessary and I think this is the better option in my view >> so I I think I would be okay with saying it's a way in existence up to the eastment or up to Gupt's property, but
um since the east do you have the easement now or you just going to get it? >> We have a general easement right now. I brought it and that was a question that came up with Mr. I brought it this time. >> That's what And Mr. Chair, that's all
we're asking for. So, I don't know. I would >> I'd also like to hear from the planner. >> Yeah. >> So, an easement doesn't meet the def the zoning's definition for a way. What they're proposing that easement, it's
not it doesn't meet the criteria to be classified as a way. So I think you have one problem with one solution and one problem with the other. When with this cart path, it is a way that predates subdivision control. I think we all
agree with that. But the the means by which it would be served um through municipal services or um just the general access, it's unimproved to the part that gets to this particular property. Now the other
e the easement which has been referred to as a way multiple times but it's doesn't meet the zoning definition for a way. Um I think looking at it yeah sure it could serve this property but it doesn't meet the definition. So you have
you know kind of the opposite problem on both sides of the coin. I think the the way to solve this issue is to come before the board and propose an extension off of the way up to the guptal property that you all have agreed
is a way that uh has sufficient with grades and construction. Um propose a rural residential lane which may need some waiverss um to provide just a stub to this property.
I think that's the the solution. Um that's less impactful than what was um talked about with kind of clear-cutting through the the cart path. I think nobody wants that solution, but I think we have to, you know, go by what our
regs are saying and there is a there is a pathway for um relief here and I think that is to go through the route of a rural residential lane. It does need a waiver from the subdivision regulations for the width of a deadend road because
it will be over 1,200 ft long. Um, and there may also need to be some other construction um specifications that are are waved because it's not going to be completely necessary to build the rural residential
lane out to full town standards. I think that's something that the board could could entertain. >> Right. So you're suggesting that they would have to they they could come before us with a rural residential lane
application using GPU's uh way in existence and the easement >> that that's my recommendation. Yes. for the whole the whole nine yards or just
the ement >> just the e just the portion of the ement the 80 ft of easement or whatever that length is. >> Why why did you mention it's over 1,200 ft long? >> Because from Horseneck Road to the subject parcel it will be over,200 ft
long. >> But what does that have to do with the easement? I mean maybe I'm missing something here. It'll dead. So using the cart path and then going down the easement that'll be a 1,200
um an over,200 foot long dead end way. But >> are you suggesting that we could wave all the other requirements from horse neck road to Gupts? >> That that would be a waiver that would
be necessary. Yes. >> Or could we just give our opinion that it's a way in existence up to Gupt's property and he'd have to work out with the zoning board whether or not the easement
is adequate to get access to his lawn? >> No. because that's one of the central questions before the board tonight is for you to make a determination on kind of two questions. Um whether or not this easement meets the definition of a way
and whether or not the cart path um also meets the definition of a way but has adequate wits grades in construction. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, I'm not ahead. >> I'm not asking for perspective. I'm not asking for the way the easement to be considered way. I don't believe I
referred to that as such. not at I'm asking for exactly the way you phrased it about 5 minutes ago. And and and with all due respect, what I just heard would take a lot of time, a lot more money, and a couple more appearances for these two folks just trying to build a house
when we can achieve that. I think right now, right tonight, um like I said, we're not trying to make this a buildable law tonight. And I don't need to know if this board can do that. We're asking for exactly what the way you described it about six minutes ago and then we'll go have that discussion in that fight with the CBA
and Mr. Susan. That's it. >> So you're you're asking us whether the way in existence is a way in existence up to GTO's property >> up to right right where the entrance of our ement is maybe a little beyond where
it's used every day. Correct. >> But not not the ement itself. >> Correct. How how does if we make that finding, how does that help them? They still have to go to the zoning board
>> or the building inspector. Building inspector and if they get turned down, they have to go to the zoning board. But um still from the from the building inspector's standpoint
unless you consider the frontage with the extension of this way which we're not saying is a way in existence doesn't have frontage anywhere. >> It doesn't have frontage anywhere. >> Right. >> And so
I mean I am familiar with >> he can't issue a building permit for a road that doesn't for a lot that doesn't have project on anything right and and what Michael has suggested is
has if they sort of I'm not sure we'd have to we'd have to wave a lot but if we sort of hung things on two We wanted to do this. We find the way
running on the Guptil property is adequate. Make that finding and then they come before us with the easement and and I don't want to say that we're
subdivision but that's the only process we have you know you know We could wave standards and and build a, you know, approve the construction of a
rural residential road in the Eastman. >> In the Eastman um is 81 ft or 87 ft long. >> Yeah. >> But then you'd need frontage. It doesn't
it doesn't it only has 26 ft or something frontage >> and that's not enough even for flexible frontage. >> Yeah. >> Um so you'd have to go into the property.
>> They could they could do that. They could put a >> little stuff turnaround or something at the end. >> And really I That to me is the correct way to do this because otherwise
um you're going to be constructing this driveway on the ement anyway. And if you do it to our waved standards, I don't think it's going to cost you any more money. is just getting approval for the
subdivision road which is over that easement which is uh 80 something feet and probably another 100 ft into the property. Um which we
may wave part of the building of. But that would at least give you a proper lot with proper frontage and the ability to go tomorrow to get to get a building permit.
>> Well, I would ask that we bring tonight at least to a vote. Thank you. Michael did explain that to me on the phone kindly last week. Something I'm not very familiar with candidly, but we'll look at it. The hope again was that honestly we could just kind of
take uh start over where we ended last meeting with Mr. Taylor's proposal. Um I'm I'm we're still hopeful for that. And >> so I would entertain a motion to
make a finding that the way in existence is is a way in existence beyond where this easement is along the Cup's property. If that would help you, but I'm not sure. that you could define that you know the board.
>> Um Mr. Chair based on your advice I would move uh what you suggested that the ex uh existing way is in fact a way up to the point that includes the
proposed easement. So not just in Mr. up to but >> but up to and including the uh the easement. So I would move that >> up to not >> and including the eclud the way has to
get to the e >> the entrance to the ement not including the ement but the entrance so >> that the easement if you get the frontage from the zoning board of appeal actually connects you to the way doesn't
fall a couple of feet short. >> Yes sir. U I I I I think I would second that if I I just want to make sure that that it's we're talking about the it's it's a way
in existence beyond I don't know how we defined it but but certainly path to easement or something >> it leads to death if I could lead to definition of a way by >> I I second that.
>> Okay. Any more discussion? >> Okay. All those in favor? >> I >> I >> opposed. No. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. really I would work with the planning department
and talk with whoever did your plan here and it's it's not ownorous for that kind of thing. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Okay. Okay, next is Oh Road file number
26-4 PAC which is a pre-application consultation. The applicant Longuilt Homes seeks planning board feedback on a proposed nine lot single family residential
development on Old Harbor Road map A7 lots 235. 23 and five which is 20.558558 acres. Request includes discussion of ANR flexible frontage common driveway and
site plan approval needs prior to filing a formal application. >> Good evening Tom Morris Consulting Engineers. Um so exactly what you just stated um we are proposing a flexible frontage
development that includes common driveway both of which are special permits um and site plan approval development will be required and a separate form a will be filed. Um, so
the three the two special permits in the site plan are kind of all together in one plan, although they're three separate applications. Um, and then a form A will be done separately just to be a little cleaner because that would be the reported plan.
>> Which one is a form A? >> Um, so it's essentially the same as the sheet before this, I believe, the layout plan. Um, but it's a standalone plan. We didn't submit along with this. It looks exactly like this though, but it has the
registry block all the signatures. Um, >> is the is the A&R before us tonight? >> No. >> No. We haven't formally submitted anything yet. We just kind of want to talk about the process and if you see any red flags
with the development. So you you've you've offered a proof plan of that this lot this land could be subdivided and get 13 lots. >> Correct. >> All right. So offering the proof plan and then
suggesting under our flexible frontage bylaw that you would do for Ames with three busted driveways. each of whom serving three lots. So at the end the 13 lots
would be reduced to nine lots under the flexible frontage. >> Correct. And I believe three of the lots meet the standard zoning requirements. So they technically wouldn't meet the
flexible frontage approval, but they all kind of go together in the development. Um, so this is the existing farmland primarily on the north side, which is the left of the sheet. Um, there's a house with several
outbuildings. Um, and some clearing around it. Uh, several stone walls around the area. Um, and I know this area has also been uh viewed as a what was it? The scenic
area. How is it defined? >> It's in a It's a national heritage. Let me I forgot the exact >> cultural. >> No. Yeah, it's not national heritage. Um it's some sort of scenic >> um area
and part of the requirements for the flexible frontage is to try to maintain existing vegetation, existing stone walls um which I know is something we try to do anyway um in the town, but we've we've
tried to do that with our design uh keeping the driveways where we're having very minimal impact to exist existing stone walls um and trying to keep as much of the existing vegetation as possible as well. >> Mr. Chair,
>> you have a plan that shows the stone walls. >> Um yeah, they are on here. It's a little hard to see without zooming in. Yeah, here you go. So, you've got one that comes along from the front all the way back to here kind of in line with the existing house.
There's one along the existing septic up front here. Um I don't think it's really an old historic wall, but there is one that comes off the house here that will largely stay in place. Uh this barn is
going to remain um which you can see if you go I think two sheets down the grading plan. So, so the plan uh one of the plans uh for the 13 lot shows
uh the walls the plan that with the nine units I'm not seeing I'm trying to guess where the walls are but are you saying that uh when you lay out the nine units
the walls are are stay >> mostly. There will be some minimal um adjustments to them uh disturbances where we have >> openings for driveways or
>> um not even necessarily for the driveways, but we have a swale coming down >> collecting the storm water from the driveway here and we have to go through the wall at this point to get over to where the drainage would be. >> Yeah. Um, so that section of the wall
would be disturbed, but most of the wall all the way ends right here. So other than that one point breaking through and right at the front where there's a little bit of drainage work, there'll have to be a small section
um disturbed. >> So the wall goes down the north side of that uh uh driveway. Yeah, it goes all the way along the front edge here, which would remain and then up basically parallel to the existing house.
And then you have one that cuts across here as well. Um, this will be cut through by this driveway, but there will be a portion of >> I guess I can see it on the screen. I can't see it on the plan. >> Yeah, the reduced size copies are a little hard to see the gray.
>> Yeah. So the the barn is staying or going? >> Uh one of the barns up front here is going to remain. >> So this is the house here, the primary house that's going. This barn is remaining. The rest of the structures
are all going. The rest of them are kind of dilapidated. This one's in pretty good shape. So are all of these are you going to consider all these flexible frontage or
are there some that are just ANRS? >> So I don't know how it's kind of how you would like to approve it because I think three of them don't require necessarily the flexible frontage but I could understand if you want to approve them all together. I I I
don't see how you make sense of this plan without trying to figure them together, right? Um and there's all kinds of other pertinent things about the flexible frontage.
Um so we're supposed to preserve stone walls and edge of field vegetation. uh reduce potential number of driveways and you're suggesting you're going to share driveways into basically three driveways, right?
>> And you're going to site the buildings carefully. Yeah, we've tried to, >> but it seems like the the houses are some of them are really popped up in the air because they the grading around them has
tremendous steepness to it. So >> yeah, that's based on the the groundwater in the area. It's it's essentially it's a drumland. Um, so it's glacial till groundwater is relatively
high throughout the entire site even at the high point. Um, just because you have that compacted soil, it meets that restricted layer and kind of gets hung up. So everything the septics and the basement have to be set above that.
>> So what is the water table? Um, I think it was anywhere from 3 to 5t across the site. We did park test with the board of health already on these lots and a few um drainage holes across where
we're uh presenting the drainage. >> There's a lot of seasonal high water 30 in 36 in 38 in. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah, I think it's primarily around 3 ft >> and and in what you'd expect
slow 27 29 minute an inch per rates in most cases. Across the street from this location is an historic um place where the harbor used to come and
fill their water jugs because the water in the harbor was terrible. So right across the street there was a a well >> it's not even a well the water just
comes out of >> and people would go including my father-in-law used to go as a kid to deliver these jugs of water all over the place. >> Um so I'm not surprised that it's >> a lot of water.
>> Yeah. But being a lot of water, um, it is going to create a lot of houses that look out of place because they're too high to think. So, is there any way to
in some places where it's really egregious not put a whole basement or >> uh put a shorter ceiling basement? >> It's kind of as much about the septic as
it is about the basement, the elevation. Um, so even if we put a slab, the house would have to be raised up to get the entire the separation between the septic and the groundwater and then up to the house from there. Um, so the basement is
really not going to have any impact on that. But I think the the natural slope on the land, do you have a high point that comes right through here and it's a it's a fairly significant slope coming up. Um, so I think it will
blend in relatively well. Um, and this you see a lot of grading in here. That's because there's a um a steep slope off of that house. So the grade has to catch on to it. It's not really raised up.
However many contours this is, 15 ft off of the existing grade. It's it takes that long to blend it in um to the existing. But I don't think it'll look that far out of place >> like nine islands in a pond,
>> right? And I think most of the houses outside of the one that's going where the existing house is going to have pretty good screening from the road because of the grade going up and the vegetation that's going to remain. And you you say here that um I didn't
look on every single lot, but you say there's no wetlands on any >> correct? Yeah, there's no no wetland on the Barcel. >> It seems to me from driving by that the bottom north of these two other lots
where the driveways come down that it was wet there. But >> we talked to that conservation agent today and he confirmed it's all upland. >> It's what? >> It's all up. >> All up. >> And so
your client, this is just the property in Massachusetts, >> correct? >> There's a budding, there's a budding property in Rhode Island, right? >> Um I don't know. Do you own anything in Rhode Island?
>> No, I think that's all conservation land in Rhode Island. >> Okay, >> that's what it says. >> Yep. >> Little Compton Agricultural Conservation Trust. >> Well, I know originally the Marrow owned into Rhode Island. >> Yeah, I think there might be a couple
lots um just north >> that have access from Old Harbor that goes into Rhode Island, >> right? Yeah, this isn't related to that. >> Mr. Leech, >> is there a state line inside or outside? It's all walls in the rear of the
property. Um, could we zoom in on that back line? >> Looks like inside from that. >> Yeah, it kind of wanders on it. Um, but here at the corner, >> the wall is behind. It's in Rhode Island. Mhm.
>> And another question on the culprit that goes on the old harbor road. Are you replacing that? >> So there's four >> um along this property. Um and >> one the one in the corner on the pond. Is that going to be replaced?
>> That's a problematic one cuz it goes uphill. >> Which one? This one. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It is kind of buried. Um >> it goes uphill. >> Yeah. So it needs to like basically it has to build up ahead here. It has to pond before it will top out as it's
intended to. Um, so I know what we're proposing right now is to tie into that and replace at least the outlet half of that pipe. Um, and >> when it's heavy rain is just always floods across the road there.
>> Yeah. and we could improve this within the rightway as best we can. Um, without something from Clarebornne, we wouldn't be able to go all the way to make it go without bonding. You might want to
talk to the highway department about that only because of that situation. >> Yeah. >> So, >> does the highway department have an easement? >> No, of course. There was there was a big uh to-do with her and the highway department in this light.
>> Yeah. >> So, what do you do for that? >> So, we're doing the drainage in a way that the rate is not going to be increased. It's going to be decreased for every storm up to the 100 year. And then we're meeting
the subdivision regulation of the 10-year volume um reduction. And then we had one special case I think I wrote in the letter, the one all the way to the south. Um, it outlets
directly above that of Butters uh garage that I saw as we were going. It's not right up against it, but it's directly downhill of it. So, we made a special consideration there to reduce up to the 100redyear volume um just to be a little
bit more safe. Mr. Chair, I have a question while you're here thinking um there are two lots 445 453 that are surrounded by this development. Um, you want to tell me what the owners of
those lots think about this? You know, >> um, I have not talked to people. >> No idea. >> No idea. >> The first formal presentation to the planning feedback. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, when when we do the formal submitt, um, they'll obviously be
notified, >> so they'll have a chance to come in. So, this middle driveway, is that where the driveway is located now? >> Um, I think it's kind of closer. Can we zoom in? Right up here.
>> It's It's almost in line with this one right here. >> The existing driveway opens up right where this one is. So, this is this is new. This is completely new. The existing driveway is
here. >> And how far apart are these two driveways? Do you know? >> Um I don't know off hand and it's not dimension there. >> It's not. I mean, just looking at the length of
the pipe there, it's got to be at least 100 ft between. >> And how far away is that driveway from the butter? >> The butter's driveway. >> Oh, from the abuter's driveway.
>> Probably about the same. around 100. I'm sure you don't know that we have an inclusionary bylaw that requires lots of 10 subdivisions of more than 10 have affordable housing.
I'm sure that's a shock to you. That's why you have nine. >> Well, to be to be honest, we did not intentionally uh this is just the way it worked out. And the common driveways can only serve three houses.
>> Um so we need another driveway if we had another house as well. But just the way the the lock areas in the frontage for the flexible frontage worked out, that nine is what fit. >> Um, you really
maybe there's a way to squeeze another one in, but it would have been very very difficult. Um, especially with the required drainage up front there. So just going through the bylaw uh bit
by bit. Uh the effort is should be made to retain existing roads and laneways. And you're not doing either there because the the driveway or driveways that had been there
you're not using right. Well, we're improving the one that is there. It it it's literally falling in the same place. It's It's a little hard to see, but the gray line right here is the edge of the existing driveway that comes this way. It almost meets up right where this one
is proposed, the edge of the driveway. And it and it comes right up through here. That gray line is the existing driveway. It comes It probably falls right underneath this edge. So, this one is being
utilized. It's It's being improved. Um and then there's no other existing driveway and with a limit of three on a common driveway, we can't service all the houses from it. >> Okay. Preserve stone walls and edge of
field education. >> Yeah. So >> I understand the stone walls where we can see them except for places where you have to go through them. You're preserving you. >> Yeah.
>> But edge of field vegetation. >> So we have the existing field around the existing house. Um portion of it obviously is being cut for the house is coming out back. But we have the existing tree line here that's
being maintained all the way up to kind of the end of the common driveway. Um, and then on the back side, the existing tree line is back here. None of that's being cut. And on the left side, there's nothing over there that's being
cut. So really, it's just this house coming in that's disturbing that existing edge of field right here, this portion of it, but the rest of it is all being maintained. >> Okay. Okay. And then sight buildings
carefully uh either at the edges of fields or in a wooded area. However, septic systems and leaks fields can be located in fields. Buildings and clearing of land shall be designed and performed to minimize tree
canopy penetration and to avoid crest lines of hills as seen from public places and public and private roads. Wherever practical, the project shall open up views to serve a building only through the selecting selective cutting
of small trees and pruning lower branches of large trees to create a filtered view. We shall not use clear cutting involving the removal of large areas of growth or the removal of mature trees. >> Yeah. So, we're we're proposing to cut
as few trees as possible. Um it's also a benefit for us because it creates less runoff. So it's less drainage required. Um even in the especially on the right side, the south side the infiltration basin that we're
proposing um the upgradient side aside from the bottom of the basin here. We're proposing to keep the trees within
that upgradient side of the basin um to help screen from the road to the proposed house here um and create less runoff. >> But from where your your basin is to the road that's all treed now, right?
>> Correct. >> So all that comes out. >> Yep. So the view from the road will be this bounding up to the basin pipe. >> Yeah.
And the project shall design and locate building envelopes in relation to the road or driveway in a manner historically or visually appropriate to the neighborhood. She'll use vegetation as a backdrop to
reduce the prominence of the structures. >> Yeah. So again, >> trying to keep as much as we can to screen from the road. And we've also um kind of created an S in the driveway here that helps limit kind of seeing
down the corridor up to the road up to the houses. So if you look straight through here, you're going to end up seeing some trees here that obscure the view up to the house. So, do you have a plan that shows where the trees are at all?
>> Yeah. So, the existing will show >> and this one does. This one? >> Yeah. >> Basically, this this entire side here is tree, >> right? >> Um and then you have the existing edge of field tree line coming through here. There's a little bit of an opening in
the back and it loops back around to here. So basically from this point over is all wooded So, I'm just particularly interested in this basin on the south side there.
>> Uh, the western edge of the basin. How far is it from the road? >> Yeah. >> Could you go down to the great again, please? >> So, I know we were We don't have a dimension, but I was keeping some space off of the
toe of the slope there to be able to swale the runoff um a little bit better toward the existing culbert. I know driving by the area and looking at those culverts, there's definitely an existing drainage issue.
>> Um, where there's kind of an intent of swailes on our side of the road pitching the water toward those culverts. That's really not there. The water just kind of comes down, hits the road, sits there.
>> You've got a lot of cracking, settling in the road. Um, so we took that in mind as well with how it's being shown with the grading. It should help improve that uncontrolled flow as well as what we're putting through our drainage basin.
>> So the the western edge is probably up to the eastment edge. I would guess the the top of the slope from the basin is probably 10ish feet from the property line and then there's a few more feet beyond
there to the road. So the top of Burm is 126 ft but It's impossible for me to read it on these tiny oil maps. >> Yeah. Could we zoom in on that? To
>> which part? Okay. >> See a little hard to read here too. So 126 down to one 113. >> So it's 13 ft tall. But again, like I said on the other side with the house, it's not really 13 ft out of the
existing ground. It's catching up with that slope that's already there. That makes it look worse. Um I think when it gets built, it's not going to be as monstrous as it looks. >> On the on the north side, the land comes down
below the level of the road, right? >> Yes. Yeah. before it goes back up. It does have a little bit of a low spot on the north side. >> And that's where it pawns before it goes over the road, >> right? >> Well, it kind of does it along the whole
>> crunch. Um cuz you have cover here and cover here. And it really should be there's a high point in the road basically right where we're putting the driveway. and there's kind of an intent of a swale going in
each direction and it's just it's so flat that it doesn't go where it's trying to go. Um, and it ends up puddling up against the road. So, with the the grading we're doing here, kind of extending pulling back
this grade a bit, it will divert the flow to the cover rather than standing up against the road puddling. and then eventually over top. >> Yeah, I think the road when they put it in acted as a danger because on the west
east side of the road it falls off and it's very wet. >> Yes, >> Mr. Chair. Y um this is a pre-application consultation. We appreciate you coming to us uh beforehand.
I think as you listen to the chairman read through some of the requirements for flexible frontage, uh what would be helpful to me is if you took some of those criteria
like preservation of walls and maximizing or minimizing the amount of trees that are cut and uh did a plan just about those issues. So, if you showed, for example,
uh a plan with uh what's the tree cover now and where are the walls now? And you mentioned that there are just a couple of places in the walls where you're going to have to run a culvert. So, you'd identify where that was. And so we
could see what percentage of the walls stay and what percent may get uh removed or uh uh drilled under for culvers. And the same um with the uh trees. If you if
you show what is forested now and then in that plan say the this is where the trees are going to be removed for the house lots or what that gives us an ability to say well it looks like you
know 90% of the trees are staying or 75 what whatever it looks like but it's hard to to see that when we're also looking at all the elevations and and the houses. So if you if you just did the things that we need to see for
flexible frontage and so we can more easily determine >> how many trees >> highlight those things >> so it's easier to read that >> uh when you come before us a recommendation on that would be is a plan or just grabbing an aerial and
redlining the aerial >> to show trees or where pink had been removed be very easy for the board to be able to Sure. >> Versus having to do another set of draws. >> I'd pay some special attention to the drainage.
>> Yeah. You're going to have people across the street that are going to be very concerned about that. >> Yeah. That's why especially the one on the south side where it's directly above their garage. we're proposing to go
above and beyond what's required >> and and u I'm not sure that you made a comment earlier which I agree with that that
Burm at 126 is almost on the existing grade which it it looks like that's true. I'm not I'm not sure how that holds water or something. If it's the basin is up.
>> It is built up. I'm just saying it's not 13 ft. So, if you're looking at the toe of the slope versus the top of the basin, it's not 13 ft above existing grade. It is still built up. You have the the contours on the interior of the basin. That's how far it is being built
up. Um, looks like it is still it's several feet. >> Looks like it's like 3 ft. So, between the western edge and the top of B. >> Well, we'll we'll we'll definitely take
a look at the drainage. >> Yes. >> Yeah. And it's grinding off to the corner. >> Yeah. Going to that culvert. So each cover is our uh design points and Rhode Island is our fifth design point.
>> Which one? >> For drainage. Each culvert is a design point pre and post development. Um as well as the rear lot line to island. So we're we're looking at what's going to each culbert now versus after the
development and making sure that each individual case is met. >> So at the outfall of each of these basins you have a culver under the road. Is there one or is this going on to the road?
>> They're going to culverts existing culverts. Um so nothing will be flowing over the road. Unfortunately, Westport has culprits all over the place that don't have easements. And when you start
fiddling with the water going into them, the people on the other side, the receivers, as Bob said, are going to be very interested. >> Right. Understood. I
casting represent >> could you identify yourself? >> I am I am the casting council for Longville Homes. Um we um you know we've addressed that issue uh prior to um uh
presented the plans to you and uh the reasonable use doctrine which is well established law in the commonwealth of Massachusetts is essentially in effect and that reasonable use because water goes downhill so somebody's water always
transfers over onto somebody else's property. It's been a long recognized uh premise in Massachusetts law, which is exactly why, as Tom mentioned, we have made it a point to either maintain or
improve the level of discharge with this project from pre pre uh development conditions. >> Yeah. So, I'm sure you're aware we require a 20% reduction. >> I think that's if the volume is not met.
it requires that. >> I'd have to look at exactly how that's written, but I'm pretty sure we're meeting. >> If not, I'll make sure we do meet it. >> Okay. >> So, it's it's the rate and the volume. So, it's from these guys.
>> Yeah. >> So, and by the way, that was the critical natural landscape. >> Yes. >> Determined area >> which we've which we've addressed. not not natural heritage. >> So, anybody have any more comments?
>> No questions. >> Um, I just have a question for the applicants. If you're intending to submit the ANR um on its own first or if you were thinking of putting it all together piece me uh all together um as one application with the special permits
and site plan development. I think the intention is one complete application for all the lots to be considered in the >> okay >> flexible frontage. >> Okay. >> Recognizing that three of the lots don't
necessarily require that we prefer just treat the whole project under that uh by Okay. Do you need anything else from us? >> Um, not unless you have any other
>> Since this is an informal, I don't think we >> informal. So, that's why I'm asking. >> Yeah. No, no. I appreciate that. I don't think because it's an informal, I don't think we have to actually request a continuence, but I think no is there. >> What I what I'd like
>> Are you unclear what we're >> What I'd like to do is I'd like the plan that Mr. Bullet asked for. Um, I'd like to go back before you at your next meeting uh with that uh supplemental presentation.
Mr. Chair, >> um it it's probably obvious, but I just want to say for the record, while we have uh questions and concerns and requests on the uh nine lot flexible
frontage plan, uh I certainly prefer that to the other plan that's here, uh of 13 13 lot. So, I don't want you to think our concerns that we're going over with the 91 means
we want you to go back to the 13th. No, we don't. >> No, your concerns are fully understood. Your vi, you know, your laws, your bylaws, your bylaws, and your rules and regulations might be respected and uh follow.
So I think in when you come back with an application it would be good to have a story. >> Yeah. >> Not just the plans but the story how you how are you complying with the with the
particulars of the bylaw and the reason that we have the bylaw. >> Fully agree. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much. >> Thanks very much. Thank you for your time and consideration. Appreciate it. Okay. Next up is approval not required
ANR for 966 Drift Road file number 26-4213. Request by Russell Goyette and Sherry Miles for endorsement of an ANR plan to transfer parcel A 19,400
square ft from assessor's map 54 lot 51 to map 54 lot 5A. >> Good evening Charlies Northeast Engineers representing Terry Mile and Russell Boyette. This is extremely
complicated ANR plans. So >> we can tell >> I might be here for hours. Uh so what's happening basically is when we had stake this line for the Goyette, uh you better uh
Mr. Russell found out how close his house was to the line, decided he would like to purchase a buffer zone around his house to give him a little bit more room. So they're picking up a 30 foot wide strip that runs from this down to the water from the Goyette to selling them 30 foot strip just to add to this
lot. The previous and post part of this would both meet uh zoning for frontage area and all the requirements. It's pretty simple straightforward parcel swap. I guess >> Sean, there are vertical lines in the uh
uh northern lot. Is that three lots or uh >> or one of the lot lines there? >> Oh, these >> that line. Yeah. >> Oh, those are stone walls. >> That's a stone wall. >> It's hard to see that they're little
>> Oh, yeah. >> It's hard to see the little holes. We need to bring magnifying glass from now on. >> Those are Yeah, these are existing stone walls going back and forth. Got it. Okay. >> Okay. Are there any questions? Do we
have any uh pointers that want to give us your opinion? >> Yeah. You know, they firm on Drift Road and like Sean said, they meet all our requirements. So, staff recommends endorsement. >> You want a motion, Mr. Chair? >> Sure. I move to endorse pursuant to Mass
General Laws chapter 41 section 81P the approval not required plan for 966 drift road transferring parcel A 19,400 square ft from assessor's map 54 lot 51
to map 54 lot 5A second. >> Any questions, comments? All those in favor? I >> I opposed. >> Thank you very. >> Next is uh zero register avenue file
number 265U request to determine the adequacy of a way to provide access to lots on Register Avenue map 16 lots 320-339. Do we have anybody here for this? >> Could you identify yourself?
>> John Per and my wife Tracy Py. >> Do you know how to spell that? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Very good. So please explain >> um >> a map maybe
>> this this right here is the road these apostles right here these two and I was playing come up come up long street and turn on register avenue off conserve >> huh Long Street.
>> Yeah, Long Street. So, Long Street is um a gravel road and we're we we're just going to finish graveling the road coming up through here. It's already been cut out as the other pictures are showing into the lot here. This this lot right here has already been um um proved
by per test. And >> so, this is the green outline or blue. >> Yeah, the both of them are out, but this is the one we're going to build on. because there's wet land in the middle here. >> So, we were originally going to come down Red Avenue, but there's wet land.
So, we had to come along this way to come in to this lawn. >> So, these these roads aren't necessarily built. >> Um, this one is built all the way to here. And then right here was was woods, but uh it's wide now. It's like 20 ft
wide, but it doesn't have gravel yet. >> So, where is this actually? So Sanford Road's over here. Sanford Road's over here. You come down Sanford Road. Well, you would come up Sanford Road from Route Six. Turn left on Conserve.
>> Okay. So on the inside of S. >> Yeah. And then you come you go down Conserv Street. It's a dirt road and and then that's how you would get to the property here. >> Oh wow. There's no roads.
>> There's a road where Yeah, right there. I see. >> Okay. So, >> what do you need from us? >> Um, I I wanted to show the plans ahead of time because um we already went for
conservation. We already um had all the engineered plans. That's the That's our guide which would be our road right here. That So this is actually register. This is register app right here. >> The property's right up here. You can see it up there.
>> So this subdivision dates from the early 19 >> 1919 >> 197 1919 to 1917. This is this would actually continue straight through to Sanford Road up here. >> This part is all all paved already up here. And then in the middle of this
property because it's a acre and a half foot of frontage, it's got wet land in the middle. That's the only reason why we couldn't come down this way. Otherwise, we could have just continued down regular because that's the way conservation wanted it done.
>> So, Mr. Chairman, similar to what you were considering with the um horse neck road case, same exact determination that you'll be making on this request. >> So you
what I had written to the board is that this this is a way that existed prior to the subvision control law. Um, and although it's not developed right now, um, I think it's possible to develop
this road or this way in in a way that could be suitable be able to provide suitable access to this particular lot. So >> we would be recommending that the way conforms or could conform
to the rural resolution. >> I would recommend that the road is constructed two town standards for a rural residential lane which I think that was your intent was to do a rural residential lane.
>> It was 20 ft wide with um three um inches of gravel. So it would be gravel. That way one can percolate instead of putting asphalt or on the road. >> Right. But our our standard isn't just 3
in. It's it's has a top coat of 3 in of gravel. It has 12 in of gravel underneath. Right. >> Yeah. So there's a there's a base coat, I guess, um of 12 12 in deep of gravel. Then you have the 3-in compacted crushed
gravel. And then on top of that there's a one and a half inch of um crushed stone 3/4 inch. >> Right? So what we should consider doing
is granting them or compining that they can construct to that standard in this old subdivision that hasn't been built. >> Yeah. I think that the request is one to
find that this existed prior to subdivision control and two if they construct to the proposed standards would that provide adequate access to the lot. >> Okay.
This this is this is a recorded subdivision prior to zoning. >> And unlike the applicant that was here earlier, this actually touches touches away shown in the subdivision plan recorded in the
registry. It has all those attributes. Now it's just the construction standards. If they meet our rule of residential roads, that's probably the best we can do. And >> and if they do that, then we could consider that adequate
>> that it's adequate andable. >> And then what we would do, should you make a positive finding that it meets those criterias, we'll send a memo to the building inspector saying that provided this is upgraded, the planning
board would find that it's suitable, >> right? So I think I would entertain a motion to uh make a finding that this way may become an adequate way
uh once upgraded to the rural residential lane standard. >> You want a motion? >> What he said? So, so much. >> Second. >> All those in favor?
>> I I >> oppose. >> Okay. Thank you. You have a good night. >> Good luck. >> Okay. Next is 856 State Road. Uh file number 26-3302 spa.
This was rescheduled from April 21st. We need to close the public hearing. >> Want a motion? >> Please >> move to close the public hearing for 856 State Road. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I >> I.
Uh, next is 82 High Ridge Road, file number 26-3482 SP- FFF, rescheduled from April 21st. Close public hearing. Want a motion? >> Please. In advance of the motion, I want
to say uh this looks to me like our staff is going back over things and making sure we cross tees and dot eyes. >> Correct. Uh, and I really appreciate you doing that. That's not the most exciting work, but it's uh really important. So,
thank you for uh cleaning things up. I move to close the public hearing for 82 High Ridge Road. >> I second that. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> Next. Cory Ridge Estates file number
23-035C rescheduled from April 21st restor review stormwater onm. >> So I just wanted to bring to your attention um the funding estimate in the storm water and M for Cory Ridge
Estates. Um this was um ver I did verify that they've addressed all their outstanding items with MBL. So, per the conditions, it just needs to come to the board for approval. If you look at the second page, they're approximating um
maintenance to be about a thousand per homeowner. Um I don't know if the board wants to deliberate on that or if >> so where are we >> for Corey Ridge Estates? Um >> page two.
>> Yeah. At the last paragraph seven, >> cost of maintenance shall be the responsibility of the owner's projected annual inspection maintenance costs approximately,000 bucks. That's per owner, right? >> Yes. >> I don't think the board actually needs
to provide any additional input on that. I mean, MBL said that it was fine >> and they found that it was reasonable. >> So, we don't have to act. >> You don't have to make a motion on this. >> We have only so many motions. That's right. >> We don't want to run out of
>> Okay. Uh, next is community Community Preservation Committee CPC nomination of a planning board representative.
>> So Mark representative in the past. >> Mark Schmidt was the representative. Um and so the planning board does have one dedicated representative to the CPC. >> Um and the select board would like a recommendation. I moved a new guy.
>> Jared, right? >> Uh, when do they meet? >> Do we know? >> Every Monday. >> Every Monday. No. >> Uh, >> I think they they meet virtually. >> Okay. >> Let me check.
>> Betty Slade leaving. They'll probably disband. Well, yeah. >> It's the second Thursday of the month at 6:30 and their last meeting was virtual.
Okay. And so was the one before that. So I'm assuming that's what they're doing on a ongoing basis. >> So you know what it is. >> My experience. >> Yes. Uh I've talked to Betty about the >> in my experience they have a lot of
meetings just before 10 meeting. >> Yes. >> But beyond that I don't know how often they meet. >> Okay. >> Uh this board you spend your time saying no to people. That board you spend your time saying yes to people. It's a it's
>> a good antidote. >> Okay. >> Sure. Absolutely. So, uh, we had a second. >> Yes. >> All those in favor? >> I >> I >> and can chair, there's a number of
>> uh all there's a number of standing committees in the town commission planning board members or members and we all we all sit. We're not particularly picking on you.
>> Yeah, we are. So, uh, next, South Coast Regional Planning and Economic Development District, Serpent Commission appointment for fiscal year 2026 2027. >> You want a motion? >> Sure. Uh this is my annual motion that
as Jim Whiten has been on surfed since before there was surfed and knows more about ser than any living person. I move to appoint our chairman to be the surfed representative to the commission.
>> Second 26 27 >> second. >> All those in favor? >> I >> Okay. uh planners report I mean
>> oh one sec one second it's to nominate you for servant >> is that do you sign >> John John nominated and Jared second >> yeah to sign the form as as the vice chair >> double
nine good catch you They'll keep us from making these mistakes and they'll be digging out forever. >> We don't want to show up in the paper. >> So Jared and Jim, both of you were at town meeting and I sent out an email about
it, but everything carried and it was nothing was very controversial, especially the village center zoning. Um, that sailed right through and seems like people are really supportive of that. So that's that's good news heading into the the village center um analysis
that we're doing with Serb. Um an update on our on our mass trail or I guess not mass trails but we'll hopefully be using this as match for our mass trails grant. Bay Coast Bank donated $10,000 to the planning board
for advancing the South Coast bike way. Um, so that'll hopefully be used as match to complement a $18,000 grant I applied for a couple of months ago that would bring the WPA connector and the boardwalk, probably design a boardwalk
with that um to 25% DOT design. an update from our housing choice designation application. Um because the town has a very active affordable housing trust and we have certain zoning policies that align with what the
state's expectations are for generating new housing. Um and we've had 3% growth in the last 5 years. We were approved as a housing choice community. And so what that does is it's essentially a rewards program for communities that have
achieved certain percentage rates of growth over a five-year period and they also have um various affordable housing policies in place through their trust or through through zoning. Um it gives us bonus points on grant
certain grant applications. There's an exclusive housing choice grant that is a very flexible grant fund that um is it's exclusive to communities that participate in the program. So there's a lot fewer uh potential competitors for
that grant. And then I think the big ticket item here is it waves match requirements for the Seapport economic grant which you can request up to a million dollars on that grant. And we do have a grant um in the works for that. So, I'll switch gears to the Seapport
Economic Council grant Hicksbridge landing update. We are preparing a grant application for upgrading the landing to improve the site access, do some salt marsh remediation, rebuild the boat la,
redesign and rebuild the boat launch, um rework the way that the site circulation currently functions. It looks like they're digging a a new second access point, are they? >> No, >> they're not doing that now. >> No, we're we're going to close off that
second access point to have access. >> No, I know. But it looks like they were uh uh preparing a second access, not on uh the old second access, but closer to the what I assumed was being on town
property. There is more parking that is on the other side of the bridge. Is that what you're talking? >> No, that's not what I'm talking about. >> No, it may be the cable that's going. It could be what's going on with every >> There is utility work going on through there. So, that that's probably it.
>> Um, yeah, there shouldn't be any construction associated with this project yet because it's we're not out of the design phase yet. >> Okay. >> Um, I don't know how much we're going to come in and request for this. we can request up to a million dollars and this is um estimated to be a a two $2 million
project. Um so it'll probably be you know somewhere up there but I haven't sorted that out with our consultant yet. So that that remains to be seen but this will finalize engineering and initiate construction. That's the intent. Um then
once we have that momentum, we'll keep you know going back to the council for >> So the the upgrade to Hitchbridge landing is anticipated to cost $2 million. >> Yeah. Wow. >> Well, there's big component of it is
dealing with the storm water. And right now the the storm water just sheet flows from one end to the site right directly into the river without any sort of treatment, you know. So any any spill, anything that's lingering on the site, any sediment, it's all just getting
dumped right into the river. Um we see this as being pretty complimentary to what's going on with the uh the uh shellfish office. They're trying to, you know, recede the shellfish in the river. And so um we we don't need to be making
any pollution issues worse when they're trying to do that. So, it's going to be a number of years before we actually get this completed, but this will hopefully get things started. Um, then next, I have an update on our
master planning process. Bob, you had emailed me about this today. Um, we've requested funds to update the master plan from uh, Mass EA as well as there's a grant application in the works from the
community onetop for growth. Um, the EA grant is a let me see my notes here. $54,000 grant request and this this phase of the project will be 70,000. Um, and the reason why we split this out in between
two grant programs is that one's more environmental oriented, one's more built environment oriented. Um, so it made sense to fit them into these two buckets and not ask ask too much from each program. Um, and then along with that, we we'll be getting uh $20,000 in
technical assistance from SERPAD as well. Um, so that's about $150ome thousand project uh to do to update the master plan over it'll be a two-year period. Um, I would like a motion from there is a support
letter that I had brought before you all. Um, if you want to if you haven't had the chance to take a look at it, um, please do so. And I would like a motion from the board to endorse the town's grant application to the community onetop for growth rural development
fund. >> I move that we authorize our chair to sign uh the drafted letter to executive office of economic development concerning the master plan. >> Second. >> All those in favor?
>> I. Michael, what do you think is the uh the timetable for starting this planning process? >> The goal is to have it started fall and winter and hopefully all the funding falls in place. So, I think if all the
funding falls in place, it'll just depend on when contracting when we get our contracts in place. But yeah, um this fall t typically for the onetop program they release grant decisions in the fall and then you're contracted before the end of the year. So
>> um certainly by 2027 is is the hope to have it kicked off. >> Can I ask a follow on that? Um, do you think it's possible that I know
we're getting close to the end on the climate resilience that we could uh finish our work on climate resilience before we start our work on the master plan without delaying the master plan at all? >> I'd hope so. Y >> yeah. Yeah.
>> So that's that's a possible but it would be good not to be working on both those at the same time. >> Yeah. Especially as the climate resilience the last part of it has a significant public engagement. So
>> yeah the the new master plan will have a section on climate resilience. It won't be as robust as what the the climate resilience committee is doing. Um but we felt that it was important to integrate that whereas it was not in the 2014 plan.
>> Yeah. >> So it would be great to have that complete to inform this. >> So which which brings up a thing for me. We just appointed Jared to CPC. Uh
when do all appointments expire? Is that fiscal >> fiscal year? >> Fiscal year. So we have time for the >> Yeah. Um >> like to the climate resilience committee to
the long-term building committee and all that stuff. >> Well, some of them um I just recently talked to the town administrator about this. Some of them are going to start to be disbanded because we have a lot of different committees on the books that are not actively meeting. For example,
the short-term rental committee that some of you served on has been on hiatus for almost two years, I think. So, um, to tighten up some of those loose ends, he's starting to disband some of them. Uh, I think on our end, it'll be climate
resilience committee obviously will keep the hazard mitigation committee going. um long-term building committee I don't think will continue moving forward but infrastructure oversight will >> the offshore wind committee there's a
debate about whether it should >> okay >> uh continue or not >> so I believe at the last select board meeting they said they were going to meet twice a year >> uh for the next couple years as things just and then if they have to reassess they would reassess it
>> uh based upon activities or changes in the in Good. >> Okay. And I don't want to jump in here, but we need to appoint chair, vice chair,
and um secretary. >> Mhm. >> Of of this of the planning board. >> Yeah, we typically do it after the election. And this is the first meeting. >> After what? >> After the election. >> Okay. Well, this is it. >> Yeah. So, this is the meeting we should
do. Yeah. >> You want a motion? Sure. Um, I would move that we reappoint Jim White as chair, Bob Daylor as vice chair. Is there a third position? >> Clerk. >> Clerk, and Jared as clerk.
>> I second. >> Okay. All those in favor? >> It's a winning team. You guys been hanging up banners, you know, every year. So in the rafters so of town hall
>> Jared clerk is just really a an honorary title our we we've never had the clerk do anything for for this board but um there you go. Uh and then there's one other item that we had updated the agenda to this morning with an amendment. Um there is a there's a
support letter for SERPED to apply to the um community assistance unit for a grant to provide communities in the region with technical assistance for developing uh starter home zoning districts, which is a zoning district
under the 40y program that you can get um percentage payments towards your school district for the additional um potential impact on schools develop or uh from the impact from housing units developed in these districts in your community or you
can get a lump sum payment. I think this is something that uh the town should pursue at some point because we have neighborhoods that are already kind of developable under this framework. Um
because they were zoned prior to or they were zoned at a time that the or the lots were created at a time where the zoning enabled them to be developed on. Now that zoning has changed to 60,000
square feet. They're some of them are considered non-conforming, but under the affordable homes act, you can build these starter homes at three bedrooms, 1,850 ft. So, if we have these lots that can already be developed, why not also
participate in the program that brings along the financial resources? Um, that's kind of a probably a two-year consideration because they need to get these funds to help communities out with um getting the zoning proposals in
place. But it's something that um through my discussions with the surfed staff that they've uh assured me that the town would be at least one of their communities participating in this should they get the money. >> You want a motion, >> please? Uh, I move that we authorize our
chair uh to uh sign a letter uh to the executive office of housing and livable communities to support SERD's regional starter home zoning technical assistance program grant application because it will help our community as well as the
rest of the region identify available paths and best practices to address a well doumented desire for small single family homes that provide firsttime homes. home buyers, older adults, and young families with viable, more affordable options in our communities.
>> I I second that motion. >> All those in favor? >> I >> So, you want me to sign these things that are here or you have something? >> Yeah, if you could sign those two letters. Um, that would be great. >> So, I have one that came with at my
>> should have been a second in your packet. the middle. >> Okay. You don't have that much power. >> So So minutes. >> Uh Mr. Chair, uh we have two minutes
before us March 24th and April 7th. I've uh looked through them, especially the motions, and find them comprehensive and accurate. They keep getting better and better. So, I move approval of both
sets of minutes. That is March 24th and April 7th. >> I read them as well and I approves that motion. I second that. >> All those in favor? I
items not reasonably anticipated. Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. >> I move we adjourn. >> Second. >> All in favor? I am a