I'd like to open the February 11th regular planning board meeting in public hearings uh under Mass General Law chapter 38 section 20f this meeting is being videotaped and we might be going out
live as well so uh first up would be administrative items uh 1 a is approval not required an anr for 50 8 charot White Road file number 25-3a request by applicant for
endorsement of a two lot plan of land located at 58 charlot White Road assessors map 68 lot 7aa to convey 3626 Square ft to map 68 lot
9B hi good evening Matt Pike on behalf of the applicant uh South Coast engineering uh so the purpose of this plan is to divide aesus plat 68 L 7 AA into one new lot in parcel a as shown
in the plan parel a high shaped piece there so um so the property is located on shot White Road and is currently the site Atlantic Salvage uh the L's owned by David and Linda angle and has a street address of
58 L White Road uh the the lck as it is contains 79,513 626 Square ft um so the purpose of this P will be
conveyed to access's Plat 68 lot 9ba this slot here uh which is 60 shot White Road um there's no septic components are well in that area and there's no change in the
frontage uh the so 60 shot White Road that Lots pre-existed non-conforming it was created by an anr 1969 uh the area of that lot will increase by 3,626 squ ft and it give it a new total area of 35,6 59 sare
ft uh cus plat 68 lot 7aa will have a new area of 75,500 130 square ft and the front edge will remain at 150 ft um the for Lots West of the pel be divider were originally created as part
of an 8 acre tractor land uh that was sold by tilling gas Cirby to Julia de moranville in 1887 and the deed can be traced back with the references shown on the plan uh the parcel being divided was
created by an anr process in 19 1997 as a divisional land owned by Wilford and Phyllis Angel and which are the parents of the current owner um now turn it over to the
board okay so uh lot 68 I'm not sure I'm sorry AP Lot 88 is increasing in area so that it's becoming slightly not
more conforming right no so 68 L 7 AA is the one that's losing the 3,626 ft and so that remain conforming and then umot six assessor plat
6A lot 9ba is the non-conforming lot and will become slightly more conforming right okay uh planers Okay so estated map 68 lot 7aa
which in the staff review is referred to as parcel a is giving 3,626 square fet of land to map 68 lot 9B um henceforth referred to as parcel B um continuing on to the staff review and
the criteria for anr endorsement um the Lots shown on the plan must front on one of three types of ways and the Lots shown on this plan front on charlot White Road a public way uh the Lots shown on the plan must meet the minimum Frontage requirements um parcel a has Frontage of
150 ft the land conveyance will not affect the existing Frontage of this lot or Frontage on parcel B which has Frontage of 139.7 n ft parcel B does not meet the frontage requirements of 150 ft which is a pre-existing uh and it is a
pre-existing non-conforming law in addition there will be no change to charlot White Road nor the creation of any way relating to this proposal charlot White Road is an accepted Street maintained by the town which provides sufficient width and suitable grades when it comes to the intensity
regulations parcel a currently has an area of about 80,000 s ft after the land conveyance to parcel B parcel a will have a law area of about 76,000 ft parcel B currently has an area of about 32,000 Square ft after the land
conveyance it will have an area of about 36,000 Square fet the level of non-conformity in parcel B is decreasing though it is still non-conforming um endorsement does not mean the law is buildable parcel a does remain buildable per Westport zoning bylaws and lastly no
wetlands have been delineated on either parcel so staff finds that the proposed anr meets the criteria for anr endorsement and recommends that the planning board endorse the proposed anr plan okay any comments or questions on
the board so this is an a anr plan to divide this existing lot it it already exists in two lots it's in two Lots now so they just add to could divide it differently right could divide it
differently it it's dividing it differently than it was yeah so it's added it's adding more to the non-conforming so this lot wasn't combined because it was in the same name it's in separate names yeah separate
owners makes it a little bit better than a was before still nonconforming yeah what I'm just asking is if it was if it was combined um because it was a two two owners names I I believe the the lot lines uh
go where the dotted lot Line is now and they're adding that triangle case from the Big Lot to the small lot but these these two lots they don't belong to the same people separate ownership SE so this is this is creating
the non-buildable parcel a which will later be conveyed to um uh AP 68 wat 90 okay okay hearing no others i' entertain a
motion uh Mr chair I I move that we uh approve uh the 58 charot uh White uh Road uh based on uh the recommendation
of the staff that it uh uh meets the requirements second any discussion all those in favor I I andos thank you thank
you next is Rosewood Lane file number 23-39 c-mod release of lots one and two for land located at AP 29 lot 22c at zero gford Road between 225 and
247 gford Road and established performance sh is there anybody here for that there is someone here for that but I think um Dia can give a summary of the the issues at hand and what has been requested
okay so per the semi-final inspection prepared by field engineering um the outstanding items for this development are that the proposed grass SS be regraded loaned and seated as necessary to provide cover and function as designed um the sediment that has built
up behind the stone check dams must be removed um the grass shoulder areas will need to be fine graded and receded in the spring to EST establish the necessary ground cover and surface stones in the grass shoulder areas need to be removed as well so the applicant
is looking for a motion to release the Lots from covenants and to establish a performance charity of $10,000 to ensure that the remaining work is completed okay um are there any questions from the
board hearing none then I would entertain a motion so Mr chair um I move that we uh release uh Lots one and two uh for land located at AP 29 lot 22c
zero gford road but that we retain uh $10,000 of shity for completion of the work as uh described in the plan that's second all those in favor I
I okay next is Silverback construction file number 21- o4 Spa temporary certificate of occupancy request for two Cheryl's way please your name Michael Dello and
your address uh 2A Cher Way West okay go ahead sorry I'm just yet to see if I can get the temporary occupancy permit for that property on suway Cher's
way Mr chairman we have a report from the Consulting engineer that the assistant planner can provide all a summary on okay so the so the previous approval um at the public hearing held on
November 16th 2021 the planning board moved to approve the site plan application for two Cheryl's way the project as presented which complied with all applicable requirements of the Westport zoning bylaws the rules and regulations governing the subdivision of land and site plan approval was approved
for a 4,200 ft twostory commercial building for garage stores and off an office space with 16 parking spaces um the conditions of approval included but were not limited to the following one that any material changes determined by the
building expector to the approved site plan shall require planning board approval number two that erosion and settlement controls be installed prior to construction and maintained throughout and that Landscaping be in accordance with the approved plans and three that an asil plan certified by the
applicants engineer that the site was developed in substantial Conformity with the approved plans be submitted to the planning board for review and approval prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit so um field engineering um for the semi-final site inspection report
prepared by field engineering the following items are um outstanding in no order number one Landscaping plantings and pavement markings on the binder need to be installed um number two pervious surfaces need to be fine graded loaned and seated portions of the side slopes
may need additional seating number three please note that the Cape Cod that Cape Cod BM was installed um instead of pre-cast concrete curb shown on the design plans number four the existing wooden staircase and deck existing utilities and all components of the
existing existing drainage and recharge system pardon must be shown on the final asil plan um outstanding items continued um that the sorry planning staff noted that there are retaining walls and an additional concrete wall and apron that
weren't shown on the approved plans field engineering commented that the walkway and apron should not have any impact on the storm water management system but planning staff notes that the retaining walls may affect drainage lastly there have there has been significant expansion of the crushed
storm storage area um by 11,800 ft the proposed perimeter black vinyl chain link fence has also not been installed um given the addition of the retaining walls and the 11,800 Ft expansion of the crushed stone storage area uh would the planning board
consider requesting that the building department tell the applicant that they're required to submit a site plan Amendment um to continue a motion to approve the issuance of a temporary occupancy permit for 6 months is still recommended given the applicant uh given that the applicant addressed the
outstanding requirements um when weather permits in the spring so you can I ask yes sir so you're recommending a a six-month temporary occupancy permit even though there's a
Litany of outstanding issues because these issues can't be addressed until the weather warms up that's what you're saying and you believe they will be taken care of that's correct and we've we've also directed the attention of the building inspector to the expansion of
the outdoor storage area the outdoor storage area was granted a special permit by the zoning board of appeals because it's located in the aquifer Protection District um expansion I I've advised the zba and the building inspector that expansion of that outdoor
storage area should trigger the need for a modification to their special permit um and as well as I think that the addition additional Outdoor Store areas and the the retaining walls should come back to the planning board for a minor
site plan Amendment so the the uh occupancy permit would expire in August which should give them enough time to complete all of all of this work that's correct that should give them enough time to address some of the last uh uh
some of the items that were identified in the field engineering report as well as come and reapply um or or submit a modification to the zoning board of appeals as well as the planing board okay so question do they have to come
before us for a modification I I believe that they should and that's my recommendation to the building inspector okay I mean not only to the zoning board but to us correct okay for slight plan review modification
correct more questions no um I I've just you know I was on the board when they approved this plan and I I've watched what the applicant has built out there and I think he's done an exemplary job and I'm looking at this report
and um I you know they they got caught up in the weather at the end I mean I think you paved right I mean you did an excellent job Paving right when the weather was hitting so they did a really good J to the I I would be inclined to give him a temporary occupancy perit until September
so that that he would have definitely have enough time to have significant grass growth and get the other stuff and get the paperwork that he needs to do the amendment for the the minor modifications that he made I mean I I think uh so that'd be seven months instead of six yeah just just to get
past the the hot weather in July just for that the landscap and stuff CU I I know he's got plans to do some real good Landscaping out there and everything so I mean he's he lives on the site it's his business he doing a good job okay
so might we give us a motion I a motion to give him a seven-month temporary occupy permit so we can address his issues second all those in favor I I one thing I'd like to note about that is that it's the the building inspector who will
prepare the the temporary certificate of occupancy so um we'll give him a recomend a seven Monon recommendation right I just wanted to make sure that that was clear that it's not authority to do that I understand uh
so what does that mean for their um amended site plan review do they should they be doing that in the this inter term mhm yes and the same with the zoning board
for the Protection District that's I think that would require finding from the building inspector but it's been drawn to his attention Okay um who was who was the design engineer Steve G yeah but he's he's um he's scitech
environmental he's also he's working over there now so you might want to go yeah to him no I understand we had Farland that was there okay yeah he could probably yeah right thank you uh next is uh inheritance Lane
endorse uh file number 23-23 c-mod modification endorse definitive subdivision decision um at the last planning board meeting the board voted to approve the waiver for underground utilities so we
have the decision for endorsement and the final plans in my are for the board to sign okay we'll send this down and then we'll have you all sign the final plans and the Myer at the end of the meeting perfect while we're signing that next is
202 pin Hill Road file number 19-12 SBA - li-s as built review okay so there's some outstanding
items um per s SW Cole's report uh the flared ends of the Culvert Crossings and the plunge pools should be checked for debris and Sil buildup prior to final acceptance um the health of the required plantings and um the site V the whole sight's vegetation should be reevaluated
in the spring the report noted that no paved runoff was observed the main gate is missing proper signage indicating the property owner and emergency contact information and lastly the perimeter fencing while installed at the approved height of 7 ft deviated from the approved materials and
utilized uh a farm type fencing um as there are no regulations guiding fencing in Westport planning staff is okay with the fencing change if the planning board accepts the the fence as installed a reduction in the currently held shity amount of $100,000
to $220,000 is recommended if the board determines that the fence be reinstalled it is recommended to hold a shity of $75,000 for the remainder of the project so when they say Farm types fencing they're talking about the pressure
treated wooden post with the 6x6 grid that's correct they were previously approved for chain link well the fencing has two functions and I'm not sure
which one is taking precedence here I think one is to to keep people out and I'm not sure a for fence keeps people at and on the other
hand it's their place um if they're not concerned with evangelism or people stealing stuff I don't know um and other things to keep Dro but I'm not sure even a 7 foot chain leag
fence would would do that what is your opinion our opinion is that um I mean you have to weigh two sides of it yeah there's the the security aspect of it but all of the liability does fall on the operator of of the site um I would
say aesthetically it Blends a little bit better with the the landscape um with the the agricultural natural heritage of the town as opposed to chain link fencing which is more of a commercial industrial application of fencing so um
I think those those are the main criteria that you want away um we're fine with it either way um and so is so is SW Cole so it really just comes down to those two
aspects well I guess the other part of the f question is um is this going to uh become an attractive nuisance for for kids and would they have some potential for
being electrocuted or shot because they're fidling with this stuff I mean does the F fence meet the specification on the design aside from the materials yes that means it doesn't meet the
specification does well the the solar bylaw does not regulate the type of material that you have to use for fencing so they were approved on their site plan for chain link um however the the specifications for fencing at the
time was that you only had to build up to a height of seven feet now you have to provide a gap um for small animals to pass under but it it meets suspects for what they were approved for at the time so I don't see the
Gap right and that's because they were approved at a time when we didn't requ require the Gap so this is pregap correct with this kind of fence I think there's all kinds of Critters that can get right through I'm just worried a little bit about life
expectancy on events like this but probably the life expectancy is over I'm doubting that but so I know pressure readed sounds great but
uh uh right at the uh line of the surface of the dirt uh I'm just worry about how long it takes before those uh posts uh Keel over anyway uh So you you're recom you
guys are recommending that this fence is okay I'm not saying that I think it's okay I mean I I think if the board really wants to ensure that there's a a fence that is of a more durable material as you said I
I would be inclined to agree that this is not going to be as durable of a fencing um and also it be harder to I guess uh try to break through the fening as well if someone felt inclined to do so with chain link as opposed to what what that
they have here um so if you're coming at it from a safety perspective I I would recommend the chain link is well required to have a fence so if it uh if we get information that it's uh uh falling over in places and it's an
attractive nuisance then I guess then it's up to the building inspector to enforce uh that defense is uh repaired right that's correct is there any kind of um
specification in regards to solar arrays for a type of fence I mean I'm because I'm I'm a little bit concerned on on the safety issue you know like we have different things with underground electric where you know on a commercial property you got to encase it in concrete and so forth right just because
this is commercial I don't I I would think it would have to be a commercial grade mhm yeah the solar BW does not as I as I said regulate materials but considering that it was chain link on their approved
plan you can require that about the building inspector what the what about the building inspector on on um for the safety issue on the specifications of the fence I didn't get the opinion from the building inspector PRI to the meeting
I I think if we okay this fence uh this is the kind of fence we're going to get with every uh solar array in the future right because it's a lot cheaper than than chain link so we're going to have to assume that if we okay this uh then
we're going to get a wooden fence posts and and this kind of fence and uh as our chairman said it's more attractive because it is less visible it's less of a visible
intrusion on nature but um it's um it also um I don't think it's going to last as long and the fence is there for a reason MH so what is the wishes of
forward I'd be I'd be inclined to let the The Building Commissioner take a look at it I mean they have a building permit on the on the site so uh remind me again we asked this question but what was specify just any kind of fence on their approved slate
plan there was chain l and I I think if they said they were going to do chain link we should say do what you said you were going to do and so or or man you want to say let's get
the uh superintendance no I mean I can agree with you with that I mean it's on the plane it's I I mean but they they might be inclined to um ask for recommendations from the on the on the type in the gauge from the from the
billing commissioner there might be there might be something in the building code where it's a solar array right the question before the release of the shity yes so we can release it two different ways yeah and I and and for my point uh we approved a
plan with chain link fasy other arrays have all have chain link fence around them and um they're asking for the release of the shity and I think we should uh release the $25,000 amount and retain the
$75,000 because the fence is not compliant yeah I'd go along with that so is that a motion yes that's a second yeah all those in favor I I okay
next up is uh continuation of the public hearing for markot uh Amendment and marot recision file number 23-31 c to cons well first one is to
consider recision of a definitive subdivision plan construct constructive approval for the definitive subdivision entitled plan of land and assessors plat 52 lot 20a Westport M and located
between 278 drift Road and 312 drift road map 52 lot 20a this is the first time we've heard this project right okay so uh we're also uh at the applicant's request considering an
amendment to their constructed approval subdivision plan um which would uh uh I I would let the do we have the applicants engineer here [Music] to so I'm opening both hearings um so
we're going to listen to them concurrently understood good evening Matt Pik South Coast engineering on behalf of the applicant um so be before the board tonight to request to amend the constructively approved uh mot subdivision plan um dated 216
24 so uh if we recall the 21624 plan that proposed nine Lots with seven waivers uh then just recently during the 12724 hearing the applicant agreed to modify the constructively approved uh
plan to a later revision and to also further revise that revision uh to at least provide 20 to 25 ft of separation from the boundary line adjacent to Fon drop uh from the from the layout the proposed layout
line to the boundary line adjacent to the Fallon Drive neighborhood and also uh to address sight distance concerns um so the modified plan modified seven lot plan that's presented today uh first was further reduced the
amounts amount of lot to seven um it also provides a 25t separation from the proposed layout to the Shar boundary uh f with f and neighborhood in addition to that a traffic assessment has been completed to
address the concerns related to the absence of a 25t radius at the macot uh drift intersection um I also have Jonathan Silverstein the applicant's attorney with me today and also Randall hot from VHB who's performed the traffic assessment if there's any questions
related to that okay I I think I would appreciate to hear from the traffic good evening um Randle Hart uh principal of VHB and we just did a brief summary of several things for review of traffic
here we looked at exactly uh if there were any accidents on record in the master do uh accident portal to see if anything happened at this intersection in the past and there was no record for the years that we reviewed we looked at what the project would generate in terms of traffic generation at the site we did
so from The Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation manual which is a standard in our practice and based on that we would anticipate approximately 12 trips in the morning half in and half out so it's one you know every four minutes or 5 minutes um and then I think it was 8 in the
afternoon commuter peak hour those are the two time frames when the traffic from the site coupled with traffic already on its roadway is most critical so that's what we looked at and then we did an evaluation of site disc um we look at stopping sight distance and we look at intersection site distance two different things and the
minimum requirement for a project like this is that you meet the stopping sight distance and we not only meet it we exceed it um we don't we fall a little bit short on the intersection site distance but there is an opportunity to improve on that even though it's not a requirement um looking both left and
right coming out of the driveway there is some clearing that can be done in the layout to the left but um on our property to the right so we can open up those sight lines and improve greatly over what is there today so there's there's a real opportunity to make that a better intersection um as part of this program so we just did a quick
assessment if you have any questions for me I'd be happy to try and answer them so uh did you do a traffic study of Rift road again we focused all our effort just on the driveway just to look at safety review there we looked at accidents we looked at site distance and
we looked at traffic generation we didn't go up and down drift Road and look at any other issues so we don't know how many cars are traveling on drift Road in that area I do not know and uh we don't know how fast cars
are going even though it's a 30 mph Z it it is a 30 mph speed limit and when I do site distance evaluations what I do is I you know look at this the speed limit and a lot of people just rely on that for the sight distance evaluation what I also do to supplement that is I drive up
and down the street several times at a comfortable rate of speed and I get behind people to see what speed they're going at and the comfortable rate of speed for me and getting behind people was around 35 mph did I see people going faster than that sure but I think the the common denominator the three trips
that I made back and forth was around 35 so that's what I used in my assessment not the Post-it speed limit okay and so you're suggesting that we could or you could uh increase the sight Lines by trimming the vegetation
where so to the left it would have to be in the in the roadway layout not on private property couldn't do that um but looking right there's a lot of vegetation a few trees and a lot of vegetation on the property of the proponent and that can all be removed and really open up that
sight line from what's there today so to to the north to the north correct how about to the South there's some overhanging um you know trim or brush whatever you want to call it I I don't remember the type of plant but it's there's a big cluster of it that um is
in the layout that can be removed and I I provided as part of the attachments to the memo that I did pictures of me sitting in my car looking left and right and I put a little circle around the areas where the clearing could occur we have that on here mhm know what
page I'm not sure what page it'll be in it's way in the back so this is looking left there's a big cluster that's in the looks like it's in the layout there um that can be removed that will certainly improve the
intersection site distance looking left and then the next slide thank you this is again sitting in the car right at the Stop Bar would be all that stuff you see can be removed and completely open up that s line can remove
that's you'll have a chance later so do you have the pictures Michael that I sent you I have the one you sent me so this is looking north um quite a bit before your
intersection yeah but the the road is bending around right this spot right and there's a big tree and trees uh blocking The View of right the northern part of drift Road and this
intersection agreed do you have another one that was the only one that you had sent me three I didn't sorry I didn't get all if you refer back to the revised plans that were submitted uh approximately a week ago we did forther
survey um it's shown on the plan that outlines where the where the um the layout line is where the itation is and also marks in 100 foot intervals um the sight line actually um
we submitted one Michael that goes 300 ft down the street this I don't know so i' received several different plan sets over the last couple weeks so this is the one that I just received from so the roadway the roadway layout which page is that I
think it's she5 keep going yep um another one there we go so here we you can see sorry I'm trying to Y so you can see the overhang and vegetation that was mentioned that's
outside that's within the drift Road layout line that could be trimmed it's on the town property and we measured that at 5 1/2 ft over the layout line in this area so there's 5 and 1/2 ft of
overgrowth that is on Town property that the town has the right right now to trim um and uh you the cyclines would be dramatically enhanced and this is all by the way we did submit
one that goes down 300 ft it goes before that curve if you zoom out a little more you can see the 300 which and go and so the back to the traffic guy um the the leftand side of marot as it
comes on to drift Road has a spring of 120 ft of ARB VI ey okay and um that I obvious I don't know if that's on your property or the neighbor's
property on which side Mr it's half half you can see the start approximately uh I don't know you're a couple feet to the east of the layout line and then you have these roaded dend that are overhanging by the pro you want
me to zoom in but um in the traffic report um Randy showed the photograph that the Western most arur the one closest to the street does not is not in the sight
triangle of a car exiting it I saw that so from the traffic study standpoint are you more concerned with cars entering Thrift Road from marot or cars turning into marot so as I
mentioned the stopping sight distance is met and the stopping sight distance is related to vehicles on drift Road their ability to perceive react and stop if they see something in the roadway um so that's not an issue at all the I'd be more concerned about the exit than the
entrance um but again I I as I already said the requirement is to meet the stopping sight distance and it does today even if you don't do any trimming the trimming is there as a supplement to try to get as close to the ISD as we possibly can we won't get there there's very few not there's not that many
driveways or intersections in the state that meet ISD it's really hard to meet with the new guidelines so um you and again it's not a requirement we do everything we can at every project we work on to try and meet it as close to it as we can but we rarely get
there okay thank you you're welcome I have a question traffic we have a question for you um so so you said you looked at the mass mass Highway database for the
accidents does do the local PD report to the mass Highway database yeah um so the police deports go to mass do usually um I find having looked at both on a lot of occasions that they rarely match perfectly um
usually dot has more than the police department and in some instances but um I found just the opposite on a job I did last week um the PD had very few and mass Highway had a ton um so yeah I didn't go to the police department I mean that's something we could do if you
wanted us good idea yeah thank you yes could you identify yourself for the of course my name is Jonathan Silverstein I'm the applicants Council so I wanted to just follow up on uh what Randy and Matt just told you and and
just sort of update the board on um some of the proposed conditions that the applicant would agree to uh if the board voted this evening to approve the modification so first I wanted to mention at at the last meeting
um I I I want to follow up on some of the issues that were discussed at the last meeting some of the things that the board asked us to look into so first of all um there was uh a reference by um
our butter to the South to an accident that took place uh as her tenant was exiting her property so I just want to follow up on uh what Mr Hart was just saying so that was exiting this property
where there's a 5 1/2 foot overhang that the property owner has allowed um this vegetation right at that exit to overgrow into the public layout almost to the paved roadway so it's not
surprising that this person would have very little uh ability to see what's coming um so I I just wanted to note that fact our road is significantly Beyond there and we're proposing to um clear the
vegetation back to the layout line which would create much better sight lines and uh even though we are already meet what's required we would F and exceed it we would even bu more exceed it also
we're proposing to raise the grade to create that level um approach to the intersection that your rules and regulations require so that also is going to improve site distance because obviously cars are going to be up higher
they're going to be able to see better um and um the board asked us to to approach uh the conle who own the property to the South uh and see if we
could acquire rights to meet the um the radius for the layout of the road again we meet the radius for the constructed Road you wanted us to see if we could meet the radius for the layout of the road um so two things I wanted to note
again uh Mr Hart went out there and um reported to the board it has what would be within that radius doesn't impact it's not what's limiting sight distance what's limiting sight distance is the this overgrown
vegetation much further down the street on the con's property um so having that radius would literally contribute nothing to making the intersection safer um and what will contribute to making
the intersection safer something that we can do without any approval nevertheless we took to heart what um the board asked us to do and um unfortunately the demand was
for 60,000 Square ft plus one of the subdivision Lots in order to get a couple hundred square foot easement for a layout radius now we could do that we could give them two lots
and get and have a waiver free proposal and go back up to nine Lots I don't think that's what the board wants it wouldn't contribute in any way all it would do would be to give a windfall to the
cones and it wouldn't in any way improve the safety and you would now have nine Lots there instead of seven so I wanted to report back to the board um on those conversations we really tried hard
we we made an offer that for a couple hundred square feet of easement on a portion of their property that they don't use at all would have been very beneficial to them but you know what they demanded we just
couldn't provide so unless you want us to go back to nine Lots with a waver free by by right subdivision which I'm assuming the board would not like to see um I did um have some conversations with Town
Council and I proposed some conditions that if the board approved this modification we would agree to tonight um so if I could just briefly run through those please um so the first of course is that we would agree [Music]
uh to um abide by this new plan instead of the constructively approved nine lot plan which was approved constructively with a number of waivers so there would be no sidewalks um there would be no level
approach to the intersection there would be um a number of uh other um changes I think Mr deror had asked us to make a number of changes to the drainage system which we made in subsequent revisions
none of that would be um in the constructively approved plan but we've agreed to make all those changes and that we would be bound by all of that as well as moving the road 25 ft from the property line um and
reducing from 9 to seven Lots now one thing that my client suggested um that I frankly had not thought of and isn't in my email to Mr Blake but I'll put it on the table is
that because we've reduced the Lots from 9 to 7 a couple of the lots are large enough to be duplex Lots that's not our intent and we would agree also to add a
condition that no duplex um no duplexes would be allowed on uh the Lots even the ones that meet the requirements uh in addition um I saw in
the staff memo um that the revised plan shows a trench um within 10 ft of the uh boundary line uh we would certainly accept a condition that that trench needs to be moved at least 10 ft away
from the boundary line to comply with the subdivision rules and regulations um we would as I said um we would agree to uh trim back all the vegetation to the surveyed layout of the
road um which is going to improve safety dramatically not only for residents of the subdivision but for the town vehicles that use this access to get to the townland uh and just the traveling
public along that roadway um and then um in addition um though I would note that I don't think any other applicant who has received a waiver um of the Philip radius
requirement has conducted or provided their own traffic experts report um and we have and I don't I don't think anyone could gain say what uh Mr Hart
has has um explain to the board but um we would be willing to uh have a vote to approve contingent on field engineering the town the board's peer reviewer uh measuring and confirming the
site distances that Mr Hart just told you about um because um one of the things that Mr Blake had mentioned was that there might be a desire just to confirm that data uh with the town Zone peer R
so we would agree to that we don't want to continue and then come back because frankly this has been a long costly and time consuming process but we would agree that a vote tonight to approve
would be con contingent on field confirming that the site distances meet those um requirements as set forth in the uh asto uh the green book so we feel like
we've really we don't want to just go and build the nine lot subdivision that we have we think this is a better plan we really do feel like we've been trying to work um collaboratively and provide a
lot more information than a lot of other applicants have been asked for or would ask for and that we've made a lot of concessions and with that I would just ask the board to to approve the um the plan with those conditions tonight and
of course I'm happy to answer any questions you might have okay uh first of all uh in our conversations with Town Council I think that and you can confirm uh that we talked about getting our own
traffic consultant to go over your your traffic consultant report and do a a peer review and what you're suggesting is having a a regular um Consulting engineer to
that you want me to speak to that please so again no other applicant has ever been asked to provide anything close to this level the level of detail that we've been asked that we have voluntarily provided so I I want to step
back what was raised was one or two members of the board expressed concern about the tree and the stone wall on the corner so we could have stopped by
saying the tree and the stone wall on the corner don't impact sight lines because that's the only thing that's impacted by the waiver we're asking for but we went beyond that we measured sight distance all the way down the road
and we demonstrated that we need it and we came up with ideas on how to even improve upon what's already there this is a seven lot residential subdivision I have never
seen any board in my 30 years of experience demand a peer reviewed full traffic study for a seven lot subdivision where no other applicant has ever had to do that
and frankly this this feels sometimes like a game of whacka what was pressed as the most the biggest concern up until the board originally voted to deny was the road being a
Perimeter Road hardly any discussion about concerns about safety and then there was at at the very last meeting one offhand comment about that tree the tree has no impact on sight
distance we come in we propose a reduction in density we propose moving the Perimeter Road and then we go well beyond that to just to settle concerns that people have
expressed about the safety of this intersection and we we demonstrate that it's safe with a very well recognized um traffic expert showing you
that now we're being asked to pay who knows how many thousands of dollars and wait how long why do we want field to do it because Field's already familiar with the project they're already on board they don't you don't have to go out and
bid and find another traffic expert and I can tell you these traffic experts a they're expensive and B they take a long time so now we're going to have to wait months more and pay $110,000 or whatever it
is to study something that no other applicant in town has provided close to as much detail as we've provided or information when we could just go back and build the nine lot
subdivision but it's not what we want to do I really feel like Mr chair we've shown a lot of flexibility a lot of collaboration but no we don't want to spend months and
thousands of dollars on a full traffic study of all of drift Road for a seven lot subdivision because frankly no one else has ever had to do that and it's unfair and it feels
retaliatory and I'm sure that's not your int we we've heard this for a while for the last five minutes I'm just relating what was related to me by Our Town Council this is what you were agreeing to I didn't know that it was field
engineering specifically I'm not don't know if that's a problem I'm going to ask the planners if they are cap able of doing that I don't know but I'm just relaying to you what I thought was part of the deal well I can I can read the email I sent to him which is I I don't
care what you sent to him what he relay to us verbally was that we would have somebody do a traffic study to compare and it it going on and on about it is not helpful fair enough all all I wanted
know is is field engineering capable of deciphering this traffic study and giving us a a clear opinion Mr richo's background from my understanding is predominantly in civil engineering and not traffic engineering um I don't know if there's anyone else
at the firm who can or if he's just a single person operation I I I don't have an answer to that question I mean I can tell you and maybe Matt can speak to it what we what we've presented is a measurement of site
distance which um I think a civil engineer could confirm but yes so I just so uh traffic is a field within the civil engineering field and I think um although Randy is is absolutely an
expert in this field um some of these calculations to determine site distance Ser can easily be performed by most any engineer any civil engineer thank you my concern would be that we're in litigation and field engineer is one of
the peer reviews that we use all the time and and I would suggest that we use a different peer review I say that again man well we're in litigation over this and and and field engineering is one of the peer reviewers that we use all the time and
you know we we this whole thing's happened because of the technicality and I think maybe we we should have a a a peer review of somebody that has no um I don't know if you want to use skin in the game but but normally when you go peer review they can have nothing to do
with what's what's going on with the with the um town so can Cole do this we do have two other peer reviewers that we used for different projects umw coal and MBL Land Development as
well and George M still with Cole uh Derek Mel correct yes yes George was his father I guess so okay uh comments questions from the
board sorry if it makes that much of a difference we're F I think I can speak for the my client that if you want to use someone else what we don't want to have happen is is
a scope creep and B A long delay but if you want to substitute a different um one of the other two firms that the planner just mentioned um in the language of my
proposed condition then I'm happy to I think I can represent for my client that we would agree to that but again it would be what we're looking for is a vote to approve tonight contingent on that confirmation a yes sure go ahead
um I didn't quite get the uh issue on the sidewalks what you negotiated is what you negotiated with our Council that there will be sidewalks or won't be sidewalks sorry I'll clarify
so this plan eliminates all of the waivers that were requested in the original proposal except one being the 25t layout radius on the south the original plan had eight or
nine waivers including uh they didn't want sidewalks and there were a number of other things so yes there will be sidewalks everything that we've done to eliminate all of the waivers except one is in this
plan so that will be cber yes thank you so uh I'm this is a public hearing and I'm looking forward to public comment on this uh I I think
uh you know we've had so many meetings on this over a considerable period of time but in my memory isn't uh what it used to be and not that it was ever any good but but uh I think the
issue of safety has always been always been uh uppermost in people's minds uh it's not the only thing but it's always been
Paramount um and so um and as I said I think at the last meeting um at least the way I look at it it's it's not about really how many cars go there it's
about one car one car and I agree with the traffic engineer exiting you know what's that like when you exit and U
uh and you know 35 mil an hour sure by that but uh but I do think that your approach to this uh which is improving sight lines
is on the Mark I think that's that's what you need to do and uh I commend you uh for figuring out how whether it's elevating the road to
look over rocks or cutting down an arbor b or the brush to lengthen to 300 ft which is a football field which you know is the standard unit of measure in America right a football field uh is the
way you improve uh safety and uh I agree with you that going to nine Lots uh and no waivers so you can do that isn't what I'm looking for um and I
um uh appreciate um the willingness to keep thinking of ways to get I mean we suggested could you go to four this isn't four you know I didn't do all that
well in math I know but seven isn't four um but um uh I appreciate your moving the road away from the boundary and but this is about safety and I think uh working on
those sight lines to to get the ability to look further down the road especially to the South especially to the South is the way to improve every time one person with the
kid in the back is approaching drift Road from that driveway and I think that's you know that you're working on what I consider to be the most essential aspect of this problem anybody
else so I will open it up and it's a public hearing uh we are going to ask you to stay within 5 minutes uh um and we need your name and address so that naine can write it down
for the record uh and I be happy to hear questions or comments yes sir I'm David dorski uh I live at 11 Fallon Drive I'm in a butter and what I want to um talk about
is the uh traffic memo the traffic report because I take great issue with it um and I think it presents a very deceptive message and it's meant to deceive you into thinking that allowing
this intersection to be created will be okay and safe for the community uh first thing I want to say is that the um volume of traffic is greatly underestimated by the uh report um it doesn't doesn't take into account the
fact that the town accesses the town pit through the same intersection and sometimes the volume of traffic with large trucks which I hear from in my bedroom uh frankly but uh it sometimes the traffic to the town pit is
is quite large and um furthermore even if there are only seven um residences there's going to be a lot more than nine or even 12 exits during the peak morning hours there will be school buses
there'll be school children there'll be pedestrians there'll be bicycles so that aspect of the traffic report I consider grossly inadequate and frankly deceptive secondly um I'd like to address the site distances and I've
actually uh attempted to to understand and study this uh uh I'd like to see my uh Michael Mr chairman will you allow the Okay I uh what do you show it I'd like to show um a PDF of a chart that
I've created with data okay you go to page 19 of my um PDF go back a page okay so um the audience is clear and and the board
is clear about the difference between the stopping distance and the intersection site distance um and this is data information from uh a federal website that still exists actually hasn't been uh deleted but uh the
intersection site distance um is the minimum distance needed so that a Mainline motorists will not have to substantially reduce their speed due to Turning Vehicles it's not a question of St stopping it's a question of minute to minute having to alter your your path
next slide next slide please now this is this is uh again from the ashto the green book um but it's posted on the Federal Highway Administration website and this is the data that the engineer used for 35 mil
an hour and it shows that the stopping distance that he quoted is 2 250 at 35 mil an hour and this this design intersection site distance at 35 mph would three be 390 ft
now um speed that he chose to perform his analysis was 35 miles an hour and he based that on what three trips on drift Road I've traveled on drift Road maybe 8,000 times and I can tell you that the speed
on that road is rarely as slow as 35 mil an hour and every fifth driver has a handheld so I I run I bike I walk and I drive on this street and I know that the speeds are great and this takes into
account a dry Road an alert driver no handhold furthermore there's a lot of motorcycle traffic motorcycles need 18% more distance to stop according to
this website furthermore there are trucks trucks require even more stopping distance and more intersection St distance so I just want to make clear that the speed that they chose to Performance analysis is an underestimate
and look look how it changes at 45 M an hour it's 500 ft next slide please um okay they use the he used a method where he drove up and down the street what three times it's not 35 miles an hour it's
more like 40 m an hour and uh I think it's a gross underestimate next slide please go please okay here this is this is this is his data at 35 mph Northbound 250 South
southbound 250 that's from his data intersection sight distance at 35 it's 390 measured 290 if you go to 40 40 m an hour the stopping sight
distance is approaching the limit and traffic moves at 40 miles hour usually on that road from the south it's a little bit better the intersection sight distance
which is really the standard not the stopping sight distance could you speed it up because you're over minutes already I'm almost stuck at 40 it's 445 it's grossly different so what you're if you allow this to take place
you're going to be creating an intersection that's going to be inconvenient for people to drive on and it's going to create a dangerous situation so please please for the sake of the community and
for the sake of the safety of the community don't let this happen resend the nine residents proposal and don't approve any proposal that creates this dangerous intersection thank you thank
you anybody else Jim could I speak to the point of motor the motorcycle situation I mean I I could agree with the director butter um I I I've ridden the motorcycle my whole life I use that
route because my my wife prefers not to be on the highway um I I've traveled through there many times coming back from the fair and when there's a lot of traffic um the situation with the truck I you know I've seen that type of
accident I I had a boyfriend of my daughter that was killed in in Dartmouth when when he was on his motorcycle and he passed a truck that was going to turn the truck stopped from the turn and somebody came out of the intersection and killed
him so and then the you know there was there was another fatality a year later the same situation in do so I've I've seen that okay yes chair members of the board my name
is Jake mcgan 397 drift Road uh nothing really changes since I've spoken here in the past in front of the board I think my only concern is the kind of the discussion of trimming
along a private property owner uh I think if you all of you if you traveled up and down drift Road the highway department would be quite busy moving stone walls and trees and branches and and various other things that might fall
within the the road layout I think you could spend a lot of time doing that so I'm a little concerned with the precedent you're setting by or would set if you're starting to go on to private property owners uh land to trim trees in
order to um allow a development to go into place in order to increase the safety so I just found that a little bit concerning the other issue I did find concerning is a sort of A Veiled Threat with respect to the seven house lot and nine
house lot essentially telling you guys that well if we do a seven lot plan there are two lots that could become duplexes uh essentially then becoming back 29 house lot uh subdivision
so a little concerned with with that I I continue to hear the concern with costs and the costs associated with this development um I think I need don't need to remind anyone that this purchase or this parcel of land was originally
believed to be unbuildable and sold for about $350,000 again we're in a situation where a $350,000 house lot or unbuildable lot excuse me is now being converted into a nine uh house lot or
seven house slots with two duplexes so again that does not change anything from the past but just I concern of some points that I thought needed to be addressed just by through that presentation tonight um again thank you for your time thank you
than anybody else good evening everyone my name is Sonia can uh we honor the property on the next door 312 and uh we send a proposal that uh we think that the road
will be safe and if they accept our proposal I think uh uh the road will be large enough for the entrance but if they don't accept our The Proposal the
way uh he said that we have the stone wall we planted the trees and we don't want to that to be interrupt okay okay thank you anybody else okay
so I would like to just recapitulate where we are um I I believe we still have a court uh issue or not we have a court case that's
appealing what was a denial right uh subsequently there was some research done and uh the applicant determined that there was constru approval um as a result they recorded a subdivision plan that they believe was constructively
approved result of that we noticed a recision hearing um Jeff could I ask you to talk to the microphone so people can hear you could you could you I'm sorry if you could start once again thank you Mr chairman my name is Jeffrey Blake I'm your Town Council you would ask whether
or not there was a coure case out there um and I said yes there is uh if you recall about back in July I believe it it was you denied a subdivision uh approval for a project um after you
denied that they appealed it to the land Court um and after doing some research uh the applicant found that you had uh missed a deadline and that there had been a constructive approval as a result the applicant uh recorded with the
registry of deeds uh that plan that was instru constructively approved my recollection is the plan shows I think it's nine lots and six waivers so um as a result of that um you
noticed and held a hearing to resend the constructive approval at that last hearing we were here we went back and forth I think you guys know uh we went back and forth with Council you had indicated that there may may be some way
that we could make it all go away if you will uh as a result I have been back and forth with Council and Council has provided to you presented to you tonight with his Engineers um exactly what they propose to make this all go
away Mr chair I have a question yes um could could you explain um what the deadline was that we missed yeah under the subdivision control law you had 135 days to make a decision um you can extend that deadline however in order to do that you have to
do it in writing filed with the Town Clerk and we missed it and there would the there was no writing filed with the town clerk but the uh the applicant uh agreed to the continuance and I think we had their
signature on that but that's beside the point we have a clerical error that is where we are now there you had your signature on at least one I think there were others that that perhaps there wasn't so I think the the reason for our denial
was the safety issue entering grift Road and their traffic engineer has uh done a study and confirmed for them that there is enough sight line uh
almost up to the standards and as you saw in the picture that I had them show up the the speed limit on the road is 30 m an hour um and although I know around here
everybody drives fast um I don't think that we would Prevail in court by denying this uh because we're concerned about people going faster than 30 even though it's posted
right there it's 30 uh I don't know what anybody else thinks I'm only one person but I am inclined to to go with this with a provision that we continue the recision
hearing until we're done and we won't be done until our Consulting engineer uh goes over the traffic study so I don't know anybody else Mr chairman I
um I agree where we are here now where we are is is that they have recorded the nine lot subdivision that has a PO drainage solution doesn't have sidewalks does all of those things and it
has a lousier intersection um so that's that's what's there and we can pick a fight to resend that and and go to court and uh you know
I I have uh I have I've been in court on matters like this and um and I think uh you know I think we're likely to hear from the judge well have your police force
enforce the speed limit you know the idea that at at we have a traffic engineer that used reasonable assumptions looked at traffic I know it's three times and and I live on drift
Road um and and I live right next to a Gravel Lane that comes up from the river so you know I we have a good sense of what it's like here um and I think what they've done is
is you know the idea that there are people who drive faster than the speed limit if if that becomes the standard then virtually we would never approve
any subdivision here in the town because people speed and in in by the way our rules and regulations don't enforce traffic we don't they enforce safety they enforce health and and safety but they don't enforce
speeding um so we have a traffic report it shows that at at slightly over the the the speed limit they have safe distances and what's I think most and
they're willing to do some clearing to improve sight distances but I think most importantly which hasn't been discussed is that when they change the grade here right now like a lot of these roads it comes up steeply to the to the
intersection and and so you're you're essentially looking in the sky as opposed to being able to look down the road because of the angle of the car and and by um I've just looked at it 50 ft they've actually raised the grade 3 ft
so if you think of when the rear end of the car was up another 3 ft your level your ability to look down the road all has improved um and and just the pure happen
stance of the way this road was laid out it left a a a right angle intersection at the road so they could do a rounding um but for that this is what they
propose now is compliant with our rules and regulations um I I think to um to to deny this and and and go and pick a
fight we're going to end up with a lousier plan in nine lots and uh and that's what is in the interest of the town uh Mr chair I U
um agree a lot with what uh Bob dalor has said I would add that there already is as several people have mentioned traffic on the road because the road goes to to town land and um
uh I think the reality is there are a couple of ways that uh this parcel gets developed for uh nine Lots one is that we lose in court uh the other is that um
you know they make a deal with the abutter and uh uh come come in with uh uh uh no no waivers and n Lots as he laid out and and
so uh I've dealt a lot in my career with uh world a world that isn't that is filled with nonideal situations and
where you're trying to pick the lesser of two evils uh and I see this as you know one of those situ situations and I think um uh if we can
uh uh get something that uh is better than uh two very possible outcomes that both are nine lot subdivisions uh and we know what we're getting and it's better than both of
those uh then I think that is worth taking seriously um and um so I think that um I that I don't know what Mr chair you
want to do in terms of confirming or having uh one of our uh Engineers uh whether it's coal or which one you want to use to to confirm but uh I think we've come a long way to
figuring out what the answer is and and getting uh coal or what however you want to do that to confirm the the traffic part of it but I I think we're you know about at the end yeah I think we are too the the only I I have a
question for the engineer and I don't know if anybody else has has looked at this but the the right of way for the town to access their property now comes into the 25t
setback uh as opposed to just crossing where the road is abing the property and could you explain the thinking behind that I think it's on sheet um oh yeah so so what's the
question on on the adjacent sheet you show a a connection on the um it's well in m is sheep sheep three of 10 so why the connection is there
instead of where the road ABS the property yeah there's a connection shown there the existing is here correct so you would rather come in here is that use no no no you show right near that cor I show it coming right into the
street but further down the property abuts the road is there any reason why you this is the existing entry to the to the property I know that that's not my question is there a reason why you
couldn't connect it where the road really abuts their Town property we could absolutely look into that I was just figuring we're going to maintain the existing uh gravel way that's here so we took it there and then connected it to the road out of 90 way turn to get
out if the town wants us to do we just we can't do it unilaterally right but if the town I think it's DPW who uses that if they would rather come in in a different place we can we'll work with them just the question of wouldn't it make more sense I don't know if it makes
more sense or not I'm an an engineer but it seems the only the only thing that I'm doing here is I'm maintaining the access because there's a there's a prescriptive easement for the town to connect through there so I didn't change way you're entering into your property I just maintained
it are we certainly would have no issue with working with the T if they preper a different access okay so what I would Envision is somebody make a motion
to um perhaps approve with a condition that our Consulting engineer uh verifies the the results of the traffic engineer um
and to continue the recision hearing to a Time certain in the future um and in the case that uh the traffic study is not
more out M Mr chairman there are couple of additional conditions that need to be added to that so applicant sh trim the vegetation along drift Road within the town layout and the infiltration trench along the southernly actually the Northerly boundary um in the direction
of the Fallon Drive neighborhood will be moved 10 ft from the property line also there was a condition that um Council Silverstein had offered to the the board that no lot would be used for a duplex I don't know
what what is the board's position on that I think that's important so okay so the board is inclined to have that as a condition okay we we'll include it Mr chairman do um does this require two um
motions one to continue the recision yes okay so we should do that um I move that we uh continue the recision to um we need
a can you pull up our calendar what can you pull up yeah M Mr chair if I could very quickly um that motion that planner just read out that would also be of course subject to the allowing them to
to cop the to trim in the town sure to to do what to trim yeah we we've asked them to trim but obviously if the count says no yeah we can't put that pois and do do we we've got two public
hearings going on do we keep the uh recision hearing open then we continue yes the motion is to continue it we continue that public hearing and we need to we need to continue that so that we can hear back from the
engineers that they agree with the traffic site distances correct so the way of a date there [Music] is March 11th and March 25th I think I would prefer March 25th in order to get
the uh study over and reviewed and we'll have to get a contract together with that consultant okay that goes you six weeks what do you say March 25th
otherwise the next the next meeting date is April 22nd we only have one meeting scheduled so I think as soon as possible but with time for the Consulting engineer to do work a month and two weeks is adequate
time is that okay with the applicant yes thank you okay so 6:15 on March 25th I move that we continue the recision hearing to March 25th at what
time 6:15 6:15 is there a second second all those in favor I I so next would be the motion Mr chairman I move that we um approve
the P pending the result of the uh peer review of the traffic study I move that we approved the subdivision as agreed to this this evening with the conditions U just read by the Town
engineer and agreed to by the applicant Town planner with the town Planner yeah sorry uh should it say that promoted the amended subdivision excuse me the amend the amended
subdivision second all those in favor I all I'm going to abstain I just have a comment like we have the prop on side so if we they don't agree what propose
we're not going to let them cut our trees or make a trench in our you our property I don't think spoon I don't think that they would touch your property but the the the highway department can trim trees back to your
property line if your trees are hanging over the road right away no they're not hanging in prop has a stone wall and that road is so narrow that fits only one car on the way down Drive FS the only one car I don't see how can you
make that wide he talking about on drift Road not on the side of say Mark yeah the paper hold right there when you drive you can only drive one car you cannot drive two cars I'm not talking about the road that
they are going to put in but on drift road if your trees or bushes are hanging over the road the town can trim those back to the property Vine yeah we trim the r a little bit but the trees are now
appro are like in my side it has a stone wall and then the trees are here and that's why we don't allow them to do a a brench right on the side there because all these stone walls going to fall and
then we don't want them to patch work properly good okay maybe you know I know [Music] okay uh the planner's
report okay um update on our coastal zone management grants so last night uh Dia and I went to the select boards meeting to get approval for them to create a coastal
management uh okay huh you guys don't need me for anything else I don't think thank you very much for coming yeah good see you guys we asked for the the select board to create a barrier Beach management planning committee um and they created
that committee they'll consist of property owners from Atlantic Avenue Beach Avenue East Beach Road someone from the beach committee and someone from the select board we didn't appoint anyone yet although sea leech um Kevin Kurt
and probably someone from the land trust will be recommended and we're waiting on someone from Atlantic Avenue um and someone to confirm from the select board too but this is for the um barrier Beach management planning that we're doing
with with Woods Hole group and right now they're working on developing the base level conditions assessment um doing field work and and data analysis um to develop the existing conditions plan so we don't have any public meetings scheduled for it yet we
will have um a lot of different opportunities for public engagement and more informal settings that we're going to be doing with sered as well as some formal workshops um and some committee meetings as well but the the formal committee meetings I think will only be um three
or four most of them will be in a more informal interactive setting um next is an update on our well so um last week I submitted with Buzzards Bay Coalition an application to
the Buzzards Bay Watershed Municipal program minig Grant it's a $69,000 grant request to continue the engineering of the cold water stream culverts at Cornell Road at Angeline Brook and uh drift Road at
Lions Brook and Snell Creek so this is we've been trying to Cobble together various funding sour to continue um getting these engineering designs together and they should be advancing through preliminary till final until or to final within the next year um one
thing to note is that if you're traveling up on drift Road next week between Hicks bridge and the head the head of Westport or Cordell Road just watch out because there will be road work or uh workers on the sides of the roads in a police detail because we're going to be start doing um geotechnical
borings for that project on Cornell Road and on drift road yeah it'll be going on all throughout next week and we'll put a notice on the town's website too all right uh quick update on our online permitting we've it's been a long time coming but we finally have a go live
date for the building department um which will be uh next week on Wow it'll go live on Monday but we won't be working so for the holiday birthday yeah uh so it'll be live on Tuesday
next will be the Board of Health and then the fire department I don't know exactly when planning is planned on being Incorporated but eventually we'll be on there not dragging your feet are you no I I think they just have a process that
they follow and all right and then lastly I don't know if anyone else had any comments on our housing production plan Jim I am going to incorporate those comments from you and David Cole about the residential tax exemption um and then I know there were
some common the glossery and also making it a little bit more visually accessible too um with the the graphs and figures making the colors a little bit more and a little less jargon right little less dark jar jargon jarg oh less yeah no but
the graphs need more contrasting colors yeah so if um this is just a last call for comments if you think of anything within the next couple of weeks I thought it was really good but we're gonna get that those fi
those final touches on it and then we'll get it published I think it came out great really good can I add one thing I think I sent you uh and our
chairman um uh press release on a bill uh filed by uh Senator Mark montigney and representative Chris Mary setting up a a commission on Wastewater uh that'll be cheered by uh
two members of the legislature to kind of look at uh methods of funding Wastewater where they will seek to get uh among others uh a a rep from every
town uh I think uh appointed by the select board Manny um and so this will try and identifies uh all forms of uh sources of funding in the cape there
using uh uh taxes on uh hotels vbos and so on to fund Wastewater and it's bringing in money because it's the cape a lot of money for Wastewater so so um
it's something to think about CU you know Westport will have one person um uh and you think about the whole Route Six uh kind of stuff uh and well they're starting they're starting to move forward now is is the
the past so they're looking at it at the drinking water but the next step is they're looking at the at the um sewage yeah so it's going to be the same thing and we're not going to be these systems are going to need you know who so the I think there two things to think about is
who's the person in Westport who knows the most about the the cost and so on of uh all the different kind of Wastewater issues and then who's the person who has the thickest armor
because it's going to be involved in raising various forms of taxes and whoever it is will be associated with oh yeah this is this person was talking about raising what tax somebody that doesn't want to get reelected that sounds like a job for
John I that um I he speaks from experience that's what I mean that's what I mean so just to add to that uh with serid we are
having discussions back and forth with with Serpent and the MW and uh we hope to have a meeting with two of their representatives in the very very near future and talk about this Bas
basically not the not the money but the doing how do you do this so and can you do it as one entity or five entities for the different different watersheds we have
in this area but I think it's really good because it's B the whole idea of the commission is this is something that is totally beyond the ability of towns to pay for and therefore the state has to figure
out how you go out and get Federal and other money to to help towns pay for this kind of infrastructure not just in loans you need grants you need loans and grants Mr chair um I got I got a couple
of things as as um Michael does his planers report and some things that we should um be looking at in in the future um kind of one of one of the things that's come to my attention since I've been on the planning board and now the select board um and we're talking about
these intersections you know and and kind of the issues we've had with mass Highway access permits and so forth so last year um well before I got right when I first got on the select board and we had Ann
boxler was was one of the Selectmen so she had um requested that Highway go up on the ball fields on 177 and trim back the roads you know we got the kids using up
ball fields and everything now so I happen to see Highway doing it and I go there and I when I get there they don't they even have a stop sign coming out of the ball field um and I I've looked in it the town actually has a subdivision
plan for that roadway so I really think that we need to look forward look look into that plan and see if we have the same scenario as some of these other subdivisions that are going on I'm just kind of concerned they don't even they don't even have power down there and you know we've done we've been running
Broadband cable and I don't know know why we don't provide Power on this subdivision road that town owns I mean there's a there's an independent nonprofit that runs the ball fields but it's all town-owned property and there's a town-owned subdivision and we're not doing anything on it so I think might be
something that Michael can look into and then I one last thing is is um I've had some conservation um issues on my property that I had with a budding subdivision that put water onto my property that
I've been working through over the last 12 years but in in looking into that I come across the bread and cheese Brook Hemlock gutter which I I believe it blew out in 2012 there was a dam that let go
upstream and now I mean I think probably we can have the land trust look at this because they just took Mike Ferry's field and they put it an APR and that Wetland that's just Upstream of the hemlock gutter was um is under Land
Trust jurisdiction I guess so when it blew out um the highway surveyor at the time Jack CIS repaired it um we didn't file in order conditions we didn't do any design work and now I'm looking at the cul they have a Culver there that's
um above the above the grade they just put a pipe back in as we know the rivers and streams act we need bottomless covids so I mean by them not filing what they needed to do with d and and and my my my concern is like when we look at
the residents the Town needs to do the same thing that the residents need to do and one of another like I like I always look at you as a mentor one of my other mentors told me that when I first got on there Tony Vieira and he said you know looking at when highway is doing the
work and said you know you you have to follow the rules just like everybody else does so the town needs to follow the rules just like everybody else does I mean this is kind of one of this area too I mean when you look at when you look at the drainage so some of the problems with all my neighbors up that
way is is from the mumber school to Hemlock gutter there is no drainage it all goes it all goes down so that road's been repaved um and as the water from there runs off like I I only have 18t Frontage
on on um gfed Road y when I got there there was an historic farm road all the way down it went all the way to charot White to doas where they ran animals back in the olden days so I made the burm stop stop the water from coming down g Road but that's
what's happened all the way down in that subdivision that's affecting me that was that's what happened there and then they built a subdivision and blocked the flow and dumped it into the upins but I'm just looking at the and I tried when they before they PID say we need to do some kind of drainage at Hemlock gutter
so as we're looking for these new projects and grant money I think and I'm sure Ross Moran will agree that that that's a major resource area that we need to look at I I agree it is I think I think there's so many places like that in Westport
because you know on what the road that goes from Bedford North up through all River can't remember the name of it but anyway the the the storm water from across the road up on the Hills comes
across that road and into people's property and the town years and years ago put a pipe takes it to the back of their property but dumps it on their property without an easement course that was my mous problem too same
kind same kind of situation there but weip I mean and on the north side of 177 it's a little worse than on the south side and you know these small lots that you know all these non-compliant lots that we have over there it's only getting exasperated with the septic
repairs I mean we got all these dead end streets it's blocking the dream there is no drainage my opinion also I mean a hamlock got that's it's not even on our ms4 I mean I don't know why it's not on our ms4 it's a direct discharge into the
bread and cheese Brook um because there's no there's no uh places that are made that the water goes it just goes right right that's why it's not on the there's no catch B
so we need a kind of engineer yeah we got a scupp at it I think that's what we got you know you take the dead end streets on the other side and they dumping right in too it's I know Mass highway is getting ready to dress all this stuff on Route Six but I mean we we need to partner up with them and try to
fix all that stuff not to give you more work Michael no I mean this is this is good because periodically there are different Grand opportunities that come up for uh storm water improvements and I'll send out an
email to folks saying hey you know where are places that we could Target and I don't often get a great response so I think this is a good start well I think you know when we're looking at the health of the river we we need to look at the head you
know and and and the bread and cheese Brook and all those tributaries that that go in trout pond and all of that stuff right and we we we need to as a town any of our projects we need to follow the r in streams act I mean
yeah we need an engineer yes so okay minutes uh Mr chair uh I think we've got the longest set of minutes I've ever read 13 Pages my God and they're
excellent um I've only uh found one thing that uh confuses me a little bit that's on page uh two uh halfway
down I I love the layout um yes uh which you know has the discussion has the Motions uh where you can find them it's really good uh but on page two halfway
down it has a motion to send both letters uh one to the zoning board and and one to the current owner I and it says requested by Michael but it doesn't say who made the motion or how it was
voted and I don't even know if sending letters required a motion but every other motion has you know who made the motion who seconded and you know who voted and and
so that one just had a motion requested but not acted on so I just think um I'm not sure those we actually had a motion on that I think we just had
Michael send those letters so we could we could table this until we straighten it out and look at it next week when she looks through the stuff you want to table a whole minutes yeah all 13 pages of it yeah okay all right
otherwise I think they they were really well done guess we keeping the busy too they really are terrific no you can just T it just pass over okay okay
um I would entertain a motion to adjourn so move second all those in favor I I