Uh I would like to open the regular planning board meeting for Tuesday, June 3rd. We are being uh videotaped and sent out live. Um and first up our administrative
items. Uh first is Hicksbridge Landing Commission review and approve quotes for the purchase of docks at the Hicksbridge Landing. So somebody please explain this. Yeah. So this is a there were a series of
grants that Jim Hartnett had applied for I think when he was uh the town planner and then he there were some ARPA grants that were applied for from Jeff B. Um anyway, they uh this is all part of I I
had brought before the the plan to um pave Hicksbridge Landing to to better manage the storm water. Um so this is all kind of part of that larger project. Um this is just a piece of the project to upgrade the um the floats
there to something that's a little bit sturdier and I guess they're not in great shape. So Jeff wanted to uh see if we could spend some of the money to upgrade the floats. I checked with this this uh with DCR to see if we could use
some of the ARPA funds for that and they said yes and they uh put that in the contract when we um got the contract together with them. So we put it out to a couple of different quotes um contacted a couple of different firms.
So the reason why we need planning board approval is because uh we need an elected board to approve the expenditure. What are I see the email from Jeff mentions the quotes but it doesn't include how much uh the quotes
are or specs or anything like that. There's a couple of different quotes in here um for the floats. The one that was recommended from the landing commission
was the one from Bordon Light and that one came to 46,750. Um, and then there was one from Easy Do which was 41,490. Um I'm going to defer to the landing
commission's recommendation on this because I don't but they have the money about these types of folks. Yeah, the town has Yeah, we have the money in grant funds for this. Well, it says the grant is from the planning board. I don't understand that email. We've been managing the grants. This was something
uh there was initially a a grant that Jim Hartnett had applied for through the Seapport Economic Council and that's been extended a number of times um for this project and then the ARPA funds were just something that was kind of inherited by the planning board. Um so
that is a as the match. No, the ARPA money is going to pay the 50 there's a $50,000 ARPA grant and that will pay for this float. It's It's still there.
Yep. Yep. Yeah. We we had the um the the funds were were committed um for this purpose. So, we can still spend them. Yeah. I don't know how long we have to spend this. Right. Right. But
Jim is saying that it's doable. Yeah. I remember allocating it, but I it's a long time ago. Mhm. Are the floats in the same layout as they are now? Cuz the original plan it was wasn't going to be the same layout. They the the floats
have to be in the same layout because of the same layout. Yeah. Um if they change if the layout were to change, then they would have to go through the conservation commission to change the permitting for it. Yeah. They would need waterways
licensing and I mean it's a lot of permitting, right? But they were saying if they don't if they build if they just replace them in situ. Yeah. And it's been run by Chris Capone in conservation and he said it's it's fine as long as it's you're just replacing them.
Um then that's is it like this drawing on easy easy 50 ft long ft wide. That's about right existing. Yeah. I mean it's it's similar to that one but
that's not the the recommended one. The the board in Lightrooming didn't include a special is there a special seat for the Baywatcher to Yeah. I need a seat. The lazy board. I couldn't tell you. I'm going off of the recommendation
from the landing commission. This is really bored in their court. So, well, you want a motion, Mr. Chair? uh even though it doesn't include a waterproof laser boy for the Baywatch, I would uh move that the planning board
approve based on the recommendation of the landing commission uh the quote from what's the name of the firm? Bordon Light. Bordon Light for 46,000 whatever the exact amount is. Right.
That's second. Uh, all those in favor? I I nay for me, please. I I don't see the I don't see the purpose of just replacing them. I mean, if you're going to if you're going to do a project, you want
they they needed more dock spray. They needed larger floats and uh this is just it's not gaining anything. Spending a lot of money for Well, there'll be a good float and it can be added to it.
They're all in sections. It's working now. You know, it's just the cleats you pull out of the float and the floats are serviceable. You don't injure yourself walking down there. But they they
they're probably reached the end of their life several years ago. But I think in terms of advantage in this besides uh it's active down there but those close hands were traffic that's there
and um it's it seems that you know with the problem with the masons and everything else the huge project dream that everybody talked about is not going to happen. And so doing this
incrementally, you know, if we've got some money for the floats, do that and then later on if there's money for paving, do that. I think that makes sense. I mean, you get a lot of traffic from the ramp and some of that uses the dock,
some of it doesn't. Uh, and then you got Dharma Voyage in and out of there all the time. But uh the current layout is uh uh you know can handle that traffic. The
uh as sea level goes up the inboard end of that uh dock resting on the sand gets kind of low on the you know can can get a little bit close underwater.
Yeah, you mentioned the ramp. I think that has been that was cited as being needing rebuilding because it's uh I it's cracked to where it's Yeah. It's not It's not a very safe way to
launch a boat and I I remember that. these the issue of these floats and are we so we talking about the T configuration both not the both I think
the uh docks that go out to the T and the T get replaced according to the drawing so there's 10 floats so there's five going out and then five across Yeah, because I'm there's another sketch
here, another proposal, and you're saying that's not the one they're in. They want an L-shaped one. It's replacing whatever is in in the spot um today. So, whatever they're currently using, this is going to go in the exact same place and format. Okay,
chair. So, so John said about the Masons. So in and yesterday's selections meeting last week I had asked Jimmy for the deed. So he gave me a copy I guess whatever they had here but I told him to try to get a copy from the registry deeds. There's stuff xed out on the
deed. And I also asked him if he could there's there's got to be some kind of agreement with the deed. You don't just have a deed. However, it was transferred. So like I'm aware of someone just gave me the deed to the Holy Ghost club in the in the agreement with the Holy Ghost club. Like some of these things have you know they might
have had a 99-year agreement. They might even be up, you know, just because you see the deed cuz it was transferred for whatever it was like for 100 bucks or whatever. So hopefully maybe by the next meeting I'll have
that. That'll be good. Okay. So that's done. The next thing is 958 Sodom Road. There's a purchase and sale agreement on our chapter 4A release comments for 61A.
Yeah. And um this is the parcel. It's a large parcel. Um it's under right up here. Um it's right off of Adamsville Road. The select board has asked for comments from the from the planning board. Um, it's under
purchase and sales agreement for $3 million um to Bill Chimera. So, I would anticipate some kind of application coming forward for this property. So, it looks like Angeline Brook is going right through it. Yep. Right.
Well, in the back. So, it doesn't go through it. It's out out It might be kind of hard to see, but it's outlined in green here. Yeah. You got you got wetlands in between there too. Yeah. So in the front you got a lot of wetlands. So I I also
don't believe the wetlands have been delineated there. So this is just probably bigger. So um and it borders property that I think although the the L-shaped property that's to the west east
is uh close to being acquired by your brother's day. Okay. And um I I don't believe this property is would be assessed would be not assessed but
uh that anybody in the real estate business would say is worth $3 million. We've talked to a lot of people about this property over the last probably the last two years. Yeah. Yeah. It's It's been on It's been on the market. It's been listed for quite a while. It's been
on the market for $3 million and they won't sell it for less. Yep. Um it's my opinion that that uh that we should recommend to the select board, you know, should be
preserved and let them make the decision because I think it's an important part of that whole answering area, especially the land in the back. and you're going to screw up a lot of wetlands to get to that open land
in the back. Um I I think that I think both Bay and the Land Trust have been trying to make a deal on this property, but they can't pay any more than the assessed value.
So they think probably where it's at. 1.5 you're saying? So, and to break up to sell that and then have somebody do ANRS along the front because that's easy. They couldn't ever make money paying $3
million for it. Maybe you get five lots out of it, right? So, I don't know what the select board would do, but I I believe it should be not released at the moment.
You want a motion? I don't know. Let's talk about it. I think that makes a lot of sense, Jim. Um, I can't tell from this map if there's other uh land trust, Westport land trust properties
neighboring nearby. Uh, I can identify them. Just just curious. That's all. Oh, sorry. So, the the land trust properties are in this paint. Okay. So there is one right there.
Yeah. And what is warrant? Is that 60 or uh it's just labeled on here as private? So there's some other sort of restriction on on the land preventing development. But we'd have to look into each individual
because I assume all the small house lots are private. But an orange, most of that uh at least around Adam Road, that stuff is in in um
61A. No, not 61A. Um APR APR. So, and some of it some of it is in APR as well as conservation restrictions from the land trust that are written
into the deeds. So the, you know, you see Adamsville Road coming down, you see Sodom Road, all that stuff to the left at that intersection is uh is APR. And
um the stuff to the right of that intersection on this side on the bottom side is all APR. And ORS is right on the corner there. That's APR. Uh, and then up there around the bend,
you got Weather Low Farm. Yep. And you've got some land that was just put into APR by the land trust. Buzzard's Bay has also been talking to uh this land owner right here.
Yeah. Um, so I I think it's I I think it would be not good to have you could get 50 60 houses in there. So I just point a point of information
on the planning board designated the open space committee uh and our first meeting I think we're reconfigured now is tomorrow uh out at the land trust
property Adamville. Okay. And I don't know whether this will be on the agenda. Uh Chris Capone is the uh managing person of the open space. Well, I think Chris is aware of the problems with this lot because of the
wetlands. Um so, uh I've driven by this forever. It had a sign on it forever for sale and it didn't show that it went all the way connected with the the land lots from the main road. But they have a buyer,
right? You have to in order to come to it. Yeah. So they've got willing to pay 3 million bucks. Maybe they have a year to go through the due diligence. Mhm. Like get a wetlands
delineation, go through wetlands, uh go through conservation to see if they can get a road through there and replicate somewhere, which never works out very well. Um so anyway, I I I still would would like
to give our opinion as that we should not release it that we should You want a motion, Mr. Chair. Yes, please. I I would move that we communicate with the select board recommending that on 758 Sodom Road uh
the town not release uh the chapter 48 restriction. Second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? No. Okay. Thank you. Uh, next
is Granite Post Road file number 13-2C. Thank you, chairman. Um, so I provided an update in the form of SWO's final review of the final road as build um at the last planning board meeting on May 20th, 2025. And so the planning department, highway, and assessors
department do hold copies of this. Uh, no shy was recommended to be retained for the grass growth. the developer has added starter fertilizer. That was kind of the last comment from SW Cole. So, as we have the final asbuilt, staff does recommend that the board motion to release the remaining 8,700 held
insurity. So, um who's the consulting engineer on this? Uh Derek Melo Esto. We had gone over his final reviews. Um, so they've already planted Yep. grass. It's established. It
started. Yep. Okay. Then I would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I I move that we release the remaining shy of $8,700 on Granite Post Road on the Granite Post Road project
based on staff recommendation. Second. All those in favor? I I Okay. Next is Little Compton Housing Trust, file number 24-328 C-RL. Uh, we want to endorse a form F
covenant. Yes. So, at the May 20th, 25 2025 planning board meeting, we did have the board endorsed a form F covenant and a form F RRL for the Little Compton Housing Trust. Um, the form F was accidentally misplaced. So, a fresh form F was sent over. I'll pass along the
signature page. It didn't do blue. No. Oh, I I didn't see that until after I signed it. So, is there another copy? As long as one signature is in blue ink, that's okay. John Blair usually signs in blue, so we
should be able only sign in blue. Thank you. And thank you for that. Oh, really? The registry sign with just one so you can't get in trouble anymore. So we can identify what's the original. Got registry doesn't care. Third grade.
Yeah, it's so we can recognize So, do do all registries require blue ink now or is it just ours? So, I'm not sure. I don't think the registry actually requires it. So we are able to differentiate what's the original and what are the copies cuz sometimes it can be hard when it's all
in black ink like but I thought the registry rejected some of the things we saw. Yeah, I thought so. They've rejected it based on was this the original or not? Oh yeah. Okay. Uh so we signed the format.
So, support letter for municipal vulnerability preparedness coalition. Request to endorse support letter to request an increase of municipal vulnerability preparedness funds in Governor Healey's environmental bond
bill. If somebody could explain that. Yeah, I got a request from the um from the director of the Mystic River Watershed Association. His name is Nasser Brahim. Um they the
governor is going to submit an environmental bond bill um which will include some uh it's this is one of the the pieces of legislation that um includes funding for the MVP program.
And what they're asking is for municipalities, given the situation with the federal government rolling back funds for um climate resilience projects, to request that the governor includes additional funds in the in the
next round of funding um for the MVP program on an annual basis. Um this is and it says uh to to protect and maintain the $100 million per year um for the MVP or to increase bonding
authority to that target level. So what they're asking for us to sign on to is to request that the governor includes more funds in the MVP program moving forward into the future. um given the fact that the federal funds that we used
to rely on are no longer there. Okay. Do you want a uh motion? Uh sure. We we don't have a such a letter before us, do we? That that we have There's one in there's a there's a
draft on page 45. 45. Okay. And I assume we're going to fill in the real names before we send it. We do we don't actually need to sign it. He the he said that it just they want a bunch of endorsements to add to the letter.
Okay. Um, so it's we don't actually hear any I move that we um approve the uh draft letter uh to um uh in support of uh m the municipal
vulnerability preparedness coalition and uh which requests an increase in uh municipal vulner vulnerability preparedness. funds in the environmental bond bill.
Second. All those in favor? I I Okay. Next is municipal vulnerability preparedness 2.0 request to purchase emergency kit items. This is a pilot project for the MVP 2.0. So, um, this is the project
that we've had a couple community volunteers working on as well as Jeff Canton and Michael Yogman, um, doing community engagement over the last two years. And at the end of this project, we're able to implement a a
pilot project. Um, and so through the community engagement process, we had a couple of different pilot projects that we uh surveyed the community on. And through the survey results, it was determined that we would
um pull together some emergency kits that would be distributed throughout the community. um we would uh first give priority to the town's environmental justice community and then distribute to the the town at large. Um so there's a
list of a variety of different items um in a memo that I included in your packets. Um we will be purchasing these well provided that the planning board approves just due to the dollar amount we have to have the board uh approve it.
It's $50,000. Um and then we'll begin acquiring the items and and distributing them in the town. We'll be partnering with trying to work on partnering with um one of the churches next to the environmental
justice community to have a distribution event, but then afterwards um we'll work with the food pantry to distribute and try to um tack on to various different events in town as we did with some of the community engagement in the past. um
to then distribute those to community members who come to those events. Okay. I thought that one of the projects was potentially uh getting um help
with taking care of u overhanging tree limbs and dead trees in people's yards. Is that we can't make it. So we there's a bit of a story behind that. What we initially had
discussed with the group was to actually take down some of those hazard trees. That is not something that the MVP program would fund. Um our our regional rep Courtney Broka really advocated for that because um we had been told that
the funds could be spent pretty much however the community decides. But um as with many grant programs, they won't fund maintenance and that fell into the category of maintenance. Um so we did
poll on like doing some mapping of hazard trees, but it didn't rank as highly as the emergency kits. Okay. You want a motion? Where where would u
um where would these kits go? I mean there's a there's about a thousand kits. Are they in the schools the town hall or they'll be distributed with with residents to residents to res then they
go to eBay. So I'm sure that that won't happen. Okay. So, I would I would hope that some could be left in like the town hall or the annex at
the maybe the the nurs's office people can pick them up if or the veterans they can pick them up if they want. I would imagine that we'll have leftovers. So, yeah. Okay. So, I'd entertain a motion to
endorse this. Uh Mr. chair. Uh I have a friend in uh Los Angeles who was called in the middle of the night to evacuate and he got in his car with uh
nothing but what was on the you know the clothes he was wearing. Mhm. Evacuate from those fires. So I think the idea of emergency kits that are you know in a boat you crawl in a ditch bag. Yep. uh is really important uh because you
want this stuff accessible, identifiable, you can grab it on the run uh when you go. I think it's I hope you hope they're never used, but um I think it's uh it's important for
people to have and if we can help a thousand people uh get them, then I think that's uh makes us more resilient. So, I would move we approve the purchase of a thousand emergency preparedness kits as
described in the uh memo from uh Michael Burus. Second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? That carries. Um and I think it isn't just a thousand
individuals. It's a thousand households. Thousand households, right? Good point. Yeah. So it's more than a thousand individuals. Yeah. Yeah. It's a thousand household. One of my I have two sons both living in LA. But uh they do one of them has their own they put together
their own kit and they have because they've been through these evacuations due to fire due to earthquakes flooding everything. So they kind of self-prepared. Mhm. Sure. But it's a
it's kind of a way of life out there. Yeah. And so many people do it on their own. But we we're not exposed fortunately yet to that those kind of disasters. But Right. So this is a good idea to have these get make them
available for people and hopefully it'll catch on and more people will start doing it themselves. All we need is a big hurricane. We'll have I mean there's so many lowlying houses now along the shore.
Well, I think when we do this uh picking up on Mark's point, it would be good if we send that to shorelines. Um so they get a picture of what the emergency kit looks like,
what's in it, and the need for it so that it encourages people who have the wherewithal to get their own. Right. I you know because I think and the items in here aren't intended to
be you know the end all be all. It's just you know handful a couple of things that you know get people started and get that idea moving you know in their head. So yeah right and we'll have some additional umformational pamphlets about disaster preparedness and and what else
they could add to this. That's great. Okay. Uh, next is the overdue consultant review fee balance from file number 23-028 spa-la, also called Melo Melo's Way.
Uh, we have a request to engage town council to collect overdue consultant review fee balance from applicant Bucky Leblanc after refusal to remmit payment. So, he's he's verbally said he's not
going to do it. Uh we asked him he Dia called him and um we were saying that we need to to have the payment and uh he we've been asking him to pay for months now. Um finally get a hold of him and he
hung up on her and I think the message is clear. So I we we need to escalate it to to get this paid. How much is it? Uh it's nearly $75. Yeah. Can we just send it to small claims? Yeah, we could. I've
done I've done that before. Yeah, as long as I've done it. Yeah, well, let town council would I mean, yeah, you should be able to make make up the town council may recommend doing just that. Yeah. Right. You want a
motion, Mr. Chair? Please. Uh, I move uh that in the matter of uh uh Mr. Le Blank refusing uh to pay what he promised to pay um that we engage town council
um to collect the overdue consultant review fee from uh Mr. Levlan. Second. All those in favor? I I Okay. Um, next is a letter to
Massachusetts Energy Energy Facilities Sighting Board. So Jim, this is a letter that you had penned and and well, Serpent had penned and you had signed on to um and it outlines a number of different issues
with um the 2024 climate act with um with respect to sighting of uh renewable energy facilities. I think the long and short of it is that the the act um will
no longer allow uh special permits for solar energy facilities, for example. Um and that it the approvals will be taken out of local hands and be given to um a power sighting the power sighting board.
Um and so there are handful of issues outlined in this letter um that Serpent had identified as places for improvement. Um so for example restricting the ability of the power
sighting board to allow a solar facility or a energy facility in a flood zone for example. Mhm. Um strengthening wetlands protections, making sure that the facilities are not cited in um in public
water supplies areas. You know, we don't uh want these kinds of facilities located in our aquifer protection districts. Um and then giving giving some additional protections to or greater consideration to um agricultural
like prime agricultural soils in the review process. um that's pretty uh relevant for Westport. And then um addressing some of the um the interplay between how this the
the the sighting of the site or sighting of the facility will interact with local master plans, open space plans, um things like that. And then there are a couple of other one
other items addressing the uh decommissioning. So have I guess there wasn't uh language for decommissioning and the environmental risks associated with that. Um so they for example recommended um mandating a financial
insurance assurance mechanism um to make sure that the decommissioning is fully covered and it doesn't fall upon the municipality. Um so there there are a handful of different points in in this letter um that uh Serpent had penned but
we had sent to the um we had sent to the energy facility sighting board um this week. So we've sent it already. Yeah. The comment period closed. Y yeah. You need a a vote
to approve it? No. Well, we've already said it, so I guess that's the way they do it in certain other places. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead. I I would move that we endorse
the very well-ritten and I think comprehensive uh letter to the energy facilities sighting board. Uh that's good motion there. Yeah,
a second. All those in favor? I I It It's crazy. They had an open meeting for comment and then they said, "Okay, I think you have two weeks to get your written comments in."
And you know, so Serpent was really under the gun and they were like already 3 days late, but they told them that they would still entertain the the comments even if they're a few days late. But the people at Serpent who were
doing this, writing this letter were doing it from the environmental standard. And that's basically what this thing all talks about this the law. But it it doesn't talk about the community
impact and uh the impact of you know our zoning you know setbacks and stuff like that which I think have been um well used by us uh in approving these
things. Anyway, um but Jim, I'm so does this mean that this sighting board would have the ability to override any of our local regulations? There's they're still writing up the regulations even though
the laws in effect. Um, and hopefully they'll read the letter and say, "Geez, we need to put something in for, you know, community, the community itself to do." As opposed to I
don't know how they're ever going to do this. So, I mean, there's 353 towns and cities, and how big of a sighting board are they going to have that's going to handle all these applications?
I just I just I think it's insane. But this this came about because of I mean, I didn't I haven't heard it so about it, so I'm sorry. Well, the the the governor signed this this
this law into uh existence, I think, in October or September. Um, but it didn't take effect immediately, but because they don't have the sighting board in place, I don't know how they're going to do that. Uh,
it just seems crazy. I mean, yeah, it it seems like counter to what Massachusetts has always been a home rule home rule states, right? And it's like 40B on steroids. I mean,
you know, this this lot that we looked at, it's a almost 100 acres. Uh, you could probably put solar in the back there and make much more than you could if you're going to put roads and everything else in for houses.
And then would we have any input? Because what they're supposed to do, the applicant is supposed to go and do community outreach before they even put the application in to the state.
But how is that going to work? I mean, h what is what's the definition of community outreach that's going to pass muster? Does that mean they come to the planning board? I don't think so. I
think it means that they call a meeting and at the auditorium in the school and anybody who comes can speak up and just Well, I mean our regular
regulations will um limit the size of a large scale solar array to 12 acres. 12 acres. Does that mean somebody could come in with an application for a bigger a larger I think so. 20 acres. Mhm. I think so. Yeah. It's 12 acres of
clearance. So, if you're not clearing, you could be bigger. Right. Right. It talks about in here uh you know, farmland and good farmland and land that could be used for farming. Uh using the soil evaluation maps that they
have, but you know, are they really going to do that? I don't I don't know who's going to be on this board. Oh. And so I don't know, I hope they have some more public outreach because I think this is crazy.
And you know, if every town sees the number of spots like like this, that's a lot of spots in Massachusetts. So, okay. Um, Resilient Coast draft plan,
opportunity for comments until June 12th. Opportunity for endorsement. Mr. Chair, I asked at the last meeting, uh, this draft plan had just come out and I'd asked that we add this to the agenda
for tonight's meeting because this is the last meeting before the deadline on on comments. Uh, and I think I haven't read the whole plan, but I think we
should take advantage of uh offering a comments in a a letter to whomever it goes to. And one point I noticed in the release of the plan, I
mean clearly Westport has been doing an awful lot of work in the issue of resilience and we have also in the project involving East Beach uh talked about uh the issue of voluntary managed
retreat uh uh with the Buzz Space Coalition And um the thing that I noted in this draft plan was uh a section on voluntary
managed retreat. Uh and if you know at some point that's going to have to happen. I don't know whether it's 20 years from now or 50 years from now. And if it's voluntary, it may be 20 years from now for one owner who
wants to take advantage of it and 50 years from someone who says, "No, I'm going to stay here till I'm swimming in my living room." But whatever the case, we're going to need state funds to do this.
and uh because Westport or any town for that matter is not going to be able to afford uh the acquisition of the number of properties that are going to need need to be uh acquired over time. So I think
uh we may may want to make other points about this plan. Um I think there are a lot of issues that have come up in our resilience plan of things that need to be done and getting financial support uh
for those whether it's infrastructure work or whether it's you know how to deal with heat and public health. uh they all cost money and uh this is clearly right now a priority of the
state and I think we should write a letter that commends the effort and mentions that uh state funding is going to be critical for implementing recommendations that
come out of resilience plans. Um and one of the biggest ticket items is bound to be uh managed retreat uh which is already going on in some communities in Massachusetts, not going on yet in
Westport, but you know it it will affect us at some point. So I think the main thing is to say we're interested in this issue. We've been working on it with a lot of members of
the community for three or four or five years, however long it's been. And uh state funding for items like managed retreat is is key if we're going to to turn talk into action. Listen, I'm sorry. Wow. That probably blew all of
our audience out of their lazy voice. This microphone. So I would I would move we send such a letter uh as part of our com as our comments. I would second that. Okay. All those in
favor? I um we'll draft a letter and we'll circulate it with you all so you can look at the language beforehand. So I think all these things are related. the Buzzards Bay U uh report uh that we
did last week in this room uh was um really interesting uh there's already push back to well they didn't say what I thought they
should say right it's a problem with science You can't control the truth. Well, the the other thing and I mean just to be realistic about this, the pressure on the state because as somebody was saying a minute ago, the federal government's
pulling back on their funding. So the pressure on states to to step in and provide additional funding on all various matters is is enormous. So, you know, good luck, but
I can only hope for the best, but you know, can't as John said last year, I think sometime um everybody said, "No, we don't want manager retreat. Yet there were four or
five of those lots for sale." Y which means that those people want it out. Y and the problem is how do you find the money? to buy them because you could do that incrementally if you you know it doesn't have to be done all one year. It can't
be done all in one year. I mean incremental is the way to do it because you point out there four or five people you know we were told nobody on East Beach wants to sell. Nobody. That's what the leaders said and then there's four for sale signs down there saying well
four people want to sell, five people want to sell. And if and they were at uh prices that the coalition proposals bay had kind of factored in. Uh they weren't outrageous prices. They were market
prices. And if that program had been in place that be, you know, four or five lots be a start that it would be in public ownership, not to be developed. And it's a start. And when you start something like that, people start to notice, you know,
oh, you took advantage of that. Maybe that's not such a bad idea. Uh, and you know, my kids don't want this. I'm getting older. You know, if I get lifetime tenency, you know, that that could make sense for me. You know, it depends on
people's circumstances. Some people don't want to do it. Fine. That's why it's got to be voluntary. But If it's voluntary, uh it's a good idea for the long term and uh it's certainly going to need
state approval. There are three lots for sale right now. Three lots for sale right now. See? Yeah. Exactly. This could be put into place immediately. Okay. Uh, so who's going to write the letter?
Michael is going to write it in and circulate. All right. Uh, planners report. Got a couple of upcoming public meetings. There's the cold water callverts. Um, the culverts on Drift
Road and Cornell Road. that is coming up on Thursday this week. It which is the 5th at 6 o'clock at the library. Um and then our next hazard mitigation plan meeting is coming up. That's this month
as well. Um let me get the poster. June 16th at 6 p.m. Great picture on the call. It is a another one at the library. And then we have some additional barrier beach planning meetings coming up. Uh we
don't have anything scheduled, but keep an eye out for those. There will be more opportunities to get involved with that project. Um do you think that that process is going to come up with what what what's going
to be the end end product? It's a draft beach management plan, right? So it's going to outline Well, one of the things that we had set out to do was to outline um all of the things that all the management
practices that the town currently undertakes, what are the recommended best practices for that, the applicable regulations that are in place. So from the the wetlands act to the endangered species act um zoning or like uh not
zoning but um uh FEMA flood plane permitting all those kinds of things will be represented in this plan. It'll only be a draft because we're not going to submit it to D for permitting. uh a second iteration of the the process.
We're applying to a CCM uh applying to CCM again for a grant to continue the process of getting the barrier beach management plan to full permitting. Um so that'll take more public engagement as well as um action from the select
board as well. Um so it'll come up with some recommendations for the town. It'll come up with some recommendations for how private land owners can be um managing their land in a way that is lessening
the or managing their land in a way that is more consistent with natural forces. Um granted, even if the the select board adopts the management plan, they can't regulate how the private land is being
used. Um, so it would only, you know, that the the regulatory aspects would only apply to the town's land, but there will be recommendations in there for that. Um, we'll come up with some figures on what it would cost for beach nourishment. Um, and then there may be
some longer term considerations like does the town what does the town continue to do with the broad when it's broken apart in pieces um from storm events. So, does the town consider downgrading the road at some point um to
like a kind of like a cobble road um that would or does the town continue to continue to pave that road in the aftermath of those storms? Um and it'll also have recommendations for beach we tend to focus on East Beach a lot, but
it'll have recommendations for Beach Avenue and Atlantic Avenue as well. Um so there'll be recommendations on how those land owners can manage their land um in a way that will slow the rate of erosion. So
um Atlantic Avenue they're a great example of um how dune plantings can really make a difference in um slowing the rate of erosion because the the dune grasses have really large root systems that'll help hold the land in place. Um,
and we'll have, you know, uh, recommended species and stuff like that in the plan. So, Elephant Rock Beach Club, uh, that leases the land from the Westport Harbor Improvement Trust, uh, has done a lot of work on the beach
this past year after the big storms we had, which devastated their beach just like everywhere else. And they have planted donor grass all over. They've made they've made the dunes more resilient, I think.
Um, and I think they've done an amazing job cuz they've never done anything before. So, it's We were just there on Sunday, right? Doing the Yeah, we went we went uh there was a public event that we had
hosted doing sitewalks at each of the three beaches. Yeah. And that was one um that that we had went to and uh we saw the the dune grasses that they had planted as well as there a couple piping clover nests out there right now.
Mr. Chair, I I think uh uh the report uh done by uh the Buzz Bay Coalition with help from uh the Wrathman Family Foundation here in Westport on uh
the causeway had some interesting findings. If I recollect, one of the questions that came up here last week was, "What do you think about beach renourishment?" and the scientists involved in that
study, which are some of the same folks doing uh our study. So, you better think they're talking to each other. Uh said beach reourishment is um a practical way
of dealing with this problem. You just have to realize that it is uh something that's an ongoing program. You can't do it once. And as as the uh Buzzards Bay
study showed, you get these circulation patterns which are set up not by the causeway but by the island that are going to drag sand off the beach and put it in among other places to the entrance
to the harbor. Uh, and then the federal government's going to have to dredge and take the sand out of the entrance and perhaps not put it in the water. Perhaps use that sand that came from the beach
back on the beach. You could also, I would think, foresee that, you know, the sign out on 195 doesn't even say Westport. It says Horseeneck Beach, right? We don't exist. Uh people
come to Westport for the beaches and they stay in hotels, BRBOs, wherever they stay to go to the beach. So if you in if you levy an increase in a hotel tax for
residents that is earmarked as something like renourishing the beaches that you're coming to see. Uh it doesn't it pays for it or pays for part of it who knows without uh putting the burden on
you know full-time residents. So I I think there are ways to to do this if this is an issue and and as you said earlier, Mr. Chair, all of this is connected. So many of these public meetings, so many of these grants that we've gotten, you know, have tremendous
overlap with what we're looking at and I think out of that it's going to come some really good recommendations. Woods whole group is currently modeling what will happen in different various storm events with uh beach nourishment
with with sand and with cobble. So those results are still forthcoming but those will be should be available soon to show what kind of impact it may or may not have to fortify the beaches um in various beach nourishment scenarios.
The other thing that I found interesting in that study is that our marshes are I think I've known this but our marshes are not accreing enough to keep up with sea level rise and they are
drowning and I think uh CCM and D have come up with new regulations for permitting trials on ways to augment uh the top of
marshes. Um it may come too late, but and then you need a source of dredge material that's suitable for the marshes. Well, that cloud of Sahara sand that's headed to the United States may may get all the
way up to Westport and just dump all lot of bunch of nice sand right on the marshes. Huh. I didn't know it was coming. Yeah. Last time I was in Italy, it was coming to Italy. It's headed right now to Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama, but
maybe it'll get north. Okay, next. We have a $50,000 award from the SNEP network. And this was something that we kind of just stumbled upon through Serpent to develop
a storm water management plan um in Westport. So it's only $50,000. So we had to select a subwaterhed um in town. The wershed that we had selected I will I have a map of it here.
is watershed or subwhed 3. This is has the bread and cheese broke in. It has the headarters of the Westport River. Um has Westport's environmental justice community as well as a lot of neighborhoods that don't have any sort of storm water management system. Um so
it's best candidate for this type of project. And what it'll do is it'll prioritize areas of need and uh of protection and restoration um as it applies to storm water runoff. So this is something that I had applied for the SNAP networks uh like their
community assistants. um they help with a small project and then after meeting with they they had scheduled a call with me and some folks from Serpent and I had mentioned that I had a submitted a um a
pre-application to the MVP for a storm water management plan and I I didn't end up applying for that this year because they said well we can help you out with you know the initial inputs of a storm water management plan. Um Sarah Singh
was the one who kind of made the connect between uh Sarah Singh at at Serbed. She's one of their um one of their employees in the environmental division made the connection between us and and the SNEP network to get this going. So we're grateful for that. But um yeah, we
just put we just put this out to an RFP. Um I think it's something that Serpent and the Snap Network are going to be managing. So, I'm grateful for that cuz I've got a lot of different grant stuff going. But, um, yeah, it'll be interesting to see what they what they come up with. And I think it'll be a
good start for doing a townwide storm water management plan. It is a that wershed is a very good choice. It has it's cut by the two major highways and matter of fact three with including 177
but it but it also sort of samples the diversity. You've got very rural areas in the in the very north and then um the very dense areas along Route three. So it's a
it's a chance to have different solutions for different contexts. Mhm. Yeah. I think it's a great one because it's it's one of our our most problem ones and it includes the Route Six area. Yeah. Y which the state is supposed to
be working on a Route Six plan which incorporates more robust storm water control. I hope and then we'll be able to share this analysis with them. Yeah. All right. And then
the one-stop application. I just submitted this yes yesterday. This ended up being an $87,000 grant application um to work with Serpent on drafting some village commercial districts. We had talked
about this in the last meeting focusing on areas like Adamsville, the head of Westport. Um and I also included uh within the proposal um a district for marine uses, marine dependent uses. So
like the area around trips boatyard um and uh some of the adjacent parcels over there at the point. Yeah. Yeah. Uh, so grant applications are going to be very competitive this year, so we'll see
how it shakes out. But, um, yeah, I was happy to get that done. And then an update on our online permitting. I have an anticipated schedule for this. So,
um, planning should go, we're anticipated to go live this month. Um, and then Concom is July 7th, the ZBA is July 14th, and then maybe the the clerk's office, I don't know if they're
interested in in um using some of the services. They're supposed to meet with them tomorrow to determine if if they're interested in that. And they're already using city hall systems for a lot of different um applications. So, uh, they
don't want to change over systems right now when people are getting used to city hall systems and, you know, just causing some confusion. So, um, but I Yeah, we should be be done with the transition to online permitting by the end of summer. Good.
That would be super. Yeah, it's only 20 years late. Not your fault. uh assistant planners report. Okay. So, at the last meeting, we kind of talked about some of the solar follow-ups and you guys had more
specific questions for me to look into. So, I handed out a map that I made to everybody. Um this was just simply made in our mapping database. Um just to outline all of the parcels that are solar developments in town. And the
questions that I was asked to look into are how many megawws have been approved in town, how the total acreage of woodlands cleared, the total parcel acreage used, um total megawatts used in town, and the total megawatts used in
town that um are attributed to residential consumer solar. So I was able to answer the first three. In terms of woodlands cleared, we have 158.6 acres. parcels is 786.99 acres with 69.42 megawatts
approved in town. Um, in terms of residential consumer solar, I haven't I just haven't had a chance to connect with the building department. Things have been a little up and down this week. Um, and I do have a friend at the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources who's going to connect me. I've called their renewables department
twice for some of that total megawatts used consumed by Westport data, which I believe they do have and are going to be able to help me with. just haven't been able to connect with them. I've reached out a couple times. So hopefully there'll be something more to say later, but I hope this rudimentary map, you know, this is really good. Yeah. So, is
this uh ones that are installed already or is this approved? Approved. Some are still in construction. Like two are still in construction, but you haven't included the ones that were approved that have decided not to do. I took out the withdrawn. There's one withdrawn and
one that was denied. So, those have not been included in this map. Yep. And the the parcel acres. Yeah. 786 total. That's the total um acreage of just the whole parcel. So, basically the
parcel I just added up those things. I think something that's maybe more helpful is maybe getting a percentage instead of just flat numbers. So, we kind of know how much space is being used. We have that woodlands and parcel data. Once I get that megawatt data, I feel like I can play with it to create some kind of And also, is there
some some location that would tell you how many acres of woodland we have remaining? Yeah. Yeah. And that can be used in a percentage. Yep. So woodland JS might have that too in our
agricultural subcommittee of climate resilience and did about a 40 or 50 page draft report on a had a whole bunch of maps around different types of forest different types of soil conditions
they're doing and I don't know whether in in providing all those maps you could go the step to say how many acres of of forest do we have but I know
he did a lot of work on that. So the the one that's at the Fall River Rod and Dun Club. Yeah. Uh that seems to take over the whole parcel. Is this just the Woodlands Clear or is this the parcel that it's on? I I should
have titled this map better. The These are just parcels that are attributed to solar developments. These are the parcels outlined. It's not It's not the woodlands outlined. I can get a map for you like that, too. I can draw that. So, the yellow is the 7 Yes. 86 acres. Yes.
Not the uh 158. Yes, sir. Yep. Does that look accurate to everybody? Okay. It's pretty interesting distribution around Westport. It's not all located in one place. It's all over the place. I know. I noticed that. Yeah. with a lot more
towards that north fall river edge. Those are like the biggest ones, but I'd have I haven't sight visited the rotten gum club one, so I don't I'm I You probably go on near map and let's see what it looks like from That's a
good idea. Get near map. So, um I'm sorry. I think I might have missed it. So, let's get Woodlands remaining. And John, I think you just poked me about one more figure maybe. Yeah, I'd asked you before about how many how much electricity is consumed by
Yeah. businesses and uh households in Westport. Yeah. You know, is it more than 69 megawws, less than 69? There's two different electric companies, you know. Yes. So, it's Eversource and National Grid. National grid
does some of the western Okay. spots like the harbor. Okay. Um, and I think Eversource is the predominant one across this the the town. Um, and you had said you were following up
with DOE to see if they had that information, which I I believe they should because my friend who works there, she's like, "We should have it." I don't know anyone on renewable. So, yeah. If that be if that becomes complicated and difficult, uh,
You know, one thing you might do, I think look at average residential consumption. I mean, I think that's sort of a publish houses use X, you know, and and we know how
many dwelling units we have in the town. So the idea, you know, to to get to the to get to the answer is is it is it more than is it more than 69 or less than 69? I think that's a probably an easy way to do that. You
got summer residents. I mean, some of the households are only used two or three months of the year. Yep. So the electric consumption would be quite different. No, I think this is great. I think this is helpful. Really a start. Yeah, a
start. You got to send a copy of this map to the people we just sent that letter to. Oh, yeah. The sighting. Yeah. Yeah, that's a great idea. I wish I had a better mapping software, but you could
say that we know how to do this, right? This is our experience. What's yours? Right. Right. Thank you for the conversation. I have, you know, some points to follow up. So, he posted, you know, next meeting I'll have something else to share. Okay, moving on to the legal status of Melo's Way. Um, I'm
going to read off the memo that I wrote for this. So the planning department and the planning board should note that on May 22nd, 2025, virtual meeting between the town administrator Jim Hartnett, town council's Robinstein and Roger Smearge, building inspector Ralph Souza
and myself was held to discuss the legal status of Melo's Way in town. The status was called into question as purchasers are considering the land for subdivision development, which requires frontage. So per town bylaws, Melo's Way would have to be upgraded to town roadway specs or
given to and given to the town, pardon, or would have had to exist before the implementation of the subdivision control law in 1971 to provide legal frontage. And to continue MGL Mass General Law, chapter 48, section 6 does have this grandfathering provision for
non-conforming lots, a special protection for single-use lots that existed prezoning. So for these lots, the minimum area is 5,000 square feet. The minimum frontage is 50. The lot must have been shown on a plan described in a deed recorded before the effective date of local zoning and must not be held in
common common ownership with any adjoining land at the time of recording. So these lots are permitted for single or two family residential use only. So if an argument is to be made that Melo was in existence pre-ubdivision control law, that burden of proof is on the
applicant and the applicant's council, not the town. This is kind of what the the tension in question who uh who get this giving advice of the legal status. So it is kind of in a gray area. Um town council advises that the town and town staff should not give advisory opinions
to applicants any opinion should be given through the official vectors of the application process. So if an argument is to be made that Melo's Way is in existence pre subdivision control law, it first needs to come before the planning board for support before submitting a full permit application to
the building department. So the approved view shall not be expanded upon as the development progresses. Any changes or modifications will require review before the board. Um so regarding this applicant, Ralph already sent a letter in June 2023 which kind of detailed ex the process that I described here. And
so this letter was resent to the applicant in May 25. This is kind of more of a building um conversation that planning was looped into because of our you know it's it's all tied. It's interconnected. So I wanted to share that memo. Sorry for reading out the whole thing, but basically yeah, people
are thinking of purchasing Melo. This legal status is always up in questions. So, town council has now, you know, officially stated again, we can't give any advisory opinions and any kind of burden of proof is on the applicant. So, they have to prove they have to prove that it is what they say. They have to
prove it. Yeah. And I think it's getting a little mixed up with some applicants kind of maybe expecting that burden of proof on on staff. So we just had to have a meeting to well figure it out. It could be an ancient way which is you know they
had to prove that it's it was on the radar of the town right pre in ancient times. So right uh and some of these things are and some of them aren't. Um and it's really
hard to determine without getting an expert. Yeah. um to make their case. But um there needs to be a lot that's a that's a fact question. You need a lot of evidence.
And the the question is okay, it's an ancient way. If it is and it's narrow, then we may require that it be upgraded to um subdivision standards or at least a
passible way for safety, right? But they may not have the room to do that, right? And that's up to them, not up to us. So yeah, this might be coming in before us in a meeting, the following meeting.
So, heads up, I guess. Um, and then my last Go ahead. I'm trying to recall, but I think we when when we had Lamar's project up there, we
we looked at that pretty carefully. And I think I don't recall, but I think the the road was only the layout was only 30 ft wide or something. Yeah, it's v it's variable, but it's
right. The the the width of the layout is consistently under 40 ft. And there's walls on at least one side, right? Partially. I I know there's some wetlands in there. I don't know about
stone. It goes through wetlands. I think it does. Yeah, it does. It does go through some wetlands. is a is a property on the west side that has a lot of commercial buildings and trailers and
stuff back in there and and it's it's all along the road. It's very wet there. So it's and that's why uh the previous applicant was trying to get
uh access through his former sub uh former uh project which he didn't have the right to do. So y [Music] um so it's up to them to provide access if they want to use the lot but I mean
it's It's not for the faint of heart, I would say. So, uh, this has nothing to do with the previous thing about getting the balance right separate. Yeah. Because he doesn't
own that. Yeah. No, he doesn't. We get a lot of interest from it because it's all uplins, but the the problem is access, right? So, balloon access. Okay, next. Yeah, just a small update. Today, Michael and I actually attended a
coastal relocation workshop in Madapan at the Nature Conservancy, Mass Ottabon. Um, really nice to be part of this network. It's more about meeting and engaging with other folks. So, Justine Rooney, who works on the Barry Breach Management Plan, was there and Rebecca
Haney. We had our squad again together from Sunday. So we had a good time um just kind of sharing some icebreaker sharing some stories, listening a lot of the plenary sessions were kind of focused on proactive planning is also a
form of hope and um just they actually talked about the resilient coast draft plan as well. She went through and kind of did a bit of a deeper dive in the engagement process. Um all that to say is you know I'm happy to be part of this. Um, I didn't feel
like I walked away with a wealth of knowledge, particularly from this one. I think this was more about getting a space together, getting the people together, and and and establishing that network. So, we're going to continue on that, and um hopefully, you know, that'll be relevant to some of our
projects here in town, too. So, what it says coastal relocation workshop. Yeah. Tell me about coastal relocation. was that saying managed retreat, spatial expansion. There are many different terms flying around. Um they actually
they called it the coastal relocation workshop, but they they framed it with managed retreat. That's kind of the most general term, but I think sometimes it has like certain connotations, which is why spatial expansion I've heard used, which is maybe more neutral, but also not exactly capturing what's happening. Do they have any money for us? No.
That's that that was a lot of that was a common refrain was we're every coastal community is going through these same pains of having to have conversations about um managed retreat or you know what whatever you want to call it. Um
and we need money. We we you know there are other communities where they have full-time residential communities that are really much more at risk than what we deal with here. um and they're in the same position except they have folks who
are living in these places full-time and um what do you do? You know, if you look at Plum Island, I switch new report and then also you know the Southshore Marshfield and Situit Amarok
Beach and yeah, right when your front yard drops into the ocean right you get people's attention. you know, hard to say, well, this isn't happening. When your front yard just is some folks will lose like 40t storm, your neighbor's house goes in
and sometimes like in Chadam all of a sudden instead of having a bay view, you have an ocean view. The barrier island just goes away. Okay. Uh discussion items. Yeah. So, I brought this up last year
and we had talked about a couple of different subdivision um or amendments to the subdivision bylaw. Um we didn't get around to addressing it last year, but I'd like to address it this year as well as some other um zoning bylaw
amendments uh that we did not get around to last year. And I think we should start preparing. It's hard to I mean, we just had town meeting, but we have to stay on top of it. So there's not a rush getting zoning amendments out the door.
Um so with the town's uh or with the the subdivision amendments that are we had discussed considering um the first one I'll start with is the town's roadway specifications. So there are a couple
things that need to be tightened up in the in the bylaw. There are some inconsistencies with tables and figures. Um, we need some precise definitions for roadway types and more generally, can we get to a better product in our subdivision rags? Um, that's also a
little bit less uh or has less of an impact um which would be consistent with the fact that we have a low impact development by law. Um, so with our roadways, it's important to that we're not having roads that are are
designed to be too wide. It encourages speeding through um through neighborhoods. Uh it's, you know, we've all been on a street that's, you know, has a lot of folks speeding and it's not a great pedestrian experience. Increases more impervious surfacing which
increases runoff. The imperous surfacing also increases the the heat of that runoff which is bad for water quality as well. Um if the town takes over those roads, the the wider road increases
maintenance costs and um wider streets if they're encourage slower speeds, there's less risk of injury um in the event of a a collision. So, some general considerations that I I think we should um keep in mind when
we're talking about these subdivision regulations. Um particularly for pedestrians. Um we need to have and we did this last year uh or I think it was two years ago to require sidewalks and um uh subdivisions with five or more
lots. I think we could also consider requiring street trees and um new subdivisions so that it can reduce temperatures for pedestrians. Um it also provides some traffic calming um mechanism to it and uh we could have
wider sidewalks to better accommodate two-way travels particularly for folks who um have mobility impairments. Um, and then always in uh uh require the buffer between sidewalks and the roadways. Um, and and widen that so
pedestrians are separated a little bit further from the travel lanes. So, you all know what street trees are, but um they're the trees that are right adjacent to the road, just planted in a a strip of land um between
the sidewalk and the road. Um, I have some recommended parameters for street trees. So, in a subdivision, um, they should only really be required in in situations where sidewalks are also being required. So, um, with five or
more lots. Currently, with our, uh, with the town's uh, frontage requirements, it's 150 ft. So you could accommodate easily accommodate um two street trees in that development at 75 foot
increments. Um gives them a lot of adequate space to grow um but also to provide some some shade in the development. Um and then we could require a 2-year shity um in order to ensure that the street tree
establishes and we would I would recommend that there are no monocultures permitted in the development. So we don't want just entirely one species of tree um in the development and to use native plant species. And then some technical
considerations for um our uh for the for the road layout. We could reduce the travel lane from 11 ft to 10 ft. Um that gives us the ability within a 40ft road layout to increase the sidewalk from 4T
to 5T to just get a little bit of that extra width. Um on and and that's for residential streets. For collector streets, I would recommend reducing the travel lane from 15 feet to 12 feet. Um, increase sidewalk width from four to
five. And then you can with the reduction of the travel lane width, you can pick up an extra 2 ft in the grass shoulder. We should uh have two different cross-sections for residential and collector streets. Right now we have
um residential and collector streets in one cross-section. And I just think from a readability persp uh readability standpoint, it's better just to have two cross-sections. Um and then include in and a note a footnote that if street
trees are required um or where sidewalks are required, street trees are required. So if we if we go back to that, if we have uh the collector streets, uh I don't
think we have many that we paid attention to. There's collector suites. But if we have a 12 foot wide uh travel lane that's 24 ft plus 5t and 5 ft, that's
uh 34t and then a grass shoulder 8 ft before the sidewalk. Yes. In between. Yeah. Yep. So that's another 16 ft.
So all the way up to 50 ft. You're reducing the the travel length. Yeah. Yeah. The the the the width of a collector street is 50 ft wide. That's the the layout. And that would fit all the 12 ft, 5T, and 8 ft because you're
taking three feet away from the travel lanes and then you're adding 3 feet to total for the sidewalk and grass shoulder. So the travel lane street has two travel lanes, right? So that means the street is going to be 24 ft wide, right? And
the reduction is 6 ft. Mhm. In the travel in the two travel lanes total. Yeah. Total. And then it's shifted to the sidewalk and uh right buffer strip. it. You're not requiring the
buffer strip on a residential street. Um, it is it is required. It's just not I'm not saying I'm proposing to change the width of it. I think the width is 4T in the current crosssection. But on a residential street, you're only
you have 10 ft less right away. Right. Right. So do is it clear to us and to applicants which are collector streets and which are residential streets? Well, that's another
thing to talk about is definitions. So here just the the two cross-sections are combined. I just think they should be separated out. And there are some specifications in the this table in the subdivision bylaw that
aren't consistent. Um, for example, under residential streets for the minimum right ofway width, it says 50 ft. that's inconsistent with what's required in the cross-sections as well as how the planning board has been uh
requiring residential street development which we've always been going with 40 ft. So just to tighten some some things up like that the roadway definitions I think there needs to be some improvement
there. Um, I think we for a residential street. The definition could be a street that conveys traffic to a collector street that supports low speeds 25 miles per hour or less and primarily serves residential land uses. Um, the collector
street definition would be a street that is being used or will be used to collect traffic from residential streets or will convey traffic to another collector street or arterial. And then an arterial is a limited access or high-speed thoroughfare that conveys traffic from
collector streets to highways or between municipalities. There wasn't a definition for arterial in the subdivision bylaw. Um I know we don't see these types of developments very often, but just in the event that there is some, you know, that we have some
sort of 88 would be an arterial 88 would be an arterial 177 would be an arterial six. Yeah. And a collector's rate would be main road. Main road. Mhm. And
Sodom, River Road, [Laughter] it's a good question, but this is this is really only apply to new streets that are being being proposed. There are probably other streets around town that just due
to the way things have developed over time, they're not going to fit these classifications. So, Meb Brook, that's a that's a big subdivision. Lots of houses. Are those residential or is that a
collector? Metab would be that's res predominantly residential. Those are residential streets. They directly serve homes. Okay. I think that's good. All right. And then some of these should
be on this slide should be a little bit Does that have to be in the in a uh is this those regulations for streets or is that part of our bylaw? Those are the definitions of particular types of streets in the in
the subdivision bylaw, right? But the the dimensions are those regulations or bylaw? Those are in the bylaw. Yeah, by the dimensions are in the bylaw. Yeah. Um in the rural residential, you
mentioned that somewhere. That's a that's a town by the rural residential lane. I thought so. Rest. Well, the no rural residential lane is in the subdivision by the written in the subdivision regulations. Yeah. And the rules and regulations.
Yep. Um the reserve strip issue is something that came up with the subdivision proposal. Um we just I thought we need to have a definition of it in the bylaw.
Um, I forget how I formatted this. I haven't looked at this in a minute. Um, oh, okay. So that the the first bullet is the is an excerpt from the subdivision bylaw and
underneath it is a suggestion of a definition. So to define reserve strip as a narrow strip of land usually located at the edge of a subdivision that effectively restricts access to the proposed subdivision's road
layout. And then this also came up in another subdivision um within the last couple of years. We didn't define what the distances should be between a subdivision street and the
perimeter boundary. Um we ended up settling I think on 20 ft with that particular subdivision which I mean this can be completely at the board's discretion. you can wave it but I think it is good to have a standard
um in place. So 20 ft um is is what I have proposed up here. And then just having an exemption um that recognizes that there are some pretty oddly shaped parcels in in Westport that um just due to the nature
of those parcels, you're if you're bringing in a road, you're going to a butt up against the side of um another parcel. and so as to not make this um unnecessarily burdensome and restrictive
um for a proposer. So to have add an item number three underneath um the first two in the subdivision by outlining where you can have a perimeter boundary. Just noting that if the layouts of the subject
parcel and adjacent parcels prior to the proposal of the subdivision present narrowness that necessitate street sighting along the perimeter and then saying that sighting along the perimeter must be limited to the greatest extent possible
um as necessitated by the lot layouts. Can we make some comments or do we are we Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, this is just discussion. Oh, yeah. Well, my first comment is I think you got some great recommendations here. I I really like
them. Um I mean the the idea of the the uh having a buffer strip between the actual road and the the sidewalk is an excellent idea. And then having a shy to ensure that the trees that get planted
there actually take and because we've I've driven by many places as I'm sure you have seen these dead trees lining the uh lining the sidewalks. But uh the question I was going to ask was just to go back to that uh width of the travel
way. If we reduce it down to 12 ft, does now does that assume that there's parking along each side of the travel along in each side of the roadway? It does. That impinges on the
traveled way, the 12 ft. It does not assume parking on the street, but you can you can accommodate parking on a on a residential street. It would just narrow it down such that you'd only have
one you don't you couldn't accommodate two-way traffic like you would on a kind of like on a city street where one person has to pull off to the side. So you don't have you only have parking on one side of the street. Well, I suppose you could have it on
either side of of the street. Um although I don't think we see a lot of street parking in and Westport, but well the travel way is 12 feet and we're limiting to 12 feet wide.
Um, so I'm asking does that in if you had parking there? Mhm. Now you've got the actual width available for a car to pass is narrowed down to like six feet or seven feet, right? Is the car is 5t
wide or something? Six feet, right? So you'd have to, like I said, one motorist would have to wait for the other, you know, an oncoming motorist to get around that vehicle. Yeah. Or you'd have to go slow. And you've
got bicycles or bike um cyclists, you call them on on that road. They're not going to be on the sidewalks. I mean, that that creates another danger. So they they tend to be in the travel way. And then It does slow
down the traffic too though. Well, I like a 28 foot rose. That's that's you know. Yeah. 26 28 back a burn back a burm. They say the
smallest you can go is actually seven feet for a travel lane. So yeah. Well, I like the idea these regulations. I just thinking about some of the practical applications and whether we're going to run into some safety issues. Well, I
think some of our main roads like River Road is only 20 ft wide in some places. I don't think the paved surface paved surface it travel what I mean. I mean Yeah. Well, I mean, I commented that last year when
the they were repaving the parking lots at um Horses Horses Beach, right? And they and all those large paving trucks and the the trucks carrying all the the aggregate were coming down Horseneck
Road because they they could cross Hicks. But apparently the the what is it called the Lef France bridge or whatever it's called the route 88 bridge y is not wasn't adequate to uh support
the load of those trucks really. So that's why yeah we talked about that and somebody said oh it's because the fontain bridge fontain bridge yeah maybe it's the drawbridge part of it and that can't support those large load. So these trucks came down 88
turned off on Hicksbridge Road across that old well it's been rebuilt Hicksbridgeidge and then came down Horseneck Road and I watched those things trying to pass and you know we have a lot of bicycles and joggers and walkers and dog walkers
and whoa it was it was pretty hair raising to see those trucks coming and then people trying to get out oncoming traffic trying to get out of their way They came out into the the other lane to avoid the people in the street.
How the the the big trucks for S vans access Sans? Do they come down? They don't they don't come in loaded like that. Those trucks those trucks run 100,000. Sans probably 68,000. Yeah. But do they go over the Pontaine Bridge?
Some of them do. Mr. Chair. Uh I am uh generally in favor of the of this and I uh and I think the major goals as you've explained them Michael
are one to improve safety i.e. more speed equals more danger. So we slow people down it's safer. So one goal is safety and the other goal as I see it of all of these is
to shift the balance from the car to the pedestrian and and cyclist. Uh now I think um the next you know I don't even care what it says right now because it's going to go through public hearing.
We're going to get all kinds of public comment. We're going to make changes based on the public comment. So if the final result looks like this, fantastic. I'll be shocked. But you know it in the
in the public comment will get modified. Sure. I think that and it will be interesting to see I if people agree with our goals about safety and shifting the balance from
cars to pedestrians and bicyclists whether they say as Mark alluded to that wait a minute these are not achieving your goals because you're crowding the street and making it more dangerous. is
for pedestrian or bicycle. So that's why I think you know the public uh engagement part of this is going to be useful is is to tease that out whether if you support our goals of
safety and and tipping the balance whether you think this does it or whether it has an opposite effect. I think it'd be really interesting to get people's views on that. But I I I think uh starting now is a
good idea. I think the other message it gives uh the people that we ask to come to public engagement is uh zoning documents, subdivisions are living documents. We always want to be in a
position of asking ourselves, do they work best for Westport? do they work best for uh you know protecting the character of Westport, improving safety, etc., etc.,
etc. But if people get used to the fact that we're going to come at them every year with tweaks to zoning laws, then they'll get the message, hey, this is dynamic. It changes and it changes based on public opinion. And I think that's a
very good message to have. Yeah. And I agree, John, and it's a reflection of the the changing uh the change in our town. I mean, the growth in the town and Yeah. So, we have to adapt our regulations. Yeah.
So, the last two is uh just to tighten up that um we allow more than one dwelling per lot and this is a restriction in the subdivision bylaw. Obviously, it's not being applied because we allow duplexes. We allow accessory dwelling units. I think we can
just strike this from the the subdivision by law. And then um regarding storm drainage, there's a provision that says neighboring properties shall not be used in the plan. And I think we need to clarify neighboring properties shall not be used
in uh or shall not be used for storm water infrastructure because we've had public comment saying well water from this property is going to drain you know uh there was I guess the specific issue
I'm thinking about where there was a neighbor saying that the stormwater plan did incorporate their property into their storm water plan, but it was reducing the overall level of storm
water that was being discharged to their property. So, and it was being designed to use the same um storm water flows as the current property. Um
it's we're not going to have a regulation that says 100% of storm water has to be retained on one site. So, just to clarify that unless you're getting an easement from an adjacent property to use that property for the storm water management system,
um then you would comply with this provision of the right of the subdivision follow. I think that's uh good and we certainly had that one development that points that that out as long as we say just what you said
which is there is no expectation that any development will contain 100% of its you know because I don't think we can write rules that tell water what to do. Yeah. But then but you're but then
unless a recordable easement I I don't understand how this all works because if a neighbor doesn't want the project and traditionally or in in
history the water has traveled over the neighbor's property. Mhm. And now part of the storm water plan is going to reduce that by by 20%. But it's still going to go there, right? Unless that neighbor gave an
easement and the neighbor is not going to give an easement because he doesn't want the the project. Yeah. So this is saying how do you work that? So this is saying that if the storm water management system uses an adjacent property, you need to secure an easement from them. But what do you mean? Well,
he's not saying that, you know, if water ran from this lot to that lot, the goal is to reduce that by 20% by whatever you're doing, not to eliminate it. Right. So, I think what you said is this is not saying you have
to contain all storm water on your lot. It says if you're going to use a neighbor's lot for, you know, retention basins or whatever you're going to use it for, is it just for the infrastructure you're talking about or just
Yeah. Well, I mean, I would think if the water always went in that direction, you want to keep your your infrastructure on your lot and the easements to maintain whatever happens on the other lot where the water always was. It's not like
you're going to I'm going to put the retention pond over the on the other guys property. The water always went there. So, we don't need easement to build ditches or anything like that. We just need the easement to maintain. Yeah. Or if they want to say, "Hey, it'll be better if you move it over to the side and we'll create a swale or
something like that." Yeah. Solve a problem for them. Yeah. So, is there uh do you need a motion to set a public hearing date? That's what's on the agenda. What do you want to do? I think we should talk about a public
hearing date, but Mark has something he wants to talk about for um the I told you I was going to put you on the spot. Um for having a minimum length for rural residential lanes, right? Right. Yeah. No, I brought this
up before. Um there were a couple of subdivision proposals that we had last year and the year before um where they uh let's see there was Rosemary's Way which is right off River
Road that they used a rural classified it as a rural residential lane and as you know our bylaw says there's a maximum length for rural residential lanes of 1200 ft. But there's no and I wonder I question whether there
should not be a a minimum length because these things this rosemary this was a non a non-existing it's like a little it's 100 ft deep I mean it's or or less and uh another one that was came up the
year before was rose rosewood lane off of giver and again it's like 90 ft deep. I mean, that's 30 yards. That's just how can you consider that a road? Yeah. Barely a forward pass. So,
uh I just thought should should there not be should we not consider a adding a minimum length as well as having our maximum? And what would that be? What is, you know, if you're going to make a road or lane, what do you think is an
appropriate length to really consider a lane? The average golfer's five iron shot. That means that if it's me, all the roads are going into the woods. U that's a very interesting point
because I I remember those two cases and these were really just stretching regulations to give frontage to a lot. Mhm. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. And that's what it was a rosemary's way but that was done right 15 years ago. Yes. It was but that was
fixing a problem. It was fixing a problem because they had multiple houses on the same lot, which probably wouldn't matter now. Wouldn't matter. Well, it still would. They still have a problem on that lot because they have two houses
on that lot. They have a small house and a big house, but the small house is like, 1900 ft. It's not It's not 900 ft. But I mean Bob's point is that I agree is that there are this is one example but there are other there are other um
provisions I guess of our of our bylaws which are being you know we've seen how tortured they can become and they but they meet our requirements and uh we I don't know if we can tease them out and
get some more kind of sensible looking subdivisions, but uh this was just one example of what of something I thought could be an easy easy fix. Mhm. Yeah. So, can you come up
with a suggestion? We can look into it. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's a good idea. Just a quick Google. Dartmouth. It looks like Dartmouth has some kind of minimum taper length of 100 ft. Yeah, I
mean we'll we'll look into it and see what other municipalities do. No, we we see that over and over again in which they we really don't see design solutions. We see geometry solutions.
You know, okay, it's it says this. Can I can I fit something that that meets that, you know, and whether or not it's it's a a good piece of design or anything. It's just, you know, we're
constantly um trying to, you know, develop a, you know, someone who's, you know, if there isn't a community that's really interested in good design, but just trying to maximize lots or, you know, figure out how to how to be at the edge of the
compliance with the rules. you know, you know, we we can say no, if you're going to use a subdivision control, has to be a real street. Mhm. Yeah. You know, it may be a a small street, but it has to
be at the end of the day, it has to look like a street and you should build it. Yeah. It isn't just a paper street. Right. Right. So, to spec. Yeah. Right. So, Mr. Chair, you want a motion? Well, I don't know if we
need a motion for this, do we? Yeah, we don't have to we don't need a motion for it, but it's going to be an ongoing thing. So, we just send it out for a public hearing, but sometime this summer. We don't have to pick a particular date, but just sometime this summer. That's But I I think we could
get more things together before we have a public hearing for you want to do subdivision and zoning or just subdivision. Well, I guess zoning would be too too far out from town meeting. So, just subdivision. Are there other items that you're you're thinking about?
Yeah. So what I'd like to figure out is how how we can enable starter housing and I think we need to think outside the box in terms of how we could accomplish that.
So I think the the zoning in Westport morphed over the years from 20,000 square ft to 40,000 square ft to 60,000 square ft. Mhm. The 60 I think was a reaction to a whole bunch of developments going in like uh Forest
Park and and Metobrook and thinking that oh my god this is getting out of control. We got to slow it down. Mhm. Um, and part of the 40,000 was a reaction to DP's requirement for 10,000
square ft per bedroom in a lot. And is there a way to zone an area that would be good for modest two-bedroom
houses and uh make that by brightite in some areas and so do 20,000 square feet lots or is there a way to work with D to say
hey let let's cut down the restrictions on people sharing a well or sharing a septic system. Mhm. So that you could have u more dense development that isn't apartments and stuff like that that
people don't really want around here. Um there could be um you know eight houses could share a well or eight houses could share a septic system uh without having to have
uh all the crazy metrics of a public water supply or a big public water supply with a big area that you you can't do anything with. Um there's got to be and the the the state um
government is pushing pushing pushing for more housing. Mhm. Well, let's let's call it say, okay, then allow us to do it somehow. Mhm. Instead of
just screaming that you've got to allow all this uh all this housing that isn't appropriate for what we have. We don't have the infrastructure right for and you know even if we do designate 300 acres at density of 15 per
per unit. If we don't have water and sewer it's it's you're just making a point and you're not going to ever get anything, right? And so let's try to design something that would make sense. Uh and I'm sure there are other places around the
country that are doing this. Mhm. uh that you could have starter homes. Uh that, you know, every developer around here wants to make a build a a four bedroomedroom colonial on a 60,000
square foot lot and cut all the trees down and pop the house up out of the ground and so they don't get water in the basement and it's just insane. It isn't good development. um and take the pressure off off of the
ANRS because that's going to kill us eventually. So, I think we can accomplish some of that through through the zoning bylaw.
Um not through the the subdivision Yeah. regulations. It has to be through the zone. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, yeah. I And we've talked about I think there couple meetings ago where we talked about having like um trying to to get a handle
on some of the uh further incentivize the open space residential development and do some of the things that that you're referring to, Jim. Um and I think we should have that on the the docket for later on this
fall because we can only have a public hearing for town meetings so far out from town meeting date. Um, but for the subdivision stuff, was there anything else that you wanted to add to the So, you're you're splitting off zoning from subdivision regulations, right? Yeah,
because we can have a public hearing for subdivision outside of town meeting, even though that goes into our zoning bylaw. Well, the subdivision bylaw relies on some of the assumptions of the zoning bylaw. for example, like lot sizes. So we can all this stuff is rules
and regulations, right? We can adopt our own rules and regulations at a public right hearing, but we the town meeting doesn't have to adopt our reg, right? Okay. That's what I thought I asked in the beginning, but I guess
nomenclature is not my forte. But I I I thought that we're talking about rules and regulations as opposed to zoning bylaws. We are. So, but you're saying that this is listed in the zoning bylaw. No, this
is the the subdivision rules and regulations. I apologize. I was using the wrong term. In other uh in other places it would be a bylaw, but in Massachusetts it's rules and regulations. So that was that's my fault. So if we're having trouble
telling the difference, the average citizen is not going to know the difference between subdivision and zoning. They're going to want to talk about it all. However, we are constrained, right? Uh that zoning has
to be within a window before town meeting. Y uh and subdivision we could do tomorrow. So, but we can talk about zoning in not a public hearing for a zoning bylaw. We can talk about it. Sure. What do you
think about this zoning idea? What do you think about this zoning idea? We can do that anytime. All we have we can have that discussion at any public meeting, right? So, uh, if there are
ideas, I think there's an advantage to having the public engagement include both zoning and subdivision because for most people, I don't care what the difference is. Just tell me what you're doing with roads and house lot size and stuff like that.
U and as you said uh if we have a zoning if we have a public hearing on subdivision and zoning ideas and it's outside the window for town meeting well that's okay. We'll
have another one inside the window. Uh, but I I think there's some benefit to putting all these ideas in one public meeting. So you get people that take the time out of their evening to come here. They can comment on the whole thing
instead of going through two exercises. Yeah. Yeah. We could we could just have like a general discussion item um for the zoning amendments and then have the public hearing afterward or Yeah. however we want to structure it. But yeah, that works.
I mean, the Westport's unusual in a lot of ways in which we have we have two zoning categories. It's it's really very unusual to have a municipality that has only two zoning categories. Yeah,
we had three, but we got rid of them at a prior town meeting. used to have three. But I think to your point, Bob, and and Jim, what you're one of I think the subtext is what you're saying is that the the one-sizefits-all approach
to zoning is not working anymore and that we need to have a little bit of more of context built into the zoning based on, you know, number of different factors, access to to roads and and and services and um your
proximity to natural features. And you know what is considered and and just the character should should the business should should the business district on Route 6 look the same as it does in Adamsville? Mhm. Right. The
answer that is no. It shouldn't it would change everything if you know but that's the way the zoning is, right? And and what year did we adopt zone? 71. 71. Oh, no. Sorry. Subdivision. 57. 57. 57.
Yeah. 57. So, if we look at our neighbor Dartmouth, they have I'm just looking at it now. They have 14 different zones, right? They have just on residential, they have four different residential zones. Single residence A,
single res B, C, and D, and and general residents. They have a village business district. They have limited businesses. I mean, it may be far more complicated than what we're double our levy too than what we need. But the point is that, you
know, they do try they they looked at the whole town and realized that there are different you can have different uses in and different densities in different parts of the town. Yeah. Some some parts of Dartmouth, you can't tell the difference between Dartmouth and New
Bedford. I mean, the neighborhoods come Yeah. Right together. They have some water. So that's Yeah. Tibetan and Paul River. Yeah. Mhm. So density sort of blend. But we're
going to try to get the onetop application for the village commercial. So Mhm. So that's a step that's a good that's a very good step because that has been in our master plan and we've not been able to do
anything about it. Mhm. Um and partially because these little like like at the head and you know so you have this little commercial activity but it's
all 60,000 square foot you know residential egg you know it's it's not it's not in the business district right so keep on keeping on that's I'll do
a good thing. I I would I would Do you have any more of these subdivision things? No, that's to work on. That's it for the subdivision. So, are you ready to call public hearing or
do you need to tweak the If we want to talk about other zoning related things, I think we'll need more time. Okay. To schedule a public hearing. What's the plan as when? Maybe late summer. Early fall, I think, or late summer
would probably be good. Okay. Okay. Uh minutes, Mr. Chair. Um I've looked at uh our agenda says minutes for April 22nd and May 20th. I see uh that the April 22nd meetings are in our
packet. I don't know if the May 20th. I don't think May 20th made it. So, I've read the April 22nd minutes and again, uh, comprehensive, accurate, very well laid out, although my
computer's screwing up a little bit with some of the words, but I assume that won't be the case in uh in when it prints out. Uh, so I would move approval of the April 22nd, 2025 minutes of planning board.
Uh, I I will second that. But I also had a comment about just looking at it on the screen, things like Sodom, it somehow it somehow doesn't read
properly. Move moved. I think it's because the font I don't know what isn't accepted in Adobe or something like that. That's what I was alluding to. But I think when it prints out, however we
store these, but that's the first time I've noticed the uh problem with the spacing between letters or the combining of letters. So, you might think about because it
hasn't happened in the past. Mhm. But the substance of the minutes is I think good. So you moved it. Yeah. I second it. Yes. All those in favor? I I want a motion to adjurnn. Mr. Chair.
Uh do we have minutes of May 20th? No. Those didn't make it in the packet. Yes. So I would like to uh just mention that I am uh going to try to go to that meeting tomorrow on the bed finance
stuff that was called on Monday um in in the basement and uh in the morning I'll be meeting with the Serpent Environmental Group and they've invited
the head of the DP South Coast wastewater guy. Um, and apparently all of a sudden they were anxious to talk with Serpent about
uh the issues in the Buzzers Bay area, Buzzers Bay wershed u with regard to wastewater so they don't get into the trouble they get into on the Cape. Um, and that's an important meeting.
When you doing that, Jim? Huh? When are you doing that? Tomorrow morning at 9:00. Yeah. Zoom. Send me the link. The the other meeting, Manny, is with the, uh, Healey administration in New
Bedford. Um, talking about infrastructure priorities in the south coast. Funding. Funding. federal funding and not federal funding. She's doing that in person. I don't I don't know if it's her personally cuz she's coming down tomorrow. It's 1:00. Yeah. I'm
going to be meeting with her yet. Okay. Where? Pier 52. Where is it? Uh forever born Marina. Actually going to introduce her to my mother. So try to solve some of these problems. This is Healey. Yep.
So, uh, this meeting is at 1:00. Normally, she come when she comes down, she drives around, so she might pop in at one of them meet. Yeah. It's in New Bedford. It's in New Bedford at the Buzzards at the Bristol County
Community College campus. Yeah. The andore in the wind farm wind institute down on the waterfront. If I can find my way to it. It's a big building. Look for the biggest building. It's down behind Wada.
It's past WA. You got to get on MacArthur Drive, uh the service road, and then you'll see big signs, but it's it's south of Wamps. Yeah, they just sent out the invitations on Monday.
Expect people to drop everything. They can't be there on Wednesday. Like it's Quentyn Palrey. So I that's the name of the person doing this. So I I don't think the governor will be there. But anyway, so I would now entertain a
motion to approve. So move second. All in favor? I. Thank you all. in 17.