One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. Uh for match federal law, this is being recorded and sent out live probably. Uh first items are
uh approval as required. Uh the first one is uh ANR71 at 975 and zero river road file number 25-2441A a request by Laurens Golf to combine
assessor's plat 86 lot 251C in a portion of plat 86 6 lot 21 into a single lot totaling 440,847 square ft.
>> Good evening, Greg Nicholas with South Coast Engineering on behalf of Laurr plan where we're combining a lot rather than dividing them out. Mr. Goff owns three pieces of property here on River Road. The northernmost one identified is
parcel one company bought 2002. Second one parcel two in the middle bought that in 2005. The last one I was here for about 6 months ago we bought from Bob Haw. And now he wishes to combine them all into one roughly 10acre parcel.
What uh initiated all this was that um he started getting calls from brokers asking what the final price was going to be and the lot he had for sale and who his broker was going to be so potential buyers could contact them and the transaction could be um completed. And
he had no idea what this was all about. And I guess what finally prompted him to call me about this when people showed up on the property walking around they wanted to see what the land looked like before they made a final offer. So, I don't know if somebody wrote phony deed or what have you, but this is all about
possible too. He said, I want to eliminate this and combine them all into one lot. So, what you have over here is a combination of three lots. The total area is 10.12 acres, as you mentioned, square ft. Total front, you never change at 491.39
ft. And there's no plans to do anything else with it. So, there's no wetland delineated, no perk done or anything like that. It's a combination of these three existing lots. So that's what I have. Mr. Chairman, thank you. >> Okay. And this house is depicted on
parcel one, >> correct? >> Is that the yellow yellow cape? >> Yeah. This is the um this is the house. This is the garage. And this area here is a deck. >> Yeah. >> So is this the one that was previously years ago Bruce Hogs? Um the northern
pot was actually um Bob Hos's parents. Yeah. >> Richard Haw in Japan. I guess >> the middle one I believe he bought within a trust from Bob Hos's daughters. I'm not I don't recall the name. And the last one was the one we hear from Bob H's land. >> The whole thing was Haw that piece
around very northern part was um part of Wilson Smith if I remember correctly. The guy that subdivided all the land up to the point. >> Right. It's connected with the Haw property. Yes. West. That's correct. Okay. Just trying to understand where this is.
>> Um, >> I don't see any issues. >> Oh. >> Uh, the lots shown on the plan, Frontton River Road. All three parcels meet the minimum requirement of 150 ft of frontage on River Road as does the ending parcel. The existing ways
maintained by the town, sufficient access provided, and um the law intensity regulations are met and they do not cross wetlands. So staff feels that it meets the criteria for an ENR endorsement and recommends endorsement of the plan.
>> Okay. So I would >> motion Mr. Chair. >> Y >> as was said this is backwards from what we usually get. >> So >> I I think it's
uh great to to to see this. So I would move to endorse approval not required plan submitted by Lawrence Goff to merge assessors plat 86 slots 25 8621C and a portion of 8621
as shown on plan book 189 page 11 into a single lot totaling 440,847 square ft with the address of this meal mouthful on envelopes 171 175 and zero
river road because it complies with mass general laws chapter 41 section 81P >> second. >> All those in favor >> I >> thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Uh the next one is also at ANR. Plan of land at zero tickle and 329 tickle road file number 25-2512A. A request by attorney McKenzie Long on behalf of
seven property management for endorsement of a four lot plan of land located at located at zero tickle and 329 tickle road to consolidate assessor's map 21 lots 2a and map
in lots 21-25 21-26 and 21-27 into one new lot. Uh that description is confusing to me, but I'm not sure
if that is a problem or not. But so good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Attorney Mong here on behalf of the uh 7 Property Management. Much like the previous petition, it is a little
different than what we see. A lot of the time we're combining parcels rather than subdividing here. Um 25 is mentioned twice. I think that's where the confusion is, but it's 2A 25 26 27. >> Okay. >> Um so right now existing, this is on
Tickle Road with a pond's up here. Um there's an existing dwelling on this parcel here. This is I don't want to call it a paper street, but it is shown on a plan from the I believe 80s. Um, this was a Warren Messier subdivision
way back when that never amounted to anything because there's a bit of wetlands up here. There's really no way to build. Um, and so my client purchased it, all of it. There was a bit of a title issue with regard to this paper street, but long story short, the paper
street has an easement or allows for access to the lot. Um, in order to clear up any disparity and just make things nice and simple, what we did here is there's an existing dwelling here. I don't know if you've been down Tech Road recently. This is the house that's being renovated. Um, I think they're almost
done or just about done. And the rest is this lot. All four lots in the back um behind all wooden. So what we did here is the uh roadway half of the roadway here and then another 20 foot access driveway um easement has been included
just to allow 40 ft here. Crystal clear is never going to be an issue. Uh we will be doing an easement from this property to the abuing parcel to ensure that you know there's no ambiguity going down the line. Um, but the intention here is to leave this single family
house as it is and then create one large 4 acre parcel in the back back here. Um, and realistically the only place you can build is in this envelope here because of the wetlands. Um, frontage is is on the north side here. I believe it's like 170 ft 167 or so. Um, and so requisite
here 60,000 ft 150 ft of frontage. We have 170 ft of frontage and I believe it's close to 180,000 square ft of land. So pretty straightforward ANR not including the uh culde-sac shown on the plan. So we're just leaving that there. And the intention here is to create a
single family house lot encompassing all of this but primarily be utilized over here because of the wetlands issues on the north side of the parcel. >> So the the rectangular lot in the middle that's somebody else >> that's somebody else's. Yeah. So
originally um when Messier did the subdivision, this lot went out and none of the others did and it kind of stayed as it was for quite some time, the person that owned this house um also own the abing parcels and when my client purchased it bought all of it with the
intention of subdividing um well I guess we're not really subdividing because they're already subdivided but combining into two lots here. One with a house on it and one for future development. John, >> I I think I understand it, but uh with
one house being able to be built on these combined parcels and you identifying where it goes, I'm assuming that the paper street culde-sac never gets constructed and instead it's a
combination of the paper street and the easement from the lower. >> Yeah, exactly. This is a it's a 40 foot layout for the paper street, but given the a butter here and that didn't want to really mess with the butter whatsoever and just kind
of keep him on his own. Um, we stayed to the south side. There's a 20 foot, you know, for these southern lots and then an additional 20ft d access easement shown on the plan which we will, you know, when we do the transfer make a note for an easement agreement between
the two parcels. Um, so that way as to not really interfere with that whatsoever. But there is, you know, it's pretty clear in the title that all of these lots have access to this whether or not title transferred or not. But for sake of easements and everything else,
you know, we found it to be easiest to just combine all the lots and there's no ambiguity, clear up any title issues going forward and, you know, kind of keep it clean and clear. And as I mentioned, you're never really going to be able to do anything with this because of the wetlands concerns. So, but who owns the culdeac?
>> Uh, the it's somewhere in the chain of title with uh Messier's property as far as I understand. But what basically what happened is when this lot was deed out, this culde-sac was supposed to be deed to the developer and it never happened. So there is mention of it, there's
mention of easements, there's notations in the deeds for access, so everybody can use it, but the title never transferred. And because it was never constructed, we're kind of left with this, you know. >> So either of the existing house that's on this property
>> or the one big one, >> do either of them use that road? part of the driveway for this parcel does go over um that that access easement. So >> So because it's never been legally
taken care of, does the property owner with a rectangle always halfway >> I mean and that's you know going through land court and everything else. Yes. If we somebody was to go through the process, more than likely the land court would find. And I say more than likely
as us lawyers like to say, you know, we can't guarantee anything. Um, but yes, which is why we have the dividing line down the middle of it here showing 20 ft to the north, 20 ft to the south, and then added the additional 20ft access easement just to, you know, clear things
up and beyond a shadow of a doubt, there'll never be any access issues and everything's crystal clear. You said this is crystal clear. That's >> well southern south of the uh paper road we have here. >> Crystal clear
>> with respect to the culde-sac. >> I it would basically what the determination here was originally I was approached and said can we try to clear up this title is I said you're going to spend a lot of money and spend years in land court. You have the frontage combine them and avoid that alto
together. There's never an issue with use and access because it's allowed. But to avoid anything that could come up later, we added the 20 foot access easement here. Keep things crystal clear and avoid any problems down. >> Could they instead of doing an ANR come
and revise the subdivision? >> I think at that point it would be because of the fact that it's four lots. I mean, we're just combining them all into one. I think it's easier to be done that way. And again there's no you have four lots here that are basically one of them is usable >> right
>> with and the other thing with that is the the issue with frontage comes up because of the ambiguity with the culdeac it begs the question do you actually have frontage on a way that was never
accepted by the town hence the frontage on tickle to avoid that issue as Well, just so on the northern the the note on the northern half of the culde-sac. >> Yes. >> Says uh I'm reading my
>> area of proposed road noted on plan book 102 page 18 to be conveyed from David and Eileene the >> to CNW realy trust. That was that's that's from back in the 80s when the
original subdivision was created and it was supposed to be deeded out and it never was. >> So that's where the title issue comes up. So I that was my understanding that all of these, you know, the detail A and the the notes and the lines and all all of
that that little detail A stuff, >> all of that falls out of the original subdivision and has nothing to do with this consolidation. >> Exactly. You know, now who owns the way, who has rights in the way is is all no
>> is all new because the consolidated lot that you're proposing has frontage on a on a public way. >> Exactly. >> So it it is while it's an odd hush shoe shape, it's
certainly a building block. >> Yes. Exactly. So, uh, the big rectangle gets their printed from the from the culde-sac road, right? >> I mean, when the plan was submitted, I think we could make that argument. And
again, this is where we get into the weeds of it because it is there is a paved, as you can see, it's not on the plan that there is a paved driveway. >> Also, when this plan was created, I'm pretty sure frontage was less than um >> what it is now. Exactly.
>> What What day? What was the date? I to be honest with you I don't recall off the top of my head and I think it was in the 70s 80s at that point. So subdivision control was just kind of coming into effect at that point but they have 97 ft or so frontage on
Tickle Road as well. So I I understand what you said in response to Mr. D's question, but I still don't understand who's going to who or don't you know who owns the Northern >> it's uh >> who will own it or or does own it?
>> It's in it's partly in a trust. And this is where like like I said, I've we didn't get into the depth of the ownership of this because it was such a mess. And in order to avoid that, we've now gone into So I haven't done a full title to I don't want to sit here and
tell you I know exactly who owns it because I haven't done the title work because we avoided that by just basically taking it out. >> Okay. So, but so they won't be the owners of it won't be neither parcel 23. >> Again, legally speaking, you could make the argument that 20 ft is owned by the
parcel to the north and 20 feet is owned by these parcels to the south because nobody laid out the paper road and nobody's used it. But again, we get into the weeds of creating a title issue. So rather than doing that, we've just basically taken this and removed it from anything and you know, we're accessing
from this 20ft access easement. But as I mentioned, the deeds are clear that all of these parcels have the right to use this driveway regardless of whether it was deed in or out. >> So, >> right, because they were created that way. So, but the the extra 20 foot
easement is for the benefit of who? the big one, >> the lot that we're creating, >> the new big one. >> Yes. >> And that's how you would suggest >> how we're going to access. >> And how does this >> this is all woods here basically right now. And this neighbor to the north has
their driveway here. Rather than trying to create an issue where okay, now this neighbor's like, hey, this is my driveway, been my driveway for 20 plus years, and now you want to use it to get in. We said don't even bother. 20 foot access, separate driveway. Keep a nice
wooden buffer here a little bit. If it goes over the edge, you can because of the easement, but for all intents and purposes, this is our driveway on the parcel that have clear we have clear title to it. >> But it's also the case that either the
new lot that you're configuring or the one with the house has the right to improve this paper street if they so wish. >> Right. That's This is where we get out of the crystal clear area and venture into the darkness.
>> What I'm I'm just trying to figure out is if if we're helping the situation by granting the Antarctic >> I think we're helping the situation tremendous tremendous immensely tremendously and immensely together.
Yeah. Because once this is combined, as I mentioned, you'll never subdivide these lots these back to what we have because of the wetlands concern. So you can never meet current criteria for a buildable lot because of the upland requirement. And then furthermore, you
know, we avoid this altogether because you have an access easement here, frontage on the north side. All is well and fine and we really don't deal with this. So, in my opinion, from a legal standpoint, this was the easiest and least path of resistance to solve the
problem that we have here. >> Okay, >> yeah, so, yep, this was kind of confusing at first, but the ending lot in question will front on Tickle Road and this combined lot um will have um
adequate frontage, sorry. Um, Tickle Road has sufficient grades, sufficient width and adequate construction to provide for the needs of veicular traffic and installation of services and after the combination of the law in question um will meet the intensity requirements and minimum lot
regulations. There's about um 54 um thousand square feet of wetlands on the property at that end. So staff finds that it it does meet the criteria and recommends an endorsement. Do you want a motion? >> Sure. Great.
>> Uh I move to endorse the uh approval not required plan submitted by attorney McKenzie Long on behalf of 7 property management for property located in zero pickle road and 329 Pickle Road. The
plan proposes the consolidation of assessors. Map 21 lot 2A, map 21, lot 25, map 21, lot 26, and map 21, lot 27 into one new lot. Uh, I do this because
it complies with Mass General Laws, Chapter 41, section 81T. >> Second. >> Any comments, questions? All those in favor? >> I. >> Thank you to the board. >> Have a good night.
>> You too. >> You too. >> Okay. Next is uh Bentley Estates 2 file number 15-09C site visit sidewalk update. >> Hey all. So on October 16th I conducted
a site visit um to Bentley Estates. This is just to assess these ongoing construction and in uh installation of these sidewalks which as a reminder are being installed after the fact and must exist sorry fit into the existing roadway lay and parcel layout where houses are already built. Um so there
were many resident complaints about the installation in particular the Cape Cod Burm. We kind of went over these five inst uh five complaints last time. So the burm has been reinstalled to be more uniform than the previous installation. The visual of the sidewalk and the grass
areas appear to be neater and straighter compared to the snake- like form of the previous installation. The grass areas are growing with adequate cover. Gaps, incre incorrect cords, and grading issues to the side of the sidewalk have been addressed. The overall appearance is more even, level, and uniform. And
I've included some photos in attachment A. So, I was pleased when I saw it. I thought that was it was a huge improvement compared to what we had seen at Bentley earlier in September and early in October. So I was um yeah happy with that update. I had called the developer Boot for me and he encouraged
me to go out and see. So I did. Um we still waiting on another update from Derek Melo, but this is my update for you guys. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Y >> um do we expect they'll be out shortly this year or inspected?
>> Yeah. Yeah, he's uh he's kind of catching us up on a couple other things. Um I can ask him. Yeah, I can get I can get him out there in the next few weeks then for the next meeting for November 18th. We can have another update. >> Okay.
>> Is it is it uh their opinion that this is complying with our regulations and approved plan? >> Yes. >> Or amended plan. >> Yes, they still have to do way. Um but so so far so good. Especially the
fact that they went back and reinstalled that Cape Cod B. I thought that that was um I wasn't sure how they were going to carry that out and if they were going to be able to address how poorly it was installed at first. So, I was I was happy that they they could go back and do that. And hopefully the continued
installation will be, you know, taken with more quality and more care and they won't try and um I'm not sure what happened first, but hopefully that won't be repeated. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um, next is uh to Cheryl's way file number
25-006 SBA-min final asbuilt review and release and consult review fees. >> Sure. So, Field Engineering has given us a final asbuilt review of the site plan for to Cheryl's way. Um just taking from
his bullets um things have been the detention basin is constructed in compliance. The basin has been stabilized. The driveway and parking areas are completed and striped. Landscape plantings have been installed. Um the areas have been fine graded,
loaned and seated. Um the existing wood staircase is now shown on the asbuilt plan and the existing drainage system is now also shown as well as utilities. So what needed to be addressed on this ASBO plan were landscaping, roof recharge and the wooden staircase all have been
addressed and incorporated. Um the final note about stamped plans um I think there was just a mistake. We have stamped plans in office. So we do have officially stamped engineered plans in office. Um so after seeing this review, we would like the board to recommend the
issuance of a permanent occupancy permit um to the building department for this and to release the CR fees once we pay out any outstanding balances. >> You want a motion? >> Sure. >> I just have a question, please. Um
we don't have unfortunately I don't have the plans. We I do remember this. I remember uh we discussed some many aspects including the landscaping >> and I I could be wrong but I thought we had stipulated
uh some screening in front of the I think it's a chainlink fence on the south and you know just in front of the building on the between the route between 177 and the building
>> yes on the south end of the building. I guess that's south. Um there's this crushed stone that wraps around the building, right? And then there's a chainlink fence. And I thought we said we wanted that planted to give some screening so you weren't looking at the
chain link fence. And they were going to store a lot of equipment back. That was the purpose of putting the crushed stone behind there, >> right? And uh so I could be wrong, but in the ad we don't have the I wish you'd brought the plan that we've approved,
>> right? >> We could tell. >> I'll I'll have to check on that. Okay. Yeah, >> I can pull the plan up. >> Okay, sure. >> And was the wooden staircase? I can't recall that either, but >> yes, they had forgotten to include it on the previous plan, so it needed to be
incorporated. They didn't have it represented, so they put that in now. It was an existing wooden staircase. >> Yeah. Well, I only bring it up because I've driven by there a couple times and said, "Geez, I thought we >> wanted some screening to >> Okay.
>> So, you wouldn't be looking at that storage area >> from the highway. >> Yeah, let's find out. >> I can't remember how high this block wall is on the west side.
with a chain link fence. But this there's both things. So I assume that the chain link fence is going on top of the block wall. >> Mark, where were you? >> Not sure. >> I have the the plan from the minor site plan amendment up here on the screen.
>> Say that again. >> I have the plan from the minor site plan amendment when they did they added on to the the commercial structure. Mhm. >> So where was you were saying that there was supposed to be screening around this crush stone area? >> No. Go >> towards the street. Go down
>> closer to the street. >> So >> now that this is just this the minor site plan. So let me pull up the plan from the >> right building. >> Yeah. Pull up the previous the plan before that >> between 177 and the building.
>> Mhm. And you it may not even be on the plan they submitted. It could be part of the special conditions that we attached to the approval. >> We just it was written in >> should be. So >> I'm with you. I just pulled up the the decision from the minor minor site plan
to to check that before I move on from the minor site plan. Uh the only thing relating to landscaping on here is that it says street trees and other landscaping shall be installed in accord in accordance with the approved plan in details.
Um let's so I think we need to pull up the previous plan. Do you remember what year this was approved? Nine. I think 2022 the plan is linked there too. >> It's called construction.
>> Mhm. Oh, heat. So this is the landscape plan from the planning board's approval in 2021. >> So it shows the parking lot screened
but not really the uh crush stone area. >> There's some screening right here. >> That was to shield it from the adjoining property, but But then they extended the crushed stone
around to wrap around the east and south sides of the building. You see, originally it was that chain link that rectangle up above. >> Mhm. >> And then they said, "No, we're going to we want to uh have the ability to store behind the building." And
>> aren't the conditions right there? No. On the plan on the right hand side, >> that's just the planting notes. >> Planting It's not on the first page. I can just pull up the In fact, you know, this whole crush
stone, what we're seeing on the asbuilt is a very large crush stone quote parking area. And I don't, you know, go to the north as well, expanded up past the existing single family house.
doesn't seem to correspond to what I recall seeing. >> I don't see any anything else either in the conditions of approval or in the landscape in the approved plans that indicate
additional landscaping um between the structure and the the street. Can you pull up that plan that did show partial landscaping?
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, that one. So, I'm confused because that shows uh some planting. I think uh is that a building up to the north?
>> It's a house >> on right there. >> What is this? >> That's a fenced in area on the northeast. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> That was their original proposal for a fenced in >> Yeah. >> storage area.
>> Okay. And so they're showing uh I think that's a symbol for some kind of hedge or tree planting uh to shield
the fenced in storage area. But then what they built is not a small fenced in storage area, but a large crushed stone area that's about five times bigger than that. And it also goes all the way
around the building. Well, except for the front parking. So, uh, that's not really what they said they were going to do. Is this in
the verbiage of the second decision? Because we they came back and asked for. So is that a more recent drawing? >> What does that show? That's That's the >> Oh,
>> is this I I don't >> I I was under the impression that this crushed stone parking area was supposed to be removed from the plan because they didn't receive a site plan amendment for this.
So I think we got some work to figure out what's happened here. Uh so I think you need to start from the beginning and look at their second request to change the plan and what we were what our decision was
in that case. It it looks as if they built more than they were permitted to do. >> Mhm. Yep. >> Like expanding the gravel more than >> Okay. >> By a lot more. >> Yeah. >> Including a block wall in the extreme
northeast corner there. >> And so if uh we delay a decision on this until you can get a a better chain of what the decision making was then. And if you happen to be in
communication with them, uh, then one of the things, and this was the point I think Mark made right at the beginning, is that there is room for considerable screening. Um,
well, they don't own that, do they? uh to the south uh between uh Route 177 and the property. So they did come in in April for a minor modification.
That's right. So they they came in for a modification to this to have this additional gravel area >> to be removed and replaced with crushed stone. April of this year. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> All right. >> So that's the whole north piece of it. >> It says Crushstone parking area. >> Have we modified the approval? >> Yes. I've got the decision right here
is filed with the town clerk May 1st. So when did we give approval to extend the uh crush stone or whatever it is um around the the building to the you know
along the east and south sides I mean it's shown here but was that part of the the second amendment? >> That is part of the second amendment. Yes. So, can you go back up to the findings of fact? Is there anything in there
about screen? There is not. I can't read that. So, I hope somebody else can. >> Yeah, it doesn't seem to address it. Motions don't address it. The finding of the fact don't address it. There's no
requirements for additional >> screening. Yeah. >> But do we have any requirements for screening from the original one? >> Not for the expanded crush stone area because what was approved in May was or
I guess April did not include additional require additional screening. >> Have you driven by this? >> Yeah. Well, I mean, yeah, I'm 177. I didn't stop or anything, but
it it just caught my eye because it was something that we've pretty consistently here at the board that have asked for screening from uh a public way like that. if it's if you're screening off a storage area.
>> But if uh the facts are that it was never included, then it'll be you want it >> delay so more can be done or do you want to get >> Well, I think Do you think you've
been able to discern from these things what our decisions were >> in regards to what >> it looks like >> was there any additional screening was there orig any original screening for this area?
There was no original screening for this area aside from this. That was initially where their crush stone area was.
And that is right here, >> right? Because we thought that was going to be the only storage area originally. And then I guess when they came back with this plan, I and I simply don't recall it. But if if
the facts are that it was approved that way, then >> you don't recall it because you weren't at the meeting actually. >> What? >> You weren't at the meeting? >> I know. I'm I'm relieved to see that. >> I was I was >> Yes. >> I was away.
>> My little gray cells aren't as bad. They're away. So I I assume that uh they've done what we asked them to do. It it looks as if it's consistent with the modification.
>> So then I would entertain a motion. >> Uh Mr. Chair, I move that we not allow Mark Schmid to miss any dies for lack of a second. All right, I've got another motion then. I move that the planning board request uh wait
a sec. Uh on to Cheryl's way. I move to authorize the release of consultant review fees that are being held upon confirmation that all related invoices have been paid in full. That's my first motion. I'll second that.
>> All right. Any more comments? All those in favor? >> I I have a second motion. I move the planning board request the building inspector to issue a final certificate of occupancy for silverback construction and two Cheryl's way having determined that all conditions of approval have
been satisfactory met and the project is in compliance with approved site plan dated April 2025. This request is contingent upon receipt of a final asbuilt plan wet stamp by a professional engineer.
>> A second. >> It should have a north arrow on it unlike this one. >> Catch. >> We have a motion in a second. All those in favor? I >> Okay. Next is the lot and trust file
number 03-9 C shy release retaining $5,000. >> Okay, >> somebody explain. So SW Cole checked on the status of um older sidewalks installed in 2019 and
some of those installed in 2024 for this subdivision. All were within the identified specifications for this work. Additionally, the site shows substantial grass growth and is wellmaintained. Um it is said that the project is 99 or assess that the project is 99% complete
and um we are looking to release the following with $5,000 retained for completion of the asphelt for sycamore lane $52,000 600 $52,600 for Cypress Lane $11,750
and for Magnolia Lane $38,000. Yep. And I think he's included um yes, a lot of um pictures that you can go through. Um yeah, so this is great. This is a really old project that luckily we can kind of now push through towards the
end. So I'm happy to have this here on the release. >> Tell them what the retaining the 5,000. >> Yes, with retaining 5,000. Yep. For the asel. >> So how much is a as cost of somebody? Oh, the 5,000 is for the asbell as well
as the installation of bounds >> of bounds. >> Yeah. >> So, it looks like they've got some bounds here. So, the bounds are already in. >> I think I believe some still >> need to be
>> in his report. It says >> um I believe some still the roadway bounds need to be confirmed. >> Yeah, confirmed. Yep. So, I I assume that that $5,000 is sort
of what it's going to cost them to do this stuff. >> Um, >> I'd like to give them a lot more incentive. >> Yes. >> To do it. >> Um, I'd like to hold like 20. Okay. >> Um,
>> how about if we release uh the two uh 200,000 and retain 15? Okay. You want a motion, >> please? >> Uh, I move to release 200,000 of the shy held at lot and trust and retain 15,000
to cover remaining work. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> Thank you. >> Uh, plans reports. All right, an update. Well, this is a quick update from the climate resilience
committee, but unless John, you have anything else you'd like to add, but the next meeting is going to be on November 20th, and what they're going to be reviewing is the um ma recommendation matrices that UMass
Dartmouth pulled together. Jeff Canton is going to rework the recommendation methodology somewhat because the methodology that they used ranked many of the recommendations up be uh ranked
between 50 and 100. And when you have more than half of things ranking between 50 and 100, you kind of need to go back and re prioritize some of the things that fell in the middle. So that's what Jeff's going to be doing. He's going to be reworking that. and then the the group will review these recommendations
at that meeting. >> Yeah, let me I I just add one thing. Um we circulated to the members of the CRC the uh draft hazard mitigation report which has a lot of overlap in terms of
recommendations to the town and it also has kind of a different way or it's not just a single way different ways of assessing uh relative risk than than climate resilience. And so we're
thinking about, okay, these are all town reports that they all get presented to the board of selectment and the public. We shouldn't try and confuse people too much uh and where we can have consistent recommendations
and consistent ways of uh figuring out uh priorities. Uh that would be good. Now the problem is that uh UMass Dartmouth said we want a system that's consistent with the way the state
does it and hazard mitigation uses various forms of assessing depending on what the risk is. So it's impossible to be consistent with everything. Um and so that's why we said to Jeff Canton, uh
we're glad this is your problem, Jeff, and not mine. uh to figure out the best way to do this. >> Uh and so he's going to come back on the 20th. And the thing we wanted to make sure is that whatever the system is of
measuring risk that the members of the CRC ultimately uh set the scores. And so what Jeff's going to do is say, "Here's you know what are there 50 or so? Here's one of
them and here's what the score is. Does anyone want to change it >> and if someone feels strongly that it should be higher priority or lower priority, they can make that argument and it may be that in a lot of the 50 people will say no, let's move to the
next." But that's an important meeting on the 20th because you're really saying uh you know high priority versus low priority and that's going to be significant I think as people read
that. So yeah important meeting. >> Yeah I'm glad you brought that up because I was thinking it was there must be a lot of overlap between these two reports and are we
in danger of as you were alluding a minute ago to confusing people >> and I don't know do you combine do is it impract totally impractical to consider some well single report
>> I think one of the points I made because Jeff and and maybe some others were saying you can't have everything be high priority and I said, "Well, yeah, but I when the
board of selemen and the new town administrator and others look at these recommendations and Michael and Dia and Naen who prepare all these grant applications, it's going to be well, this one may be
halfway down the list, but there's a grant opportunity to build it. So let's let's do the grant opportunity and build it. And if uh in the grant we say this is a high priority in climate resilience
report and a high priority in hazard mitigation. Maybe that gets you a couple of extra points for the granting authority. I I think that it's one thing to assess priorities, but another thing that will uh influence investment is
where we're going to get the money and what opportunities arise. So, if you get money to do something that's relatively low on the list, but it's still a good thing to do, we're going to want to do it. It's um and it's really not possible to
integrate them into a single report because they all there's there's really three. There's hard to >> see that there's the there's the hazard dismitigation that comes out of a grant and it's a
requirement and then and and and we need to complete that to qualify for certain grant opportunities. And then we're also doing an emergency response which looks at the same
the same hazards if you will the hurricane and the flooding and and how do we respond to that and that's a separate thing. And then the you know we would we were tasked by the selectman to to have our own climate
resiliency plan which sort of integrates these things. kind of pin and and I think what we'll see is everything that sort of rates high rates high on all three reports
and and I'm I'm worried less about what's first, second, or third. But the I I think we there's some common sense looking at did did we capture the right risks and
the right and the right responses to those risks and I think we can do that. I think the other point to be made is that uh we've gotten a lot of input and there's a lot of material to work from
and uh some people certainly fallen in this camp thinks this is a report that is never going to get written because there's so much input that needs to be gathered. Uh but I think uh we've got
Jeff and Dia aided by UMass Dartmouth now in the writing portion of this and so there is a light at the end of the tunnel and it is not an oncoming train. uh you know, you can actually see we're going to get
a finish line. Uh Dia says by springtime so that before summer comes we'll be able to go out into public uh uh engagement. There's different audiences for these two and I think that's important to
underscore that the emergency response planning and the hazard mitigation plan are tailored more towards industry professionals whereas the climate resilience report will be tailoring it to a much larger swath of the community and it will be a lot more of an
approachable document for public consumption whereas the other one I think the other two will be more for policy wonks people who like dive into, you know, >> really fine details. >> So, the the the draft hazard mitigation
plan is out there. I don't know if anybody's >> taken that to bed with them and read it. >> I did. >> It's about 80 pages long. >> I've read everyone and marked it all up because I don't use track changes or anything, but gave it to Dia and
Michael. >> And so, they're also requesting public input. on that plan and speaking with Michael this afternoon uh because the way that they're asking
questions requires you to go back into the draft plan and go to a section by section and answer a complicated question and I think to date three people have done it.
>> Mhm. That's hardly public input >> for including John's hand comments. >> The survey was not easy to get through. >> No, >> but it's a good report. >> It's a good report, but
>> I I read through the report, but I couldn't fill out the questionnaire because I didn't have the report with me. >> And I'm trying to look at it on my phone and it's impossible to do. um and then
try to go back and answer a question. Um and I've talked to Michael, maybe they can come up with a a similar question here. >> That takes some of the information and outlines what the information is and do
you agree with that? >> Right. >> Right. Maybe anyway people listening to this or viewing it will get a better understanding from this discussion of why these three different plans
uh form are being formulated and why. >> Okay, >> quick update on our housing production plan. The select board unanimously endorsed it last night. So I submitted it to the executive office of housing
and living livable communities for their approval. Um so it takes it takes effect and actually take a step back. The team at Serpent had the EOHLC staff give it a
cursory review. So we incorporated their comments before submitting it to the planning board and the select board for your endorsements. So, it was in a it was in a place where we had all the right language in the right places and it it should be approved. So, um I
haven't heard it back from anyone. I mean, I just submitted it today, but the the date it would be effective is the date you submit it. So, it's good for five years. >> Good. >> That's a big deal, Michael. Congratulations on >> getting it written and revised and
submitted and approved. And again, that that gives us the opportunity to apply for other grants as well, right? >> So, >> okay, group six, neighborhood.
>> Dia and I met with the project team from Serpent today and we discussed the results from their data collection at different events over the summer and they had logged 132 conversations from folks. They had a lot more conversations
than that, but that's as many as they remembered to go back and and track or get right down the gist of the conversation and and couple of themes have emerged from it at least from our conversation. I haven't sat down and sifted through all the the data yet to
drop it into different buckets, but this is my first impression of it. So, um I think this won't come as a surprise. People would like to see the aesthetic character of the Route Six area improved. People are interested in having more
recreation, so like parks, bike paths, walking trails, things like that. There is a lot of preserved space up in that area. So, we're going to do some additional surveying to see if if it there's just a a mismatch between what
is being preserved and what people actually have access to. Um, so we'll get a little bit more information on that. People want more to do in that corridor. Um, especially in like smallcale commercial development. So
kind of like your boutiquey cafes, restaurants, stuff like that. Um, the the commercial development people desire is not the big box store type of development that you see in in nearby in Dartmouth. And then there are a lot of people who were saying that housing is
needed particularly so that Westporters can stay in Westport um as they age or when they come move back from college or whatever the case is, they can raise their families here. So I'll have a little bit more
information on that once we have some time to sift through that data. Um, but that'll inform some work that we're doing to have a public meeting on December 11th
to we'll begin to further refine those community preferences to start developing that neighborhood plan as well as um potential zoning amendments. And so before this meeting, we'll post a survey to help in preparation for that meeting um to get get some more data
from the greater community. So again, that tenatively December 11th is when we'll hold it. We're going to try to get it arranged for it to be held at the Mac Humber school because we'd like for it to be if it, you know, it's a Route Six neighborhood plan, so we'd like to hold
it somewhere as close to Route Six as possible, but if not, the backup would be the the library. Was there any u reaction or comments related to the uh the the traffic or the you know the
route six itself the layout of it the the turning lanes and then the and the trying the attempts there have been suggestions of sort of a >> sure >> you know interotal thing having traffic lanes pedestrian you know
walking or bike path >> and bus lanes and so forth. Was there any discussion on that? >> Yeah, that I'm glad you you bring that up because there were a number of comments from people who make an effort to avoid driving on Route 6 just to get
to maybe somewhere across town, but Route Six feels too dangerous to drive on. Um, most folks when asked about biking or walking are like absolutely not. this is not a place where I would
want to do that. Um, >> and yeah, so >> there's a lot that I think is left to be desired if if that if we want people to
walk or bike in that area as well as to maybe slow down the speeds in that area because people don't even feel safe driving there. So that was a link in the bike path, right? Is it still a link in the bike path that have bikes
on Route 6? >> We want it to cross route six and avoid Route Six. >> Okay, good. the DOT road diet. Um the options that were sent
to DOT from Serbed show some shared use trails off on the sides that would be separated from the roads. >> Yeah, >> I think uh an onlane bike lane would be a non-starter. That would be a very high high stress
>> Yeah. um type of traffic arrangement for probably all users involved. >> Yeah. >> Um but I haven't heard anything about that road diet. So I I don't know where things stand with that. But yes, we would would when we were
considering um the Cross Westport shared use trail, we wanted to get it off of Route Six. just acknowledging that a lot of people don't feel safe even driving there, let alone walking or biking.
>> I think the same could be said for 177 as well because >> I know that there's been talk back and forth about getting in traffic circle at Tickle Road >> um and driving. I've been driving
from uh Stafford Road or Bliss Corners down uh 177 and it's insane because in in Rhode Island it's 40 miles an hour and as soon as you hit the Westport line
it changes to 50 miles an hour >> and nothing has changed. There's nothing that makes it any safer. And it's actually even more dangerous because there's more houses on it.
>> And we still have the stupid blinking light at Tickle Road, which is an intersection with a lot of traffic. >> That's still under design that the traffic circle that's still advancing its way through the tip. Um, but yeah, I
hear you that it's actually more more residential driveways. There are more businesses. There are larger vehicles accessing the road through there. So, yeah, it's a it's a high-speed thoroughare with a lot of potent potential points of conflict. >> I mean, the the the posted speed limit
on Route 6 is 55 miles an hour >> and and there are there are homes who driveway >> back back out onto that. >> Right. Right. Yeah. other comments from some some specific comments that I remember. Um there were a couple about
people who had looked at houses on Route Six, but that was just the speeds were just too much. Um there was one where someone said something to the effect of Route 6 is inhospitable to humans or something like that. So, uh I
appreciated that one. That one that one made me laugh. But I mean the point is taken. A lot of people are are saying this is not a place where I would want to walk, bike, and driving. If I have to go across town, I might take another route because it's feels like a free-for-all.
>> Yeah, I I agree. Uh Dartmouth, I would say, is much better. >> Mhm. >> Especially between the big development and New Ventur. I mean
to cross the thing to take a lefthand turn on there is absolutely insane. >> Mhm. >> Anyway, so I would assume that the housing production plan update and the Route 6 neighborhood plan update could be kind of
talking to each other. >> Yes, absolutely. We had we've been having that conversation um with the Serpent team and I think there's there's one of the reasons why I wanted to work with Serpent on the route six plan is that they did the housing production
plan so they have that institutional knowledge of what went on for the housing production plan and um Robert Cabraw who was helping with the housing production plan is now the the project lead for Serped. So there will be that
that overlap there. >> That's good. >> Okay. >> All right. I wanted to I this week I just received the attorney general's decision on our May 6, 2025 zoning bylaw
amendments that were approved at town meeting. So, the short of it, it's a very long letter that we had received, but the short of it is that the short-term rental bylaw was approved. So, that's that's all set. Um, the AD
ADU bylaw was also approved. They did disapprove of one portion, one small snippet of it, and that's section 9.5.2C to C that stated that an attached ADU
shall maintain the exterior appearance of a single family dwelling. That was kind of our that was our oversight because an ADU can be um attached well an an 80 an ADU can be
used on a duplex lot for example and so we should have tightened up that language there. So they they struck that out so that way it's just um inclusive of other types of dwellings for town meeting. I think we should modify it to principal dwelling so it's
consistent with the definitions and the zoning bylaw. Um so that's something to think about. So, uh, in in terms of town meeting, do we just come in with an amendment to this based on the attorney general's ruling, >> which would be very short?
>> Mhm. >> Or do we have to go through and show them the whole ADU uh section? >> It would be the former. So, we're just doing one small line revision. Yeah. >> Okay.
Um then the bulk of this letter related to the dimensional requirements in the ADU bylaw and that the dimensional requirements cannot be used to unreasonably prohibit or restrict ADU development and that's because ADUs are
now protected under the do amendment. So, if the town's application of this of the um dimensional regulations is found to be having a burdensome impact on accessory dwelling units, it
could be found to be um an unreasonable regulation by the attorney general or by a community member who decides to to file suit. the person who deter well they they advise that the building
inspector should be using showing discretion when reviewing accessory dwelling unit applications to prevent unreasonable situations. Um, and there's a whole
backing of case law in their in their um in their letter to us. And I think this is a place where we should take their message, talk to town council, and work out a way that we can distill
the the spirit of what they were advising us of into the zoning bylaw. because to review ADUs and have to go back and refer to all this nuanced case law, it it just get it
just will get really complicated. >> Well, I think it's going to be very difficult for the building inspector because he's used to going, does it fit >> the regulation? >> Mhm. >> Does it fit our bylaw? Does it fit our dimensional things? Mhm.
>> And it it's either yes or no. It isn't. >> Well, maybe we should. It doesn't, but maybe it's okay. He's not going to make that determination. >> So, can we leave the dimensional requirements as is
and have the building inspector apply them? Because I agree with the chairman. he wants to see something that's specific that he can say, "Yeah, that meets it or doesn't meet it." >> And then uh see if
that provision is constraining the construction of ADUs. Uh and if we're noticing, we don't know how many ADUs we expect. Therefore, it's hard to say, well, this is below
expectations because we haven't set out our expectations. And if there are fewer ADUs that are being constructed than people expect, then you could say, "Yeah, but interest rates are up or the economy's down. I mean, there could be
any number of reasons for that, not the dimensional requirements." So I I mean I think we just leave it the way it is and then see whether or not someone is making a case that this is >> discouraging ADU construction.
>> Well, we could alert the building inspector to keep tabs. >> Yeah. >> Of of how many is people coming to him and say, "Can I do this?" And he says, "No." >> Mhm. >> Keep track of them. >> Yeah.
>> And why, you know? I don't know whether what the dimensional characteristics are. Is it the setbacks or >> or are setbacks >> written in stone? >> It would be be all of them. So setbacks, height, lot coverage,
anything that >> but but but I mean they the setbacks are not over us. I mean it isn't like you know you got to be 800 feet from the property line or something. you know, there, you
know, we we have five foot side guns, you know, I mean, it's >> right >> you know, and I I would and I think it's just the idea of does does do all of the numbers somehow
um restrain people from doing ADUs? And the and the answer is who knows until people come in and do that. >> Exactly. So, but I have a question about how the the law in Massachusetts is written. So,
we have areas like um the villages up here that have a lot of duplexes. >> Mhm. >> But they're they're made on I'm not sure if they even own their own land. Can they make an ADU on the end of a
duplex? and the other places. Um, okay. >> It's a good question. I don't >> you make an ADU a duplex. It
>> a duplex is not an ADU. If if it's built as as if both were primary residences, >> right? But no, not that they >> No. >> Or an ADU. But can they do an ADU >> on top of >> on top of their
>> If you have a duplex and then you want to >> Yeah. >> If the duplex was allowed, I think you could do an ADU. >> But of those duplexes, they were special permanent. They are
um independent living facilities. They're not specifically duplexes. >> No. >> So, can they add on to them? >> I I think hypothetically >> Well, that's a condominium, too, right?
>> With the way we define an an accessory dwelling unit. It's that it's on the same lot as a principal dwelling. So, if all of the those dwellings are on one lot, right, >> then you could have one ADU
on that lot of 16 duplexes or whatever the case is. >> So, you'd only get effectively one additional dwelling unit out of it. >> Do we allow an AEU in the business district? >> Yes.
>> So, >> they're they're by right across the entire state regardless of >> Well, it has to be an addition to a residential unit. I mean, if somebody has a store on a property. Can they build an ADU?
>> They they're accessory to a a principal dwelling, >> right? >> Okay. So, you can't have an ADU behind Lee's market >> basically, >> right? But if it's like a mixeduse >> Yeah. >> situation,
then you could >> because there's already a principal dwelling on the lot. So, we can sit tight on this and see how things work out or we can consider giving >> talk with town council. >> Okay. Because I was going to say we can consider writing into the bylaw to allow
some flexibility for the building inspector to show discretion in these kinds of situations. >> Yeah. But then he's going to know want to know how he does it. Anyway, let's talk to town council. >> All right. Keep this on. >> We can stick a pen.
>> Keep this on the table. >> But then speaking of zoning amendments, I just wanted to run over the zoning amendments we have coming up. But before I go over that, I want to know if ei any of you are going on any extended
vacations or um going to be out of town for the holidays just because >> Okay. Because we need to think about when we want to send zoning amendments to the select board and then open up our public hearing.
I don't think I'm going to miss any meetings, but I'm leaving on the 19th of December and coming back January 3rd. >> Okay. >> But I don't think that I don't have the 2026 schedule. >> Okay. So, we could I mean, we could
first start with typically we have our public hearing in December or January. So we could start the process at the next between now and the next three meetings. So I I would prefer December.
So December 2nd or 16th um if you all are around for that. Um because then we'll present it to you all and then we'll make modifications before we send it to the select board. >> Yeah. >> Okay. December 2nd works. Okay. >> Okay.
>> For the public hearing? >> Not for the public hearing. Um the public hearing would then be in January. >> But we'll do a presentation to you all on December 2nd so we can get your input before we forward it to the select board. >> Okay.
>> And you list one zoning amendment. Is that all or is it amendments? >> Oh, no. I just before I talked about the slate of amendments, um I just wanted to get that out of the way. Okay. So we have in the zoning bylaw two building height definitions.
So we need to get rid of one of them just for consistency sake because they are differing regulations. So that's one. Um the dog state regulations for dog kennels now allow up to keeping of
up to four dogs as opposed to three. So that's one we've talked about that in a previous meeting. Uh we talked about flood plane bylaws as well. This is just some technical fixes, some dates, definitions need to be slightly modified, and then there's some other references that are in the bylaw that
are either obsolete uh or need to be updated. So, we'll do that. And I've already sent the um draft bylaw to DCR for them to review and they've given us the thumbs up on the bylaw. So, um that
conforms to what the state's model bylaw is. And then we're working on a draft bylaw for scenic roads. That's an in progress. It wouldn't be a zoning bylaw, but since we're talking
about zoning amendments, and it would probably end up being the planning board's responsibility to have hearings for the scenic roads bylaw. That's why I bring it up now. And and we'll have to have it ready in time for town meeting.
And then um I don't know if I'll get to this this year, but I would like to make some changes to the open space residential development too to try to encourage develop developers to use that over the traditional approach to subdivision.
Kind of looking to Dartmouth. Um they have a lot more open space residential developments or or utilization of that bylaw than we do. So I'm kind of using them as inspiration. uh Serpent just completed their their
extensive survey survey of all the towns and cities about this. >> Okay. >> Check with them. >> Yeah. >> In in one way that I know because I was part of some of the symposiums is to
make a regular standard subdivision by special permit and make an OSRD by right. So people don't want to go through a special permanent process. >> Mhm. >> The easiest path is OSRD.
>> But I don't know how you do that because OS RDS are more complicated. So >> the only community I know of that does that is Amhurst. >> I know. >> Um >> I don't know if if it's successful is the question.
>> That's true, too. Um but thanks thanks for that. Do you know who from was the environmental division working on that or was it the land use division? >> The land use I'll >> Elizabeth maybe. >> Okay.
>> But maybe t I don't I can't remember. >> Yeah, I'll that gives me some direction who who to reach out to. So yeah, that's that's helpful. I knew they were working on that. I just didn't know it was complete. I can find out tomorrow because I'll be >> okay.
>> All right, that's all I got. >> Okay, system planner. >> So, I think I shared with you all last time that we were awarded grant funding for technical assistance for salt marsh restoration through the SNAP network. Um, what does SNEP stand for? Uh,
>> Southern New England Program Network. So, that doesn't that's not indicative of much, but it's this like storm water um kind of like network that we're a part of. So Craig Ditro was there representing Steve Olette. I was there representing Westport. It was just a celebration. There was like 30 minutes
where other awardes were kind of um sharing boards about their projects. Then there was about an hour of speeches. I met with our Mass Audabon partner Sarah Grady. Um so she's going to connect up with us soon and she's asking for anecdotal context about the Salt Marsh system.
>> Okay. So, if board members have anything to share anecdotally about the salt marsh or if they have anyone they think I should follow up with, please let me know. >> Yeah, >> it was that Tabore um the Tabore building in New Bedford.
>> Taber Taber. Yeah. >> Nice. >> I'll get it right. Cabora Academy. >> That's it. >> You want to get the minutes, >> please? >> Mr. Chair, uh I've read the minutes of October 7th
and uh I find them excellent as usual except with one exception. I think um on page two item E where it talks about recognition and our chairman getting an award uh from Surfhead. I
think uh the font size should be increased in that second and maybe bold it other than that I would move to approve the minutes. >> I'll second that with the as they as
they were amended. Okay. Um, all those in favor >> I have a motion to adjurnn. >> So move second. >> All those in favor?