Okay. Okay. There it being uh 6:40 on the 20th of August. I'm going to start the zoning board of appeals off the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and
to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Um, first hearing tonight is a continuation of an application of Pine Ridge Estates
LLC and Bradford Dean for comprehensive permit pursuant to Mass General Law Chapter 40B for development of off Westport Lakes Drive consisting of 38 single family homes on individual lots which are to contain two or three
bedrooms with 10 of those homes being designated as affordable deed restricted homes. Subject property is located at zero Westport Lakes Road and is shown on assessor's map 31 lots 3B, 3C and 4G.
Yes, being recorded. Oh, yes. Okay. Thank you. Udance from Mass General Lodge uh chapter 38 section 20F. This meeting is being recorded. Voting on this will be uh Jerry Catino, myself, Raj Manard, Constance Gee, Ray
Elias, and Cynthia Consec. Uh and uh the process tonight will be we are going to go over the um a a draft decision. Uh we all have a copy of the draft
decision. We're going to go through our comments uh and then uh I'll open it up to the public again and then at that point then I plan on closing the hearing and then uh oh here he is just in time and then uh
uh then we will we will vote on the uh on the petition. So, uh, turning a casino, I just, uh, I just opened everything up. So, uh, I assume everybody has has had a copy of
the, uh, of the draft decision. Uh we have had comments from um the planning board and from town administrator that uh uh that everybody I think has a copy of. So uh what I want to do then is go
through page by page any comments from the board members on the on the draft decision. Uh again what the process here will be is is we will work on the draft decision as if it was going to be approved. We will then after I close the
uh the hearing, we will then discuss it further uh edit or modify as appropriate and then and then vote on it. Uh so uh first
thing are ready through the chair. Can I ask uh other attorneys or both of them, doesn't matter which one answers it, uh during some of the hearings, we talked about you guys getting together and putting this thing together and then
communicating with each other, listening to the board's decisions and drafting this the original document. Did it come from uh the applicant to you and then you made tweaks to it or did it come from you and he made tweaks to it? That's my question.
Uh good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. George Poocci from KP Law. Uh this final round didn't go that way. So when um you were getting to the point that you wanted to look at a draft decision, applicants council had actually provided a very thorough draft.
Didn't cover everything that you wanted. It obviously has some questions. Um but it was a first draft. It was and it was reasonable to form. It was very similar to forms that I would use on it. Um, on that draft, I made uh track change
comments and questions and then you considered that at the last hearing session, additional questions came up and then concerns that the board members had on things like um provisions in the homeowners association, provisions like that. Even the applicant was saying it
sounded like he didn't know some of the things that were in his own council's first draft on the homeowners. So he wanted to further update that. So at at the last hearing, um council was directed to to look at first of all make those changes to the
homeowners provisions that the applicant was referring to. Um and council was going to uh make further comments and uh suggestions on that last draft that I had provided and and the draft that I had provided was only indicating track
change additions, my track change additions to the original first draft from the applicants council. So this last draft before you has none of my comments at all. Uh, it it only has, and I'll be honest with
you, it's getting to the point now that my eyes are glazing over all the different drafts that are going back and forth and various emails with reattachments to them and segments and all of that. So, whatever draft you're looking at is council's
um suggested edits to the to the last draft that you talked at about at the last hearing. I've made no further comments on the draft that's before you. I have been very carefully tracking um comments, additional comments from
town officials coming in, including town administrator, um town planner. So, I have recommendations for you in terms of any questions or comments that you have, but this draft that's before you has no input from me whatsoever. So, shouldn't
be taken as a good seal of approval. and and my methodology on that is I'm not a board member. I I would recommend you focus on substantive issues that you care about and address those. And then in the end, I'm going to provide a final draft for you to look at in
deliberations. After the hearing is closed, you're not going to receive any further input from the applicant or anybody else. Then you're going to be looking at a draft that is is council's final proposed draft based on your comments and questions during the hearing. So that draft won't come until
after the close of a hearing and for deliberations. Does that answer your question? Roger, you didn't read in um might want to lower whatever you didn't read in Jim Hornets.
I'm I'm I wasn't planning on reading any of the uh I have questions regarding Go ahead. the subdivision. What that is? So it's the concern was respect to A7 in the
draft decision which says that our thing would would supersede and replace all prior subdivision approvals and covenants affecting the property. And then he said that it would negatively affect us ever trying to the
town ever successfully getting Westport Legs Road um and the infrastructure thereof completed. And and I don't understand is is I always thought Westport Lakes Road was Westport Lake subdivision was
everything off of Westport Lakes Road and that anything above the piece of v Golf View Lane was something else. Are you saying it's all one? So if we if we approve what's up we if we approve
this we're actually affecting how are we affecting the Westport leg subdivision? Is it because that this piece of property is part of Westport legs subdivision? Y and we would then release the covenants if we release the covenants we release the covenants to all of Westport legs
low. I don't understand how the problem means that that the original developer no longer has the responsibility for finishing those things that were that were in because it's two is isn't it two
separate subdivisions? You would be releasing it. There's a there's a lot that they need for that. So that's why is because it's because of this lot that brings it up is part of the Westport Lakes and therefore if we let them do this then we release everything else. And that's what I
wanted to know. Yes. If you release that if you release that covenant you're you're relinquishing any rights that the planning board has on their subdivision conditions. Right. So do does do they need approval to change the subdivision to include
take this out of the subdivision and put it into this other subdivision? Yeah. I I I did I appreciate the question because I did want to clarify that was one of the biggest issues and you know again I apologize to council cuz he he gave me attorney Dagustinino gave me several months ago his case law
on the covenant you know the the zoning board's uh authority to release the covenant and I did review what what he provided and it's valid what he's saying but it's important for you to to understand kind of the distinction.
Um council has represented to the board uh applicants council that since this is a covenant related to a permit approval in the subdivision approval that is within your jurisdiction to wave that because it's
another local permitting decision. The case law does support what he's saying. He's absolutely correct. You do have the jurisdiction over it. Um and and it's different from a property interest like if the town had town meeting approval, acquired a
property interest, conveyed an easement. Those types of things are not permitting conditions. They are not within your jurisdiction to wave or affect. So that is a property interest versus a covenant interest that was from a permitting decision. But so the punch line is
though the fact that you have jurisdiction over it doesn't mean that the facts compel that you should do it right. So it's still within your authority to deny waving that covenant and and go
ahead and issue your own conditions. You would have your own peritting decision and the covenant that the planning board has for the subdivision, their own subdivision remains in place and they have the enforcability. So, does the plans for the West Court Lake subdivision need to be amended to to
take this lot out that was originally part of the subdivision? Yes, they would have to. Yes. Unless you waved it. I mean, that's and and you know, let's call a spade a spade. The the in the last week or so, you've received very strong comments and
concerns and including from from a a resident, you know, don't release this. This is our last, you know, don't do it. we it's the only leverage we have. Those types of issues really aren't um technically within your jurisdiction,
but you can certainly take into account local concerns when you're conditioning this permit. So, if you have a roadway that has not been completed, there's a storm water management system that needs to be completed. There's other components. There was supposed to be
work apparently done uh this summer that was never done. it's access to this uh 40B development. So, you know, in in my view, it's in your purview to make sure that you enact conditions that are within your
jurisdiction and you have to think long and hard whether you would want to wave the covenant from and I'll tell you frankly from what I've seen, I don't think you want to. So in and if that's your consensus after
the close of the hearing, I will draft the final draft for your deliberations that do not wave the covenant and that have conditions that are consistent with the final comments that you've received from the town officials on the in on the issue. Town administrator had some very
extensive comments, you know, that he submitted that a lot of them made a lot of sense too about the shity issues and and things of that nature. So that would basically be my recommendation to you if that's the way you're inclined to go. It's sounding like you're getting very
near the end of the universe of issues that you need to have the public hearing open for. Right. And then you're you're pretty much good to go to close the hearing tonight, get the final decision and figure out how to put all those conditions into words. Mr. Chairman, would you mind if I
followed up on town council statement? Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Christopher Agugustino, council for the applicant. Um, I appreciate the explanation the town council just uh described to the board on this issue of Westport Lakes Drive and the covenants. Um, you saw the
language that we included in the note in place of what was the proposed uh section A7 that we reviewed last time we were before the board. Um, and the proposed alternative language is not to
wave the covenant and the covenant goes away. We're asking the board to approve a new subdivision that will overlay lots eight and nine on GU Lane. So essentially Golf U Lane, those parcels
coming in. Okay, these things, right? Those two things. Lot here and a lot here. the project site as it exists above those. So where you see the development on the cover page of
uh the plan. So yes, exactly. We're asking you to approve a new subdivision that applies to those lots. Okay. And we're asking that that subdivision approval supersede
the prior subdivision approval. And the reason we're asking for that is because the subdivision covenant, these covenants that we're describing, and this was in the original letter I wrote to the board, and I I know it it it takes time to work through these
details, but I followed up with correspondence to town council. I actually sent a plan that highlights in color the lots that were released. Okay. The covenants that we're talking about were released as to all the lots on
Westport Lakes Drive and some of that larger contiguous parcel on the call it the bottom of Westport Lakes Drive as it shows on that plan. Okay. The developer that owns Westport Lakes
Drive, okay, is not subject to those covenants anymore. That that ship has sailed. The only way the covenants affect the condition of Westport Lakes Drive, all right, is Giew Lane and the
stub extension on the back. this applicant and this I don't want to go into a discussion about who controls Westport Lakes Drive, who owns it, but we don't we would have to what we're proposing is we're essentially going to
have to sue the owner of Westport Lakes Drive to improve the condition of it as described in that condition from 177 to Golf View Lane. All right, we're willing to accept that as a condition, but to
say for this board to say that the covenant is not waved as to the pro as to our property as to our project site means that then you're saying we have to somehow go to the planning board or or I'm not even sure what that would result
in. And we perceive that is go to the planning board which is I guess town council you know has looked at the at the um uh the case law on this. You are the planning board. We are asking you as the planning board
to approve a new subdivision just for what you see there and create new covenants and new conditions for that subdivision. And because the owner of and developer of this subdivision
doesn't own or control the fee interest in Westport Lakes Drive, we're saying we agree with you. The condition of Westport Lakes Drive from 177 to Golf View Lane is relevant. It's a safety issue. It needs to be improved and sequentially before you're selling
houses here. You know, you can't come in on that road. All right? and we've said that the first letter I wrote to the board, we're willing to agree to conditions that accomplish that goal. So, I I think we're getting caught up in the
um the nomenclature of of the covenants and whether it's waved or who has jurisdiction over them. We're asking you, this is your game. They're your covenants for all intents and purposes. And what I'm saying is those covenants
require that all of the uh improvements to the lots that they affect be completed before any work's done. So it's a chicken and egg issue. The completion of those uh of the work
applies to uh lots eight and nine which is GU Lane. All right. So, we're saying we will complete Golf U Lane as part of this project. That's the condition we're proposing and we'll improve Westport Lakes Drive from 177. And if you want to
read what we proposed, um that's what we're asking this board to do. We're saying approve a new subdivision and that subdivision supersedes as to lots eight and nine and the project site. And as a condition to going forward,
even though we don't own Westport Lakes Road or Westport Lakes Drive, the new condition is that as a condition to moving forward on this, you have to meet those standards that we've proposed. are the only the only problem I have with that
well not the only problem but the the major one is that if we release the covenant then there is nothing that forces the the current contractor to finish the road beyond G link you're not releasing the covenant as to the rest of the property you're only
releasing the covenant as to that outline there you leave the covenant then then they don't ever have to finish that part that's not true that is that's not a true I I think I think You've you've pretty much isolated the issue. You've talked about it enough. I mean, what my
recommendation would be is you d you you you asked me for the final decision that make sure that you don't jeopardize the planning board's ability to enforce the completion of the original subdivision. And that that's not something in your
jurisdiction, but what is in your jurisdiction is you don't have to wave the planning board's rights or the existing residents rights for completion of the of the subdivision. So what I would recommend you do is in your final decision, you
make sure that nothing that you condition or agree to compromises those rights. So we can uh so whether you want to call a release of the covenant, a new whatever the the language you want to use, I would recommend the substantively you not do anything to jeopardize the planning
board's ability to enforce the completion of the roadway. So, so um because you rather so rather than doing wordto word changes here, we can just give you what our concept of what Yes.
what we're looking for and then you can write it up in the final decision. Correct. Okay. Which then we'll deliver and then and then we will review it. Yes. I guess I guess I agree with you that we have the authority to issue a new subdivision. I think where I'm having
this little sticky point of the fact that lots eight and nine is it is part of a different subdivision. I think the planning board needs to modify that subdivision plan. That's not in our purview. That's you, right? Still you.
But but here here's what the issue is is you're right and that's and you can't make them go to planning board or anything like that. But you don't have to do anything to jeopardize the planning board's existing permitting requirements. And and it's being
represented to you very strongly that you not compromise those interests because there's no way that they'll ever complete that roadway. and and that's not something technically in your jurisdiction, but it's within the realm of reason for you to condition
your permit so that you do not in any way jeopardize that concern. But that's also in a matter of public safety, which also would give us perview to deny the permit. Yes. But this is something and remember, you're not denying a permit. You're right. Well, we didn't say I don't think we've all we haven't all voted that
we're we've discussed we have not discussed denying or accepting this, right? So if if you were to approve this with conditions, I would just recommend that your conditions not jeopardize because if we and because we can do it with conditions,
if you couldn't do it with conditions, then I would say it was a public safety concern, which would rise to the level of a of of a a good enough argument to deny the permit. Uh well, maybe you're not you're not on the
housing board. The only thing I would say about that is yes, with respect to this access to this development, the 40B, not not to the people on the existing roadway. In other words, exactly. Yeah. But, you know, again,
you're right. That's totally within your purview. And again, it it's also in your purview not to do something which is not to affect, right, the right of the planning board and the ability to make sure that the original subdivision roadway gets complet and the the the housing board
does would prefer us to do it to address the cons the public concerns by conditions and not by denying the permit. Oh yes. But to be but just to be clear to the extent the planning board then comes in and says that
Pine Ridge cannot go forward until certain things are met. That's not what we're talking about. But we're going to say that you're going to you can say that in this permit as long as it's clear that this approval supersedes as to the this this
carved out parcel. the the covenants remain in place as to whatever else exists. That parcel is covered by this new decision which can say that certain things will be met in certain order. And what we've said to you is we can't say
that the entirety of Westport Lakes Drive needs to be complete before you do anything on this. that we would say is is the applicant would have to seek redress at the housing appeals committee because we couldn't make the project
work if we did that. We could however do what we're proposing which is what we've proposed in uh A7.1 7.2 2 and 7.3 that proposal that before any ground disturbance the vegetation is cleared within the layout and then
can we can we address that when we get to seven because I think I've got comments before seven so attorney uh Buchcci do you feel comfortable you know with with your understanding of how the board feels and how to write this up so that covenants
or no confidence that we want to make sure that my the way I'm the way I'm hearing it from you and Cynthia is uh you you want the concerns noted by the town planner and the town administrator taking on you don't want to jeopardize
the town's ability to ensure completion of the original subdivision roadway right and I intend to give you a permit that does that okay on that condition again this says and that will take that'll take the place of whatever A7 is here that's right but I talked to the
planning board this morning and Uh, I asked him, "Hey, point blank, are these covenants still in place?" "Yes." "Are they going to be Can we get them out of there?" He said, "I don't think you can, but that that may be up in question." That could be a question. He says, "No." But at the same time, but at the
same time, West Lace Drive has engineers on it. Yes. Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday to provide an asbuilt from Coastal the the guys that are supposed to be doing on West Lakes Drive. It's actually Westport.
to get an asbuilt plan. So without an asbuilt plan, that place isn't safe to get in there. I understand if you guys want and I would say yes, you guys have to complete that from 177 DOT all the way to Gulf Plane and up. That's what you guys propose for us to
make as in certain sequencing at certain times. Yeah. But I will say this, the road is not I I personally know the engineer that's it. It's New England uh out of Middletown which is Sean Leech. Yeah.
And he's a personal friend of mine. There's a lot of issues there and storm water management probably some of them which connects to you guys. And you know another issue that came up today Roger not today but in the last week I was disappointed to see that the
town planner noted that there was work that was to be completed this summer right that was not done and and that's a concern. It it's I'm not blaming this applicant. I don't know what any relationship at all, but it
somebody who you know, whoever it is that knows what needs to be done and isn't doing it should help out this developer, help out the people that are in the neighborhood and get the thing done. I So
I just I would because that was brought up. The work was ready to be done. there was a wetlands permit that uh was needed and the wetlands permit held everything up because there was potentially a complaint uh that tried to hold up the
wetlands permit. So, we got a chicken and egg thing here where they're trying to do the work. They're trying to get the permits, but at the same time, there's this perception that somehow this project can can be stopped or held up if they prevent the improvement of
Westport Lakes Drive. So we we are saying we will compel it. All right. And the activity that you've seen is a byproduct of this beginning to say hey a byproduct of uh well I haven't done anything all summer and maybe he sent an email to them saying hey when you going
to do something? Yeah. Right. It's that type of dynamic. If we're talking about the same things in June uh the engineers said when are we going to have this brick test? Oh, we'll have it in July. First week in July, we didn't have it. Third
week in July, we didn't have it. I kept asking this question all along. We still don't have it. Now, I know we're going to get to that in here somewhere, but those kind of things are continually happening throughout this entire project, not just one or two, right from the
beginning. Can I ask a quick point of clarification? Is it Westport Lakes Road or Westport Lakes Drive? because it's referred to is as both throughout the decision. So, I think I'd ask the residents of what their street is named.
Oh, can we be at least Can we at least want to be consistent in in the in the decision so we know what we're talking about? Can I speak? Okay. Um I'm going to regress a little because I have actually comments before
we got the A7. Well, so do I. That's un that's actually subject property zero what lakes road I want to know if it's road or drive that's the first question says drive right so I just would like to clarify what it is and let be consistent through the
through the decision and our discussions so there's no ambiguity but I would also like to ask a question before you go further uh uh do we have uh documentation that the um the approvals for the
original subdivision do does not have any reference in there to uh a restriction of using that subdivision for another subdivision. uh similar to what I suggested at the
past meeting here for this uh where we indicate that this subdivision not be used, you know, in other words, a developer buy a lot or two and and use it to develop more property. Exactly.
Yes. and and I and I brought that up at the last meeting and was told don't worry about it because uh this is a project you know by itself and so I still think we should put that provision in there but anyway is there something
we have that shows that they did not the planning board not us uh uh did not prohibit the use of that subdivision to access another subdivision. Right. I I think the planning board would have noted that to you. I mean,
they don't have the right to. This is a 40B and when they won't have the right to further extend it without a modification. The 40B will be the universe of enforcability. But I am I'm talking about the subdivision that's already there
that doesn't have any kind of a prohibition. Uh not that the planning board has raised to us. No, thank you. that that that that I can tell you that would be very difficult to enforce in the 40B context. No, no, I'm not talking about the 40B
context. I'm talking about Yeah, because that was going to be one of my uh one of my my comments coming up was uh not allowing the 40B to spawn off into another.
Yes. And that's what I'm saying. Or another anything the univer this 40B permit will run with the land on this. It will be the universe of conditions that apply to this with prohibition. So they can't do anything further on the 40B without
coming back and getting a modification. But what if they sell the remaining part of the property to another developer who then it go everything this permit will run with the land that is the entirety of the property
identified that's part of the application. So they they can't can take a piece off and use it for a different purpose. Okay. So the 38 houses they're going to build here isn't uh there's no capability of
expanding it into another 50 houses somewhere else. You need to come back. You need to come back and start this. Well, but let's say so this road ends here, right? That's part of development. Can we put a deed restriction that this can never be used access to develop
something up here? Because that's not changing the subdivision. That's just letting people drive through. This is like we're letting them drive through Westport Lakes. Yeah. But it has it's a permit that it's a 40B permit that pertains to this property. They
can't do it without coming back for a month. So, what you're saying is we don't need to put a require. Um, you don't I mean, you can put it on if you want. I've never seen Well, that's the thing. I feel there's no harm in putting that down uh and see where it goes. Yeah.
And so, when you say they can come back, I mean, they can come back and they could get the rights and then we're in the same spot here we are now, right? Yeah. But, I mean, welcome to America. That's how it's, you know, but we can condition it that they can't uh but as long as they're
Yeah. But they can still come back. As long as they come back with 40 Yes. B. Yes. They kind of get it. Yes. I I mean that I'm giving you an answer. I'm telling you, in my opinion, there's no way of you preventing that from happening, you know,
no matter what we do. Right. I mean, you can prevent it by when they come back, you could deny it, right? Yeah. But I'm I'm saying to you there, in my opinion, and you're free to take it or leave it. You're not going to be able to build in assurance to yourselves that no one in
the future will ever come in and try to extend the roadway. I mean, I'm sorry, but you won't be able to do it. Okay? You can put the condition in, but it's not going to stop somebody from coming in and seeking an approval. Right. Okay.
Uh my other com on on A3 and I I know we talked about this briefly. I got a problem I've got a question on paragraph one two procedural history. Okay. Okay. We're ahead of that there yet? Go ahead. All right. So the two it reads the property is located in the residential
agricult zoning districts. I agree to that. Adjacent to and within a pristine a pre-existing residential subdivision along West P West Westport Lakes Road known as Coastal Harles Village. I don't is I don't think that subdivision is known as Coastal Harvest Village. So
what is Coastal Harvest Village? We have never I mean we've heard about a lot of different things here. I have never heard of Coastal Harvest Village. Is that the sign at the front of the roadway? No. No. It says Westport Lakes. No. So, it says Westport Lakes uh Drive
is the signage. I'm thinking of the real estate sign. Um, it does that does it serve any purpose? No, it doesn't. Strike it. I mean, that's what I mean. So, a lot of these again like town council can scrub the final.
Um, but you know, these types of things can be pointed out just to make sure that the nomenclature is right. I was just looking up drive versus road and on all the plans it's road. The sign on the uh uh street in live view says drive
and it says drive on Google maps but I think we should whatever we decide I think we should go with what the assessor's plan says. I agree. That wasn't your question, was it? Coastal Hov that too. But I'm also we're talking about Koshov's village. We're striking that because we don't know what Koshov
village is. What is Coastal? They don't know. Nobody knows. It's a comment on three. It does. I would love to live there. I think Okay, let me see. I'll just going to see where my next comment is. I have A2. Are you A2 as well?
No. Go ahead. I'm A3. Um, all right. So, that requires that we have to render our this render a decision under this condition within 30. So, basically, we have once everything's done, you're going to come
back with a approve a full set of plans and then we have 30 days to complete the review of the final plans and approve it. But also later on in the the the decision is that we have the right
to have well actually even in here it says we have a right to consult an engineer to make sure that everything is such planned. I don't think we can get an engineer in 30 days. We haven't been able to get an engineer to do anything in 30 days through this whole process. So c can we extend that 30 days to something a little more reasonable
because we know for a fact we can't make that. Yeah. I would say 90. And it also in that same A3 it actually says uh no you can't do anything else other than what's in the set of plans. What if somebody decided
well this is all done now I want to put a shed in. How's that work? No they haven't come back. Can't no they can't do it. No no that's not true because a shed doesn't require a building permit. No but it says no structures at all. Yeah but
building permit. So, I I had had a condition proposed in here that would have addressed those sorts of changes. Town council's position is what you described. We're fine either way. I think you're also thinking with an eye towards future residents. Um the
condition I had proposed originally would have given some flexibility for things like a tool shed but if the answer is no other structures you know without uh coming before the zoning board well they can't unless they could come before they could anyone
can always come before the board they come they come for a modification yeah so I I I would if you find it a minor modification and that's addressed later with the setbacks because we're we're requiring setback backs that are different than our normal setbacks. And my question
then is when someone comes back to us later. So right now we have a 25 set deg set back to the house 10 on each side and only 20 going what 10 on here it's saying the same 20 from the front 25 from the back and 10
from the side right but that's not our normal setback. So then when someone comes and says I want to put a shed on they have to meet what setbacks do they have to meet? They have to meet what's in what's in the plan. then they can't ever put anything else on it because you're never you're never there's never gonna be a spot because the house is gonna be
they can with a modification. Yeah. That and but they can. But I'm saying but that's what I want to know is like I don't want I don't want you know once we're all old and gray or uh and older that we're all gone and we someone comes in and just says hey I want to build a
shed which as as what we would normally do is like okay as long as it meets the setbacks. Mhm. like how were that the you know the next zoning board going to know or or that their setbacks are completely different than what the normal setbacks are?
I mean they would have to look at the permit. Yeah. I thought that there was a stipul I thought there was a stipulation in there that they couldn't put any structure less than 15. Yeah. I think it almost makes it impossible. Yeah. By the lot of the
But did we did we finish with A2? No, I want I wanted to make a comment. Yes, we're taking it to 30 to 90 days. I would like to ask for a legal and and we can also put a time of of the essences clause in there if you you like.
No, I just think 30 days to get any engineer to do anything to get a report back to the board. I mean, I would suggest maybe hold a hearing within or or review it within 60 days because usually what happens is it's the peer reviewer gives a report
and you know that's that gets submitted and you do it during a business meeting. Um, so 60 days should be sufficient. I would we get a report back in 60 days? I think if it if it's and and by the way there's no consequence here. I don't
think it it triggers anything. So the idea would be if it's 90 it's going to take 120. If it's 60 then everybody's working towards 60 at the time. Like we might not be here. It might not be us. So they'll see 60. They'll try to adhere to 60 and you know
I don't I just think more than 30. Yeah. I'm good with I'm fine with 90. I mean typically you're doing it through the building inspector because the building inspector is looking at that's who you're relying on for but there also requires a consulting engineer to make sure all the plans I understand. But it usually usually the
building inspector is doing that. They're getting a they're getting a peer reviewer that they they use. But my issue is of course is getting a peer reviewer to do anything in 30 days is impossible. I I think 90 days is fine. Yeah. And we can put a time of is of the
essence, right? So we could we can't lolly gag. I'm fine with the 90. Okay. Yeah. Is that all set? I have a different question uh regarding the discussion of of adding a structure. Uh I just want to
uh uh be clear uh the uh new change of of law uh in the Commonwealth this past year um that allows an ADU uh accessory dwelling unit by right.
How how does that fit in with this? Would it would they have would that individual homeowner have to come back to his zoning board for change of what he be? The keys to the bedrooms and it's saying that you can't change the amount of bedrooms into place. So therefore, the only way someone could put an ADU on
that property was to take a bedroom away from the main house because they don't control the septic. Yes. Right. And I think I put something I was Well, that's what I'm asking question to and I there's something later that says something about that and I made it clear that you can't modify the number of bedrooms in the house. You can't take
a door out. You can't take the garage and make it right, you know, make it a bedroom. In spite of the state change of law that makes it by right. That's my big You know what I It's by right, but as long as it meets a I'll put in a condition for you about
that. It it it doesn't really apply here because they're getting relief from zoning, you know, and and the ADUs is separate relief from zoning. But I'll put in a condition for you. So, can we put a condition to here that no ADUs are allowed? I'm going to put in a condition about
it. I'm going to look into it a little further about what people are putting in permits. I haven't seen anything put in about that yet. Right. Mhm. Uh, but I'll look at it for you out of conditions. That was that was my Yeah. And
we had similar comments. And I had I would also I think I have I have something down later to this, but I would also like to say that it can't if it's sold as a two-bedroom unit, it can never be more than a two-bedroom unit because someone could convert a garage into a bedroom and make it a threebedroom and the septic isn't the
septic isn't key for that. We're going to get over the the water flow. So, I I think we just if I don't have to where that goes and maybe it goes where I did it later on. I I'm I'm just going through this. I would suggest the board of health
regulations cover that cuz if it's if there are somebody's adding bedrooms, you're in violation of the board of health permit. Bedrooms and bedrooms. No, there's no one. But you can take a bedroom away from one place and put it somewhere else. And that still only makes if you had a
three-bedroom house and you made and you made it into a two-bedroom house, you could then have a one-bedroom ADU, which well covering the ADU issue. But I also don't want them to But if we cover the ADU issues, that's covered, I think. Right. No, because the septic is a septic for
the entire place. It doesn't say that that that lot is a two-bedroom septic. It's not a two-bedroom septic. It gets a That's how we normally that's how the board of health would normally do it. And the board of health is here. No, the board of health isn't here. It's the No. Yes. The board of health. the final plans, the final plans are going to
specify which units or how many bedrooms because of the that's going that's got to be in the final plans and I I'll cover you in and it's fine to cover. I just I think I see boards kind of go down the we want
to cover this, we want to cover that. There's mass general laws that you know if you printed it out would fill this room and covers a lot of these things. Um, so you know, trying to be judicious about the drafting is is helpful. I think I think you're right, attorney.
Uh, in the last two weeks, I took some time to go to the Massachusetts Appeals Board site and look through all of those decisions. I went through 10 of them. And I think our attorney, you see how many I've lost there? Wait, wait, no.
I lost all the ones that were reported last year. Well, our stack of paperwork is this this high. That stack of paperwork is even higher than this. And I'll say Delick had one in 2010 to 2013 that a
board of health no excuse me the building department didn't make their decisions in the timely fashion. So they appealed it. But in the deci in the whole length of the thing I read through I read through 10 of these and it's like
okay you kind of have too much stuff in your brain right now. Yeah. But in in this Delphic one for in middle bar for 10 10 affordable units um they cited for Delphic at the end but there were conditions in other words
when you go there there's going to be conditions there too and one of them I was surprised that it said uh we would like you to adhere to as many as much possible as you could for local regulations. I thought that was
interesting. that that that they took that approach. So, and and and just so you know, the the decisions were uh 3070 in favor of developers. That that was the point that I was
making. Yeah. And but there's some interesting stuff in there in the 10 that I read. I don't know what you read, but I can tell you the HAC if they overrule your I read Hopington. I read uh if if they overrule your decision, they will not say
comply to the greatest extent to local regulations. They will say it has to comply with state law and you issue a drilling permit within 30 days and that's about the end of it and you issue this permit in 30 days or this will serve as the permit. Well, this one actually said
well that may have but they don't do that. They won't remand it and they won't give conditions that are addressing local concern. It actually says Philadelphia won in 2010. 2010 maybe, but not now. Yeah. I And I actually thought, well,
maybe rules have changed since then. I have a quick question on on A1, and it was just you made a change in in the original. You said except as may be provided for in the conditions of approval set forth herein, this decision per permit permits the construction of
you. You deleted that. Why? I'm sorry. You're under A1. A1 right now it just says this decision permits the construction yada yada yada. The previous version said except as may be provided for in the conditions of approval set forth within.
Why did you why is that deleted? So I accepted changes that uh town council had proposed and I think there was a comment that accept is provided herein is provided herein. So, you know, it's it's being
duplicative, but I don't see the red line in in um the version I had printed. Uh cuz I did, you know, I I town council asked for me to maintain his version and then put comments over it. Okay. So, does yours have the comments in the
Well, I mean, I didn't bring like every version that I ever got. I I wrote on what the previous version that I had. Roger, what's your question? Oh, I see what you have. I just why why was why was that comment the you know I don't think I made that revision that was town council's revision Amelia
Churchill who's that okay no revisions on the latest draft before this is a prior draft is there a difference between changed project there difference A1 says right now this one says this decision permits the construction
use and occupancy of no more than 38 single family housing units on the site as expressly conditioned herein in okay uh the original one said except as may be provided for in the conditions of approval set forth herein and then the
rest of that so I have the red line that was I guess maybe they're the same Mr. Chairman it was word smithing in lie of that preparatory language in that clause uh we added or or council added at the end of that the as expressly conditioned herein
okay so so they traded the rather than the accept as traded it for All right. Makes sense. Makes it a little clearer. I I was fine with either. Then other one always looked like it was you're going to be looking for something. Right. Yeah, that was the change there. I do have that red line up now. So, if
you have any other of those questions. Okay. Um my next comment on A6 before we get to the ever popular A7. Yep. So it says that the applicant shall work with Mass DOT to implement the tragy
port and the owner of Westport Legs Thrive um specifically to clear the vegetation that encroaches on the blah blah blah. I would like to say that the to add Westport Lakes Drive or road or
whatever it is and the Westport Lakes Homeowners Association cuz this is there's there's been a turnover. So, isn't the road actually owned by the home roads association now? No home. Yes, there is. It got turned over. There's no turnover. There was a release
of the covenants. There's a homeowners association. There is a homeowners association, but the developer is still responsible for the road. So, there's only like three owners in the homeowners association. the developer still uh the de developer still plows and
maintains the road, right? Then I think maybe I mean we we can if if there's some No, I don't want to I don't want to I don't want to put any anything on the homeowners association if that's clearly the case that the homeowners association
is not responsible for the road at all which would seem odd. So in perpetuity the developer is going to be responsible for the road. No. Once the developer sells all the lots, usually they'll release their interest in the last conveyance or or
some iteration like that. But my understanding is the developer is maintaining control of the road. If the chair wants to take testimony on that one point from someone, I see a lot of people looking over my shoulder. So I don't know if there is more knowledge on the exact status of that, but I would
say the developer Coastal Harvest is responsible for that. However you want to word it, we'll work with whoever controls it or is responsible for it. It doesn't matter to us. We agree that that is one of the conditions that we've imposed on ourselves or
proposed to impose on ourselves in A7 as revised. So, however it gets done, we'll work with whoever. Yeah. My my only complaint with that is um and it says where applicable that you know that doesn't make I mean all that's you
know no it's never applicable that yeah but this this sentence also is only related to to the intersection of the uh of the of the um Westlakes Drive and
Route 177. that that's all that that sentence deals with, not the whole road. This one was specific to the Mass Dot intersection. There are other conditions. Other conditions. Yeah, I I thought that too, but then when I read it, this is it was only going towards what Mass do said
regarding of um Mhm. And it also indicates the encroaches into the right of way. And the right away is usually quite bit wider than a paved road. Okay. Rumble phrase 87.
Uh we strike the as we're applicable. Yeah, I'm doing that here too, attorney. and I'll send this to you. Yeah, good. I'm kind of That would be great.
Okay. A7 we talked enough about and our attorney is going to draft up something that that hopefully encompasses what uh what our concerns are. Yeah. But Mr. Chairman, I I think it's just that is such a critical element that I don't want to walk into something that undoes all the work that we're doing
here if there's some misunderstanding on what the board's expectation is. and I had proposed the comment um after the last hearing and I don't think we've had any discussion about the comment and my
intent was to map out what we proposed to do visav Westport Lakes Road and if the board is asking for anything more than this I'd at least you know we left the hearing open so that we could provide feedback and have a dialogue and
I'm unclear on exactly what the board is looking for as far as Westport Lakes Road as it relates to the development of this site. When you say that you're going to improve West Westport Lakes Drive up to where
Golf View Drive is for access um before construction, what does it improve mean? It doesn't you're are you at are you saying you're going to complete the road? So no. So what we proposed is the following sequence.
We said that prior to any ground disturbance on the property, the applicant shall cause either directly or indirectly or in cooperation with third parties all vegetation within the layout of Westport Lakes Drive between 177 and GU Lane. And we called that the Westport
Lakes site access. uh cleared sufficient to maintain adequate sight distances within that right ofway. Okay. And any major deterioration that currently exists, we were proposing to patch that up
before any ground disturbance on the site. So that's condition one. Before you touch anything on the site, clear the vegetation, which is the site and safety issue. And if there's a major collapse in the existing structure, you
got to patch that up to begin with. Okay? Then we said in the following sequence, the following will happen. Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, so before any units are sold, and the idea is now that we've made it safe for construction access.
Okay? Now we're building and we don't want to put a finish coat on while we're bringing heavy equipment and cement trucks in to build foundations. That doesn't make sense. So, we said get the road in good working order and get it safe. But before you sell a unit, okay,
before you sell a unit, this is what we're proposing. Any open order of conditions for the storm water management facilities serving the Westport Lake site access. So, that's your storm water comment. and golf lane shall have received a certificate of compliance and all continuing
maintenance conditions under such order of conditions and/or certificate of compliance shall be satisfied. So we've now took care of any wetlands issue, any open drainage issues before the first certificate of occupancy is pulled. So
there's millions of dollars in site improvement. That's a point where we're saying we're saying that has to be done. So if there's a a deficiency there, you know, we're not telling the town to give up Westport Lakes Drive and just let us go run roughshod over this site without
paying attention to these issues, but we're saying it needs to happen in a sequence. And so the the drainage issues get must be closed out as to the Westport Lake site access before we sell a unit. The other half of that is construction
of all improvements shown on the prior definitive subdivision approval shall be completed to binder course. So basically before you sell a unit any anything in that approval on the access which is 177 to golf lane needs
to be completed to binder course because again we're going to have construction equipment so we don't want a finish coat there. All right and that's before units sold. Okay. And then what we proposed in the last instance is prior to the issuance of the last occupancy permit.
This is our proposal that at that point the applicant and the condition of Westport Lake site access is such that it's been completed to finish coat. But the only thing is missing is everybody from Gulf View Lane away from 177 is getting hosed cuz
nothing's getting getting done. Well, that again that that's not that covenant was released. That ship has sailed from the town's perspective. Well, accordingly to our bu our planning board, they don't believe that's well, what the planning board is saying is that they can use this project as
leverage to get that done. And what the law says is they cannot. The law says if we go to the HAC, there's a case about the extension of a sewer permit. All right. The planning board had conditioned development of a site on extension of a sewer line into the site.
The applicant in that case came through with a 40B permit and the HAC said and they said, "Well, you need to put in the sewer extension just like the planning board is saying. You need to complete all of Westport Lakes Drive." And the HAC said, "No, that's that's a permit
condition. 40B overrides that. If that renders your project uneconomic and you can't go forward with it, then that condition is waved. That covenant to extend the the sewer permit is waved. That's a case directly on point. I would
also think that the size of the road from west golf lane northward north south east west would not be make your if you if we if we conditioned you approve finishing that
as well or forcing third party to do it for to do it I don't think the board is going to say that's going to make your project economically unfeasable able. It's going to be another$1 120 grand.
Yeah. And you're not you're not out of a multi-million dollar and you're not conditioning it on completion of that other subdivision. You're not just not affecting planning board's right to enforce it. Yeah. Well, there let's be clear on that. You talked about it at length,
right? I I think what you're saying that you don't think the planning board has anything to do with enforcing the covenants through the for the whole road and you're saying that the covenants haven't been released and they do can still do it and we just not really if to
the extent that the planning board still has covenants to ensure that that is being can be completed. We are not going to wave those. Yes, that's and so we're we're agreeing to disagree. I think our attorney thinks as far as trade thinks there's covenants that our
planning board can still enforce and you're saying those covenants have been long gone. If their methodology of enforcement is to try to hold up this project or if there's language in this permit that makes me believe that this board is deferring to the planning board or may
may say that something needs to happen on anything other than the access area relative to this project, then that's the dis. But we're not giving we're not what we're going to make sure is we don't give the right away the right for the planning board to enforce a covenant
going past the access site as long as it doesn't have to do with So can I just be clear that the act when you define Westport Lake site access that means at all times that that that portion of Westport Lakes Drive
between Route 77 and Golf View Lane and not just G lane. I'm sorry. Can you repeat that? What What is your definition of Westport Lakes site access? Is it is it that portion of Westport Lakes Drive between
Route 177 and the entrance to Golf View Lane or simply the entrance to Golf View Lane? At the entrance to Golf U Lane, it it stops short of our site. Our site's covered by separate covenants. We have to build.
I want to know Westport Lake Site. Does it does it cover from 177 to golf lane or just golf lane? It covers from 177 to golf lane. This is I didn't read it that way comments before. So I would like after
the first instance in A17.1 saying when you say uh the entrance to GU lane in parenthetical you have West Point Lake site access. I'd like to this to make it clear to people reading because I didn't read it that way in the first instance. Okay.
Collective collectively referred to herein as Westport Lake site access. So it's clear that it's both of them. Okay. And that that is to golf you not including to golf lane because golf lane's part of
our project anyway and we own that. This is us causing someone else to do something. So, so in the beginning when we first got a first letter from the border uh selectment through Jim Hartnett, these issues were brought up that the road was not finished, that it
didn't have uh DOT access, all of those things. It still doesn't have that. You guys have to get one to do what you're doing. And that letter that he sent us in the beginning, and this one actually kind of says the same thing, the one he sent
recently Westport Lakes Drive should be completed totally top coat and everything from 177 to to where you want to access your site because that's what the the the
development of it was supposed to be 20 or 15 years ago, whatever. It didn't happen. The planning board is not using that. They're just trying to say we need safe access to your site, but the entire road
needs to be safe. We're We're up 2 in with grates in that area. There even there isn't even caution signs anywhere. Wherever you anybody works there, when they put down steel plates, steel plate ahead,
that's nowhere on Westport Lakes Drive. I still don't consider that a safe access. Tell me how you're going to do that. I I would say that's in condition A71. Yeah, they're going to they're going to redo everything but without the top
coat. Oh, planning board, which we're just lay people here, but in the beginning it said, well, you you can you you guys are all those boards. So, you're acting as those boards. You're going to make a final decision as those boards, but
those are the professionals and we should listen to their comments. That's it didn't say take all their comments. said, "Listen, I I mean, I think this ex I I I think we are I think we're saying the vegetation is going to be cleared and any of the pot and any of the potholes and
significantly deteriorated binder course, which I think would be in my mind being down there, it's the entire length of the road is significantly deteriorated, will be paved, right, but it's not going to get top coated because that would just be like a stupid waste of money."
Like is this putting it is this basically I think I see what they're going to do is going to put that road back in the condition it was when the first person got occupancy and then they're going to go back and make sure
that it's actually finished finish at in A73 once they're all done making a mess of the road again. They're going to you're going to pave it. You're gonna do you're gonna make sure that either you or a third party is going to
do the finish coat. It has what should have been happened already when the third when the first person or whenever the the key condition of when that had to be done right and the highway department in the beginning Roger had made a comment at one of the hearings they said oh the
highway department had no comments they did have comments he said that road was not up to standard it's in the it's in the letter I think you've talked about that he said it's a private road I can't make comments but he said it appears not to be up to standard I I think you've talked I love that
condition or enough. Uh I do have just one comment though on the on on the uh A73 and that is you want to finish the you want to finish the road after the last house.
I have that that bothers me because if you never get to the last house then you never finish the road. So and you're going to do this in phases. I would suggest maybe that you do it and All along you've been saying you're going to do this in two phases. One phase.
Now it's four golf to the left and one phase golf to the right. And then now they're doing it in four phases. Well, it doesn't say here. It says multiple. Well, multiple, but it says it's 25. They're saying they're doing it 25% increments, which is four. Um,
we'll get to that. I mean, we're still at eight. We're still No, it says each proposed phase shall shall ensure that 25%. Let's just let's stick let's stick with the I'd really like to make sure so there's an understanding on because this is it for like this language as far as
everything else town council can draft and get it right for the board. I mean this exchange is extraordinary to me. I think this board is very detailoriented in doing this in a public hearing but you know I'm more accustomed to town council taking care
of the window dressing. As far as the substance, we need to understand that this Westport Lakes drive access issue works from a feasibility perspective. And I I'm still unclear and I think I
don't know if the board um sees what we're proposing here cuz we did propose shity on what I think you're concerned about. Um that we would essentially say that that's going to be part of our shity if if that's not done. But going back to
what I'm hearing here, there's a disconnect. At least there may be a disconnect as to whether it's the entirety of Westport Lakes Drive or whether it's the access. No, I think we're I think I think we're all clear that people north of the people east of of access sites getting
uh not necessarily, but as long as I if if it's about we can work on things to make it to make it work from assurityity as to this project. But I have a problem with that too. That's like it says the last option
permit and I think the the uh the the the public's concern or the local concern and to use their language is that they're never going to sell all those lots and therefore this is this is going
to be another waste drive. So could we I thought we could maybe qualify it within a certain time like i.e. that you know the last opportunity permit or you know at the time in which you know a lot
hasn't been sold for at least a year or two years with active marketing because if you haven't sold if you get to the 25 of them and then you don't sell the rest of them then this never happens and if I would argue that if you've sold 25 of
them and you haven't sold the rest of them and you've actively marketed it for a year or or you're never going to sell those that that that the rest of them or you may but I think the road should get finished. The only thing we're stopping short of
before or after the first occupancy permit. So we're talking about before No, the last 8. Well, the only thing that's missing on the last is the finish coat. Well, that's where that's exactly where we are. This these this that is exactly where Westport Lakes Drive.
You're further away on Westport Lakes Drive than just the finish coat. I have ev the way I've drafted this is everything's done except for the top coat. I think I would argue that that at one point that was what the condition of Westport Lakes Road has been, but it has been severely deteriorating.
How do we There is a top coat. Yeah. I mean on this drive if you if you stop after 26 houses in 38. So I think a lot of this discussion is really unnecessary. I mean, I'm not
I wouldn't So, when would you draft it that way? I I said to you before, you you've indicated your concerns. You've indicated that you want to take the most to do with the cover. And I've never had it that I mean, I it's creative, but I've never had it that you tie it to the last occupancy
permit, completion of the roadway. You have a completed roadway at some point. So, I you know, that's what I'm saying. I think you've said enough about I mean the the applicant's trying to get assurance that they're not going to get a permit that they're unhappy with, but
I think you've exhausted the discussion about it. He's made proposals. We'll incorporate what's in there, but we're going to incorporate the town comments as well. And then they can appeal our decision or not, right? Yeah. I I think that is a an
extraordinary waste of everyone's valuable time. I we've spent a lot of time going through this. If the answer is I haven't seen the planning board comments, I I haven't had a conversation with town council uh about these issues and I thought we were going to take the
last month to really work on this. So, if if if the answer is we're just going to put in whatever the planning board said, I I hope that's we're going to put in what what I think all of us have discussed and attorney Poocci has and he's going to synthesize something
based upon all our discussions and then we're going to talk about it even further amongst ourselves if that synthesis of what we thought about is adequately right. Yeah. There's a there's a certain point that, you know, with due respect, we don't need to hear from them anymore.
That was the purpose of this last round. They they made their final uh draft. I didn't touch it. Tom commented on it. You received third party comments on it. You're you're you're indicating what your questions and concerns are and what you want accomplished in it. I know what
you're saying. I'll draft a final permit for you. You know, in my opinion, except for whatever else substantively you need to discuss tonight, you're ready to close the hearing. Tell me what it is that you want. Is it a verbal conditions working on the draft, the comments? I'll
have it back to you. You on it. Okay. Along along that line, uh just to clear up for consistency purposes, what what is your understanding of is it drive or is it road? Let's let's let's
I'm going to call it one thing throughout and I'm going to try to pick out what I think we're going to use uses which I think is road. So okay everything the plan showed road the assessor's records all show road that is road and that's I I think it ought to be road
except the people say something different. Um okay I got something I got a comment to B1. Okay. So, it has to do with the that um prior to the submission of the final plans, uh you should give us uh $2,500
in escrow to use to retain experts to review the plans. And that uh said funds will um and anytime the balance of that falls between below $500, you need to top it up and then at the end of the day, any unspent funds will return
returned to you. I would like um maybe could we put some language in there is that if there any if there is because we have a time period to issue the permit and I think we increase that time period but could we also say if it if the
applicant delays replenishing their account so we can't move forward with our review that that the permit gets the permit our deadline for the permit gets pushed you what what deadlines do we have after this what what
the permit is 90 days after well it was 30 days after the site plan has been given to us we have to but our our job here we have a timeline to grant this right it and they have to a timeline to give us final plans
talking about a different thing here you're talking about a different thing yeah you're talking about just final approval when they're getting a building permit when they're getting typically your building inspector is the one that you're relying on the building There's not, but it's not there's not a the timeline is not
the timeline. It was earlier. It was just simply wanted to change the 90 days. And again, be clear about what you're talking about. You're not talking about issuance of this permit. You're talking about in the end when you're going building permits, you need to make sure that the final plans
conform with your conditions of approval and and the waiver decision. But you're you're not the I would recommend you not be the one doing it. you you want your building inspector to be doing it and the building inspector will typically look at it. They'll use a peer reviewer
and they will note any issues back to you that they think have to come back before you. Otherwise, they'll go ahead. I usually tie it to the building permit process because that's that's when you're relying on the person with expertise to look at it and note any concerns back to
you. You're not I don't think you want to be the one looking at final plans. It's very No, I really I want to put this to bed when we're done. I'm just worried that if we don't they if if we they don't reply like there had been times before you were you were
involved attorney that getting money out of them was a little difficult. Um I just don't want that to affect our ability to move forward with Ralph issue building permit if they're dragging their feet replenishing our escrow.
That's all. But if you don't think it's a problem, then I can I can add it. Okay. Okay. My my next comment is all the way into C into the Okay. And then there's another I got um
hold on. So B6 where it says that no detention basin shall be located closer than 40 ft from any abuing property owned or controlled by a third party. um except that if they're applicant's
affiliates throughout this hearing, the applicant is says that they are no way Jose associated with Coastal Harvest. I would like a spot put I would like a a condition put in here that basically under no way no way is Coastal Harvest
ever considered anything but controlled by a third party and is never an affiliate because I don't want them coming back and saying now they're an affiliate because we all know there's common names by blood by marriage and by work within those two corporations and I
don't want all of a sudden that all they've been using this we're not related and I don't want them to become an affiliate and then they can actually have a a a basin closer than 40 ft from my buddy property. This is under B6.
Yeah. I took it to heart when Roger said to read this provide me your Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Don't worry. I'm reluctant for her to have my email address. Can you just delete what? I'm I'm sorry.
Where was that? And B7. I I have it under B7. Yeah. I I It's B6. It says that. So, what had happened was town council asked me to do it a certain way. Um, and then I gave a clean copy and I did a redline copy from the last draft. So
there were three copies that were submitted to the board. Then the board of health provided comments and I submitted a four. I'm fine. I'm not I'm fine with the 40. So I just want to I'm fine with the 407 on B6. I'm fine with the 40 the 40. So no detention base in that condition.
I just want to make sure that the applicant doesn't dis because basically it you can do it if the land is controlled by the applicant or the applicant affiliates. I just want to make sure it's clear that no way ever will coat anything harvest
is an applicant affiliate because you have said affiliate because but they Yeah, I mean we could or we could just say that they're not an affiliate because that's what they've been saying all along. I just want to make sure it's clear that it's they're never going to be able to go come back and say they're
an affiliate because they're as I said the companies are related by blood, marriage or business and then B13 it says that we we can issue all the
foundation permits at once. Can we can we issue the foundation permits into phases this way? they have to keep coming back to the the the building inspector. So if anything goes ary on anything else as is a stop gap. So on the phasing
creating a phasing plan is part of the final plan process to actually show how phasing works cuz phasing has some technicalities to it that requires planning because you have to make sure that there are you would reference 25%. It's ensuring that there are 25%
affordable units in each phase. We can't at this point do all the details. So the condition is actually up in Yeah. And talk about the foundation permits. Yeah. But you're you're referencing phasing. So that would be a condition of the phasing plan.
No, here it says the applicants obtain all foundation permits at the beginning. And I would just like that the applicant will obtain foundation permits in accordance with the phasing. Okay. And then if we reference in in
accordance with the final phasing plan. Yeah. Okay. It's just that it gives another it gives another chance that the applicant has to come back to the the building inspector and if something's going ary in the first phase or a second phase between the second and third, it gives a chance for everybody to that makes sense.
Get together and correct. Yep. What what when was that? That was um E13. Okay. I have is What's your national C4? Oh, I'm B16. Okay, we're not out of B yet.
So B16 B16 is it says I just like would like to add which conditions are necessary to ensure protection of local concerns. I'd like to add local health, safety, and environmental concerns because those are three things that are specifically
recited in the mass laws of for region of denial of a permit. So, I just want to say that we're actually doing that for all those reasons and not just just general general um uh concerns for local what do you say? Health and
health, safety, and environmental. Is that B16? Yeah. Okay. And then there's it may just be the way I'm writing it so reading it. So when you talk about B162 and B163
about if you're going to go to an alternative site, it's unclear to me that um if in all instances if you go somewhere else that you'll still be title five compliant, which you have to be, but
also within uh the or section seven maximum 30 minutes per inch. It doesn't always there's not always um the language isn't consistent there. So, and under the same thing E163,
they don't have a valid perk test right now. They probably should have got one. It's the driest that it's ever been. They probably could get it in the swamp right now if they wanted one. Um my cows are standing in the swamp and they're on dry land. So, uh, I will say this, they
wanted 60 for the whatever those numbers are. And we got it down to 30. And I know that that there's a thing that says, well, they do have a site. They do have a perk test and they're going to do it. Well, that's one of those things. Are they going to do it? When are they going to do it? I've asked a half a
dozen times. But it says feasible. Select the thing that's feasible. Okay. Let's put a number to feasible. Yeah, that's yeah, that was my comment here too. It's Is it going to be 50, 40? Are we going to accept 40, 35? What are we
going to accept? I think feasible is not a number. I thought we had comments from Oh, didn't we? Yes. On this? Yes. Yeah. Why aren't we talking? Yeah. Go ahead.
Yeah. I mean, right now Okay. Is that Is that okay? Yes. Because um I I Go ahead because I I know we talked about this before and and uh it was it was going to be a determination
of the Go ahead. Yeah. So name and address. Yeah. Phil Weinberg. Uh 1702B Drift Road. Um so um this came out uh I mean uh what I
proposed came out a short answer to this. Yeah, it's a short answer, but I just say so I came out of it because wi with this proposal um because I thought that if uh for
several reasons, but I took the concept of um you know maximum feasibility because it draws from a provision in title 5 which um when you do a septic
upgrade and you can't comply with all the provisions that would apply to new construction that you come as close as you can to full compliance and the and when and you look at what are the techn the
techn or the engineering issues and you look at the financial issues. And so the problem that or the problem that we're facing here is that we don't really know what the information that will come from
the subsequent tests will show. And it's possible and there's a big spread of numbers between 30 and 60, right? And the and so it was trying to say that if you know there was a situation where one
perk test was 35 and the other perk test was 37. Okay. But one but to do it you had to completely develop a totally new pumping system for a huge amount of money for
that you would say okay well I guess we'll go with 37 instead of 35 it just makes sense or what yes you could do it here but the engineering situation was very very difficult so you and you wouldn't want to shut the project up
getting in the water so that's why the all we want number. There's no right number. Could this be a selected site with some with somebody's approval on that number? Well, the as I understood what's going to happen is that the board's going to make a decision looking and then it's going to come to
you guys to come back and decide. Yeah, that's that's where it doesn't say that it's a it's at the maximum extent feasible. Select a site with the highest with the rate closest to section unless the great raider rate is approved by the zoning board.
Right. So the so the board would tell the would tell the applicant this is the site that you have to we have to locate your system and if they disagreed they could come to you and make the argument as to why it was. If they meet 30 they're fine. If not they got to come back to the zoning
board of appeals and say okay 37 was okay. Yes. Yes. If they disagreed with our conclusion then they would come to you. Says it that way but it object right. I mean, I think it was says, you know, that we would make a determination
rate closest to the section maximum rate unless a greater rate is approved. Um, says with in input from the board of hell, well, we're going to mention anything, right? But it doesn't mention anything about them coming back here,
the approved by the zoning board. Um, I think the wording there, and I think that's what Yeah. You know, which it doesn't really say. What we want to say is if it's if it's uh if you meet 30, you're fine. If you uh you have to meet
60, so that's not even that's we're not even a bone of contention. If it's between 30 and 60, you have to come back to the zoning board of appeals for approval. I think you have to read all those together and it does accomplish that. Yeah, but I think that wording proposal Yeah. And I think I I think I think
attorney Poochie, you can u adjust the wording on that to you know to me it sounds like that the maximum rate unless a greater rate is approved by the zoning board doesn't this is the only time we get to approve it right
or so we're not approving it. We're not only grant that whole thing about the M is feasible unless I I think that wording is a little funny. Yeah. Was this condition from Phil or Phil? That was from Yes. Yeah. I I think we just need to clean up
the wording on that. I think you understand what what we're getting at is that if they don't meet the 30, they have to come back to the zoning board of appeal and tell us what their number is and we will either agree to it or not. And I think what I think we're your
explanation of feasible made sense in the context of a single family property, right? because I have this property. I got to upgrade my septic system, but I there's no way in hell I can get it to that. Right. But this is a new development that is going to be greatly
affecting our aquifer. Therefore, I don't think m because if we were if we were agreeing to maximal extent feasible, we might just not we might just wave section seven alto together because Okay. Yeah. I just Yeah, but I get I get your
logic, right? But I think in this context, you know, maybe we didn't appreciate that when you wrote your your your your letter that you really did state it out nicely. But when it goes to you, they're going to have a per test. They're going to have a number. Yeah.
Is this can we condition that the um they don't break ground until they have a site. Mr. Chairman, I I just on that point about coming back to the zoning board on anything, that's a little disconnect there.
Yeah, there is. That's what that's what we're saying there. So, we had asked for a waiver of this. This was compromise language in lie of the waiver we had requested, right? And we thought that the board of health came up with a good methodology to say, "Okay, we can wave it." Which
again, by the way, your local board of health by law allows for perk tests greater than 30 per minute. So that's all this is saying is pick the one closest and then um with input from the board of health and and so that's
essentially to some degree mirroring your local condition. So it doesn't create a new approval, right? If it's 37, we put it where it's 37. If it's 45, we put it to where it's 45. Yeah. So, we're in consultation with the board of health. Yeah, I think well I think we're in my
opinion I think we're waving too much. I think we were all in agreement that we really wanted to stick as closely to our section 7 maximum we and we had uh good reason for that. So, but it's just at this point it's
it's almost like saying you just you're just going to have to all we have a bunch of paragraphs here, but the end of the day is the you can just have to be consistent with title five. So long, you know, so then it's like why don't we just give them the waiver
because that's what may happen anyway and and it could happen anyway just by design. um that they just get to the first site or the second site and say we can't find anything else. If you give us the waiver, we can go
wherever we want. This provided for a collaborative process and input and if there were remaining serious concerns, then you'd still have uh you know, if there were serious concerns, I think there'd be a remedy through this this
language. So, this was meant as a compromise. I thought it I thought it was a good proposal to solve for the the board's concern. So, can I say two things? One is that it is important to understand that if the
results came in higher than 30, they could apply for an exception. And the criteria for the reason that I proposed this um alternative is I thought that the criteria for the
exception was much more difficult to reach a conclusion on than what I thought it was proposed. It had to do with location to a sensitive population and locations next to environmental
areas. And I thought that is going to be more difficult to make a decision on that one that really looked at the numbers and looked at the hard facts of the site. And but I'm fine if you just
say take out, you know, maximum feasible compliance and just say we'll just go with the number whatever it is and then and then the applicant can come and make the case to you why that's wrong. You know that that's not fair. Yeah, that doesn't work under
so but I mean uh you know cuz that's what you seem to be focused on. Um I guess it's the this going for the waiver which does the SAS have to be det the site of the SAS has to be be determined before the final plan.
Yes. Yeah. So you have to come back with the final plan regardless. you're going to see it and you have to approve the final plans and if you think there's something some critical deficiency that makes the project just not work or your engineer says hey 45 doesn't work at this
location they're going to create all sorts of problems you could withhold your approval then you know and say there's a a problem so there's there's another mechanism because this has to be done before the final plan and if we're really concerned
we could as you say withhold the final plan or collaborate to to find the best solution. Correct. So, which is why I thought this language worked. And again, this language was proposed now, I think, a couple hearings ago at this
point. And so, I just want to make sure we're checking things off. Okay. And just one other fact to consider is that the longer the perk rate, the more expensive it is to build
the SAS because the longer the perk rate, the bigger the leechfield you have to you have to build. So it is in the economic interest of the who's ever doing it to build the smallest one that
they can which is they had their perk rate for the the site plan was eight and they were able to fit that leechfield into that really small space next to the road. I think we both kind of think that
that's not going to happen again. They're gonna have to get build it anywhere, right? On this on that particular site, not any just on the particular site, but and we have to show you where we're going to put it, right? Yeah. So, anyway, that's okay. Thank you.
Okay, move on. anything before HOAs. Hold on. Um yeah, mailbox come in. Yeah. So, there's a couple couple
things. One, um is there any way to put into escrow perhaps a little bit more? There's 38 units and we have one building inspector or building commissioner that has to go and look at each of these things. Um I think that
might prevent a significant burden to him. I think things may go o overlooked. Is there any way we can shore up our building commissioner to make sure that things don't get overlooked?
It just it just seems you know most other towns with 40B they're they're you know like cities they're bigger they have a lot more resources in their building department here we just have one currently Ralph or and you know maybe time this is done Ralph will be
retired in Bermuda by then but it just seems that it's overwhelming our our building department system to have to to be keep track of this. We've done major I don't know how you would typically deal with that though. Right. Yeah. This this is just Yeah.
I mean we do we have done major uh subdivision have one building inspector. Yeah. Yeah. So he did Briggs Landon and it was bigger than this. Yeah. Yeah. So general conditions there's there's
nowhere and we think this is where it would be. There's nothing stating about the mailbox issue. Um there is a mailbox thing and I on the west side it's there is a mailbox and and I found it and then I you lost it. I lost it again.
And then C14 C4 C14 I think it C4. Yes. C14. Where are they on the plan? That's number one. And they're going to go in a
in in the DOT area right now illegally. mailboxes for Westport Lakes Drive are in at some point the post office is going to say I'm not delivering mail anymore. According to the post office website,
the way it works is and it works for everybody. Uh when you put there are regulations for where you can put you know a mailbox so that the that the mail carrier can deliver. Once you put a mailbox on that and it it
becomes federal property. It is essentially you are leasing your mailbox to the federal government. That's the reason why you can't put things in there that are not mailed because it it actually your mailbox is actually leased
for the federal government. So when they put this uh coordinated mailbox on they can put on 177 it becomes federal property. What's a safety issue there?
It's it's a whole lot. I think that we should have something in writing from the post office. What's that? I I believe we should have something. Everything we've uh talked about on the postal thing has been by talking to somebody at the post office.
Uh I think we should have a document in in this file as to what the plan is going to be for mail service. Well, doesn't does it say where they are on the plans? No. No, that's what I'm saying.
Is it on the west side of the entrance? espec especially where we're talking putting it out by 177 uh state highway. It says it's on the west side of the entrance to Westport Rink Road at the intersection of Route 177. And is that from the post office?
No, that's what I'm saying. And that's where they're going to put it that and and the post office doesn't agree with that. Then they can't then the conditions are met and they can't the whole project is gone. Yep. Yeah. I think I think it's up to the applicants and that's why I'm suggesting there'd be
documentation here, not just what we one would think that the applicant would ensure that their project isn't going to go poof because of mailboxes. And I think that's that that should be an illness on them, not on us. Oh, they just they find out they can't put
them there, they'll come back. They'll come back and say, "We're gonna have to do something else." Post Office boxes. Yeah, that's what they normally do. Why Why can't we get it in advance? I mean, they they know what the product's going to be. They know what it looks like. Why can't we get
this condition says that the final plan's going to show the detail and if for whatever reason there's a problem there, you can't put it there. Then you're going to say, "Hey, wait a second." And that that's when the discussion will happen, I think. So um for C2 can we say
uh it goes the applicant shall transfer responsibility for management maintenance of the project's common areas infrastructure storm water wastewater I think the I want to call it the wastewater disposal system instead of just wastewater
that's how it's referred to later on wastewater disposal system, trash removal, snow plowing. I'd like to add landscaping and vegetation control. Um because
the homeowners association is going to be in charge for landscaping and I think landscaping vegetation control are two different things. Common areas of the common areas. Yeah. um in accordance blah blah blah the the applicant shall be responsible managing
the installation operation maintenance of all aspects of the project until project turnover and I'd like to this to be clear including but not limited to storm water wastewater disposal system trash removal snow plowing landscaping and vegetation control is to make us
clear of what all aspects of the project and project and the project turnover to be mirroring what You're turning over. That sounds good. Um, okay. Oper. So we got then we got C3A
operating maintaining and repairing all areas to the Pine Ridge estate included but not limited to the roads storm water management waste water disposal systems landscaping I suggest vegetation control and in particular but not limited to the
intersection of weight westport Lakes Drive and Golf View Lane. I I would use that if we're using that A7 language, the definition of uh Westport Lakes access. Does Okay, move it up there.
Yeah. Well, I mean, you can use the defined term. You could say as defined herein. Okay. Okay. And I believe that there's a condition elsewhere that actually does recite that, but you're right. I mean, that that's needs to be covered. Yeah. Um I mean D says the annual
inspection clearing as needed of all vegetation and brush at the entrance exits along and to Westport Lakes Drive. Right. And then for B it says ensuring payments of the funds of each homeowner for operation maintenance repair the storm water management system. I think we
should add and the waste water disposal system. I think that was a comment comment. Yeah, board of health and I had added that in a subsequent draft. This is the clean draft. So I didn't even bother looking at the markups. Yeah. So I I made those changes and there were a few other
this was the clean version that you sent us and then and then the board of health made that comment subsequent and then twice in B and C and C. Yeah. Yeah. What did you just uh decide a moment ago
on the on the U access area? I think u the comment was about continuing cleaning of vegetation within the rightway of Westport Lakes Drive. Yeah. Who whose responsibility
that the HOA for this project that's the where hit where golf fuel lane goes into Westport. Correct. Yes. Yeah. And then the other thing is which hasn't been noted is that I believe and our board of
health representative can confirm since we're putting a nitrog ditrification system in isn't there annual inspections required for dite systems? That's state law again like all that is very shouldn't we say that the home No, we can't No, no, no, no. I'm talking
about the the funding of the homeowners association ensuring payments to ensure I guess it's the maintenance of the s the waste water that would be included in maintenance of this disposal. So I think okay I'm I I'm good. Yeah. No, I I just the budget is subject
to review. Yeah. Before it gets finalized in the HOA documents. No, but it would go under maintenance because that's and that's satisfactory. I was just making sure that we were thinking about those things that needed to get done. And then D says annual inspection and
clearing is needed to all vegetation and brush at the entrance along along and to Westport Lakes Drive. Um I guess um who does that and and how do we make sure we it gets done and and how to
document that it gets done? It's an enforcement issue. someone says there's an issue, it's a condition in this permit and it's also uh ultimately a condition in the Westport Lakes Drive covenants or the Westport Lakes Drive
HOA and yeah, so the Westport Lakes Drive residents could say make a complaint and saying theation isn't being cleared and then they our the town would have to enforce that on the homeowners association. Well, and then there'd be some sharing
of obligation there. It's not that this homeowners association is doing all of it. It's that we would cause them to share in the cost of getting that done or we'd compel them to do it. Well, this is this this is not about Westport Lake. This is about your
homeowner Pine. This is about Pine Ridge Estates Homeowners Association that they're required to do all the annual inspection and clearing of the entrances and exits along and to Westport to that Gulf View Lane.
Okay. I want to say who is who who's enforces that and how do we ensure that get is getting done, right? Someone would have to report it. So somebody at either in the Westport Lakes neighborhood or in the Pine Ridge estate would complain, right? and then or bring it to their
homeowners association in first instance. Right. Okay. And then C4 um it says according to upon project turnover 25% of the board is affordable units except of course if nobody wants to volunteer and no one loves to no one
likes to volunteer for those. Could we put a a condition or maybe it's implied that the homeowners association recess assesses the the percentage of the board of trustee members cons uh consisting of the owners of the affordable units every
time there's a turnover of board members. So I I got and in the first instance let's say none of the affordable unit folks wants to join the board of trustees and then times goes on and every year they have their elections. I just would like a a
condition that it's actually gets reassessed every year and make sure that they can get to to whatever extent feasible get to 25%. Because there might be somebody who who says no in the first instance but later on might want to join. So I would just suggest that ultimately the HOA documents would prescribe a
mechanism and you would get to review that and that's where that should live as opposed to a condition in this permit. Okay. Maybe we there is a condition that we get one year and maybe two years or maybe yeah it's just that you know sometimes if you don't ask they don't
want to say yes but in the first instance they may say no but maybe after a couple years they they feel they want to be representative and I don't want that to I don't want that provision to get diluted out. There's there's one thing in this HOA that I see that's maybe I didn't find it but I find it
missing. How do I anyway? Uh it talks an awful lot about you know at uh at project turnover when you get to uh 75% of of occupancy. What it doesn't say is what happens before that as far as what the
homeowners are uh what the that the home that the homeowners have to have to um uh pay into the HOA account at some rate before the turnover because it talked
mostly about turnover stuff. What what I we were talked about before is that even from the very beginning, homeowners pay 138th of the estimated budget for all that work, right? And they only pay 138th and and that
goes into the it there's nothing in here that says anything like well that's I mean it's inherent. you're going to review the HOA bylaws and the budget before it gets recorded and and once it's recorded. I mean, it can expressly say that um
I mean it would be a simple thing and just to hear to just say that that uh that all all home all all of the homeowners are responsible for 138th of the budget. Does it say that?
It doesn't say that anywhere. Uh where's the I thought it did actually when when I thought that I shall provide for all homeowners in the HOA. Yeah, I suppose.
Um I think it's under I I 3/4 of the way down. No. Um that 130th is the uh the replacement time window. Okay. Yeah. It doesn't say at the start that that was for the major.
I got you. I mean, it it's essentially you're you're saying all homeowners would have a 138th interest in the HOA and that necessarily makes their contribution rate 138th. I I would prefer for you to raise that when the
board is reviewing the HOA documents to see how that's spelled out in there because we could we could draft the HOA documents into this and I just I don't think we want to start going down that road cuz then it's just No, but what I don't want to get to the uh anybody get the impression is that
that the first three houses are going to pay for everything. Okay. And it doesn't and nothing in here that that even alludes to that. I just think it's it talks an awful lot about when you have project turnover, which is fine. I I I have no problem with
prior to project turnover. Prior to project, each homeowner shall be responsible for no greater than 138th of their interest in the budget. You could add that. I I think this is that there's no there's nothing here and I think maybe it's in the homeowner
documents or even in the um the sales documents that as soon as you that you someone buys a house and and gets occupancy and closes on it, they start putting money into the account. I think that's what Roger thinking about, but that's those are in the the homeowner
association documents as well as the conditions of sale and all that stuff. Correct. Right. Right. Um, but to add that one sentence to say upon sale of a lot, the buying homeowner shall become responsible for no greater than 13th. And your concern is that we stick them
with the whole. Got it. Okay. Okay. Or the other way around where they they feel they don't have to pay anything, right? Yes. Yep. Okay. And then um in I when it comes to
the capital accounts for maintaining the storm water and the septic system, it says for the maintenance repair of the septic systems leeching field. What about the rest of the system? The leeching field is the component that
um so two things. One, title five provides for uh replacement reserves in budging as well. There's requirements under title five, but generally this is for the major component to ensure that the thing that would most likely go
first has replacement reserves that would go in 30 years, right? What but I think another major component of the system is the pumps that are getting it to the who's responsible for the pump. So pumps are going to go before this is
a long-term capital reserve. a pump could last seven years. That's more of a repair and maintenance. I don't think that's as uh you know that's as critical of a component. I think the concern that triggered this condition over and above
the conditions that are under title 5 anyway is that the town has concerns about common wastewater systems and we're providing for a more robust capital replacement requirement. And it's not every component. We had to draw
the line somewhere. And we're saying that that's the biggest one and that's the one that would create the biggest concern. So it's appropriate to draw the line there versus you can keep going with it. And yeah, go ahead.
Keep going. Keep going. Phil, if the board of health has a comment on on the subject, I'd love to hear it. It's just I I think Title 5 requires as as he'll point out, Title 5 requires that these types of common systems have
uh budget budgetary requirements. Yeah. So, um and this relates a little bit back to another comment you made. So, um this is defined as a shared system and the regulation requires
financial assurance for the shared system. Now just expressing my opinion. I think that if you looked at the common components of the system and the pumping and the and the pumps and the leech field and the holding tanks
well the holding tanks are at the houses. Yeah. So that is the thing you know because how um because and it relates to a comment you made earlier which is are those in
responsibility for the individual lot owners or is that responsibility of the uh you know part of this quote shared system in the Um,
and I didn't I didn't want to get into that here because it was, you know, just too, you know, it's tricky because if you make it part of the homeowners association, then you ensure that everybody keeps their system
running optimally. Yes. Okay. Um but you can also make that part of if you take it outside and put in the purview of the homeowners has to pay it when it when's there when there there is go then
right the homeowner document should say you have to repair it but then what's like but what happens when you get a homeowner who says I can't afford to replace my tank right so there's a requirement it puts it puts the whole system at risk doesn't it
No, their occupancy. The individual house would lose their occupancy. So, oh, I you kick somebody out of their house because their septic system isn't working. Well, it's not quote it. Um, well, you probably assist the way this is set up.
I'm not quite sure what not working would mean, but it for particular, for example, our regulation requires the first two years you have to test your you have to test your denitrification system. Okay. So, one logical way to do that
would be for the homeowners association to hire a company that would come in and test everybody's system when you know, but um or you could just make it the individual's responsibilities. You're supposed to pump your system, your tight
tank, your septic tank every 3 years. Uh again, is that an individual responsibility? Um, or is that uh a homeowner's association responsibility? Um, I mean, it's tricky because if if those
things don't get done, it does put the leeching field at risk, right? Um, I don't know that, you know, that's like an engineering issue and I don't know the answer to that. It could, if they didn't pump, it could result, if they
didn't um pump out their septic tank, it could result in just waste water backing up into their house, into their house. Um I'm not sure that it would, you know, compromise the entire system. It was,
you know, the objective was to get it in the this this document and then um when the applicant applied for the first systems or systems
to go in or in anticipation of that that we we would have this conversation. What do what do what what do you have? I guess I guess I was I was guess confused. I thought like so the only thing that's really common is the leeching field and everybody else has a
self-contained ditrous dite system and tight the holding tank on their property. Right. So the Yeah. So the the septic tank's going to hold the dite technology.
And then again, I wasn't really sure whether how much of this was going to be gravity fed and how much was going to be pumped and we probably don't even know where the leech field is going to be. Now exactly, you know, so but it's a title five issue that says
that the um that there has to be shity that's going to be provided fields. That's that's the only It doesn't say Leechfield. It says for the system for the shared system. So the so um and at least in my you know term on
the board you know uh we really actually haven't had one of these issues to work through. And so uh and I didn't want to go down the rabbit hole in just making
so we say that the that the the capital account has to have maintenance repair for the project septic system in accordance with title. I don't I think I just I think I just pared the waste disposal system. I did not say for the leeching field. I
think that that was a change that was made in the in this last okay iteration. So I left it open. Um and uh yeah that's where that's where it was
from my perspective. Bill can I ask a question? Yeah, you you just mentioned amongst the expend the expenditures uh for uh you know upkeep and so forth and you mentioned about the
testing uh right for the uh DI systems and you said that was a requirement for the first two years something like that uh and uh I just want to clarify uh where that's is that a title five situation or uh one of
the u representatives of of uh one of the dite systems told me that uh that's not a requirement that's a Westport requirement. He said very few towns uh require this 2-year of testing.
Right. So is it a town thing? Because it's in our local bylaw. It's a town Yeah. thing. So So it may not apply to this 40B, but we can make it apply. So, I I would just suggest we're
offering to comply with the DNI local bylaw, right? The testing regimen. Those systems come with their own like continuing maintenance and testing requirements. So, we would just comply with the requirement for the DNI system. It says it has to be monitored. It says it has
to be tested just in the manual. But when we're talking about the homeowners association, we're not talking about minor money here. Uh it used to be like $200. Yeah. Now $400 a year and that's only in the last couple years, right?
Well, you have to separate. So I think all the it's D who permits the system. I think all their approvals require like an operate you like like a maintenance piece of it. um the
um our local bylaw, you know, sets a performance standard uh for the testing to see what level of nitrogen it is and and so it's that testing part of it um which is local I believe
no local has no control over the cost of that manufacturers can charge whatever they want right I mean that's true I mean the obviously the, you know, the intention is um and maybe the homeowner would want to
that, you know, the that the contractor who put in the system is a that the system's actually working. They spent the money for it. The way you know if the system's working is to test it. And so that that was the idea. And
if the it's not working, then it's up to the manufacturer to get it to work. And so um and to achieve the environmental outcome that we want. I mean just to say put it
in context. Uh so if you take the number of homes and the number you know uh the it's almost 9,000 gallons almost 10,000 gallons a year a uh a day that's being generated. If
you multiply that by 365 days, it's like 3 million gallons a year of waste water. And it's a really good thing that they'll have denied. My only concern is that that uh we be
aware that it's not minor money especially for the affordable. So that will that will be worked out in the budget and the budget will be reviewed and it has to comply with the capital reserve requirements here and the shared system charity requirements under title
5. That that's the proposal before the board. Would would the um uh developer be the one to determine which which system uh which Denite system which manufacturer uh uh
yes as long as it meets the town standard because we did agree to meet the town standard and then I I think that if that's the case um you uh you you should give some consideration to this testing uh because
it's every year. Uh now you said first two years, but I had the impression that it is every year, but we would every year, right? It's whatever. So, title 5 does have nitrogen reduction provisions in it for when it's a nitrogen sensitive area. So,
we'll comply with whatever the title 5 requirements are. The budget will play this out as far as exactly who's paying for what because again, we don't know the final configuration. But generally the common system is anything in the street and the tank and
anything short of the street is the homeowner. And when the homeowner buys the house, they're going to see that there's things to maintain just like anybody buying a house. And if they can afford the house with the maintenance requirements, they'll buy it. And that all gets played in. For the affordables,
the purchase price is reduced by the amount of the the payin for the budget. So it's all accounted for. So that's the that's the proposal. Okay. And there's um G in that same section. I went to it says all accessory
structures shall to be constructed in accordance to the Westport zoning laws as amended. I don't know that means as we amended the zoning board as we amended them herein or as amended when
which section are you in I would I would delete this I would delete this I would delete this based on the other revisions the town council had made so as proposed now there are no accessory structures if somebody wants to be the
first to try that before the board. Mhm. Then we'll let them deal with it. But I don't think we need to. That's necessary. That's necessary dwelling units. We're talking about necessary structure, which would be a shed. And I don't think we're procl are we precluding sheds as well, Attorney Poocci. Okay. I mean, if you are,
I think the rest of it prohibits that, right? Yeah. I mean, that's typical for homeowners not to have sheds. And I mean, you'll probably have that in your you'll probably have that in your in your bylaws anyway, that there's no sheds. It depends on
I mean I think it's overly restrictive. I think some boards say look if somebody wants to have a tool shed in their backyard it's it's not the end of the world. I think for purposes of this permit well if they're less than 100 square feet you don't need a permit. So they
can put it that might be the case too. Then then then anything's going to be less than 100 ft. So do we need this in here? What? 200 200 whatever 200. All right. So then actually I would leave this in here because if somebody does something that does like a dog house, you know, if somebody puts a dog
house in, it's not a zoning issue. If it's a small tool shed that's doesn't require a building permit, but again, it doesn't say what Westport zoning laws bylaws as amended means. That's what I'm my my initial concern was. What does Westport zoning bylaws as amended?
Yeah, I I wouldn't have there. There's no way I put that in there, but it because I it doesn't sound like something I'd say, but I uh uh you're going to send me your markup. You've confirmed, right? Yes. All right.
I get and I I like the idea that, you know, it has to be any any accessory sections should be in the backyard. I think the HOA documents would cover that as well. The HOA is not going to allow things in the front yard. what
the flamingos. And then in J the same section, I think be consistent with our recommendations from the uh I think the uh the board of health, it says that um you prohibited using funds, right? And
it says the construction of a new storm water management management system and I think we should also include a waste water wastewater disposal system. Yeah, that change was made in the subsequent version I sent. And then N has um the aarent uh
extraneous condominium. Um can I raise M? I had sent a follow-up email to town council. I I wasn't sure at what point town council was going to be doing the window dressing on this. So I noted um so for a site like this, I don't think
we need no parking signs. I think the HOA is going to restrict parking if parking becomes a problem. I think the idea I was thinking was to strike the signage and just say vehicle parking within the site shall be limited to
marked parking spaces only to the extent they're available on the final plans. But generally this is just driveway parking. Right. And somewhere else it says there's no on street parking. Correct. So I think we just don't need signage. the HOA can say, "Yeah, you don't want It's kind of It's more urban
to have a no parking sign." So, I would strike the no parking signs installation then, but then it says mark parking. So, I think the whole thing has to go. Vehicle parking within the site shall be limited to maybe change. Mark parking areas maybe as as as in
accordance with the plan. That that's fine. Or I was just going to say in authorized parking areas only which is people's houses and as you pointed out there's no on street parking elsewhere and then in end there's in regulation adopted by the condominium trust. Oh,
you caught that one, huh? Yeah, I did. All right. I I sent that email to town council as well. And then um it says that there should be a it refers to a snow storage um
snow storage and disposal area, but it never says where that's going to be. Um is is it going to be on the can we request that the snow snow the snow storage and disposal um
the area should be marked on the plan right and that um I don't think that's condition of the plan any yeah I I think that's fair I mean generally for a site like this you know that's for sort of larger parking lots where you push a whole parking lot you
get a big pile but I think to the extent we want to mark those it it wouldn't hurt to just where you going to put the snow actually it's just push it off the side we have if you look at the arrangement I mean the street there's enough room there but I think we can mark if there is snow removal required if we have like a 2015
snow season then we can mark a couple areas for that I think the key for this was don't put it generally you don't want to put more water on the leeching fields than you need yeah and then sometimes it then this comments
or like the drive and the um road area. Sometime you just require that you just you just sort of refer to the board and I didn't we should for clarity it should always be ZBA or the zoning board of appeals because then we don't like it says ZBA in some spots then it says
zoning board of appeals in some spots and then sometimes it just says the board and I just think we should be consistent that it's not just an extraneous board it's us and then the um I'm down to D4. You got
anything else before that? Anybody? Uh so when it talks about local preference criteria C D4C it says employees of local businesses. I get that employees or businesses located in the m
municipality. Well employees local in the municipality are employees of local businesses. And can a business own a house here? Right. I mean, one would argue that a business doesn't buy a house, a person
does, especially when it's an affordable house because you have to qualify under affordable re things. So, could we just say employees of local businesses and strike the rest? And would it be fair to say
owners of local businesses as well that may not live in the town already? as long as they comply with the they you know you can own a small shop and still fall within
the I think that I think that ore was probably at one point in of because I think you could that's but that's but that that's but then it's like employees of local businesses employees of local businesses then it's redundant then well located in the municipality so you
got employees of local businesses a local business could be Westport port adjacent and then the next clause would be more specific local businesses or businesses located in the municipality. I think um again, you know, I think we're we're
fine with any local preference that uh satisfies the ultimately the the local preference is going to be spelled out in the uh in the uh uh lottery, the affordable housing lottery. So that that spells out exactly
how that's done. Um, and I think that's noted in the maximum extent permitted by law. So all I get that employees of local businesses, the local could mean outside the municipality. Employees of businesses located in the municipality. And can we
say employees or owners of businesses located in the municipality? Sure. Yeah. Yep. You might have a small business that would qualify. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, or that person. Yeah. Small. Yeah. You could probably qualify. Yeah. I'd like to ask uh uh did we uh deal
with the issue of short-term rentals? Yes. In here and we prohibited No, we didn't. No, I don't think we prohibited that. No, we said it. Well, well, I'm not talking about the affordable units now. I'm talking about market units. Did we address that?
No, but I can. Well, I I think that's super important because we just we just went through a whole issue two years ago, three years ago about this. Is there a local bylaw on point in a local bylaw for short-term rentals? Yeah, we allow it. But I think
you're trying to say that maybe we shouldn't, but that would that was what was happened that that there was there was a subdivision who didn't allow it and yet it was being done and they came to us as a zoning issue and they really should have enforced their they should have enforced their own homeowners association. So is your homeowner
association I think that's we should address this. Does the homeowners association allow short-term rental? Yes, I think that I'm I'm okay with you conditioning it. The reason I say that is it it's come up recently for me and other matters uh including Falmouth and Nucket
and I think that um where you tie it in that it's it's a reasonable remember you your conditions have to be reasonable based on local concerns and where it comes in for me is they're small lots. No, it it comes in
because affordable units are not allowed and so to to remove the bias the Yeah. or the stigma, you make it across the board. In other words, so that the just like you can't
have different finishes that show affordable versus market units from the outside. They should not Yeah. If they're procluded, then everybody should be Everybody should be. And in my opinion, I think that that's a legal and reasonable condition. Okay. A related question. Uh can u uh
can any of these uh market rate units be purchased by a corporation by a non-natural person? No, they have to they they can't because they they have to show that they're within the income range.
No, no. I I said the non the non uh affordable. No, no restriction on the sale of the house. How how would we restrict short-term rent? Would it go in the HOA document or No, I just said the the where I justify it and that and it's a new issue.
Mhm. Um where I justify it is if the the affordable units will not be able to do it, right? So arguably no one the market rate should not be able to do it either because it
distinguishes between market rate and affordable. Yep. And and that's where I think your condition is entirely reasonable to just prohibit it across the board at this 40 C1. Right. C1 paragraph here. C got to go in some paragraph.
Yeah. 1 says, "All residential units approved under its comprehensive permit shall be for home ownership only in perpetuity and shall not be converted to rental units without approval." I think we should just say including short-term rentals, right?
So, I I just want to because the definition of short-term rental varies from municipality to municipality. Boston regulates it differently than some of the other cities and towns. State version. So, I'm actually unclear that there is a state version. Yes, there there a state version of a
short-term rental. Short-term rental 30 days. Oh, okay. So, 30 days. That's actually what I was getting at. Is it the 30 days where the Okay, so not shorter than 30 days. It's 30 days. Shorter than 30 days, but you can you can do longer than 30 days. Longer that begin.
But here it says you can't do anything. It says shall not be converted to rental units. Is that in D1? C1. Oh, C1. Okay. All residential units, I'm reading C1. All residential units approved under the comprehensive permit shall be for home
ownership only in perpetuity and shall not be converted to rental unit. Yeah. So, without approval as as a modification of this compreh comprehensive purpose, that condition prevents the developer from turning this into a rental development. If a homeowner wants to
rent their home, just like any other homeowner, they can rent it. That's that's what that condition but not turn it into an Airbnb. And I I think I mean that's generally condos and more often than not
prevents it. Yeah. It it adds to quality of life. Um tight to have the HOA put some reasonable limitations on short-term rentals, not you know, no less than 30-day rental. I don't think that's Yeah.
unreasonable. Yeah. No. What you say is that you can't do do short-term rentals at all. You can do Yeah. Short-term rental being defined as less than 30 days. Less than 30 days. Correct. Right. But if I want to rent my house out for
30 days, I can do that. Or 31 days. We do have a town bylaw now that defines Mhm. that defines a short-term rental. So, and it's and and the way we define is the exact definition of the states. Yeah. Okay. Well, we have to comply with the state law. Cannot. Well, the state has a different
reason for it. They they define it as tax know when the tax revenue comes in for it. So, I wouldn't want to tie it to the to the state. So, where is it? Is it a general bylaw? Where do you define? It's in the zoning bylaw. Well, actually, it's in both
because the state has identified that short-term rental is a business. So, there is a business aspect of this which is in the which is in the general bylaw. Yeah. And there was a zoning part of it that's in the zoning bylaw. It's new and it's it's new this year.
So, can an affordable um somebody that owns an affordable unit, can they they can't rent under the conditions? Can No, I'm not talking about short-term. Can they rent? No. Short-term, long No, they can't. Short-term, long, long-term, or lease it. Why can't they lease it? It's home ownership.
Homeowners. The whole point of getting that What's that? It's a home ownership. Oh, it's a home ownership thing. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Right. Okay. I mean, they can come back for modification, but as the change and that's why when they sell it, they also it's also sold as a low income unit and it's
talking about a few different things, but I I see what you're saying. Um, anything else in D? No. Next thing I have is like F7. I got E1. Um,
it says this again. You might have added this in in G1 where it says uh storm water management facilities. No, installation of railway storm water management facilities. Put the wastewater management facility in there as well. That was added. Yeah. Um
and then in E2, can we add a provision that a time certain that residents of Westport Lake Drive will be notified if any port or road any
access anytime access to any of Wigs of Westport Lake Drive will be restricted for a certain period of time. Let's say let's say it's got to be blocked for a couple hours on a day because you're bringing in some big machinery and it's going to take a while to make that turn.
Can can we provide that that the residents of Westport Lake Drive get 72 hours notice for any restricted um access to their road for more than, you know, 30 minutes to an hour or
so? Yeah, I think that's fine because a lot of towns have bylaws on that and it usually finds its way into the O andM plan and it it does as you noted talk about, you know, town regulations that govern blocking of roads. So, yeah, I hate it when they go up main road.
Usually, no one's doing it and you go all the way up main road and you don't know it's blocking till you get but it does say that the applicant at at all times shall make reasonable means to communicate with and minimize inconvenience. So, I think when it comes to blocking the road like that would be
Yeah, but I just I just wanted to add something more particular cuz I don't want to have to come home and trying to get to my house and it's I got to sit there for an hour and a half because you're this big thing is trying to turn in, right? And they got to do a
97 million point turn. And then the other thing with E3, I don't think the hours for construction is consistent with our bylaws, but I'm not sure. I could I had asked you that last hearing. Is this that was a notation I had is this
and cuz I just did a quick search and I couldn't find I couldn't it wouldn't get me to the our bylaws but I got the the AI version of it and ours is Monday to Friday 7 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Uh Saturday 7 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. And outside construction activity is limited from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and interior can do the other things. So I just note I just I just put what I found and way we can make sure that's correct.
I would just like to keep it in consistent with our town's zoning laws that construction is only between 8 and three outside construction. So when you say outside construction, you're talking about site work as well. I think that is Yeah. So um
that's our zoning law. There's a zoning bylaw on that point. So I don't know if it's zoning. It's somewhere we have we have a rule of when construction can occur in this town. I think all towns do and the best that I could find was there was no outside
construction from 8 to 3. Okay. See now I I don't know that's true because I couldn't find the I couldn't find the right I believe it's 7 a.m. but that that's I think it's any construction that could be inside but outside construction it
seems to be limited. Well, but yeah, we just need I just want to clarify it to be consistent with our our bylaws, either town bylaws or zoning bylaws. Yeah, I got I got somebody starting at 7:00 every morning lately. But I can just say that we had a recent a
recent incident uh and um supposedly uh the town required the person to not start before 7 a.m. That was something. I just again just want to make I just want to make it consistent with our zoning or or not our zoning our bylaws.
And is that a condition is is that same condition applies to Briggs Landing and the other developments that have been I I think it's it's it's any sort of bu any sort of I don't again I don't know what the right one is. I have wasn't
able to find it. Is there a specific time that you'd be concerned about the the the morning usually for um for starting in the morning for Okay, because like I say, I I believe it's seven.
He believe seven. That's what I thought, right? But I'm just I just want to make I just But if it is eight, I want it to be eight. Yeah. I I think it's I think whatever the I think whatever the town requirement is on that because I don't think we had asked for a waiver of that anyways and if other projects have been
built in town with whatever the town requirement is then you're not asking for a waiver so therefore you'd have to comply. Okay. Yeah. No, but they don't have to comply if what you have in here is less. So I think you don't have
it's not an express waiver, right? We're okay matching. We just got to I just You got to check. You got to check. Can you figure that? Can you find that out from I think we should look at I think it's it's not a I think it's not the building department. It's a No, no, no, no. It's
like we're going to make sure that whatever is in here complies with our local ordinances and I just want to know what their local ordinances is. Your zoning bylaw and stuff isn't online. It is, but it was I don't think that was in the zoning bylaw. It might just be in order like
it probably be determined by the building inspector when he No, there typically is a 7 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. or before 7 or after 6 is West is uh Westport. Yeah, that's right. Monday through Friday. 7 a.m. and not after 6:00 p.m.
And then Saturday is uh Hold on. I only got a part of it here. Where are you finding that? Westport. Well, it says URL not found now. So, yeah, they're redoing the website. So, I think whatever is that what it is? Yeah, noticed that a couple times. Um,
that that's why I was having some hard time looking for that cuz I Yeah, we'll get that. We'll just get that and then maybe when you get it from Odet or whoever, then they just send it to the Yeah, I think we're okay with that cuz it it I just want to make sure it's
consistent. I And then it says E6 that the gravel should be tested in the back fill. I go I guess how and when that does does that occur? That's in the operation and maintenance plan. That's the there are standard
testing regimens for transportation of fill. It does refer to a ZBA consulting engineer. Uh, so I'm not sure what that is cuz we don't have one. I think the operations and maintenance plan would get reviewed and it would spell out those details.
So, and then there's E7. It says construction vehicles and vehicles of construction workers shall be parked on the site off Golf View Lane and Pine Ridge Road. What's Pine Ridge Road? Is that the Is that the big road that's up in
And I think it should also we should also specify Westport Lakes Drive, too. I don't know. What's What's Pine Ridge Road? Yeah, that's the uh the main road. And the idea was that there would be a staging area at all times, but I think we should include Westport
Legs Road in there, too, cuz Why would you do that? You don't want You don't want the construction workers parking on Westport Lakes Road, do you? No. And what did you just say? I just said we we have to include that. They don't it doesn't it says that you don't there they should be parked on site and
off Golf View Lane and Pine Ridge Road, but I think they should be off of Westport Lake Road as well. Now, what are you referring? E7. They You can't How are you defining the off? They can't Well, I I didn't define that. You didn't ask him.
E7 shall not be parked on Westport Lakes Road. These are construction shall be parked on the site and off or we say not and maybe it should say not not on. Yeah. Well, that's what I'm trying to tell you. It's just the opposite of what
you're reading. Yeah. Not on golf. Yeah. Westport Lakes Road or and Pine Ridge Road. I just don't want everybody parking down Westport Lakes Road. And I'm sure those residents don't want that either. And
actually, you're right. It should be not on all of them because off also kind of implies you off the side of the road. That's what how I read. Half on, half off. Yeah. Okay. And then F you get F. So F5.
Yes. F5. We think alike, don't we? The the applicant and following the turnover as defined by the the HOA shall clear vegetation or shall cause the owner of Westport Lakes
Drive to clear legitation. Um, sounds like nobody's going to do it. Yeah. See, I mean, see, you know, we the somebody's got to do it. It's either the owner or the owner of Westport Lakes Drive. So, if we if we go out there and
he says, "Don't touch it, then we have to sue him and get him to do it." I don't there's no intent to sherk the duty here. It's You could use the passive voice. You could say vegetation shall be cleared and not have a name and
not do the Yeah. because this is how you how do you force and and it and it comes twice in the same paragraph. Uh if you use you know you could just say vegetation shall be cleared if you want to reddraft and use the passive voice
and then however it happens it doesn't matter. What paragraph are you F5 F5 I think the more general you make it the less likely it's going to get done. And then it says, "Additionally, the applicant shall cause the owner of Westport Lakes Drive to trim education
within the laid out on the Westport Lakes Drive sufficient to maintain sight." Yeah, it's Yeah, it it appears twice. What does that mean? uh in in that same paragraph consistent with figure one titled site triangle
plan it means the the building site doesn't it traffic study no the traffic study yes but I'm saying site the site triangle for the traffic study then maybe that's what that means it's in the traffic study yeah and it's
dated February 7th 2025 Okay. Is that it, Roger? I'm good. Yeah. Anything else? Anything? Roger. After this, make sure I get your markup. Yep. And
I guess it was something we talked about earlier is time to completion and when does turnover, you know, happen like does it just go on and on? So, no potential. But can we we can't we can't require the turnover happen at a certain
time, right? Only the 75%. Like what if they ever get it? Like I think that's what happened to Westport Lake Drive was that it never got to the turnover number and therefore then they never turn over and they and the uh Yeah, it's hard but Yeah, but it's hard to it's hard to track down a developer
as we've noted. Yeah. I I mean there is a section. I can look into it for you. I but I I mean I've not changed that but no it's just you know then trying to just kind of not repeat history.
Yeah not assume that we're not you know we're not saying you are going to repeat history. We just want to make it I think that address the concerns we've heard from neighbors. I know there's a secure that a shurity
section here. Yes. You know, can you review this with uh with Jim Hartnets and Yes. and come up with a Yeah. with with something appropriate. Y So I I would just suggest like shy is critical. We've had this language
available for a while now. I would really ask to see any comments that the planning board or the town plan or anybody has provided on the issue of shity because I I just um are you aware of any comments that were made or is there any insufficiency in here?
Yeah, I'm aware of comments. And can you share those with the applicant? Yeah, absolutely. But I we would have to keep the hearing open. The again this draft has been available for 3 months. I don't care. I I just got the comments from the town administrator. I I don't care. If you want to close the hearing,
close it. I'm I'm ready to finalize the decision. I don't care how long you've had that to me. Well, if it's money, we'll wait for comments from the town and and I just got them. And if you think I'm going to ignore comments from the town administrator as to shorty, you're crazy. So, either keep the
hearing open or we're closed tonight. You don't see them. And we're not in the position to push. I mean, we don't have authority over the town administrator. We we actually you're the town administrator. What? Well, we got comments and I agree with attorney.
So I there's been a lot of delays on everybody's part. So don't just don't even go to the fact that we're delaying this decision and markups because there have been many other delays caused by the applicant. So let's just let's just work with what we have.
I will. And if you'd like to extend the hearing, we can send the hearing. We can or we can close the hearing. Whatever you like. trying to have the comments, but you're if we close the hearing, you're not going to comment to me on them. Or you can, but I'm not going to take them into account. But so we're happy to produce the
comments, but they're they're close on here. All right, let's work through the rest of this and and I'll we'll see where we end up. But I I will say 40B as we talked about when I first got involved
has rigid rules and one of them is that it's an expedited process and and your we've experient said you would have we would have this guys go to the first meeting and go to the video
and your client said that we would have a storm water plan by the next meeting. It was I think three meetings later that we had it. So don't tell us about an expedited procedure
again. go to the first meeting and when your when your client insisted that we pick that night um our consultants and we said we had to we needed time to pick our consultants then we pick our consultants and then
only then after we pick the consultants does your client ask us to use a specific consultant because that's who did the plan before. So again, there has been many instances if you go back prior to your your your your involvement in this case that your
applicant has delayed this process. So the fact that we've had this for 3 weeks or three month 3 weeks or 3 months and I don't think we've had uh a a clear final plan here for 3 months. I would just ask when did the town
planner provide comments? I we just got we've goten we've gotten we've had two days ago we've had we've had many yeah many times on A7 I I I think you shut this conversation down either you want to close the hearing tonight or you
don't you provided A7 they commented on it certainly timely and how long are we beyond the 6 months and they're on extensions I I think maybe we just stop talking about it now Yeah,
I second that. Um, I'm going to open up to the public. Uh, was there anything else in the permit? I think we're done with the permit and done with the waiverss, right? We got to last time. No comments or we had finished any from the any comments from
the public that haven't already been discussed. Okay. Don't expect that we we will have read this that you just gave. Not at all. Brent Per 26 West Lakes Drive. All I ask is is am I able to sit there because I have some things that I
have to hold and it will be labor intensive for me to go through them. It would be more streamlined if I was able to just put them on the table and then go through it quick as quick as humanly possible. I have the whole thing written out type that I'm going to I'm just going to read it verbatim, but I just can't hold it here and go through this stuff at the same time. Yeah.
You want to go want to go sit next to attorney poochie? I'll gladly stand at the table. I I don't chair right there. I can you may you may need to address some of his comments. So, why don't you come up come up there
over there? As long as we're not reiterating things that we've already discussed, unfortunately, some of it will be a reiteration. I'm just going to advise of that right now, respectfully, just because of the way the process has gone.
Um, right 26 West Lake Drive. I don't Should I move that? Yeah. Yeah, just just first and foremost, I would like to just rebut uh something that the applicant's attorney spoke to just a
short time ago as far as um the covenences of Westport Lakes Drive. And there was a reference that um some references made and I actually have what I believe to be the most recent um edition of the of the Westport Lakes Covenences. Um and they they
specifically um they specifically talk about American links courses, the masses corporation, whatever 187 Plymouth Avenue Fall River, they specifically talk about lots 14 614 1828 lots 6-4 and lots 18-28. More
specifically on page five, I I'd be happy to provide this with you. And again, I have good reason to believe that this is the most the most recent uh covenants decree for American for Westport Lakes Drive. On page five, uh section 22, it actually
reads, "All notices and submissions to the American Links Planning Committee shall be mailed certified mail return receipt requested to Shannon Corey at 187 Plymouth A in Far Mass. Okay. And then it for there was some argument
about uh lots seven and eight whether they're included or not included. Regardless uh it this this declaration specifically includes it includes lots 1 through 4
and lots 6 through 14 and lots 18 through 28 of Westport Lakes Drive. It actually I'll just read it. By way of amplification, on page six, the last page on subsection 24, it says, "By way
of amplation, the following lots are not included in the terms and provisions of the declaration do not apply to lots, 15, 16, 17, 29, 30 on the subdivision plan, nor do they apply to 31 and 32,
33." So, I would argue that previous statements that well do we really know whether seven and 8 are part of the original subdivision plan or they're not that's a problem
that I have a significant problem if if I may as quick as humanly possible I have concerns about the the um the comprehension I'll I'll start on page
A6 if if if you if you would I I'll try to do this as quick as possible. The mass DOT approval. Okay. This section should also reference mass DOT access permit. The Pineriidge plan requires the use of Westport Lakes Drive
and as of now the permit does not exist and the original permit is long expired. the responsible entity back in 2008 let the permit lapse without proper certification. At this point, I would argue that Westport Lakes Drive with the intersection of Route 177 is being
inappropriately accessed based on the previous. I would argue that the proper mass access permit should be obtained and certified signed off prior to any potential construction efforts. The simple fact that the responsible entity did not follow through with a mass dot
access permit adds to the implications that Westport Lake Drive is not viable for access to the Pineriidge proposal and should be considered inadequate. On that page, same page, we all we just went over all of this. A71, this actually is the only section that really
makes sense. A7 I know the board went through this a while today. This section was clearly drafted by the applicant. Why is this section so non-escriptive? It reads, "Comprehensive permit decision includes a subdivision." Why doesn't Why
isn't it specific in the property? Why isn't it specific to which property? I believe this should read Pine Ridge Days and should also reference the actual plot of land so that it does not get confused with the subdivision of Westport Lakes
Drive. Considering the entire section is essentially referencing Westport Lakes subdivision, it goes on to read and supersede replace prior subdivision approvals, decisions, and covenants affecting the property. As is, they could, and I bet there will be a possibility that separation of two will
become cloudy. Why is this text even here? Was there even was there ever any prior approval, decision, or covenants pertaining to the Pine Bridges States proposal? I don't think there was. Why? Why is the text there? If if there
was no other pro other than to supersede those that already exist for Westport Lakes Drive. Answer that. I am not aware of any. So why does the section read as it does? The only reason is to slide under what seems like a protection clause and opens some
potential loopholes to undercut what was and what was not approved and what was not completed and any requirements set in place by local and state authorities specifically for the Westport Lake subdivision. A7.2.
This section reads, "Prior to the first occupancy permit, the project for the project, the applicant shall cause either directly or in cooperation with the responsible third parties." Right? I believe that this must be amended so
that it says prior to any construction or disturbance of land without the completion of Westport Lakes Drive roadway and its storm water infrastructure. Construction on the Pineriidge proposal cannot commence until the Westport Lakes Drive subdivision SMS storm water management
system is completed and certified. Until then, no one will be able to justify whether the Westport Lakes Drive SMS storm water management system will be able to handle that of Pine Ridge Estates to which it is uh required to tie into.
If left as is, this section would basically allow two major construction jobs, two major construction jobs to commence simultaneously. So, the completion of West Lakes Drive and the starting of this this new comprehensive project.
Having both subdivisions being worked on at the same time would be seriously disruptive and extremely dangerous. Despite this, the validity of the roadway and the SMS must be completed and certified prior to the Pine Ridge starting any work. This is imperative because Pioneer's access and its tie-in
to the West Lakes subdivision SMS system. This should actually be done prior to the issuance of the final comprehensive permit because their planning and engineering depends on it. Uh same page starts A8. Okay. The final
plans may provide for construction of the project in phases. This section reads may may provide for construction in the project in phases. This section should reads shall and not may. In previous meetings, the board had significant concerns about phasing. By
allowing the word may and not shall would potentially open a loophole in allowing too much work to be done at one time and too much land clearing to take place all at once. Phasing, in my opinion, is imperative.
It has to be done in phases and this document has to draw out exactly how that how that would occur. What can be can be constructed and what cannot be. Again, another significant issue where too much too much at one time and too much land
clearing on page seven B4. This section must describe the fire suppression sistns and not fire hydrants. Uh, under no circumstances do I have any reason to believe that there are fire hydrants being um constructed
in this subdivision because we don't have them on West Lakes Drive. We don't have them on 177. So, the use of the word fire hydrants is incorrect and it should say the fire suppression sistns as approved and required by the the Westport Fire Department.
This was argued in the last meeting. This was actually argued in the last meeting and there was supposed to be a correction. However, it still wasn't corrected. I'm here to ensure that that is corrected. Same page, page seven on B5. This section is contrary to the
board of health and conservation suggestions given through this process. Many times this section states to the max maximum extent practicable. I know the board talked about this in length during this meeting. I feel that it it requires
repeating. What does that actually mean? But then but then further in the section it says but then it reads all gutter down spouts shall be directed to the project storm water management system. So which is it? Is it they shall be constructed or they should be
constructed to the maximum extent predictable? which we all know will allow them to do the minimum of what would be required. We'll move on to page 11, C4,
if you would. So, this section talks about the HOA. Considering some of the board's concerns regarding conflicting homeowners associations, has anyone seriously considered requiring the Pine Ridge HOA to responsible for the section of roadway from their site to the
intersection to Route 177? just if I could just play this video and you could just hear this is a uh very large amount of construction which involves very heavy concrete trucks and all of that and it
it breaks up this roadway for these people who have nothing to do with it. They probably don't even want it there. uh and so they're going to be stuck with the with with the expense of that and and and I don't think that's fair. Uh
but I think also emerge my concern about that is any argument made by Mr. Cen in the past that it's not fair to make the Pine Ridge HOA responsible should not be considered. It's very simple. The
potential residents of Pine Ridge Estates, potentially 38 families are absolutely 100% required to use Westport Lakes Drive as their site access. There's no other way in or out. The homeowners of Westport Lakes Drive
do not and will not require any use of the Pineriidge site for any legitimate reason or necessity. The Pine Ridge Estates HOA must be responsible for the maintenance and repair of that portion of roadway. Westport Lakes Drive. Any other condition would be highly irresponsible
for the town to make. And in doing so, we provide an insurance that their access would not be compromised now or in the future. By holding the HOA, which does not exist at this time, of Westport Lakes Drive responsible for this section of roadway
is like me saying, "I want you to pay for my car insurance, but you don't get to drive my car or even own it. Page 9, B16. I'm sorry. Back
to B16. B16. Yes, sir. Thank you. I continue to argue that the current application and plans for the SAS and associated reserve sites are incomplete considering no perk tests have been done and consider any current
engineering to be inadequate because it is based on data artificially inputed based on standards that differ from the current site conditions as argued by MLB along this entire process. Any and all of the required percolation testing according to this decision can be
pursued as variable and there continues to be no scale to which would be eventually accepted by the board of health and this conditions document leaves it open to suggestion. For months now the applicants representatives have been stating that they were going to have a perk test done
in around July. Yet they've not done it so far. on page 10 of B in B19. Nowhere in this section does it refer to individual well construction. I don't think it I don't think anything
in this entire document refers not one piece of information as far as the wells are concerned. Each house has been determined to have its own private well. There should be an additional condition despite building permits under normal circumstances not
being issued unless a valid well is in place and water volume and portability portability has been tested and determined safe. There must be a condition that states prior to issu issuance of any building
permit for any and all buildings there must be a well in place. It must be tested, certified for compliance. Page 12 C4G is where I have my next issues with
this section. Must forbid we I know I I apologize for repeating this, but ADU accessory dwellings must be forbidden as as means of this uh condition document. The current plan does not afford any additional bedrooms to be added to the
project despite the potential of needing future approval because this is a 40B. The current SAS is designed in such close tolerances to its potential ability that access accessory dwelling units they must be prohibited.
And then C14 on page 14. Just to repeat what was taught about the board, the applicant's attorney suggests that they will sue the current developer. Says it number of times today. They're going to sue the current developer. How does this make any sense
when we all know the past and potentially present connections between the two to add to that? There's a provision where mailboxes are going to be placed on Westport Lakes Drive. Are they going to sue them for for for that, too? They're gonna they're
going to just sue them for everything. It it just doesn't make any sense. Page 17, E E7. Construction vehicles. I know this was spoke about. I just need to reiterate it quickly about where they're being parked. I would add that my concern was
also before I came here that um Westport Lakes Drive should be added to that. They should not be able to park anywhere on Westport Lakes Drive along with the other provisions that that section affords. Page 18 F5,
the applicant and and following project turnover. Okay. Again, this is out of balance and not fair to the current and future potential residents of Westport Lakes Drive. The Pineriidge HOA requires this point of access and should assume responsibility for the assurance this
area is kept clear and not the responsibility of Westport Lake Drive potential HOA. This is the area more specifically at Route 177. They require it. I don't argue that we should both be responsible for that. But
I don't know I don't know of anything that's in our current covenences or HOA documents that actually says that where to be responsible for cutting those and and trimming those things. Again I would be happy to forward these documents to the board if there are any question
just some other concerns. Um I I gave a packet to uh to Lauria if you could just reference that quickly while I while I go through it. There's been a lot of talk about the roadway and whether it's
roadw worthy to say. Okay. If you could just direct your attention to the S SW coal engineering document that was afforded to the town on February 13 of 2025. I provided this to to the board uh months ago, but I I gave her another copy today. It should be right in the
beginning. Okay. They came to Westport Lakes Drive and they did an evaluation of the roadway and the storm water. I just would like to point out that some of the some of the items in in this uh
evaluation on the first page. The roadway asphalt binder material appears to be weathered with notable cracking and sub payment failure observed. Notable payment failure was noted at these sections. Additional, it specifically says additional couring and testing should be
done to properly evaluate the current state of all the pavement areas to include the thickness of the current binder layer compliance to the approved plans and to identify any additional areas of potential failure and to evaluate the condition of the roadway base gravel.
This is a significant concern that the roadway is in such a condition and it's so old and it's never been maintained that it should not be considered uh liable or viable.
To this date, the applicant has not proven to the board that Westport Lakes Drive is an adequate point of access for the Pine Ridge Estate subdivision. Westport Lakes Drive does not have any certificate of compliance or asbuilt plans. The town of Westport required a shity on Westport Lakes Drive to be done
upon the transfer in 2016. And then there's another document actually that that confirms SW Kohl's where Tibbitz did an evaluation back in 2016 when the property changed uh changed hands. just wrote I would like the board to to
reflect on um that would be within your jurisdiction to make sure that the project is conditioned so that you have an adequate roadway. Yeah, that's is maintained. Correct. And that meets standards,
right? So, we can't force Westport Lakes and the new development to form a joint HOA to maintain Westport Lakes. But we can condition Pine Ridge Estates to maintain Westport Lakes Road
and when they don't, who has to enforce that? It would be enforceable through your permit conditions are enforceable as a matter of zoning. So you'd have basically your zoning enforcement officer to answer these questions. Okay, here's the story saying to you this this
roadway cannot service these houses for XYZ reasons. If your peer reviewer says this roadway is going to be underwater for 8 months of the year, issues like that, that's within your province. You you could potentially deny a project
based on an issue like that. You could say the roadway is inadequate to services. We can't condition it. But that's that would be within your jurisdiction to make sure that the project is conditioned so that you have an adequate roadway. Yeah, that's
maintained correct the applicant to think about these issues. He's think town wreck is showing the actual makeup of that roadway. What Yeah, there should be approved plans of that.
I don't know if there's as built, but there's certainly improved subdivision. To me, that's a big deal. If there's uh uh uh well, right now, we don't know what that road is built uh like underneath the surface that you see. So,
if you uh have traffic for for five houses, uh that's one thing. But when you start having traffic for 40 houses or more, um, uh, that's something quite different. And so what might look
adequate today to us just seeing it from the surface looks fine, but then when we have all this stuff going on, but you know, which goes to your point, if we have photographs, fine. But well, we have engineering. We want to know what's underneath there. The
traffic study should take care of that. I mean the the other thing just so that you know that road was design I just have one more if you may or that would be within your jurisdiction and make sure that they may point out that road isn't
adequate. You could you Yeah. So you it would it would it would be helpful to the applicant because it would help you for for the applicant to be able to provide you further information on on these issues. We certainly will have our traffic
engineer provide a letter to the committee to the board state. What this is if anybody missed it, this is Christopher Fallen, the p the primary engineer for this project. Engineer provide a we certainly will have our traffic
engineer provide a letter to the committee to the board stating that what I'm going to ask. We if you didn't catch it, Mr. Fallen says to the board that they're going to have they will have one of somebody
whether it's somebody from the traffic um study but they he said that they were going to provide you all with the determination whe that the roadway is viable. I could play it again if you need to hear it again and I could
forward it to anybody. The the applicant's principal engineer advised the board that they would provide a document for the traffic load study engineers. The burden of proof to certify that Westport Lakes Drive is adequate has not occurred and I feel
that this it is the sole responsibility of Pine Ridge applicants to do so. And until this is done, a comprehensive permit cannot be issued considering that West Lakes roadway was built nearly 20 years ago and has never been finished.
I'll just quickly wrap up with if you could if you just pass through your your the packet that I made for you some emails that came from some town departments. The first one was actually from uh Chris Capone the conservation agent to Andrew
Djamo and just some specific things in there. Okay. The developer does not have a certified certificate of compliance for mass D for long expired superseding order that was issued. It goes on to read. I won't I won't stand here and read it to you, but in the end, the
Westport Conservation Commission is formally notifying you that any activity conducted on grading, loming, and seeding north culde-sac or clearing the storm water basins outside BMS within the Westport Lakes roadway will require a new filing and notice of intent. In addition, the Westport Conservation will
not act on any new filings until the until the site complies with the prior superseding order of conditions. An email from uh Mr. Burus, who is the town planner to the ZBA. The covenants that the planning board holds on the lots involve the Pine Ridge 40B are
still in effect and development cannot occur until these lots on these lots until the covenants are released. The planning board has already clearly communicated its intent to withhold release of these covenants until the Westport Lakes improvements receive a clear inspection. So to be clear,
Westport Lakes Drive and associated drainage must be completed before construction can start on the Pineridge 40B. this this uh the next the next letter I know uh you all have as far as the conser soil conservation board actually
I take it back I don't believe that you all have received this letter uh that's why I provide it to you okay it's a letter drafted to the executive office of the energy environmental affairs on March 10th of 2025 just in in short on the second paragraph
well the first paragraph the project had three major project changes from 2003 to 2008 with the final environmental impact report issued on December 17th of 2008. The proponent in the FEIR had agreed to eliminate the proposed phase 2 development of property indicated as lot
33 and to incorporate in into phase one portion of the development. Phase one is not fully completed as GU land and second wetlands crossing have never been constructed. Mass D superseding order has also expired and the project never received final sign off with the issuance of certificate of compliance. The 40B comprehensive permit known as
pioneer estates is proposing to construct this project. Pretty good document that I would I would like if you took some time to review. I think I'll just the rest of it is kind of a a repeat
from what was already said today. I do appreciate your your your concerns with the uh with the conditions document. You did actually cover a lot of my concerns, but I don't think that you cover them all. Just in closing, um I still to this day,
every time that I stand here, I don't believe that we can stand here and go Westport Lakes Drive is adequate at this moment in time to be able to make a decision on this project. I do believe that the inadequacy of the roadway causes a substantial public
safety risk. And then some of the provisions that are considered in the construction phases of this project, unless changed according to my uh concerns, also would create a significant public public safety
concern. Again, this would this would this if allowed if allowed as it stands, these two major things would be going out at the same time. It it just can't happen. that it's just unsafe and it's it's it's a risk to public safety. The
road should not be considered adequate at this time. Thank you. Anyone else? Uh Stacy Pereira, Westport, uh 26 Westport Lakes Drive. Um, new information.
Mr. Dean, when his dad built our house that we purchased from him, he originally wanted the father to build the house at the end of Westport Lakes Drive. Um, his father built the house that we
bought. I'm talking about Mr. Dean, the dad. So he originally wanted his house to be built at the end, the dead end road. The reason why my house was built not at the end is
because none of those lands, none of those cut out por parcels, whatever you call them, would not perk. So that's why he didn't end up with the request that he wanted. um where we that's why he ended
up where the house is now that I'm referring to 26 Westport Lakes. So this whole non-perks non-p perk doesn't surprise me and I don't think the board was aware of that information.
Um we started off the meeting with um new subdivision referring to Pine Ridge and then um the separation of Westport Lakes Road subdivision,
but I'm confused on the two divisions. At some point they do agree that it's separate, but then most of the plans rely on them tying into Westport Lakes subdivision plans,
meaning the drainage, the storm water, yada yada yada, you know, our concerns. So I'm confused on and I don't know if anybody in the board that can answer this question. Golf View Lane. Is that
part of the new subdivision, Pineriidge, or is that part of Westport Lakes old 20-year-old subdivision? Does anybody know the answer to that question? I don't even know what your question
was. Golf Golf U Lane and Pine Ridge are part of the new development. So, we're we referred to it just the beginning of this meeting. We ref he was referring to two separate subdivisions, right? There's Pine Ridge, Pine Ridge
being the new subdivision or the 40B and Westport Lakes Drive subdivision. There's a plan. Where is Golf Ulane? Like which and Pine Ridge? That's a new one. That's the That's the seven lot seven and eight to get to Pine Ridge.
I'm not so sure. Is that Well, that's what Do you have the Proidence? I think that I I think that's the issue of the covenants because that was on law 89 to go in and that's called right.
I think at the beginning of his presentation he made it clear that it was part of uh of your so the um covenants declaration of protection covenants
has golf on it. It's it's this isn't the right one. It doesn't matter. Okay. Well, anyways, it's it's on there. This is This is the 26. That's that that's the question of the release of the covers is that 7 and 8
lot 7 and 8, which is where Golf View Lane is, was originally part of your subdivision. And now because the owner of Pineidge Estates bought those two lots in the subdivision and are putting
into their subdivision and that is why that whole thing about the release of the covenants beca came up and I'm equally confused on that point as well but well cuz just the beginning of the meaning it was
it was subdivision new subdivision you know west you know to my to my knowledge seven and eight or to my not my knowledge to my interpretation seven and 8 was originally part of Westport Lake subdivision and now the owners are
taking it out of the subdivision and putting it into the new subdivision and that's why I said do they need to go back to the planning board to make changes to the plans of your subdivision because they're they're substantially changing it. you're taking two lots out
in the subdivision, right? Yeah. So, that's still a major concern of mine. I'm still very confused to this till this meeting in the beginning. That's um as far as the short-term rental, the 30 days versus less than 30 days, the longer 30 days, I
just want to make it clear that that is a concern of mine also. Um and there was, you know, discussion and confusion among the applicants, um attorney and the board. So, I just want to um
bring up my concerns of the rental also because I obviously don't want a house to be bought and then be rented and then HOA doesn't pertain to them and we're we've got some strict things under the HOA that we want to be followed.
Um the other thing was a couple of times this evening we were referred to Westport Lakes uh the planning board and um the comments and how they were supposed to do stuff for the sp the summer and it
hasn't gotten done. It was actually the spring, not the summer. I just wanted to clarify. Um different season because we we started this back into the fall and then you know the winter we couldn't do the winter. So they specifically had said the spring and you know we're
almost done with summer and there still has not been anything done but we were told today about the reasoning for the delays. Um I think I think I'm pretty much good. I want to
thank the board members for all their comments this evening and have a good night. Thank you. No. Um, attorney Casino, do do you have any other comments on Um, yeah, I I just would say
I I think we're talking past each other in terms of our expectations on Westport Lakes Drive. I I think a lot of the concerns that are being expressed we're intending to cover with that
proposed language on A7 A7.1 A7.2. The definition of property was not meant to make it ambiguous. There there was no intent there. Um the intent is not to wave the covenants on all the other land and the end of the subdivision and
Westport Lakes Drive. The property is defined at the beginning of the comp permit. And this comes down to this. This board is granting a subdivision approval. It is a new subdivision approval that supersedes any prior
subdivision approval as to the property, which is a capital P defined term. And I think as town council indicated, I think we've we've talked about what the board's intending to accomplish. Um, and there's no intent to try to sidestep
that. The sequencing of the construction as we proposed it is also consistent with I think what I'm hearing in that we're just saying that it needs to be done in a certain sequence. Um the initial is
before construction ground disturbance before we start disturbing the ground to build the project and heavy equipment's moving through Westport Lakes Drive needs to be put in a certain condition. We've proposed that condition.
I think there's a a a huge uh difference between doing nothing and finishing everything. Okay? We we can't finish everything before we do anything on this project. We are proposing to do a lot of the major
stuff. At the same time, when you have construction equipment out there, when you hire the contractor, you're going to do the work. You're going to do the work in Westport Lakes Drive and you're going to start to build and cut in GU Lane and you're going to get all the storm water management systems in order. It's
appropriate to do that at the same time. And we're suggesting the the sequencing that we had proposed um is simply intended to do it in a logical sequence of first make it safe then get it all done. All right to
binder course. And so I I heard reference to like the engineers letter about deficient portions of the roadway. We talked about that earlier. Like if there are major potholes, we're going to get it in condition that the binder course is there and that the roadway
just as we're doing for our road. We can't build a house on our property and it's a standard covenant that you have to build to binder course and finish the road to binder course. So we're saying that the road essentially continues out to 177.
we have to make sure that it's to binder course before we get the first occupancy permit. So, um you know that's I I think the sequencing works. I I haven't had a chance I you know ordinarily we would
collaborate and have uh you know sit and and exchange drafts and work on this language, but Westport has a certain way they want to go about doing things. And you know, I I have to follow the town's lead cuz I found over the years, you can't fight city hall on things like
that. But um there is a solution here to accomplish 90% of what the concerns were that were expressed. If it's about killing the project, then none of what was described is going to kill the project. Like this board is the
planning board. And towards the end of that discussion, there was a statement. The planning board says that nothing can happen on this property before the planning board signs off and Westport Lakes is complete. That's that doesn't work under 40B. This is a separate
project. We have to provide for safe as access and that's what this condition does. So you I think um and part of the sequencing is a chicken and egg issue. So in order to do the storm water work, you you have to do all the storm water.
It has to tie together. So you have to build the the Gulf View Lane storm water system which ties in and so you know to do as they were describing saying finish everything that sequencing doesn't work because
the condition says you can't do anything until you finish Westport Lakes Drive but to finish Westport Lakes Drive you have to get in and build Golf View Lane. So there's a chicken and egg there. Um, so I think just understanding the
subdivision, we're only talking about this. This is all your subdivision is affecting. This is all that you're superseding. This dotted line and these uh what we refer to as lots eight and nine. This is the subdivision. You're you're granting uh one of the conditions
is that there's a form A plan in the final plan set that accomplishes this carve out. This carve out is what is superseding conditions as to this carveout only. The covenants can continue to live and have whatever impact on whatever they think they do.
All right. But this board is the planning board and the idea that the planning board has some veto right, you know, as the the the the case law we discussed earlier, that's just not the case. Um, on phasing, I think the final plans show
the phasing. We talked about that and there was a concern about phasing. Yes, we'll we'll propose phasing that's subject to peer review and the final plan set to make sure it works. Um I think he was actually Mr. Pereira was correct on the terminology.
Um the fire suppression tanks are called out. I think they're referenced in the permit as hydrants, but there there it's actually the fire suppression system. Um, I honestly don't know whether there's a hydrant that sticks out of the ground, but there are tanks. And so when
we were referring previously in the hearing to hydrants, we were referring to the tanks and that's where the fire department wanted them. So they were called out on the plan uh as the 10,000galon fire suppression tanks. So if that's a termin ter terminology
issue, I think it it works either way. Um but if there's a technical definition of hydrant then uh you know usually the engineers sort through that. Um you know a lot of these things are are
covered just under the law of installing a well and pulling a building permit. That's not it it's not um a condition in a comp permit. It's just that's there are things that have to happen in order to pull a building permit. There was reference to Mass DOT. That's a state
issue. We have to get Mass DOT to sign off on whatever site access is required. Um there were several letters issued by the traffic engineer. Uh they all spoke to the safety of the project. I would
look at the entire volume of the uh the traffic engineers report and the peer review and the final conclusion. all of which are incorporated in the permit. So I think in taking away we're talking past each other on a lot of these
concerns. I I think we've actually addressed a lot of what are more fears about the whatifs than than real concerns about actually going forward with the project and and having it built in the long run. So if we get the
language right, we've accomplished the goal. We haven't violated 40B where you're one of the uh cases say um uh oh what was the word the HAC used? Um uh essentially uh didn't fulfill their
duty when they deferred to the planning board on something. You are the planning board. You're the town planner. Um you're all the local officials making any permitting decision on this. And so this is a new subdivision that we're asking the board to approve and we're
offering conditions to address the prior misdeeds relative to Westport Lakes Drive. And that's our, as I described, I don't think the HAC would require that. We're offering it because we think it's
appropriate and I think we've put in a lot of work to get to this point. Um, so I think that's the response to what um I heard as far as the concerns. If you heard something that you think I didn't address that you'd like me to address, I'm happy to do so. Um, you know, I think it's it's
getting late and I I would like to come to a plan of some sort. um understanding that apparently there were a lot more comments received in in the last few days or even hours um that could undo a
lot of what we've we've worked to do so far. Um and I I don't think the technicality of closing the hearing should prevent council from communicating on uh comments that were received. If the comments were received
from the planning board and the planning board is still providing input on the final decision, then there's no reason that I couldn't see that input and consult with my client even if we close the public hearing tonight. So, you know, I think we do at this point need
to close the public hearing. I think we've um we've we've exhausted the world of concerns. We're getting into hearing things again and again. It's about the word smithing now and the the the lawyers and and you know usually the
attorneys are working together to uh formulate what works and if there's if you know if if there's no agreement there's no agreement but I'm not seeing that here. So I don't know I I just don't want the process to get in the way of a well-drafted comprehensive permit
that addresses all of these concerns and doesn't require us to seek redress from the HAC. It's just it it would be a waste of time. So I'd like to understand Can we wrap this up? You know what I mean? I just want to Yeah. So let's get to an answer as to you know what the process
would be or what the proposal is and then you know maybe we can come up with a solution because I don't think we're far apart. It's just things like shity can be make or break on a 40b project just because the margins are tight to begin with and you know requiring a cash
bond at a certain time. I mean, it just it can be dicey. So, uh it's frustrating to me that those details were uh given as comments today or whenever they were, but maybe there's a solution.
There was one comment by the uh the Mr. Pereira that you didn't address. He suggested um that the Pine Ridge HOA should be responsible for the Westport site access in perpetuity.
So they have the benefit of that road as well. I think we provided a proposed condition that makes us responsible the developer responsible for anything construction related. but to um
say that you know those lots in perpetuity have to pay for plowing and repair when they're also getting the benefit. That's a little bit unequitable as well. Now you know maybe number-wise though there's like what how many houses are there from 177 to
there's five houses four and there's 38. So four houses are paying for 38 houses access. I'm I'm not I'm just trying to make Well, I think how many lots are there ultimately on Westport Lakes Drive?
Well, some of them non buildable. Well, when tests when they're they haven't been sold for 20 years. So, you got four people paying for the access to 38. Now, what if it got
divided up by 42? I think we did mention early on that that some sharing would be appropriate to kind of to make a deal on that right now. I think maybe here's the answer. The final plans say that the HOA budget,
okay, shall be reviewed and approved by the town. All right. In that HOA budget, we got to provide for road maintenance. Between permit and final plans, there's a discussion to be had as to whether the budget should include
some maintenance. Now, I can't commit to that tonight, but the permit already spells out that the budget gets submitted, town council reviews it, and the board's going to hear it. So, you can I I would just say table that. It's
it's it's still up for grabs. Um nothing prevents this. Nothing in this permit says we're not responsible for it, but nothing in this permit says we shall be responsible for it. And I think that's appropriate at this time because that's a complex one and it's a complex one. So
I think you know that's something that we look because we don't know what exactly the maintenance expenses might be. I mean but I can offer you that at this point. You don't have any other access but that if you had another access well you wouldn't even be worrying about this.
But this is the only access you have to get to your buildable site. I I didn't I didn't say no. And and obviously I I offered a solution. Um and I don't think I think putting a
condition in there that would be a concern because that's a big offer without knowing the numbers and exactly what the considerations are. But for us to see where we are with the permit, see where we are with the market at the time we're we're looking to finalize the
plans. we know what it's going to cost to build. Then at that time, you know, maybe you could put a statement in about the budget uh which shall consider uh all expenses regarding, you know, just something that hey, by the way, to remind us that we had that exchange, but
I don't think it's not something that I would I would say the applicant could agree to as a permit condition, but you make a fair point. Um, and I think it's the budget would be the place to answer that. I would like to hear from our attorney.
What do you have any um any responses to what Mr. Pereira said or to No, it was pretty much addressed earlier. Okay. I mean, I think you've identified the concerns and they're legitimate concerns. We've talked about them and
you're not at least I'm not going to make recommendations to you that wave any rights of the planning board and again not you're not deferring to the planning board. The planning board has an existing permit that people have relied on. So it's a you know it's a different issue. But if it can be
conditioned in a way that it's consistent and the applicant's happy, great. But you've identified the concern that roadway is not finished. But can we condition the fact that they're responsible from 177 Gulf?
Yeah, I just made a note of that. I I mean I think it's a fair point. I I'm going to try to think of some language that's for you. Good. Yeah, I mean I'm going to try to think of some language that's reasonable on it that you know hopefully will be the applicant will be fine with but you
will be too. when we discussed this uh way early in the process uh I I can recall asking for example could we combine the two HOAs and so forth and said that may not be uh legitimate so
forth but um my question is uh that we um um well it's my understanding that at the time we were told that we cannot um
condition anything off the site. Uh that that wasn't our jurisdiction, but I'm hearing you say that maybe there is something that we could do. Yeah, because it's an access drive because typically, you know, in a permit, you'll specify whether it's
going to become a public way or not. And here it's not going to become a public way. So, you typically have maintenance obligations for that access point. You know, the point is apparently, you know, it obviously accesses other existing residences, too. Yeah.
So, while it's 38 units versus four, you know, there has to be some type of proportionality to it, some type of reason. Well, I thought so and and I've stressed from the beginning that I think it's very unfair uh to think that 38 people
are going to be accessing what four people, four houses have right along. And well, I was led to believe at that time there wasn't much we could do about it. You know, that's just way it was. No, you said that it's in your jurisdiction to make sure you have an
adequate access way. Okay. I have a a question about process. Uh we've been told that we we're sitting in in the position of the planning. We know that um the um board of health uh
we've had input quite a bit from them and the conservation commission. I also was under the impression that even after we do what we do these folks have to go to conservation commission on state
just the state. Yes. Okay. Uh does the local conservation commission have any role in this other than inputting to us? No. Okay. The reason I ask is I watched the
conservation commission meeting few month couple of months ago probably and uh they did discuss this. In fact, they had some of Butters there uh at the conservation commission who were very concerned about the um the aquifer the
draw in 38 houses drawing from the aquifer and so forth and and the conservation commission did talk about this. Okay. I don't think we've gotten any input from them about this. Um and uh so I'm not sure where that stands. I
I don't know. I mean at the beginning Maria sent everything out to all we got something from we got something from Kong on yeah we have something but it's doesn't address jarring down the the act are they talking about that in the context of state peritting just that is talking about with storm
management not right water and I don't think we've got any yes they do I'm sorry they have to go in front of the health department they have to go in front of con for state requirements for yes for state requirements not for local requirements.
I believe the letter from Concom is sort of um like an open-ended I I don't think it gives any answers. I don't think it gives us advice uh on what what what they thought we should do or anything like that. So I'm just concerned. I didn't know whether they
were going to physically go to a hearing uh from Concom after our process. Yes, they are. The state permanent, but only for the state. Yes. There's any other comments from the board. I'll entertain a motion to close
the hearing. Do you want to give one more shot? Have you got anything like it'll be quick? New quick. It's a rebuttal to to the attorneys. What he just commented he he said repair of the road does not
benefit the applicant. The road is in its condition as we stand today. partially as a result of the applicant. I don't believe that that is a valid argument that
fixing the road doesn't benefit the applicant. Of course, it doesn't. That means more money for them to spend, but in reality, they're partially to blame for the condition that it's in. Now, the analogy
with regarding the case law as far as um a sewer extension, I don't believe that's appropriate case law reference. Uh a sewer extension is like apples to oranges to what my concerns are. the roadway,
the SMS, all of that stuff that's insufficient of Westport Lakes Drive that is beneficial and and a significant requirement to their project. So that sewer extension case law, I
don't I don't even think it it even applies, honestly. How does any of what the applicant say or or that what they will do to compel a third party to do these renovations to the road? They are conflicting themselves continuously. They say we're
going to compel them to fix it or we're going to sue them. And then just now they said we're willing to fix the road. Except we still stand here with no understanding if the current applicant who has never stepped foot in this in in this building for any of these meetings
to stand for himself as the responsible entity for West Bakes Drive. Never once has he stood here to say anything. You can't you can't assume that like this project is impinging upon Westport Lakes
Drive again. For them to say that they're going to fix it without knowledge of any permission. We we got to get Mr. Damu here to say, "Yeah, I will actually let them fix the stuff as they suggest. He's never come." You can't you can't sit
here and listen to them and say and and and not argue that. How do we know? How do we know that they're going to be able to actually fix the roadway? I'll tell you how we know that how that's going to happen. By not touching the covenants degree and making Mr. DGAMO fix the road
to completion and then letting them build their project. That's the only way. Anything otherwise is despicable. They they're going to sue them again. They know each other. They work in the same building. They work for each other. It's despicable for me to stand
here and go and listen to this that they're going to compel them by lawsuit to fix West Port Lakes Drive so that they can get their Pine Ridge subdivision. It's complete insanity. They're either going to be friendly or they're going to sue the pants off of
them. Which is it? We can't we can't approve this until until you know one way or the other. Otherwise, it's never going to get done. And this subdivision is going to take another 10 years. And then Westport Lakes Drive, which has not been completed for 20 years, is now
going to be not completed for 30 years. It's despicable. Okay. I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Chairman, just can we confirm what procedure the board intends to pursue next? just cuz I I want to make sure if
there were comments that were received while the hearing was open from the town planner or anything about Shorty, I'd at least just like a chance to respond by letter to town council so that he can,
you know, take into account whatever comments we might have. Um, I'm I think now is an appropriate time to close the hearing. I I I do we've done hard work on this to this point. Um but if there are comments that you have that we don't
have, there's no reason we shouldn't be able to provide just a letter for the board's consideration to make sure that um you know, we're not unnecessarily undoing all of this because that would be the result. If we have to uh you know, if there's something that's a deal
breakaker, it's it's like an all or nothing. once you spend the effort to go to the HAC, it it's not worth, you know, dealing with some of the other conditions. So, I think we've proposed a lot here. Just what's the what's the process? We have an issue with him. Uh I thought I thought we weren't supposed
to take any more information. Well, why don't we just narrow let's just narrow down narrow to the shy area. Yeah, let's just narrow down the issue. Um, Maria, there were there was a brief comment from Michael Burus. Um, and then
there was town administrators comment, right? Those are public documents. We talked about them tonight. You can send them to council. Uh, just those two, not my comment or anything like that. Uh, Michael's email and
and uh town administrator's email. Yes. with attachment I mentioned and again no other you know no information to or from council or anything like that in in the town administrator's email uh
it indicated I think it was to Roger actually and and indicated he'd like to discuss this with Roger have you had a chance yeah I got it I'm just narrowing down just they're public records you can produce them to council
right Um, if you close the hearing, I can't take input because it'll be input from a third party. I have to take it from Mr. Pereira or anybody else. Um, one thing you could do maybe is close the hearing but keep the record open for
uh written submission to the board for 3 days or something. If I recall, when you did the extension, we extended it to today with an extension of closing the hearing on Friday. Correct. So could So could we vote to
close the hearing on Fridays? Then we can still allow that information to come through. You really have to close the hearing tonight, but I think you could close the hearing subject to keeping the record to keeping the record. Closing the hearing subject to an
extension to Friday for any written comments. Okay. And that for Mr. Per or anybody else? Wednesday for written comments. Wednesday is fine. That that would be perfect. Okay. And then to the extent I know town council got this to the
extent you've already started to dabble with that 8 A7. Yeah. I haven't done anything with it. I mean is there any is there any conclusion one way or another on exactly? I mean we've gone in circles on it but
I still don't know where the board seems to land on this. Do we understand we're asking for a new subdivision approval of the property which again is just this and as to this
this supersedes the covenants only as to this as long as that's clear I think that's what we're planning on doing is that you're going to make it clear to the other opposite I mean we're not going to jeopardize the consensus of the board is we're not going to jeopardize the rights of the
planning board or the to enforce the original subdivision covenant, right? And and that's how I'm going to draft it. What does that mean? It means how I'm going to draft it and and that's it. So that's my final word. Can close it. You can keep the hearing
open or you can close it tonight subject to keeping the record open for written submissions by Wednesday of next week. Right. That's it. But what compels us to close this hearing tonight? We vote the because the applicant has to consent. you're beyond the six months. Right.
Right. And so the applicant has has told us they will not Yes. I didn't quite hear that. Yeah. And it just I think we've exhausted everything we've talked about. I think you know your time's valuable, our time's valuable. Um
it would have been nice to have exchanged and seen the final language. I I I mean the problem is we're on three hearing sessions now that we're talking about essentially the same issue. But I haven't seen a little bit about the perk rate. We've talked about that in circles and
circles. We've talked about the fact that the roadway isn't completed for 20 years. I I don't disagree with any of that. That's all we've been talking about now for three sessions. I think you're going to close the hearing. The whole set. Yes. And I think that I think leaving it
open for written submission written written submissions to you well to the board to you the board and you obviously you'll get a copy it any any written submissions I was specified should go to Maria go go goes to Maria by Wednesday and that doesn't mean that
anybody has to go repackage everything they've already sent just means that if somebody has something to say they are entitled to provide it in writing by Wednesday of next week. Right. Is there the public records of the TA's
comment and the comp planner will be sent to councel. They're public records. I don't know if anybody anybody else wants them, they can have them. Is there any opportunity for town council to share, you know, submit to the the town planner or the ZBA's office
the final proposed language as town council sees it on this issue? Before I know So why would why would we do a surprise? Here it is. I just don't understand that. We've spent enough time trying to work out the permit.
But until this is, you know, it's just why if it just I I'm not seeing the rationale in allowing us to see the final language. We've we've exchanged a lot of revisions. It's not a heavy lift,
you know. Is there any reason why he just can't read it now? It's like three paragraphs. Greek. What? What is it? We already have it. No, we don't have the line. He's talking about the final No, no. But he's worried about the shity. No, I'm I'm the shy and A7 the final
town council proposal. That's why does it have to be a surprise? I just I don't understand because Tom knows administrator how long it takes him to get this done, what our what our concept of of the covenant is and and how that land should
work. and he's going to write up the the uh if that undoes everything else that we've offered in this term. What you've you've you've listened to what but I haven't seen the final language. So if it if it by a technicality doesn't accomplish the goal because it was just
today I submitted case law or yesterday to town council to provide an update on the status of the law on this issue. And if that's how the town wants to approach it, that's fine. I just think it's Yeah. Again, you just provided that two days ago and we just got comments from
Well, hold on. Hold on. Two days ago. Okay. Listen, let's not get into quibbling about days or whatever. We're either going to close this now or we're not. If we're going to close this now, we'll close it allowing for for documents to be submitted up through next Wednesday.
Or you're going to ask for for a continuence. One of those two. Why ask No, no, no. Yes, sir. Which do you want to do? We're closing the hearing today. Closing. So I make a motion to close the hearing subject to with 3 days.
No, we said a week with an extension of 3 days for written documents. Why are you three days? No. It's due next. Is it through next Wednesday? I mean, if it's there's a board involved, they may not even have a meeting in the car.
So, no, no, no. There's documents get sent to to Maria. I don't mean that. Right. So, There's no more. I have a motion that we have a second. Second. Second. Second. Second. All in favor of closing the hearing as
described say yes. Yes. Yes. That's unanimous. Okay. Hearing is closed. That means we don't take any more documentation. Now, one thing I'm not really You said you're closing the subject. You're closing. We don't take We're not taking any more
public input from here. you close a public hearing subject to uh written documents and the board will accept written documents through Wednesday of next week. Right. Now, one thing I'm not clear of in this 40B process. I know you're going to you've taken u notes of uh the draft
decision. Uh we're going to send you copies of our uh editorial versions of it and to specify Right. to specify for the public, you're not going to communicate as a quorum. In fact, the only ones who
really I could benefit from, not to be insulting other members, would probably be Cynthia's markup and your markup. Roger, you're going to send those to me separately. Yes. A lot of what I'm doing, you're already marking. I just want to make sure I cover everything. Uh even if you have open questions, uh
you'll send those to me singly. Yes. Um, and I will provide a proposed if the it's a consensus that you want to look at an approval with conditions and I will pro I will provide you a proposed final decision for you to deliberate on.
Right? And you do that in in a public session that will be noticed that you'll actually say when it's going to be tonight, right? So, um, so we don't vote to grant or reject until that
I would recommend you don't vote the permit tonight. Right. Okay. That's what I was thinking. We wait until we get your we provide you with the with the editorial version. You you then provide your bakes the cake
version of a final decision. Yes. And that comes in front of us in the next deliberation. But it's a closed hearing. Yes, it's open to the public, but it's it's an open session, but it's del it's not a hearing. It's not a hearing, right? It's a meeting.
And then we will deliberate and we will either accept or reject or modify the Yeah. Typically what I I see happen and again the only reason I'm ask for your markup is just so I make sure I cover everything that you did. I think so we don't have to have more markups after the final. Mhm.
And then um typically what I find happens is you'll just people will have some questions or final proposed edits or go see something on page 14 that's inconsistent and you noted at the meeting and you either have another
session to look at another final or you just vote it subject to the final edits that you discussed that night and then then you're done. you voted and we can we can get we as board members can get a printed copy of your final uh
thing um so that we can discuss it at that in sufficient time to be able to absorb it and and we don't set that date today right for the I would I would schedule deliberations we have to set that date and then then I would count back to that you like it a week ahead of time or
we have um what 30 days to do how many 40 40 tonight. From tonight September 29th for an actual decision. What would happen if we voted this in pass the comprehensive term? Yep.
There was no test. No, no, nothing valid could come out of it. And we already have a permit. They already have a comp. And when it comes to the end, could we vote it down at the end when it's when it's okay? You're not voting it tonight.
You're not voting, right? No, no. I'm talking about voting it down when when the full set of plans are in front of us, septic systems, everything. Oh, we can vote it down again, right? No, you would you would be able to vote that these final plans do not conform to
the conditions of the permit, right? But you're not revoting the permit, right? But we could vote the the final plans down only if they don't comply with the conditions of the if there's no perk test that doesn't comply. Right. Right. That would be an example.
There's a requirement in the plan for perk test. If they don't do it then yes. Okay. It typically doesn't happen. It typically happens that sometimes in this whole case typically there'll be a few meetings sometimes that there were modifications to it. So
So you're talking September 24th. What's that? September 24th. Is that what you're saying? September 29th is the 40 day mark. So that means it has to be wrapped up with a bow. So right you do this like what's uh
September 29th is on a Monday. What's everybody's availability like in the 17th or the 24th or whatever? September. 17th. I'm not available 15 as of right now. Okay. So we the 24th. That's good. That okay with
24th. I'm on trial. That's the only problem. Okay. Uh we can actually do it like on the 25th or I mean we Wednesdays are generally our our meeting but you don't want to you can't do the 17th. Maria I can't either available. You can't. How about the week before?
Yeah. 10th. Um what's today? Today's the 20th. That gives uh it's only a couple of weeks, right? He can't do it. How long is it going to take you to do it? What's that? I'll have to do it. I'll
have to get it to you. Um, well, not that we don't do we need I mean, can we extend the 40 days? No. I mean, we don't I mean, I'm not I'm not saying that you're not valuable, but we really do. We not Do we need Marie to be here for the durations? Yes, I think so.
Yeah. But I mean, could our secretary take notes? I mean, if you have it to us by the 3, then that should be enough for us to be to review it by the 10th. How about I get it to you by the 5th and you review it by the 10th? That's
because that would be a violation of your rule, but I have a schedule. Okay. You know, and it that's I'm okay with that because we're going to So, we're going to do it on the 10th on the 10th time frame. Yeah. So, we're going to you're going to get something to us by the
I'm going to get something by you to you by I'm going to get the permit to you by I see by the close of business on the 5th, not 9:00 a.m. on the 5th. Close of business. That'll give us like So, basically, we're not looking at it. So, the next calling all nighter here
and there. Happy you saying that gives Liberty's the first days early. We're going to get a printed version, not just doing that. It's weird, don't you? So,
close of business. What uh what is the So, we meeting on the Can you get it to us early enough so she can print it out? So, so people can pick it up or I can I'll have to come in on the I mean, you're the client. I'll do what
you tell me to do, but I'm just telling you it's a tough time. The summer is almost over. Yes, I've got backto-back trials. I got an appeal brief due on Wednesday. I have a hearing on the 2nd, which is the day after Labor Day. And so I'm sort of accommodating you by
moving it back to the 10th. Okay. And so I'm at I you know, does somebody really need it printed so that they can read it over that weekend? Absolutely. Absolutely. We have some people who who don't have printers and you really need a printed copy. If anybody needs
Why does it have to be the 10th? I totally because we can't do the 17th and we don't want to push you. On the 11th. That's a public hearing. So I have I I I What did you say Maria about your
timing for? Who needs it? Well, if it if that's a Friday, so if it comes in close of business on the 5th, I'm not going to be able to be there after that. You know what I'm saying? When are you going to be Are you going to be here on the 5th at all?
No, I wasn't planning to But I mean, I'll have it to you by close of business on the 4th. I can't you email it to me. I will hand deliver a copy to every one of the I'll tell you how to say it. Is it Who needs a printed copy? Is it only I will the sheriff does it. I will offer
to always I'm going to drive the copies to whoever needs them. But who's going to print them? She makes I'm saying I'm willing to that's what I'm willing to print them on Friday as well. We're going to get We're going to
Can't somebody else tell? Not on a Friday afternoon. We're talking close distance. Are we talking 5:00 p.m.? Yeah. Okay. Well, there's no one here. No. Uh, I can come in, but I I can't promise that I can be here. Yeah. On that day.
Well, what what would be good is if we can get it so that we can so that people can actually review it over the weekend. So, as long as it's here, close the business on the 4th. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Close the business. And if you're g to me, I'll make sure that every what? Noon on the 5th.
Yeah. Noon on the 5th would work. But she I don't want to make Maria come in. I'll ask I mean if if you get a copy in so you get a copy what is the close of business to me and to Maria not here every day between the two of us we will make sure that everybody has a copy cuz I'll print
them out she can print them out we'll put them in everybody's bin yeah why can't that's a good idea what's the deadline okay that's close to business the 4th what do you mean I thought it was September 5th at noon yeah because Mary is not going to come
in and on the night anyway. So, you might just wait until Marie comes in on the next day. So, make it at noon on the 5th. Okay. You'll print them out. I don't need a printed copy because I just have too much paper. But in any event, we're going to plan this for the 10th.
Hold on. Let me make sure. Here we go. Oh, I It was It was There was no dot up on the 10th. Yes. Okay. Parsons. Yeah. Whatever. Really? Yeah. Right. All right.
Everybody else 6:30. Yes. Yep. Okay. Catered by Westport. Done. We don't margaritas. We need margaritas. Do we have to make a motion to continue this? Then
you're not continuing. I I would I would specify not continuing. You're right. You're uh planning to schedule notice the deliberations for the 10th. at 6:30. Yeah. So, we just make a notice. Yes. Okay. So, there's not a continuation. Yeah. But it's good as a courtesy to let
the public know that you're going to deliberate on the time. Yeah. You got to do that, right? And that's an open meeting. Yeah. It's an open meeting, but people cannot comment, right? Right. Oh my god. Uh
what is it? We've been here over four hours. I think that concludes the No, we haven't. Yeah, the hearing part. You have other business. I think we may have other business. Done with me though. Well, that concludes this. Thank you all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you everyone. I
think you guys Thanks everybody for a tricky one, but we put a lot of effort in. Hopefully we get where we're where we need to be and uh good luck in your deliberation. Thank you. Bri, are you going to send him the copies from Yes.
from uh Michael and Jim? You'll do that. Thanks, George. I'll give you a call beforehand. So late. I have to drive home. Thank you. Okay. Uh any other business?
Oh, it's Sher. We don't have any meeting minutes. Oh, I think it's Sher Burn. So, it's not um I don't think there's uh do um I know you have election of officers. Do we want to Yeah. Can we We can do
that on the 10th, can't we? Yeah. Yeah. As long as you post it, we can do it. Well, I can Yeah, I can post it. Post it anyway. Yeah. Like we did today. We got to it fine. If not, well, cuz no one's going to pay attention. I'm ready to resign right now.
No one's going to look at your comments. It'll be fun. Okay. You can blame her. There's no other business. And Julie, none. None. No. I make a I make a motion to adjourn the hearing. I
All in favor? I I Okay, Val. I I hope you get paid like time and a half or something.