okay it being roughly 6:30 on Janu April 9th I'm going to start the zoning board of appeals off with the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with
liberty and justice for all in accordance with Mass General Law chapter 38 section 20F this meeting is being recorded uh the first order of business is a petition uh zero west Fort Lakes Road continued
hearing on an application of Pine Ridge Estates LLC in Bradford Dean for a comprehensive permit pursuant to Mass General Law Chapter 40B for development off Westport Lakes Drive consisting of 38 single family housings on individual
lots which are 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 in assessors map 31 lots 3B 3C and 4G
voting on this will be uh Jerry Cino myself Raja Manard um Ray Elias Cynthia Kazakovich and and George Stelas uh like I said this is a continuation and we're going to focus
mostly on groundwater efforts correct sure yes Mr chairman yes uh we also have our uh attorney George Pooie with us and we have our U consultant with us can you state your name please uh Brian Dunn with MBL Land Development and Permitting
with offices at 5 Bristol Drive in Southeast and Mass right okay so um I know that uh our consultant has has reviewed your um uh your groundwater uh efforts um I'll give you the option you want to
summarize what uh Sure your effort and then I'll have our consultant then uh give his comments and I and I assume he passed them on to you yes okay yes Mr chairman sure thank you and again Christopher Agugustino council for the applicant uh here tonight with Paul Cussen uh applicants consultant and the
engineering team uh Christian Farland and John Marshon as well as the applicant's representative uh we were last before the board on February 19th if you recall it hasn't gotten much warmer since then but we're back here now um and since that time uh if you
recall shortly before that hearing the applicant uh submitted a plan set dated February 13th which was its most recent iteration and uh MBL didn't have a chance to fully vet that plan set or complete a full peer review for the
hearing on February 19th but we did discuss some preliminary civil design considerations um that the parties were going to address through their engineering peer review process after that um so with an eye towards that MBL received the
February 13th plan set and prepared a detailed peerreview analysis that was dated uh March 18th and we received a copy of that um and in the ordinary course uh you'll you're I'm sure all familiar with the way those peer review
uh analysis work the engineer doing the peer review does a bullet bybullet analysis of anything they think uh is something that should be addressed in a new iteration of the plans um and so we were able to receive that and we had
already gotten started uh in providing additional detail and addressing a few of the items that we had discussed on February 19th um from a preliminary perspective if you recall uh we discussed uh the turning radiuses for the biggest piece of equipment for the
fire department we discussed the proximity of the individual water wells that are going to service each home to offsite uh septic systems um we discussed the fact that the plans didn't yet at the time have a surveyor stamp on
them um and so we also discussed uh at a very high level uh a seemingly uh conflicting uh design for the storm water management system relative to the soil analysis that was put in the plans so we were
able to get ahead of those issues and really take a closer look at them uh following that February 19th um meeting and when we received the fee or when we received the March 18th plan set um we were already kind of ahead of the game
so uh the next iteration was based on the initial comments and the March 18th review we were able and through our engineering team uh prepared a March 28th revision so that March 28th revision addresses everything that was
discussed at the last hearing on February 19th um everything that was uh or as many items as we could and we'll talk about that in a little more detail uh but it addressed everything that was described in that March 18th peer review
um and we submitted that with a letter that I emailed to the board and I uploaded the plans on April 2nd um so we were hoping to get that latest iteration to MBL with a little bit of a buffer before tonight so maybe they could take
a look at it and see whether or not they were able to check off a few additional items from that March 18th uh peer review um but in that context I think Mr chairman you're correct uh it's appropriate tonight um for MBL to
present that March March 18th review which is really the most broad in-depth review of the overall uh plans um and recall he wasn't ready to do that on February 19th when we had the last hearing but now that uh he's had a chance to look at the plans I think it's
appropriate for MBL to uh present its review and to the extent MBL uh had a chance to look at the March 28th revision maybe uh Mr dunn can cross off a few more items that were still open on March 18th and then from there um
Farland Engineering is prepared uh to present to the board uh the changes that were described or provided in that March 28th plan set so the plan set currently before the board is the March 28th revision and uh as you'll see throughout
the process the plan will continue to evolve but the goal is to cross off one by one uh MBL's comments that remain as open and you'll see tonight uh that even in that plan set uh or even in that review several of the items have already
been marked as resolved so that's the goal is to close out as many of those as possible throughout the hearing process um another element that was submitted and we'll talk about that more as the uh hearing progresses is the waiver list and as the plans become more refined and
um specific engineering issues are identified as far as the the details of the storm water management system um the details of of septic disposal on site because there is an on-site septic system proposed and I know the board received some back and forth from the
board of health uh but we did submit an updated waiver list that identifies specific local bylaws and local regulations that are implicated by the most recent plan revision so we submitted a more detailed iteration of
that that's going to continue to evolve as the hearing progresses uh but that's one more uh item that was included in that April uh 2nd submission that we uh sent over to the board um so with that um we can turn it over to the engineers
i do think uh I just I recall at the last hearing we had mentioned that we wanted to ensure we have a quorum throughout um and I just wanted to make sure you announced the the voting members um is it a consistent uh group or is there anyone missing tonight yes
yes constance is missing okay and is this her first hearing that she's missed so she can uh as long as she watches the video she can still be a voting member so and I'm sure uh council for the board's kind of tracking these as well and we'll do our best to make sure we we
track those you did mention you we sent you the uh uh analysis well the work done by the health department have you had a chance to look at that or is that still something ongoing yes uh we did look at it i reviewed it with uh Farland Engineering um you know tonight I think
we'll get into overall uh general civil um if the board has specific questions tonight on waiverss uh that I think like the next meeting is going to be probably or at least one or two meetings left that we need like one whole meeting just because
there's a whole list of of waiverss yeah it's going to take like you know pretty much a meeting to go to go well I think if we get ahead of it this evening it really comes down to nitrogen loading nitrogen sensitivity and you know whenever you're dealing with septic
disposal proximate to uh water bodies and wells it's all about nitrogen and we actually did discuss it uh with the engineer and as it turns out our plans are compliant with the state requirements uh for nitrogen protection
uh and nitrogen loading and there is nitrogen removal features in the proposal so we can certainly address those i don't think and and we we can discuss the waiver list and and continue to see that evolve but this board is
charged with um determining whether or not there are local concerns or unique local um sightspecific issues that would require denial of a waiver request and where the waiverss that the board of
health was mentioning really come down to nitrogen loading and we can show that there are no nitrogen specific concerns um this isn't in a wellhead protection zone it's not a public water drinking supply we can show uh appropriate
separation uh to wells and and we can show that the local regulations uh that the board of health reference in this in their letter do not rise to the level of something that that qualifies as a critical local concern but we can we can certainly Yeah absolutely and we can
certainly um you know maybe tonight towards the end we can discuss overall uh storm water and overall civil site design and then maybe we can toss around similar to what we did at the last hearing we can identify specific concerns i know some board members have
had a chance to really dig into the plan set um so if there are specific concerns maybe we can prepare a specific letter that describes the waiverss that we're requesting from the board of health um uh bylaw and why those waiverss uh are
appropriate and again ultimately in these discussions it's all about whether the board or the consultant uh for the board identifies a critical local concern that would necessitate uh upholding uh a local
bylaw where we're requesting a waiver so certainly there's further discussion on that topic right okay but I think good if we uh can turn it over to MBL yes so can you give us a summary of uh well the summary it's a very lengthy yeah so a
couple of things uh Mr chair and members of the board so we received another package of information revised plans I think it was April 3rd uh with an updated waiver request a new set of site plans so that was like last Thursday or
Friday so we really haven't had a chance to look at all of that stuff in great detail however uh you know as we demonstrated at the last meeting uh there's a design flaw in the way that the engineers have uh determined their
drainage study and how they're using as we want to call it the CND type of soils um so you have if you have CND type of soils uh per the u the soil survey you
use infiltration to the extent practicum however we have test pits and per test data that say something totally different so when that is the case you have to comply with the infiltration and
recharge requirements of the storm water rules and regulations of the state which is a conservation commission you know type of review however it's in front of you right now so in order for them to go from here to the conservation they have
to show compliance with the wetland protection act in those storm water rules and regulations one thing that could be done is if they went along with the the uh infiltration rates of the either the B material uh
that we've ident that that has been identified and certified by the engineers they could use infiltration and recharge make their basins possibly smaller and stay 50 ft away from the wetlands but they're choosing not to
however the you know in their response that we just got last week they're saying that whoever did the soil evaluation earlier on didn't have enough experience however filing engineering is the
engineer and the engineer of records certifying the information on the plans which they already have done that so it's kind of hard to say I don't want to do the recharge and I don't want to do the infiltration uh for this type of design because they
because of the soil survey mapping the soil survey mapping if it is CND it's up to a competent professional to make the determination of the soils that are on the ground or in the ground and then
come back with a competent design based on that and not throw out that you have better soils in 6 in of 6 in perk rate or 8 inch perk rate with Sandy LOM and lomy sand determined where even the
board of health witnessed these test pits so it's very hard to throw that data out and say "No we're not going to follow that or no we're not going to use that." So uh it based on their review letter that they and their responses uh
they're all already saying that they need to do more confirmatory test pits on site to make sure that it's a B soil or a C soil which should be done and we've discussed this uh in our letters um twice already that you know we think
that that should be done fining Corporation is saying that they want to do that and they're going to plan on doing it the month of April so that information should be done should be documented and then their plans updated to show conformance with the storm water
rules and regulations of the state so um I think that that's where this project needs to start also in regards to the board of health uh letter I mean I just received them this evening i read through them they're recommending
denying the waiver of of in lie of test pits so that's a requirement of title five in the primary area of the septic system and the reserve so there are uh areas on the other side where there's uh
reserve areas of the septic system that don't h that don't have all of the test bit data uh that is needed per title five so I think that that's where the the board of health is is uh trying to explain in their letters today like I said I just read them this evening mr
chin okay can you go through like your the your the your comments on your review on uh March 28th so on on March 28th so they did do so comment number one they did provide uh a
pl stamp on the survey plan um you know however um when you get so when you get to the loting plan that they provided they didn't provide the you know it's kind of difficult to tell the the the the professional uh land surveyor to do
the job a certain way however if you're going to record a lot sheet it has to have certain certifications on it it has to have a registry block and things like that i mean we didn't get into that kind of detail but that's missing so they can't even record the plan also there's
um another 117 acres um to the north of this property so what filing Corp has done in their loting plan has just drawn a line down at the end of the the development but kind of
forgot about the rest of it so when you subdivide and you say I'm going to carve out this and you and you have 117 acres remaining over here in order to record the plan you have to say what's left and what's remaining even if it's under the same ownership so some type of a plan
needs to be prepared that shows what's happening with the existing 117 acres it's just not going to sit there so that information needs to be put on like a form A plan or an 81X plan
something like that um there's uh the demolition plan we talked about the demolition and erosion control plan i don't know what happened uh on the new set of plans uh but there's no existing contours on that one uh number um number
13 I like I said there's no uh certifications on the plans or the registry block or anything like that for recording uh number 14 uh really the same comments above that I just mentioned about the certification
uh the grit number 15 was that the uh stationing had been added to the plan that's great uh number 16 we uh recommended the structural engineer uh review the retaining wall and they're saying that they want to you
know um move that as a condition of approval i I think that the uh retaining wall should be designed because it's a small block wall and there's possibly going to be some type of a grid associated with it to hold it up uh so
that really should be on the plans the um let's see number 17 uh the curb ramps have been added and to the plan however the there's a label for a curb ramp in in the middle of a building so I don't know why that why
that's like that um they've added the radius number 18 they've added the radiuses to the plan um see number 19 is about the parking spaces and the
mailbox blocks so the the radiuses have been added to the plan as as we requested they added number 26 they added the easement in between two of the houses um and the loading plan was stamped by
the PLS so yeah that's been taken care of but like I said you can't record it so it needs to be revised once again uh number 27 um the uh they're saying that they're going to go out and and do
additional test pits to confirm the soils and the groundwater they was said later on in the letter um it would be done sometime in April we're recommending that someone from my office be there to witness the the data and
also take samples of the soils and the conditions and uh have them tested as well that's a recommendation uh number 32 uh we talked about uh showing all of the proposed development
uh design for Golf uh View Lane uh that's been added to the plan uh but I also want to make note that that doesn't mean that what's shown on the plan is really what's supposed to be to be built it should be built per the original subdivision plan just in case there's
any uh differences uh number 33 uh talks about some uh sewer manhole information missing um says that they've been they've been updated
so um I we just have to take a look at that again so uh number 34 uh talks about the utility plans and and requesting uh you know that we make sure that there's no uh issues of crossing uh
drains and sewers at the same time we did request uh a plan and profile uh but we got push back on that um number 35 uh talks about the underground utilities have been shown on the plans so on and
so forth um and we're saying that this information should be provided on the the final set of plans before your approval number 347 which talks about the profiles that I just discussed um
they're asking for a waiver on that um number 41 is uh talks about the plan showing gas uh but there's no gas out in this area so they remove that from the plan so
that's been done um subdivision rules of regulations number one comment number one a waiver has been submitted should should be submitted for um the regulations for section
3B2 um we hadn't received an updated letter um at the time uh but I the waiver request letter I think says that now the new one number two on the regulations uh uh proposed street names would be
labeled on the plans they've been labeled on the plans but I think that we also would like to have signs placed at the streets and the intersections so that should be updated on the plans as well number four should be noted the
applicant has submitted a waiver request for this section which is section 3B3H um but the plans really should be dimensioned to show all the lot areas and not with plus or minus um based on
the review today they've addressed that that in their plans um so they took off the plus or minus number five comment section 3B3I the plans do not show bearings and distances of the pro proposed lots roadways and
all the proposed lots or where the north is referenced from the plan should be revised so on and so forth they they did update a lot of the bearing and distances but I think I saw at least one that was still missing today but I like
I said Mr chairman I that was just a quick review today uh they did stamp and sign the loting plan uh number eight section 3B3M the plan and profile of proposed roadway showing the center line roadway geome geometry and elevation
should be provided as of 3:18 no updated waiver requests have been received and no updated plans uh but now they're requesting a waiver from the how however usually bless you when you do a subdivision you do a plan view on the
top and you do a profile of everything that goes under the ground it's really standard operating procedure for a subdivision plan um number 10 section 4 A3B not enough design information is
shown of proposed roadway intersections to know if the requirements of the section are met profile showing the proposed grading should be provided with labels of all high points low points so on and so forth so we can see the vertical curves and to make sure that
they've been designed uh properly uh as of the 18th no waiver request was submitted uh but as of last week a waiver request was submitted so that would be another another waiver that you'd have to review and discuss mr
chairman on comment number 12 section 4B1 no easements are shown on the proposed drainage last 9 10 and 18 i think I I mentioned this earlier the easements have been added uh in stamps by the the PLS uh but that you
know we'll have that come out with a the final review of the updated information that we have se uh comment number 13 on section 5B6 section requires that 5x5 bounds be installed at all street angles
bearings and ends of curves and all intersections this information is is now on the plans but no waiver has been requested so uh no updated waiver was requested but I I think that in the new
information there is a waiver to uh not install all the bombs that's another waiver you'll have to request and discuss 14 section 5 CF offense shall be shown around the proposed detention basins the fence has been proposed
around the basins and uh fences should be labeled including the heights and material and gates of should be provided for bait uh basin maintenance and emergency access um fences have been labeled on the heights and of the
material have been added and gate access has al also been called out in the plans uh but I I haven't had a chance to double check that one uh comment 16 is section V uh section 5D2 standard 11 requires the volume of
the storm water discharge of the 10-year storm shall not increase the pre-development conditions in the storm water report the applicant states that they met this requirement by demonstrating a reduction in peak volumes of the 10-year storm the
reduction was calculated by subtracting the volume contained when within each each basin from the study point that the basin discharged from the study point volume of the 10ear storm the calculation is erroneous as the volume
runoff of that is contained within each basin already and accounted for in the study so another another item that needed to be dressed and if they changed their design to be an infiltration basin and recharge then they would just do a
mounding analysis and a lot of this would go away the other thing is uh they're uh they're asking for a waiver of this regulation due to the C and D material that's in the soil conservation
mapping so you start there as engineers you look at what the soil conservation survey did in the 1950s and60s and said where all the different soils are so they start with CN D material
however you still have to recharge and infiltrate to the extent practicum so based on the soils that were dug in the ground witnessed by the board of health and and certified they're saying
there's lomy sand and and sandy lom and and actually gravel and and with cobbles and stones so it's it's very hard not to say based on that data that they can't infiltrate and recharge so it would be a
recommendation of of our office that Farland follow that that regulation in the stormwater rules and regulations to show compliance with with the recharge requirement of the state regulations under the storm water rules and
regulations so and that can be further confirmed with witnessing the additional test bits and also witnessing the other perk tests and soil evaluation that the board of health is is requesting in
their letters to follow title five for the septic systems and and the reserve areas we just can't like only do them in certain areas and say that's good enough and say I'm going to use this a reserve and not have the test bit data
associated with that reserve area um so that's that's kind of like a big one and still is a big one uh number 18 is uh section 5G2 proposed
gas and electric cable television wires and all other services except for transformers so on and so forth and no information was shown on the plans so um and then they put gas on the plans when there's no gas service out there to tie
into so that didn't make any sense so uh as of 3 and 18 we it still should be shown on the final plans and then as of last week um filing Corp is recommending that the final layout of the underground
electric and cable and telephone utilities um and providers be provided as a condition of approval there should be some understanding of what kind of utilities they want to show on the plans to serve these homes so I I think that
that really shouldn't be a recommendation of approval it should be something that should be shown on the plans uh comment number 19 section five uh I3A proposed water tank shall be of a watertight fiberglass design the
proposed 10,000galon water tank detail shown is of pre-cast concrete the plan should be revised to conform to the regulations or a waiver should be requested and um following court responded on 213 the
proposed water tanks have been reviewed and approved by the Westport Fire Department a waiver section has been requested and then as of 3:18 no waiver request had been provided uh but as of last week a waiver request was provided
so that's another one that the board will have to discuss um on to compliance the town of Westport local septic system regulations title five um and the Massachusetts private well guidelines common number
one appears that no perk tests no perk tests were performed in either of the test pits located within the septic system reserve area in the area of TP2207 and 2208 based on the soil logs
provided on the site plans that we reviewed it is recommended that any perk tests required by the board of health are performed to ensure that no additional waiverss from local regulations since there is a 30 minute
inch per great rate maximum allowable in this town um and then as of 3:18 the applicant has asked for a blanket every single board of health rules of regulation not
itemizing they want the whole thing waved so I think that in your discussions about waivers it should be very very specific but I think that once you review and read the board of health's uh letters
into the record you'll see that they're they're uh asking you not to wave any of their regulations uh recharge we talked about recharge at length um and I I think that
we were very very clear um uh to the applicant and the applicant's engineer about the use of CND soils in their in their drainage analysis so the big thing and the takeaway from our comment about that
that is that therefore okay let me start at the top so comment number one standard three of the mass state rules and regulations as they relate to storm water standard three is recharge the
proposed project to uh uh to recharge storm water to the maximum extent practable as the site is comprised of solely CND soils based on the NRCS soil survey however
the mass storm water handbook requires that soil conditions are verified on site at the location where the recharge is proposed and assigned a hydraologic soil group at each recharge
location based on the test bed data and the detail sheet one test was performed within each basin which is lomi sandy soils were observed in each test bit lomi sand soils are suitable are
suitable for groundwater discharge therefore recharge should have been provided for this project utilizing RS rate sand and MBL recommends that the applicant perform witness test pits in
each of the basin to provide groundwater recharge per the mass storm water handbook so but with that information this is not an end all this is not a deal killer based on what we do at our
office having infiltration and recharge makes our basins possibly smaller so this is kind of like a good thing so I don't know why they want to push back and not do this however the letter of last week says that they're going to do
the tests so I I want to make sure that we get out there and we do the tests and we witness the the testing we log the materials we agree on the materials and then we also have the materials tested to come up with an infiltration rate and
then that's what the design engineer should use um so I I think that um you know the other statements and and their their comment on that um you know you can you can read their letter um I
was a little um I was a little taken back by their one of their responses about the person who did the original soil testing uh in the board of health that witnessed those tests so you can read that for
yourself um uh some new comments that we had well this is on on the newer stuff but we can get to that after after we review the the new information that we've received Mr chairman okay thank you you're welcome i I see here you're
ready to do Yeah Mr chairman if if I could just help to frame the issues um a little bit you heard a lot from MBL um with some editorialization as to the the back and forth i think a lot of what
was described um will likely be resolved just as a matter of course when the next iteration of the plans are reviewed um I just wanted to point out a few things and then obviously I'm going to turn it over to Farland um just to explain the
situation with the uh soils and the infiltration and the storm water uh but there were several comments uh about a plan that's ready for recording um these plans that the board would approve out of this process are not to be recorded there's still preliminary plans and then
we have to go and ultimately get board of health approval conservation commission approval other state approvals and then we come back to the board at which point things like uh a place for the board to endorse the final plan set and have it in form suitable
for recording would finally be done but there were several comments in here that reference things that that really would be um for the final approval process and I I really think they're in the ordinary course and uh you know I heard Mr dunn
describing them uh and I know you know in fairness to him he only had about a week to review these at this point um so he hasn't really done a full dive on them but I think once his team looks at it and and realizes exactly what the process and procedure is um we'll see
that you know things like this are most of these are resolved but um as far as the soil analysis I'm going to turn it over to to Christian um who will explain and and that really is if if I could frame it that is a uh sort of threshold
question that needs to get resolved which is why um ultimately the the engineer the professional engineer on the development team uh concurs with the uh proposal to say you know let's go back out and confirm this because we
really do think that the C and the um lumi sand uh characterization in the soil logs um and in the soil logs was inaccurate a mistake or whatever it was
but we're going off of our professional engineers experience in the town of Westport and experience with how to deal with storm water in Westport so it's a Westport specific design which is why we're not proposing to do infiltration
which is why we're proposing the detention and we agree we'll confirm it so that's actually something that came out of the last hearing um it was an engineer in training uh a young engineer that doesn't have a lot of experience necessarily in Westport so I certainly
wouldn't be taken aback by that i'm not sure I agree with that it's it's a fair characterization um People pay for experience there's a lot that goes into experience and um you know things like that are ultimately checked by a professional engineer uh which both of
our uh representatives here are and ultimately they're going to stamp the plan so if they're not comfortable taking the word of an EIT uh that graduated recently and nothing against that person at all um but I certainly would go with experience uh and a
professional engineers stamp at the end of the day um and Christian can talk more about how he arrived at um you know what the plan is to confirm the soils and the plan is to confirm the soils in the ordinary course we'll have the board
of health witness the soils um and if a representative from MBL that is a certified soil examiner I'm sure there's somebody on the team that's like I think we have 10 of them certified soil examiner you know we don't need 10 out there but um if if you know somebody for
the board but we don't need to turn this into uh you know a a hunt to find some intricacies because we are dealing with experience here ultimately um so uh Mr farley before you do that Sure i just want to clarify one thing that Attorney
Poocci I'm still confused about this level of drawings he I I sort of get the impression that out of this what what the attorney is saying is that we sort of get improcess drawings rather than certified stamp drawings in in your
experience what what do you generally get out of a 40B project at this point yeah i mean from from the from the zoning board part of this the process does call for more preliminary type plans than type of plans you'd get for a building permit say on and the reason
for that is you have a process that you know the the statutory scheme is meant to encourage affordable housing so they don't want to put developers through the time and expense of getting to a final plan set and then getting denied or having conditions that are unacceptable
so the process on the regulations do contemplate a preliminary type of plan situation but having said that that doesn't mean that they don't have to comply with information that an engineering professional says needs to
be on there so that you can make a reasoned decision on it mhm so what what I took from the peer reviewer comments and I may have them wrong is he's not saying that that they're you know he's objecting to the final stage that it necessarily can't be recorded but more
so that there's crucial information needed on those plans for you to make a reason decision but I may have that wrong on that on the recording situation need speak to that that particular one what I'm what I'm
referencing is if we're creating lots Mhm and we're going to deed lots okay and you have to record that plan at the registry of deeds a myar has to be created it also has to have a registry
block on on one of the corners that's you know two and a half by two and a half and there's a bunch of certifications that need to be placed on that plan for recording but at what stage is that done at is that done as
part of and the other thing and you mentioned um uh I mean eventually we're going to get to the point we're either going to make a decision to uh to to grant or reject and once we grant it then you go off and do
we go to the board of health well go is that that's not really talking with attorney Poocci that's not really the way it works well it is because so the board of health for instance actually issues your uh wastewater disposal permit your your septic works permit so
they sit in a state capacity so they don't review local bylaws it is the ship has sailed as far as the nitrogen waiver things so if this board uh determines that they're okay waving the local nitrogen bylaw the board of
health can't deny us a permit based on the local nitrogen bylaw if if we if we grant the waiver if you grant the waiver correct but they still have to adjudicate compliance with title five with the state bylaw and unwaved local
bylaws if there are any unwaved and the requirements of the plan so we have to go to them and ultimately show that we're entitled to the uh the wastewater disposal permit the construction works permit for the actual septic system but
it's whether or not they get to deny that based on local bylaws so that's the adjudicate same thing for the concom the concom sits in a state capacity and in a state capacity they adjudicate compliance with the state bylaw but if
you wave local bylaws they can't say hey we have a 100 foot setback but they we still do have to go to them so if they determine that there's some non-compliance with state or if the board of health determines there's some non-compliance with the state title 5 um
then we'd have to change our plans and when we come back to the board for endorsement of final plans things might have moved around so that's your second bite at the apple it's really when we go to comply with state law whether there are revisions ultimately there there's
no laotting plan that's coming out of this process that's when the board finally endorses and there will be a stamped endorsed plan at the end but it's not this plan set i was going to get back question over
here and we're kind of strange so and what I meant with you when I said there they're not going to there is no further approval process of board of health or anybody else i'm talking about your local regulations that's here so you that's what I'm talking about they're
not going anywhere else on that stuff for local for local but they have to go to them make sure they comply with state they have to get their state approvals from any jurisdictional board that has the jurisdiction over the state issues okay so if they have conservation commission with wetlands protection act
they have to go to conservation commission if you have a more local restrictive bylaw however wetlands bylaw you have to impose i I got it okay same thing for board of health stuff right and on the the question about the plans this is why I asked the peer reviewer
what I'm what I'm saying about the issue of preliminary plans the process does and the regulations are clear they they are allowed to have a certain preliminary type of plan before you to get an approval for that you would
condition but they have to be to the degree of um you know the degree of engineering information on there or other technical compliance issues so that you can make a reason decision on it so if they they haven't reached that
level of detail that's not enough so I'm I'm trying to explain to you where that fine line is between a preliminary plan and something that's appropriate for you to act on and and that's what I'm saying if if this particular issue about a recordable plan that that's just some
further information later that can be specified well they have to put XYZ on these to make them recordable plans that's fine that's one thing if but if the peer reviewer is saying no there's crucial information missing that you need it's the content not necessarily
the right you know crossing the eye and dotting the tees exactly okay the other the other thing I want to get uh when we again either reject or grant I I and you can conditions too yeah and
there's grant there will always be conditions but you mentioned you come back to see us again yes when you have final drawing so that is that what's the let me go ahead add on a little bit and we have talked about this previously so there again I agree with
everything that's been said well that's good and and that is it's a preliminary set of plans so there's got to be enough information like Brian was mentioning about the utilities what kind those things make sense so you need to have enough information to make an
intelligent decision based on all the information and you put so let's just say that you would approve with conditions and there are a whole bunch of conditions that need to be met m so what would happen is that then we come back after you've been to the board of health after you've been to conservation
before depends we sometimes we do that simultaneously it could be but so we're going to take your conditions and now we have to include those in the plans that may include to get some information from the Hong Kong and the port of health we
then come back with a set of plans and we say we think we have met all of these conditions here is our final set of plans you then still have Brian to review the
final set of plans to be sure they're in compliance with all of the terms and conditions of the permit so that's what Chris was saying you get a we call it a second bite at at the plans to be sure that it conforms with the decision mhm
so a lot of the information in my opinion that Brian is asking for not all of it but some of it would really come out in the final set plans so after after we finish this process where we either grant or
reject you finalize your plans you then apply for another petition to grant the 40B again no no that's part of the process we don't come back no okay so it's just a usually they just come back that they you you have to confirm at
some point and typ usually when I do them it'll be through a building inspector is that there's a when they finally reach the point that they're seeking building permits they have a final set of plans the board will typically have the right to make sure that those final plans are in
conformance with the approval of conditions so that they can't substantially deviate and if they do they have to come back with a project change but your your whole process is done by then the only the only thing that you're certifying then is you're reviewing it and you're saying "Oh yes
this is consistent with our condition." But they would they would come back to us in a public hearing because all we everything we do is not a public hearing it would be a public meeting it is not a hearing oh well it's still right it's it's an open meeting like this it's an
open meeting like this yes but and and again it it's typically done through you know the CBA doesn't have the technical expertise to look at that so you'd either have your building inspector in conjunction with a peer reviewer either the one that you're using or one that
the building inspector typically uses and he or she then relies on that peer review to make sure that the final plans conform and that that really though goes to the building permit process it it has nothing to do with your jurisdiction and
your authority over this this is it so whenever this public hearing closes yes but then I would assume that after we get in in an open meeting your final plans and we have our people review it and whatever still there's a final
output of that i assume that that the that the board then writes a letter accepting or you endorse the final plan i mean it's got to be a a paperwork and that's what gets recorded but you can't revisit issues that you might have missed during the If we granted
something before it's still granted exactly right the waiverss yes um Okay i just I I just want to get the process clear in my mind you know I have one question related to that um when they go to the conservation and to the board of
health and or the board of health uh is either one of those a public hearing or is it just administrative public hearing um yes definitely for the concom I don't know if the septic uh system works
permit is is a public hearing but yes they're they're open to the public yep um concom is definitely a public hearing not as well yes for sure yeah um so I I do and I I really want to try to crystallize the issues or distill the issues that the soil you know what comes
out of this meeting because we are planning to do some soil testing i think it'd be important for the board to hear from Farland um why their experience tells them that they need to design this site uh for Sandy Loom um and so uh I'll
turn it over to Farland Engineering who can maybe describe that that March 28th plan revision um and start with uh the theory behind the the storm water management system and you have those plans yes okay good evening Mr chairman for the record
Christian Fallon principal engineer and president of Fallen Corp um I'm just going to touch base on the on the soil classification and then I'll have John go over the the remaining um issues that were
addressed um so the difference basically is whether the material there is sandy loom or lumi sand um I just want to remind the board that the storm water design was previously designed by a local
engineer which was Scitec Engineering they had got bought out by CEC Engineering they also reviewed the design um the plans were stamped by a competent engineer the plans storm water review was reviewed by another local
engineer failed failed engineering um they did the review of the storm water and they were their storm water same storm water same soils was designed and approved signed off by two engineers
um I'm a lifelong resident of New Bedford i now live in Dartmouth i've done a lot of soil testing throughout my career and I know firsthand Westport very rarely will you find some
A and B soils um now I'm the one stamping this plan i'm going to be the one responsible for the drainage design i need to make sure it works and being familiar with the area being familiar with how close these
basins are to the wetlands how close groundwater is which is 4 ft deep um in the research that we did when before we when we got involved in this project we researched all the septic
designs in the area abing the property and on the street and 90% of the soils were indeed Sandy Loom um now those were all majority soils were done by local engineers um and I don't want to put
this young engineer down well he's not fully an engineer yet he's an engineer in training but he was fresh out of school um and my business my young engineers I go out there with them doing soils because the only experience they have is a course at UMass Amherst um and
that course is strictly in regards to soils doesn't get involved with drainage design and how important the classification is to determine if you can infiltrate or detain soils um so as owner of my company I go out with my young engineers and certainly make sure
they understand the difference um of a sandy loom and a lumi sand and I'm going to be honest with you doing these soils in in August when um Mr torah did it it makes it even more difficult cuz the soil is dry um so if he doesn't do the
proper test to be able to determine between sandy loom and lumy sand if it's just dry if he doesn't wet it it's going to feel like indeed a lumi sand um so even though those test pits
he classified them as a um lumi sand the engineer of record the carpet engineer determined he's still going to use CND soils um so I just want to make sure the board is is aware of that i certainly
understand um are you doing more test bits so we're going to do more test bits and I I think that's a great idea um because I think we just need to put this to bed um and we want to make sure it's it's designed properly and if we can infiltrate if we find B soils out there
or or if we can find A soils so be it um we we will redesign it according to the mass regulations but I will be shocked if we do um so we can plan on going out there i recommend this gets reviewed by
the the board of health um that's the typical procedure in in town i don't think the consultant needs to be there um I don't think my client needs to pay the town and a consultant to be out there but I'll leave that up to you Mr chairman um and I do want to just
there's a little conflict um information given to the board the tests within the basins were not witnessed by the by the board of health um so they they were never witnessed um and also in the in the letter that the board of health said they they said they didn't witness them
so um there were no perk tests done within these basins um so we just want to make sure that's on record uh so we have no problem going out there um but again I just I just want to let the let the board know I'm going to be the one stamping this plan and if I go out there
and there's and there Sandy loom the design's going to stand as is the basins are larger because it's Westport the soils aren't good out here um so if we make these basins smaller it's a more chance that they're going to fill up and and they're going to fail and that
becomes a public health issue and certainly and I can say this this is the truth i've designed many basins and I I've never had one have issues with it um so I don't want this to a consultant tell me how to design my
system um so we just want to again go out there and and verify the the soils and the applicant has no problem doing that we can get out there as soon as the board of health gives us a date to witness them um I think that I think that's all I had
on the soils what about the reserve so the reserve area um the applicant owns 117 acres out here um I'm not too concerned i don't think that's what he's talking about i think he's talking about
the reserved area of the septic system reserve the septic yeah that's what I'm talking about you want to hold the septic to the end of the conversation it's up to the chairman we can talk about the septic if you want again this is going to be a board of health um well I know there was a lot of comments though from our uh our consultant yeah
uh that there wasn't testing on the reserve for this he did he conflicted himself he said at first the board of health witnessed testing out there and it was a per rate of eight minutes per inch but now he's saying that there's no bird perk test either way we have two
areas this is planned um the plan set this is a 75% plan set they're not fully construction drawings yet um certainly if we we have to meet state requirements state requirements require perk tests in the reserve area we don't have any perk
tests in the reserve area yet so we're going to have to get that done okay um for the septic area um either case I'm not concerned with getting that done um but certainly it's it's on our list to do what's the timing on all this the
timing on the septic design no the the the test kits and the soil samples the test pits for the for the septic design we'll probably do most likely in in July that's after
isn't that after we're supposed to either approve or deny right now we are scheduled our our our end date is sometime in June yeah so Mr chairman the the soil testing for the storm water design we're going to expedite and do that sooner because it's a macro issue
and and a gating issue for the overall design since we have to do the soil testing uh for state compliance um for title 5 that has to be done anyway that's not something that would we would do pre-ermit
um if because the health department is going to review title five requirements correct correct okay so that would be a condition of the permit that we getting approval from the board right okay so
that that's all I have mr chairman if you if you would like we can go over the the list um but again I think a lot of the stuff is stuff that we will be adding on the plan on the final set such as you know
the registry block absolutely that's something we have to do that's not going to you know I'm I'm not sure if you care if there's a there's a block on the on the plan um or same thing you know with with certain aspects of the plan that need to be finalized as far as the utilities go
the Eversource is the one that provides the final design of private utilities we'll handle the the the ones that are going to be um for our development which is the the water the sewer um the
drainage as far as the electric goes I'm not sure if the board cares if it's on the right side or the left side um it's a line on the plan we don't have the exact yet we could put it approximately if you if you would like um but it's really just a line on the plan handle
the the electric and the phone and the cable and whatever yeah it all gets designed yeah generally Mr chairman if I could um on the issue of utilities it usually comes up on a super tight site and the reviewing engineer will say "Can
you show me that you even have the room to get this stuff in there?" Um I think if there's any indication Brian that you've seen is there any indication that there's not enough room to get uh you know water uh the water electric and
cable out there is that a concern water is not an issue it's wells on each lot so the only thing that's really going to be in the roadway is drainage and um you know the force man and some of the sewer is gravity so the water for each lot is
provided by a well not a public water supply but I do think uh you know where Christian just mentioned that they want to wait until July to do test fits and soil evaluation and perks for the septic
system we need to make sure that um the site is viable to be able to use those as a reserve area that should be something that's required now not the condition of the permit yeah I would I would strongly disagree it doesn't make
sense to do it now i Uh that's a basic one and and if for some reason it's a condition of the permit and for some reason there's a problem then and we have to make changes then we would have to the process is we
would have to come back to the board and say this is what we need to change on the plan and we ask for your approval you have to make a determination whether that change is substantial or insubstantial and if you determine
substantial there's a there's a hearing about that particular issue yeah and just to clarify a little more so us volunteering to go out on uh the site to do the soil testing for the storm water is actually something I wouldn't
ordinarily see in in this context i think the peer reviewer has made uh such uh or raised such a concern about it and because we do have seemingly conflicting information we determined that and this board is is very in tune with the
details of the engineering and you know every board's different i mean there there are boards that would look at it and say "Hey that's great go for it." Um but because we're in tune with the details here and this conflict has been raised then we're making an exception in this case to say listen it's appropriate
to go back out and resolve this conflict because there is conflicting information uh but for something like you know complying with the state we don't actually have to prove final compliance with Title 5 we just have to show that we have enough area to put the box out
there where the reserve system will go where the actual main system will go and then that permitting happens later and if there is a problem later um then we'd have to come back to the board but that's not something that we would delay the whole process for but we can get out
there and do uh these these uh C and D versus A and B because that's something that came up that is a conflict and it's it's specific so back though on the on the on the electric and the whatever
person I would like to at least see a a concept of how this is going to h for no other reason that it's it doesn't get lost from from our standpoint yeah you know I assume that the how this is
going to run all the uh all the power to all these houses is going to be in the final drawing well actually no not even because Eversource brings it in or the telephone company or Verizon um there's no gas on the site so that we don't have
to worry about the gas system but generally what you do is you show us even on the the endorsed plan um you'll show a corridor if there if it's a super tight site and the corridor raises additional
concerns then we'd get some detail in there but I I think you know Christian just to show a corridor for utilities and and general you know schematic proposal wouldn't be prohibitive right no I mean this is the rightway here is
40 ft which is typical rightway standard we're not looking for a waiver on the width of the the rightway so there's more than adequate space to put a the electric company won't even begin to look at the plans till they know it's
been approved that's when they do their engineering and then what they'll do is they'll come out and they'll put it somewhere else had that happen with a transformer recently put it right in the front lawn and yeah it was they they'll put it wherever they want so the Yeah it's
tricky tony Poochie you that's generally the way this work I mean I know power companies tend to do whatever the hell they want i wouldn't get waste too much time of your public hearing talking about power okay very good thank you any other questions Mr chairman
any other questions that's up for me john do you want to just give a quick update uh you know some of the additional detail you added um you know maybe comment on the turning radius that was something that had come up at the last hearing uh for uh equipment and and
the standards for the planning board on those topics uh good evening John Marshian from Farland Corp um I appreciate Mr dunn going through all the comments and kind of uh going through an item itemized list of those um I think we addressed a lot of the
comments just probably providing the BLS stamp on the a lot of the plans and updating the waiver list um we did add a note um referencing that we had used LAR for the budding topography uh we provided additional
detail on the erosion control and sediment uh erosion and sediment control plans uh provided some notes on that plan uh we did provide some additional roadway geometry uh center line radius curb radius at the
intersections um we had reached out to the fire department to kind of get some information on their the largest vehicle that that they would need to navigate through the site uh and they just gave us they didn't give us any dimensions or
anything with the truck this gave us the design requirements for curb radius which is implemented into the plan um as as Mr dunn had mentioned there were uh uh we added some radi at the
additional parking areas um provided some additional notes that were missing on the the sewer inverts i understand he hasn't had a chance to do a comprehensive review on the revisions but uh I think he had mentioned looking for additional
uh the layout plans to include the remaining land we can certainly do that we can certainly provide street signs and stop signs um one thing I did want to touch on with the the septic uh we're not requesting any waiver for nitrogen
removal we have microfast systems at each lot so I don't know where the blanket waiver came from we're not certainly not requesting that uh we are requesting the waiver from the local requirement for the 30 minute perk
rate i think that's about it also show the board had uh raised the question about the four or five houses up the top where their wells are located the distance uh from our property later
[Applause] [Applause] john can you just call out which sheet that is 20 of 27 so we have on each of our proposed wells we have a 50ft circle that's to demonstrate that we're meeting the well
setback requirement from our proposed tanks on our lots we also have a 100 foot buffer um shown extending onto the abuing loss to the north and showing that we we are not within 100 ft of abudding
septics with our proposed walls so how does the sewage get from all the individual lots down to the common septic it looks like it's going to have to cross some wetlands to get there well the there's a
wetland the road goes through a not a wetland crossing it's an upland right but the house over to the extreme left how does that pipe get all the way over there without going through the wetland in the middle here everything comes down
this road to a a pump chamber that pumps it back up toward the separate system near Westport Lakes Road okay okay so all so it's all gravity fed or pumped down the street that goes left to right
and then down the main street and then you're pumping it from the in some places there's a pump some places there isn't some places depending upon the gra where the gravity would do it or not it's going along the road along the road in the road just like a sewer so what happens every house has a tank right and
that's what John was talking about making it so some of the tanks are nitrogen sensitive removable and all that and so there's a tank so everything goes into the tank right yep and then the liquids like a sewer go down the
pipes in the road that all feed to the common septic area so just think of like a sewer system instead of going into the sewer manhole it goes into each of them has their own
tanks each everybody has their own tank with the when the septic has tank the two tanks the one tank with the solids and then the liquids go over here so no the liquids go into a pipe right so I'm just saying in a typical system in one piece of property two there's two tanks
so one has the solids then you get the liquids and then it goes to leeching area so here the each will have their own solid tank and then but no leeching and then once it gets liquidy it goes down the pipes into
the leeching into common leeching so all the houses are going to the tanks are going to drain down to the left yep some some are pumped some are gravity because of wherever gravity can do it all the houses of gravity all the houses of gravity all the houses of gravity and
but pump chamber and you pump it to there and then from here this gets pumped all the way to the legion to the legion okay and all the piping is within the the road all piping is in the road okay and and so there's no piping in and
you just stated that you're not going to ask that you don't need a waiver for the uh the only not for the state but for they're asking for the for our town regulation that's more strict no we're not asking for a way or your
bylaw calls for a nitrogen nitrogen sensitive removal system so they're accomplishing that John explain we meet it state and the it wouldn't be required in the state here the requirement right it's in the town how
in compiance with it just by having the fast things at each each individual house so Mr chairman I I think we're now in receipt of this correspondence from the board of health um and as I mentioned early on the plans and the waiver list
evolve um we had called out a few uh specific sections in our uh most recent waiver list but that will continue to evolve and I actually we spoke this afternoon and we're going to be able to call those out specifically and so that
the board can see precisely what we're asking for a waiver from and we'll drill down in more detail because as we look at it closer we might not need waiverss and that's what we discussed this afternoon we actually even if you do then we go back to the health department and and uh identify you know what are
the what are the issues with with either granting or rejecting your waiver you could ask waver then we have to comply right yeah and we'll specify which waiverss we're requesting um and
the board of health is allowed to give input to this board right for the local just a little simplistic though because typically what happens is there'll be an appeal well the fact that you deny the waiver doesn't mean that they'll comply it means that probably they'll appeal
yeah right well right that's right and and pay what we will to the to the housing appeals committee yeah certainly that's you know it's it's always best to avoid that situation and and we're going to spell out precisely what we just didn't want to make you think that oh
well we'll just deny it i mean I mean we've been through appeals before so we know how that but this is going to be a little different because this would be let's just suppose we granted but we obviously we grant conditions sure so you say "Oh well we grant that how can you appeal a granting?" Well you can always appeal the condition absolutely
right and certainly I mean part of the process is we generally and the board indicates which uh bylaws are important to them and which conditions they may impose and we would you know have hearings to discuss and negotiate uh you
know what what conditions may or may not be appropriate and would give the board a chance to have that dialogue in in a public hearing obviously uh as we move along in the process it's my cl it's our client's concern and so forth and our concern the last thing we want to do is
file with the housing appeals committee because it's going to cost us both a lot of money and the the issue is time and it's all sensitive to so we want to we came here with the idea we're trying to work together and that's really our intent to work together through the
whole process just as we did in a 91 lot subdivision that we did in Westport that you haven't I don't think you got one complaint Now um I'm just looking at schedulewise
uh from here out because right now the uh we are scheduled by law to without without an extension to wrap this up in middle of June sometime uh that leaves us maybe two more
hearings if we do this once a month because we could we could meet more often depending on plans and that sort of thing yes i mean I I'm certainly and I've I've looked at the list there's a long list of waiverss you're asking for although they are going to evolve as you
said are they going to evolve enough in the next month to make ne to make a the next hearing something meaningful i I would believe so um we've gotten uh quite a bit of progress in the peer review and we'll be able to resolve that
that soil disconnect question uh in the month of April um you're you're going to be doing more soil sample testing and you're planning on doing that in April well we're already half but we're Yeah and be in April we're in April
right right and I guess the the the point of the testing is just to confirm what's already on the plan so we would essentially say our our design has been validated yes and if not then and if not then we we extension would be Yeah we we would have to we'd have to do some
redesign that would definitely take additional time um and let me just add one thing this way mate on the waal list we try to identify by line item everything that we're asking for but at the end of the day
we need the waiverss that are necessary to build the plan as approved by the board so so that's what we're asking for so in my opinion you don't in my opinion you don't need a waiver list because you're
approving the plans well but but to be safe we have the waiver list yes i mean the waiver list tell But the waiver list tells us uh things that you are not going to comply i mean that's what a waiver is that's correct and we need to understand that so that we can sign off otherwise
we're all left in the dark yeah we're going to give you that list kind of like uh saying that the list is this long and we're throwing it on the walls to see what sticks pretty much which ones we're going to see i'll tell you we do we do kind of start there because it depends on how much detail the board wants to go
we don't know the board's level of detail and that's why it evolves there are boards that say plan looks good take a waiver from everything u obviously this board doesn't operate that way and and we're identifying specifics as we go um and we just identified a few more
that we can comply with this afternoon so we can be more specific uh on those topics as well now does your u schedule uh of having to go to the uh board of health and work with them and the
conservation commission with a public hearing which has to be noticed and so forth u does that uh accommodate June that's actually after that's after the we the permit's good for 3 years okay
and do anytime we we have a three-year period from the date the permits granted to pull all that stuff together um and that's assuming no no appeals either one way or the other um but yeah that's all post permit another question I have is
uh is there any uh in a project like this uh is is there any uh enforcement mechanism for the uh proper maintenance pumping of septic tanks so generally with the final plan set and and as a
condition of approval there's usually an operations and maintenance plan which a lot of times is baked into uh see so it's it's not here yet but as a final plan uh requirement it would be to have an operations and maintenance
plan that describes what the sequential maintenance is and regular maintenance but these individually owned property so but there's an HOA as well so the HOA owns the they do their job correct yeah well there's also what happens is
that when we start selling the affordables and the market rate units there have be this disclosures to the buyers and there's an HOA and there's a budget within the HOA and there's money in that budget for uh
update but maintenance of that common septic system there are things according to title five that have to be done in the board of health inspections and that sort of thing if it needs to be any repairs so there's money in the HOA
budget uh so every time we we close a house the money there's money from the buyer so many months and and so there's a fund for that and and that's also required from the man their own tank but sorry does that include pumping their
own tank or just a comment the own tank is their responsib you have it done every year every other Oh okay some people say it's supposed to be done every year it depends on Yeah how many people are in the house it depends on a lot of So that's up to the individual there is no enforcement on
Okay i guess the board of health has at some point in time would have the right to enforce to be sure that everything's on yeah it's a title five requirement true title five i I just want to uh I just want to check
with Brian uh when we do these test bits I would as a board member I I would by myself you know I'm just one vote i would think that our peer review should be there like this i Mr finance said he didn't want it there but the board of
health's going to be there and I I this is a big issue i mean it's it's the one that needs to get resolved so I my opinion would be have our peer review there when they do it do we also need in that case the board of health pay both
i mean it seems redundant to me you got two soil professionals looking at the same thing so what I mean it's obviously it's your call but so the board of health I wouldn't call a soil professional or do they bring their
own folks with them their own soil i'm just saying that this thing's been an issue right well it's been an issue and I just want to hear it from our peer review yes this is okay to do that's why we're paying them yeah we I
mean they're not paying that's why he's here i I I mean I I agree with Ray i would also agree with that is there anything else we can tackle tonight
besides scheduling the next meeting and deciding what the next meeting is going to entail i think so um I guess the board has indicated that it's the board's prerogative they would like a certified soil examiner from MBL to be
present is that what we're being asked of is that what's being asked of us the majority already say that okay so Brian we can have you can have one uh certified soil examiner okay great um so we can make arrangements for that so I think that's that's settled
we'll get that done um you know similar to what we uh did at the last hearing if the board has anything specific in their minds that that they would like more information on as the plan continues to
evolve and the issues are narrowed um you know we had a good discussion at the last hearing about uh emergency vehicles and wells and we were able to gather information and and cross those concerns off the list um I I assume uh we're
going to update the waiver list again between now and the next hearing and in that we may have more detailed uh requests for waiverss or no requests for a waiver uh from the board of health by law and I think you know it was
mentioned the only waiver that we have our eye on right now is the 30 minute park is a local requirement and I'll just I'll caveat that with oftentimes there are sort of administrative provisions in the local
bylaw that mirror or slightly different from the state so we usually ask for waiverss from the administrative but we'll be specific about that um you know it'll say "Thou shalt apply you know on a Tuesday type thing you know." So um
we'll call those details out but maybe if we just had a quick discussion about that one point that that John brought up so that the board can express concerns or questions and then maybe we can provide more info on that topic at the next hearing yeah I think there was um it was brought
up in the board of health letter and I think Brian had mentioned it there's a in the subdivision regulations 3B 3P uh there's a requirement to do perk tests uh as uh are to be conducted as
outlined in regulation 14 i think that's an older board of health regulation there is no regulation 14 that's why we're requesting a waiver from it they're not trying to not do perk tests
um but that's a a subdivision regulation um as far as the board of health regulations um we were requesting a waiver from the 30 minute perk rate requirement um and
uh the board of health I guess is the the issuing authority for the So can you describe though what a waiver for a 30 minute perk test means uh so the maximum allowable perk rate in town is 30 minutes per inch so the t the rather than what the title five requirement is
60 minutes is what 60 minutes per inch okay so um the uh the board of health is also the uh the granting authority for the storm water quality and quantity control
regulations we're asking for a waiver for that um Roger that's that's one that Sorry to interrupt but that's one then you'd want to look at because it's appropriate to seek the waiver for the procedural requirement you're not you don't have the right to
send them to another board for a local regulation you you need to understand what the substantive requirement is so that you can act on it right because it's a local requirement and we're going to be the decision authority for local requirements correct okay
um yes so we were just asking for a waiver from the requirement to submit the storm water review to the board of health as it's being reviewed at as part of this CBA approval process it's Mr chairman I I just want to u make it
known that we do have a member of the board of health in the audience here tonight she's here uh not to discuss detail of any of this but uh she is here and I think we should recognize that and
uh uh she specifically uh indicated to me that she uh um is here in case there are any questions regarding the latest letter from the board of health director so I'm just going to let you know that
we going to read that director we reading the board no I mean there's we have I think your question to the board of health will probably come after the applicant specifies what their response is to list is there I I might have missed it i
apologize is there like a spreadsheet of all the waiverss or you know so we we haven't built it as a spreadsheet yet it's it's the list that was included with the March 28th uh Farland Corp and on April 2nd but we we actually talked this afternoon about putting it into a a
spreadsheet that you're probably more familiar with seeing it's just helpful you know yep it's not a heavy lift we we can take care of that one of one of the comments you just asked if there was anything we could talk about now one of the comments Brian made was the fire
retention pond or basins that they were either fiberglass or concrete and they depicted as concrete is that Yeah on the plans there the concrete i would just like to have a letter from the fire department saying that that's okay if I may Mr chairman
um again Christian Finen for the record one of the first things I did um is meet with the fire chief to go over this project and the the turnaround and the tank was exactly the ones that he wanted um the turnaround was he gave us a
standard that we needed to met to meet and we met that standard and the tank was exactly the same tank that the town likes to see um which is actually made in a Bristol County pre-cast um so I just want to let that you guys have
already on record the his approval mhm um so I don't know what else you guys Okay well his approval was for concrete is that Yeah yep we don't have a We don't have a copy of that letter or or the fire department's approval is there
an email or something no it's on part of record you guys have it oh there is okay yeah it's part of that yep all right so it's already in there great it was read one of the first hearings we had i even have it we'll dig it up and and resend it if you don't have it getting old okay i'm I
want to I'm going to regress just a little bit on the in the on the previous one we talked about the the traffic study safety aspects of this um and I think we've closed off mo most of those uh those issues um one thing still
concerns me and it sounds mundane but from a safety standpoint I'm uh is this is a public this is a private road uh as is all the the other houses that that are there and I mean I drive by this every day and I see all those mailbox well right now there's only five because
there's only five houses there i'm really worried to see 38 more mailboxes just all along the on the road since since the since the post office won't go on on that
street i know like in um in Forest Park up here back there uh they have the same thing but they have a like a coordinated and they have an area yep like uh that that makes it so that when the when the
post office goes there they just go bang bang bang bang bang and you're done and you don't have and again I'm thinking this mostly from a safety standpoint of so is there any thought about how to do this that's actually not an uncommon question that you're raising i think it's something that we can look at and
and provide the board an answer with our best guess on that i mean ultimately I know you it maybe put you in the binding because you don't own that plan exactly that's the issue on Mr and I don't know how I don't know how other areas have done that i mean it's a concern to me but I I but I don't know how to
Mr i think we we actually do have a centralized mailbox location on the plan if you want me to show you but I think that location is on West Metro so there is it is on the plan yeah I thought it is i must I must have missed it but I
didn't no this is not on i thought that that was two parking spaces with the little concrete pad was the centralized mailbox the post office the post office they won't they won't go in there they won't go there they don't
Yeah that's so we have to get out onto Westport Lakes Road we have to work with the president see if we can count this right because it's going to have to be on the intersection of 177 and Westport Lake Road cuz that's I think so because because they can't go down Westport Lake
Road they could but they won't right okay anyway just you know it I sort of sort of brought we talked about it a little bit at the last meeting and I can and uh I bet I just I can just see you know they're to get
more mail i mean it's just going to be a disaster i just see a lot of cars waiting parked along the road to get to their mail and the same thing I think we had the same concern with the school bus with the school bus right right but at least this one we could manage if if you know if it was we contacted a landscape
architect to take a look at that and that's where he came up with the plan he thought that that they would go into the subdivision but since then we found that most likely they will not so I I don't know whether you could have I don't like personally to have whatever it is 38 45
I don't know 50 mailboxes out there so I don't know if there's a way that we could maybe come up with some solution where we have like a central right i mean if you look there's one up here on like I said right off of 177 that does that but it's still dirty it's still going to be 38 boxes it's just going to
be one but it's one right yeah that's right i assume it's not like Yeah it's not like it's like a bank it's not It's not 38 boxes so somebody can come with their baseball bat and knock them all down yeah I know that put you in a bank because you don't own that property but I would like but I know that the owner
it's a concern to me the owner I think is presently cooperating or working with the planning board and I think that maybe we can have some discussion with them and see if that's something that Okay yeah thanks for raising that
yeah any other is there any more clarity on the wells because we keep going back and forth that each plot's going to have their own well and then sometime they may not have their own well they're all going to have their own well all going to have their own okay yep we've been gone every health and they have to be 50 feet
from the house and 100 feet from the closest we just showed you the plan okay if there's no um what uh first of all let's let's talk about what we will do at the next hearing i assume we can re wrap up some of you'll have uh had time to go through
and and our consultant will have had time to to to go through your what your most update is yes so and sort of wrap that up as much as we can right that's uh that's definitely the plan would be for
um I guess actually uh so MBL received the March 28th plan set uh that answered the March 18th comments so the next iteration would be
uh a new review from from MBL based on the March 28th but I do think Mr chairman and you know I'd like input from town council as well some of the uh comments seemed a little granular that
at this point it might be appropriate um to and actually they're going to be out there or the certified soil examiner is going to be out there for the soil test anyway so they'll need to cooperate and coordinate the the soil test timing so I was just wondering if to some extent there'd be some communication
between the engineers directly uh to try to you know make sure we fully understand the open comments because I looked at this and uh Mr farland looked at this and and a lot of these seemed to have answers and you know based on the initial reaction from Brian it seemed
like he had a couple extra questions so I think that would be an appropriate uh path to try to expedite MBL's next turn you want to do a one-on-one or at least I think we made clear at the last
hearing and town council made clear that he didn't want a free-for-all which we we respected but I think you know at this point um allowing MBL or or authorizing MBL to ask questions and and at least have a conference call to try to work through anything that might be
open from an engineering perspective that's in this report so that MBL can expedite their next turn mr i don't see a problem with that we do that all the time i But if you'd like a member of the board if you'd like Yeah no if if if he thinks it would be useful the peer
reviewer I I don't mind it at at this stage i mean that it because we are getting into the process right so okay so with he will want to report back but after you do your then we'll get something back from from our consultant
saying here's here's now my stand here are still my open issues right exactly exactly and then that would be uh similar to what we did tonight that would be ideally actually if we look at the timeline you know see when the board has available for a hearing if we could
back plan from that to hopefully maybe get ML scheduled right we have nothing scheduled um so if we could if I may point of order Mr chairman I think what's paramount is first we need to schedule the test bits right determine what's the
what the soil group classification is right that either the plan stays as it is right or or they go back into design right my my gut is is they're going to go back into design but won't know that until you do it right exactly but that's that's where my gut is right now which
which would be to the to the benefit of the development because I think with the infiltration and and recharge of those systems in compliance with the state regulations on storm water which they have to and they have to show recharge
right okay you've said this already three four times so that would that would reduce the basin size which would reduce the fill and grading and so on and so forth yes i think okay yeah and I'm hearing this I just I but still so what I mean in order to have a
meaningful you have to do the test bits and then we need to I mean if it's no harm no follow then we can go forward if in fact you need to make a change then then we can talk about it at the next meeting well I think if if that actually came to pass we we may continue the next
hearing yeah um well I mean we want to get something done at the next hearing which would probably go through a lot of the waiverss that we know about right we could do that um so so maybe if we look at the timeline I mean May um I'm unavailable the 14th
the would the 21st work for I don't know if we I was thinking if we can we schedule the the test soil test uh this upcoming Monday you can schedule one i'm not going to be there you could be there you if somebody
from MBL can be there on Monday you also need that you also need the health department the health department well that's up to the It's up to the the board if they're going to Yeah so I just plan to plan to do those whenever you can so if the board of health can't be there is it okay if the consultants
there i want the health department to be there okay so then we won't coordinate it with both of them we'll coordinate that tomorrow then hopefully we they can both be there on Monday okay and so that information comes in next week mbl MBL reviews uh you know continues to
review the March 28th submitt um and Brian assuming that the pits are done the week of the 14th whenever it is could you commit to a turn of the uh next iteration of the peer review by May
2nd uh when am I going to receive the plans you have the plans it's the March 28th plan set all right so but on the 14th say the soils are what we say they are that was already certified at the board of health that means Christian and his
staff go into redesign well hold on so what we're saying is we have to operate on the presumption that our lead designer has said that this is the way that he wants it to proceed the peer review is not going to compel something unless it's uh clearly
fatal to the design if it's his preference to go forward with that that'll get resolved the week of the 14th all right and if not there'll just be open comments and we can discuss it during the next hearing there's still a lot of other points to to cross off the
list so whether they're open or closed on the 14th can we have a peer review by the 2nd of May based on the information we've received on the on April 3rd or 4th yeah but I think that's spending your money for No
I I think I think everybody's confused april on the 14th let's say we do testing and let's say that it confirms what Christian is saying so therefore there's no further redesign so to speak so you would be able to
So if there's no redesign can no redesign so we're still staying with the same set of plans that you all that you just received or March 28th that has not yet fully the March 28th there is a redesign all bets are off and we you
know yes when we reconfigure so by May 2nd and then we have a meeting the week of whatever May week of the May 5th no what was No what we're saying is on the 14th if everything's hunky dory with the soils there's
there's so I see so we got to get he's going to respond to the May 2nd right so he can he's going to have us a report by May 2nd no he's going to have us a report on the March 28th submitt by May 2nd all other things being equal so
that let's just plan for that date um we so if we did have it by the second um you know I think we'd probably would we want a little bit of time between the next submitt and the sub hold the problem is if if we get
something May second even if it takes us a week he's not respond but either way I think the rest of his comments should be pretty minor okay um as long as the storm order doesn't change obviously so I think we should be able to meet May 7th and May
14th uh does the board only meet on Wednesday nights we generally do but this not cast in stone would it be Sorry um the week of the 5th is town meeting so we can't schedule anything oh right okay would would the 13th work for
everybody no they might have hearings we might have to yeah that's the reason we stay on Wednesdays is because the room is available right so I'm going to go off the reservation 14th but I can probably do 15th i actually do the 15th
i'm on a way the 14th and 15th and and 16th so uh we could do the following Wednesday 21st the 21st um and obviously you know we talked about the engineers are going to have some communication between then and now
so and we've I think the idea would be to have a robust discussion on the board of health waiverss that night and any open engineering issues that they were unable to resolve between now and then so it'll give them plenty of time to have some back and forth if needed um so
I mean Shannon would you be okay with the 21st i think if the does the 21st work for the board the board some there's somebody in the audience who wants to speak to that no I'm going to speak to one of the issues uh Donna Ammerald from the board of health Matter Meno has been
watching so um we've been communicating back and forth he is available on Monday or there is someone available on Monday to do any perks so we just wanted to pass that thank you Attorney Poochie what's your availability i'm available
good because we're not doing this without you uh what about the rest of the board 21st of May 21st the 21st i'm good you guys I think the 21st is better than the 14th we need to give everybody enough time so
they come in and we knock this stuff out yes yeah and 21st is fine okay janice yes good yes me i'm point of order mr chairman I I will check with constants mr chairman I think the Monday might be a little bit too fast because we don't
we need a trench permit we needed to call dig safe we all that cleared yeah okay all right um what time on Monday the 14th no when oh that's different you and I
are on that so we're going to do the 21st 18:30 okay 10 a.m okay uh everybody everybody is okay then with May 21st here at 6:30 anybody any uh board any other
discussion for today board no somebody in the audience um yes I'm open up to the U audience come up in name and address and again um we confine this to storm water
management good and and not destroying things for the record Stacy Pereira 26 Westport Lakes Drive i have the um Westport department that you were discussing earlier um English was not my first language but
I do need do know how to read there's nothing on here that says approved it actually says undetermined and also I um did reach out to the post office they will not go down the private street right and as it is
the top of Westport Lakes is stateowned that's it the end thank you okay thank you so it's going to be a challenge brent Pereira 26 Westport Lakes Drive i I've brought this up in the past and and I think it it it's prudent because we're talking about conservation and and uh
board of health um I know the board is aware from some some documents that I provided in one of the first and second meetings regarding the history of of the the entire land mass that includes Westport Lakes Drive as well as the 40B
parcel currently with under this proposal my question isn't is I've had a hard time getting a a distinct answer is back in the early 2000s um there was a comprehensive process or review process
through MEPA and at which um it enveloped the whole entire land mass like I said Westport Lakes Drive as it is now as well as the 40B parcel um from the proposal i I guess my question is is that uh that I have not been able to get
answer is will this because because this prog this the initial project was designed in two phases where a phase one which is what Westport Lakes Drive is currently and then the phase two which is essentially
what they're proposing to do now currently under the 40B the plan was in effect back in the early 2000s and it's still essentially in effect now so nothing has really changed except for the the structure of the project
there was a comprehensive MEEP review which uh entailed a number of of requirements to include a notice of project change to be to be identified if the for if the land mass that uh the 40B is comprised of if there is any project
change or any developmental efforts on that parcel where MEEPA determine that they would there there would have to be a notice of project change filed with MEPA so that they could continue with their review i guess my question is at
what point does that occur because that notice of project change was set in into effect um back in 2008 according to the final uh environmental impact report which I provided to the board previous second to
that because of the MEEP review this whole land mass fell under the Department of Environment Protection and not local conservation not being a professional I'm assuming that this whole project
would still fall under D and not local concom because of what occurred in the past i've I've I've yet to I've asked a number of professionals this and have not been able to get a straight answer i
guess because part of this process they have to go to cong which I understand they have to go to them first and then it would get pushed off to the D if that's the case but I just want to make sure that that does occur or if that's the appropriate
avenue that it does occur where this project under the 40B proposal would still fall under the superseding order of conditions that was set back in the original project uh
scope i don't know if if any of the professionals here could answer that through the board where will this 40B project fall under local concom should it not still fall under the the D
uh envelope and guidance i think I think what he's trying to say is is there was there was a mea review of some type of a project that triggered uh an EIR which is an environmental
input pack report with the secretary of environmental affairs in Boston i don't know what that project entails or what triggered that EIR but usually an EIR and a final EIR means
it's a very large project with a lot of land alteration maybe wetland alteration number of trips um would trigger something like that on vehicle trips but I don't know what the the full project would have entailed um but I
don't know if the applicant is is working on that EIR or the basis of that EIR i couldn't tell you because I haven't seen it however but right now what we have in front of us is a 40B application for one parcel of land i
don't know if that was part of that EIR or not part of that EIR it may have been uh and maybe there is a requirement for a a notice of project change at the state level but um the local conservation commission is ultimately
the the permit granting authority here for any work within the 100 foot buffer zone and to enforce the storm water rules and regulations of the state but if there is a threshold of land
alteration like 25 acres or more or um you know whatever it is more than 500 parking spaces or something like that that requires an an EIR or draft EIR or an ENF an environment environmental
notification form then the applicant would have to do that but I I don't know what was originally permitted through the Secretary of State i couldn't tell you yeah I think what uh Brian was getting at towards the end of what he was describing there is is the accurate
takeaway is that the project has to comply with state law and there is a process through each state permitting agency to see whether or not that other MEEP process is triggered so it can be triggered through the concom process it could be triggered through another
stateisssued permit uh you know last time we talked about any mass dot approvals but the answer is this board does not wave any state requirements so if there is a state requirement somewhere out there um it will come up in the final review process that will be
triggered by one of the agencies that is issuing a state at the concom they will as the state permitting agency correct it'll go to them first and depending on where they end up with it they will either refer it to MEEPA uh and say that
there's some additional threshold that was triggered which I I don't think that would be the case but again we're just we're speculating because it's all state law the the other trigger that popped into my mind is state action so if there's a state
permit say something out on Route 177 that's an ENF at least an ENF well that'll come up through the Com process it It may I I don't I I don't know if they would if they would bring that up but it it really should be the
applicant's team to say "Hey what what other state permits do we need?" Because we're we're doing this we're doing that does it trigger anything right but I'll tell you if there is a state permit required that requires an ENF even even
if say there's an appeal that's state action that's an ENF attorney Puchi I think a little differently on that particular issue but one thing I just want to say is and I think this all relates to what was trying to be permitted years ago and that was 170 all
of the acreage it included a golf course it included I don't know 50 houses quite a few houses I'm not sure the exact number and and and that development never went forward so that development as designed then would have triggered a
a ne review but ours certainly doesn't but but Chris is right I mean you know whatever the state requires we'll do I don't know the status of the MEPA filing for this so MEPA is
a process where the state will act on standards and then they they will issue a certificate depending on what is filed under MEPA i haven't reviewed that certificate i don't know what applies to this property it's outside your purview
of the status of of the MEPA filing whether there was a project change under original certificate all those types of issues i can tell you if it's state wetlands protection act conservation commission acts on it in the first instance they're the jurisdictional
authority their review would be subject to appeal to mass t um again local rules would be before you but the MEPA whatever the status of of the MEPA filings or certificates or the
requirements I have no idea I've not reviewed any of And it really isn't within your purview to determine the status of that you know your per permit would be subject to any state requirements they have to comply with
that um you know if people have a real concern about what the MEPA status is they need to look into that you know and seek counsel to look at it if they think that their rights are adversely affected by it but it's really outside the scope of your review here on the 40B okay
thank you then I guess I take it up with Concom then thank you stacy Per 26 Westport Lakes Drive i forgot to mention on the uh Westport Police I'm sorry the um Westport Fire Department with the first meeting the
first hearing the board had requested for someone to be present when they went to the fire department and that didn't take place just to let you know I also um I missed part of the fir the beginning of the meeting was anything um brought back as fact as far as the
traffic study they were supposed to come back with reports they uh they did answer the questions that were brought up by the by our consultant as a as documentation because I guess they had reached out to
Westport Police Department and were able were not able to obtain the um the accident reports so did we get that or that I don't know okay as far as far as we know that traffic is done
well at the last hearing if anybody needs to re go back on the tapes it was asked um they said they were going to present that um another thing as far as the last meeting um I had mentioned that there had been three accidents and we're I'm Mr chairman I'm pretty sure there
was like either minor injury or accident versus major two out of the three vehicles were total thank you there was some discussion regarding the uh area
of 177 and old county by the by the mobile station there was some discussion regarding a turn lane or not and I think it was mostly Yeah and you had thought that the mobile station was supposed to
have done that in the there in when they were permitted for theirs but I had also asked the last one um there was a lot of discussion as far as 88 coming off the ramp but I had said
that um a lot I would think that the majority majority of the comparison would be more of Mouseill Road as far as with that traffic study versus the 177 or the old county street that you're speaking of
um so I guess the other thing was with the Westport Police uh Westport Fire Department i called and spoke to the deputy chief that there was nobody um from the board that was with um Farland that got that report from
Westport Fire Department mhm thank you any anything else good hi uh Joe Pico Grandpine Way uh the reason I'm up here is I had a question about the wells
we're going to be uh drilling 38 wells yes yes and uh what guarantees me that my well is not going to go dry nothing nothing wh why would it Why wouldn't it that's
all artisian wells well it's all it goes into the aquifer excuse me they go into the aquifer yeah but still we're talking 38 wells mhm in a relatively small area yes well
yes so I guess I'm stuck drilling for a new one right if it goes dry well I don't think drilling for a new one is I I My well is 168 ft deep okay
how How deep are these wells going to be uh they go until they hit the aquifer exactly right it could be 168 ft it could be 300 could be 500 could be exactly yes but that's how Wellsar yes so there's nothing I can do
no no that's a nice Blake i mean attorney attorney well I mean he can he has evidence that it's going to drain as well as he's going to have to pursue that issue mhm well I mean we're all drilling into
the same aquifer everybody in Westport is in the same aquifer i mean no but it's all different veins you know and and and I and I and I agree with you that that some people they hit the aquifer at 150 ft right some people
go to 500 and then still have to frack it afterwards exactly that's just the way it's the the regularities of how the aquifer works it's not just you know it's not just one big ocean down there that you're tapping into so after all these after all all these
wells are dug mine goes dry i'm screwed right i have to hire somebody you could they could drill one well and your well could go dry yep i mean that's just the way that's the way it is i wouldn't worry if it was one or half a
dozen we're talking 38 yeah but I'm saying and one wall could cause your They're going to be uh closely the proximity right how far apart are they going to be they uh well they're going to be 50 feet from the
house and they're going to be 100 feet from your septic at least okay and I don't know i don't know where your well is well what I'm saying is the new ones that they're going to be drilling how far apart are they going to be from each other
they really I mean it's going to vary by a lot but pretty close on on average well it's just four or five of those houses and it's on the plan with the distance i mean and and John had
discussed that a little bit i mean just tickle road one of those mhm i'm not worried about tickle road i'm worried about where Yes yeah u Mr chairman members of the board so the wells are not 50 feet away from
the homes they're at least 50 feet away from the septic tank oh right yes but the house right um I have 11 by 17 but John can you tell us how far the wells are apart on saypecially the first four
houses on the uh whatever south side [Music] mr mr chairman if I may while John's looking up that uh distance I just wanted to read into record put this fire department um issue to bit
there was an email sent from Mark A bris deputy fire chief Westport Fire Department to Maria on October 29th 2024 which includes attachments and also
states in the email "Good morning Maria the roadway design and fire protection regulation have been reviewed and approved if any of the board members have any questions or concerns please have them contact me directly okay and this is part of the
record I believe so we can see that from the 50 foot radiuses that are drawn on here um the tightest I guess the tightest lot three uh that well would be a pro a little bit more
than lot two the others you see the wells are maybe 70 houses up above that's so I mean I I mean I certainly I understand your concern but the the way the aquifer works
whether they're far or close is not really relevant you look at you look at uh all the uh uh uh the neighborhoods that we have you know even off of 177 and those houses back to back to back to
back all every everybody has to have a well because we don't have any public water we all know that what it really means is you're tapping into the same source of water we all know that was an aquifer that we're all tapping into so whether the well is 50 feet apart or
4,000 foot apart it's still the same aquifer that you're pulling the water from so it what you worry what is is are you really deep enough to really get where are you in the aquifer now you're in a yours is actually pretty lucky
that's actually fairly shallow for for a well in in Westport well lucky it depends on how you look at look at but you hit you hit sustainable water at 160 feet okay uh the guy next to you he might have to go 500 feet it really is a
function of how the acryer underground is actually uh flowing so I I'm not going to be a heavy camper if this is Oh yeah i understand all of a sudden they don't have no water they're not going to spend what 10 20 but if if you're not
going to have any water then people that are going to be aren't going to have any water either because they're going to be drilling in the same in into that same aquifer what I'm saying and plus I I plus you can also look at the water pressure you same thing 30 more units
that are going to be temp into that system but whether they're here or or half a mile or all working off the same aquifer pressure is regulated by the pressure tank right well it's flow rate it's flow
rate i I mean the peer review is amazing issue about it flow if there's expert testimony about it consider it but right now there there's no there's no expert testimony before you raise the issue so it's not really something you can answer
right for them well I don't I'm not sure that anybody can because Well that's I mean it's I mean I know that when I had my well drilled I mean we went down like 250 ft uh next door neighbor had to go 500 and he was only a 100 feet away it
really depends upon how the the you know the irregularities in the aquifer that's just that's and some people get some people have very low flow rate and some people have very high flow rate in the same area yeah it's it's really just your lay opinion though on it if if if
the property owner is concerned about it he really has to talk to a a well guy a well guy yes and and then if he has evidence that he wants to bring before you you should consider it but it you're not at and and I don't minimize the concern but I'm just saying you're not at the stage that you can have a
meaningful dialogue with him or the applicant well I might as well ask for it before it happens if it happens yeah you know what I'm saying mhm that's just I there's no there's no competent testimony before you that you would base any type of condition on it
or so right other than just Well you know everybody has a well and everybody's well is different okay i had another question okay what are you going to be How much fill are you going to be bringing in for all
this property how much what filled filled how high are you going to go above the existing well they don't have to put a leeching field in so you don't have to build up for a leeching field that you a lot of times you would have
to so that's I mean that's a that's that's a valid question when you're when you're out there excavating uh all all of the cuts and throws are on the plan are they Frank Christian not all of them yeah the plan shows you all
the the cuts and fills um we haven't calculated the total but the goal of an engineer is to try to minimize the amount of fill we need so we try to balance the cuts and fills so it's a balanced site which obviously is cost effective um to get a number we don't
have that number total volume right now s since since you don't have septic systems associated with it you don't have to worry about uh how uh how how deep you dig the the the
sellers to get you know in order to get the uh one you know in order to discharge into a uh into a septic system leeching area so because you because your leeching area is way you know is pumped to it when I had my septic tank put in my
system put in it was Mr lenny Potter that did it and he told me that that whole area around here is all flood he says "I know this area around here like the back of my hand and everything soils." It's not a soils or B well he
dug 20 ft down he dug 20 ft down he dug 20 ft down and all he was taking out of there was truckloads and truckloads of clay and I believe my when I put in my system it was drawn up and it's in the
down 20 ft deep okay is there a question here or just a comment my question is how much fill is it going to be brought in and depending on on the height we're going to have run water runoff going
towards my pine light right i mean that's uh can you can you address that as far as run off the other way it has to for that back piece um just so the board's aware the goal of the engineer and we're required
pre-development runoff from the site and postdevelopment runoff for the site we can't exceed what runs off to his property during the pre-development for the post-development so after construction ultimately there's less water that goes to his his site um and that's that's a
requirement that's a state requirement i think we just need that [Applause] so this is the grading plan um these are the the butters here um currently their land is at 172 here our
land's at 168 um doesn't take an engineer to figure out the water water going that way water's coming on our site so it's all it's all heading to the east so our goal with the development is to make sure that after it's done we're not pushing water onto their site so
what we have here and these are this is this is rough grading right now um we have locations of houses on here but it could change but this gives you a rough idea what the draining uh storm water is doing we actually have a swale behind all these houses which defers the water
to the to the pond so there's no additional water going on to their site um after we're done we also have the tree line short on this plan which is we're not changing any of the grades after that tree line it's going to be natural buffer um to the abuters as well
is the grade from Pine Street but heading towards you guys from Pine Street they basically have a ridge um most of them do anyway front of their houses go to the go to the street the rear of the houses either have a swale
somewhere in between or go onto our property a lot of them have septics back there which I'm sure was a high ground water so they may have rays septics some of them have pumps some of them may not have pumps um ground water is high 4T in this area it's definitely not soils
okay thank you yep my question was how much are you again Mr chairman these plans they're not they're not finalized we didn't we don't do a volume count for the entire development um I don't know but as long as the water is running off it's
irrelevant how much fill we're bringing in here you're not going to raise the grade we're not We're not that would that be a fair assumption it's 172 ft behind it and 168 no there's four feet to work with we have a buffer along the entire property we're not touching the
grade there's not going to be an ounce of dirt in that buffer zone so no we're not changing the grade along right that's I think is it better answer the question than how many cubic feet of Yeah exactly still you're going to put in you're not changing okay anyone else
okay can I Can I ask I guess yeah this is not your first development in your previous experience have you ever dug a bunch of wells like this and caused somebody else's well to go dry my experience I don't know Christian but
mine none so again um I'm going to bring up the development I have in Matapoise which lots are smaller than these um we have altogether uh if you can quiet the crowd please um
we have over 28 houses there house lots are 10,000 ft we have wells we have a shared septic system and we haven't had one issue does that matter a place at public water nope not not our location okay um some do right some parts of metapoes share with even some probably
yeah well that's a good example don't have any issues there um again this is something that really it's you you you could run into issues you you we don't know until we we get started out there um certainly there's no evidence they have houses very close together same
wells no issues there um I don't I don't think this question is really pertinent right now to the board but we'll we'll answer many questions as well but he asked the question so I was trying get to your experience from our experience
yeah we haven't had any issues on roads there question uh we keep referring to Tickle Road and Matapoet can we um specify acreage this was 25 that we're dealing
with right 38 38 38 okay so my question is just what's um the anchorage for Tickle Road and then the Matapoet that we keep comparing development he just said they were Matapoa was smaller than this oh he said the house he said the house lots were smaller he didn't say
the acorage was smaller right well doesn't that acreage of sorry the total acreage of the project total acreage of the project um we have a large open space parcel there which is over 30 acres um and then our development was
probably close to the same um I don't know that helps okay um I'm going to make a motion to continue this hearing until what do we say the 20 first
at 6:30 here so move all in favor say I i i all oppose no let the record show that's unanimous so uh we will see you all and hopefully we can start uh closing in on
this because time is running clock is running so hopefully we can get through uh at least a major portion of the of the water management of this and go through at least the first draft of uh whatever waiverss you're
requesting yes yep and we'll plan to have that well in advance as well and we'll share it with council and and the peer reviewer okay thank you we'll see you all in May thank you George you're welcome do you
have other business uh just meeting minutes oh okay good night good night thank you okay um meeting minutes uh we had a meeting March 26th maria wrote up the the uh meeting
minutes this one I handled a little differently because the petitioner wasn't here i thought it was important to expand upon um some sections to make it obvious what we were doing uh because
the petitioner wasn't here to you know to to present his case so uh so I added uh a lot of a little bit more background in it uh you know things that we had discussed uh like you know I
added the letters that that had been written so that it so that it beca you know it became um a little more um a little clearer why how we were reacting to somebody who didn't show up uh and make that part of public record so
anyway uh re added all that I think other people had comments good night everybody thank you thank you thank you so um okay so I make a motion to approve the March 22nd 2025 meeting minutes
march 26th 26th yes i have a second second all in favor say I i oppose no that's unanimous let me sign this before I forget um any other town meeting is coming up
May 5th yeah i know I'm gonna uh the select board is is actually going to on the issued next Monday they we're going to discuss the um the articles the
zoning board articles that are that are going to be on the uh does that mean the town which meeting they want somebody I mean I'll be there and I think I think Jim White will be there as well to discuss the uh uh what we are you know the there's three articles that are
going to go on for for zoning um the one which is just the ADU which is just complying with state law and two that have to do with short-term rentals one from a uh general bylaw standpoint and one from a zoning uh standpoint so anyway that will be next Monday any uh
any other business that anybody wants to discuss have you heard from the folks from the last meeting have they decided to No but if you did see that uh Ralph sent out another season's assist letter i didn't send that to everybody i just sent it Oh
yeah ralph sent another cease and desist letter to formally you know to they're not operating no they're not just reiterating the f the first one right same reason okay that makes sense yeah they're not operating so
uh seems to me he did add I think it was something he added he added a second paragraph sentence okay no other oh I make a motion to adjourn second all
in favor i was good what time okay Val thank you