It's 6:30 uh May 21st. I'm going to start the zoning board 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 math general law, chapter 38 section 20F, this meeting is being recorded. You can sit there. First order of business is uh Westport Lakes Zero Westport Lakes Road. a continued hearing on application of Pine
Ridge Estates LLC and Bradford Dean for a comprehensive permit pursuant to Mass General Law 40B with a development off Westport Lakes Drive consisting of 38 single family housing homes on individual lots which are to be
contained two or three bedrooms with 10 of those homes being designated as affordable deed restricted homes. Sub property is located at zero westport Lakes Road and is shown as assess assessor's map 31 lots 3B 3C and
4G. Voting on this will be Jerry Coutino, myself, Rajie Manard Constens Ray Elias and Cynthy Kasikowitz. Uh again this is a continuation and we're going to start off with the
continuation of locally efforts being done on the u storm water management. So somebody from the petitioner who's storm water knowledgeable on that can come forward. Thank you Mr. Chairman Paul of Delick Associates on the 40 consultant
and attorney Chris Augustine is on his way held up as an accident. I understand that um you I have some minutes that you might want to approve now if we could. You should be here in about 10 minutes. No, we do minutes after.
Okay. So, um like to start off by basically stating that um I think there's been a lot of progress uh that has been uh achieved uh since since our last
meeting. Um the site visit uh happened um and uh the soil the soils that were found in our engineer's opinion uh were
those uh soils that were adequate and were uh what he had indicated would be when they did the testing. So the plans that he has prepared, the storm water management plans
um and the detention basins and so forth uh will u be adequate um subject to further review. But there's a question if the soils were uh not adequate that maybe we
have to redesign and maybe go into an infiltration type system. Mhm. Um but what they um have determined that that's not necessary. Well, I hear for a consultant because they I think they vehemently disagree with you. Well, this
is that not working. Here we go. Uh I I think there's a disagreement between the professional engineers and uh we have received a letter which the board has from the uh conservation commission. Uh you have received that
letter correct? Yes. Okay. So that that letter in our in our opinion raises the issue that the review of the storm water management plan rest according to the state law with the
conservation commission. Right. So the plans that we have presented to you to the board um as your attorney had indicated as well and the and the regulations require those plans to be preliminary in nature.
However, they have to be adequate for the board to make an intelligent an informed decision regarding the um terms and conditions of a permit that would be that would be satisfied. So
it's it's our opinion that um that the engineering that we have presented and the soils testing that we have been that we have conducted um and I have John Nashan here
from Engineering who can talk a little bit about about soil testing if that might be appropriate to have him discuss that with you but yeah because right now I mean I I mean I've read all this uh the the analysis back and forth and it it seems like our consultant says the
soil sampling says it was AB soil and you and your consultant excuse me I'm talking I'm sorry and and your people said it was CD soil. Well to me that's a huge conflict and that needs to be resolved before we move forward. Well it's our
opinion that's something that the permitting needs to be done by the Hong Kong and let them make that decision. Well, we go ahead. I'm sorry. Our our engineers have been on site, done the testing, and they've
proven the soil types, and that is that is our position. So, we can we can have our engineer discussing further what they what they found on the site to explain that to you as well. And maybe why I'm
not an engineer, but maybe why there is a of opinion between what NDL saw and what we saw. I think that'd be helpful to have him discuss that. Yeah. I mean, I want to come to resolution on this because right right now we're up in the
air. It's uh and it would and it would have some impact on your on your plans. So, understanding the soil condition even though it does have to go to Com that we don't address it first.
Oh, can I can I add can I add something? We we all got letters from conservation and board of health and in in my opinion I'm going to ask our attorney if we would to okay this permit
and we put conditions that favor local uh border health regulations for storm uh for uh septic and conservation local storm water management uh regulations for local. We can use that
as a condition on the on the permit, right? If there's if there's local conditions that are more restrictive from the state, you can if my understanding you don't have more restrictive storm water standards than the state that the conservation commission is going to pass on on the
well but based on based on their recommendations to the board based on what they're going to I'd rather only have one person here at a time, please. Thank you. That's my only qu that's my question is is if they approve everything at the board of health and
the conservation commission, we still can put conditions on it. Yes. Right. And I I would recommend hearing from the peer reviewer about if the peer reviewer is correct in their evaluation, which obviously
they're going to say they are correct. And typically boards that I represent will follow their qualified peer reviewer the recommendations. What are the recommendations or conditions that they would recommend to you and and
then narrow it down that way? Are we are you fighting over nothing or can this be resolved that if you accept that your peer reviewer's conclusions as correct, what would be the recommended conditions based on that? Right. Excuse me. I really only want to have one person
sitting here. Okay. So, I'll appear as council tonight, Mr. Chairman. Apologies. I was Well, I I want somebody here who can talk about the soil management. This is I don't think this is a legal issue. This is this is a a soil issue and that's I don't think
that's really your background. Um, in in many ways it is. Uh I'm very familiar with how these systems are permitted and engineered. If there's a specific question that you want to ask uh Farland engineering
um then uh we have a representative here from Farland but I think as far as and again I apologize so you know I missed what was discussed earlier. Um, but I heard a comment from town council that
we may be arguing over nothing. Well, no, he was talking about local. That isn't what we started with. And and I I'll give you just the 30 second recap is it appears there's a conflict in between your engineers an soil analysis saying it's
CD soil and our consultant saying it's AB soil. And we need to come to a reconciliation on that before we proceed. Um I I disagree that that's the implication. Um I I don't think that
number one I I disagree that there uh was a disconnect. We only have one set of certified soil logs uh that's before the board. So I haven't seen any other certified soil logs. If the board wants to commission, if if the board really
feels that this issue rises to the level of something that uh is going to derail this process, which since my involvement, I thought has been uh cooperative and has made progress uh and I think the board has done a very good
job of trying to identify the real issues. Uh but right now you only have one set of certified soil logs before the board. So there's no other evidence that says that the soil uh in the areas of these detention basins is anything
other than C and D soils. Okay. So can we hear then from your engineer maybe uh well I mean have you seen any soil logs other than what was attached the report from our consultants saying that they were there they reviewed it and they
they believe that it is AB soil. I I didn't read that in their report. I don't read that and I' I'd like to hear what MBL has to say about it. But again, I think we're arguing about nothing. I read Am I wrong in in in in what in what uh what I just said? Can Why don't you
come up here and uh name and address? And and and Roger, I wouldn't just go about the disagreement potentially about the type of soil. I would also get to the point. This is what I mean about arguing about nothing. So all right. So if you
accept the your peer reviewer's conclusions, what are the recommended conditions based on that is what I think is a more productive dialogue. Right. In one case it requires in one case you have a retention pond and in another case you know you have a infiltration
area correct or some combination. Or some combination have to infiltrate 100% what we've been saying. Yes. So, so it does it does have an impact on on the layout of of well your basic design. I actually don't believe that's the case.
Let me hear from our consultant. It's not going to change the location, the sizing of the detention basins. It's just not Okay, good. Let me hear from our consultant. Excuse me. Could we get her to identify? Yes. I I would have her speak from the place where you have
people speaking. Okay. I would recommend that. Yeah. like let her take the table. You're hearing from her. Y [Music] and Roger just in followup to that just and then I'll shut up. I promise. It
sometimes the meetings you know are they're somewhat informal but then you have people speaking from different parts of the room. What I would recommend is you control the meeting. People you want to hear from, put them at the table. When you're done and the board is done with their questions and
you can hear from whoever else you want to hear at the table and and when you have a question for me, I'll answer it. Otherwise, I'll keep my mouth shut. Okay. Might be more productive. Sure. So, for the record, I'm Tracy Dart. I'm the director of engineering at MBL Land Development. Our office is at five
Bristol Drive in East. Um, so first off, when I originally received the plans to review, the soil logs that were provided on the plans within each of the detention basins were all lomy sands. Okay, so lomy sands are generally soils that you can infiltrate pretty
easily. And there are soil logs also in the septic system area that showed there were perk rates of six and eight minutes an inch. So in reviewing this, to me, it wasn't a project that couldn't provide groundwater recharge and infiltration.
Um, we've gone out in April. You're saying it's lomy sand or or sandy lom. Either one of them is an AB soil. No, no, no. So, um, the soils that are on site are mapped sandy lom C. It actually says C slashd, but when it has the
slash, the first letter is what they call the drained condition, and the second letter is undrained, meaning you have high ledge that's kind of preventing water from going down. Okay. We don't have um bedrock outcrop. We didn't hit ledge in any of the holes. So it's matt c sandy long. You use the soil
mapping in the hydraologic soil group in order to determine your required recharge volume. That's one calculation. But when it comes to doing a recharge rate in your basins, you rely on the soil texture for the test pit you do in your basin. Okay. So, we went out in
April and witnessed um five test pits, one in each of the basins where the original plans had lomy sand for your entire sea horizon. Um all five holes, I think it was all five, had two layers of sea, which is very common.
Uh silom for the first one and then either lomy sand or sand loom for the second one, which is where I kind of disagreed with them. I thought some were more lomy sand. I don't want to get in the minutia of Lomi sand and sandom. What I've been trying to say all along
is both sandylom and lomi sand are soils that you're supposed to infiltrate per the regulations. In fact, um lomi sand has a rate of 2.41 in an hour. That's what you're supposed to use. Sandilom is 1.02. The state tells you everything
down to 0.17 in an hour is the soil that you're supposed to recharge. Okay? So, we're well above that. And again, some of the five test pits, you know, one of the basins, it was a much finer material. It was still sandomone where the the fifth basin was more of a lomy
sand, really coarse. You don't have to send 100% to each, you know, you only need to send 65% of your impervious area to a recharge facility, and you can grade your site to direct it to the areas where you have the better um soils. That's how I was looking at it.
So, I don't believe that they meet the recharge standard for the regulations. Mr. Chairman, could I just ask for a clarification uh so I understand it better? Uh could you uh detail a little bit about what recharge is and how it
relates to what you're talking about? Recharge is uh another word for infiltration. So similar to draining out. Draining out. Okay. So back into the aquifer. Correct. So D doesn't want you to just take your water, store it, and slowly release it to the wetlands or
whatever. They want you to put as much in as you can pretty much where they like many different basins so you're collecting and you know and recharging in spots all throughout your site which they do have five basins proposed. Um so you're supposed to send
65% to a a basin or a infiltration chamber or something that will infiltrate but then you only have to infiltrate that to that required volume that you calculate. So even though you're sending 65% there, 100% of what you're sending there doesn't have to go in the ground, just that required
volume. And then anything over that can spill out the same spillway that they were designing for the detention basins. It's, you know, for the most part just applying a um an exfiltration rate or recharge rate to the bottom of the basins. Could you repeat what your
recommendation was? My recommendation would be to use the basins that had the better soils, which I think basin five to me I thought was the most coarse soils. And that's the basin you have room to make it larger if you want because it's re it's near that like open area that they're keeping remaining land. And I would do
infiltration in that. Um, but from the test pits, at least three of the basins had very good soils. You could use the rate for all of them and do it, but I do agree a few basins are better than others. So, I would grade the site in such a way that you get 65% to the ones
with the better soils. I know conservation sent the letter and they did say that 65% does have to go to an infiltration facility. So, if it's not, you know, approved now, it's going to they're going to have to change it and come back at some point
anyways, you know, and this has been our recommendation since January. And I also want to point out that the first plans that we reviewed that we were told were already peer-reviewed and approved, those had uh infiltration chambers for the roofs.
So, so the previous review was approving that it had some infiltration component. When I saw that it had the recharge chambers proposed, which they spoke about in the drainage report, and there was a typical detail for one, my comment was that they should show it in plan
view to make sure it meets the setback requirements because it has to be so many feet from a septic system, 50 ft, 100 ft from a well. And that's when the plans changed and it all came out. So, so my recommendation is that they should try to do recharge. And you know
I think basins maybe two four and five are the better ones but okay any other questions? Okay. Can we hear from u your consultant I mean from your engineer?
Yeah. [Music] Good evening John Mar. Um when we design want to pull the mic in front of you. Yeah.
We designed the basin we're relying on Christian or our soil evaluator's assessment that the the base the site is not suitable for infiltration. Um so what we're trying to avoid by having infiltration
basins an infiltration basin is required to have a certain volume of water below the lowest outlet. We don't feel that the soil is going to infiltrate. So, it's going to if we have volume of water below the lowest outlet, it's just going
to be a a standing water when it fails, a mosquito breeding round. Um, and that storage volume would be lost. Um, in the event of failure, the basin would be undersized.
Um, so we're just trying to avoid underside basins with standing water all the time. Um, our assessment is that the the the soils are not suitable for infiltration. So if we design it for infiltration,
we're just going to end up with standing water and smaller basins. And you're so why is it that that you you believe that that there won't be infiltration when our when our consultant believes there will be uh I
it's it's a an assessment of the soils in the ground. Uh they they I mean they do right I I'm just having a hard time I mean I wouldn't I mean you know I'm not into so but it doesn't appear to me that this is
rocket science right? Yeah. It's it's a textural analysis of the soil, how it feels. You you you can rub it together, do ribbons, make balls, you know. Um it's it's a I guess
uh up to the the soil evaluator to determine that. But didn't the soil evaluator determine it to be lomy sand and sandom which is infiltradable? Say that again. Didn't the soil evaluator determine the soils to be
sandy lom and or lomy sand that are infiltrable? So it seems that there's a there I mean I think the soil testing company said there was a specific soil. They said it was sandy lom and lomy sand
and based upon the guidelines that's an inf infiltrable medium but you're saying it's not. But they're saying it is and I would say Sandy Lom would be pretty in infiltradable because you know I've seen
Sandy Long. So if I could and thank you again. Sorry, Christopher Agustinino council for the applicant and you know in in working with engineers and and boards I kind of sit at the
junction between uh lay people speak and and the engineering speak and and maybe I can help to uh elaborate on the disconnect. One of the things that Christian pointed out is that there's a high water table in this area. So where
they identified some of the soils that they thought were conducive to infiltration, those soils are actually in the strata that is at times um soaked in water already. So you can't infiltrate into water. There's already a
high water table there. So if you found a in a layer that or if you found what MBL has suggested is available to infiltrate but it's already in water you can't take credit for in for infiltration. The design that Farland
has proposed is the conservative design because we don't want to propose infiltration and then find out that it doesn't infiltrate or over time the basin could fail and you find out that you have standing water for days and
months on end. Christian testified before this board that this is how he designs in Westport. Okay. the standard under volume three chapter 1 standard three that requires infiltration which is a D standard that we are required to
meet and that's the concom letter which is why I think someone mentioned we may be arguing over nothing here because we have to meet the state standard so we we have to comply with what MBL is asking us to comply with the standard generally
is 65% of all imperous area has to go to infiltration to the maximum extent practicable. Ultimately, DP makes that determination. I heard roof drains. Okay. as a condition. And I I think
ultimately um this board if this board has a concern about recharge at a local level and again I don't think there's a local concern here because there's no local regulation on point that I'm aware of that we're asking for a waiver from
that requires some greater standard for infiltration than what the D standard is. So if this board says in a condition that the applicant shall uh provide for roof drains in the final design to the maximum extent practicable. Uh we heard
from Christian in followup and he can provide for some roof drains but to spend an entire hearing to engineers for peer review our engineering team to go out there and do these testing to come back and have certified soil logs stamped by the board
of health. Um that's the only evidence before this board that says throughout that these soils are not conducive to infiltration. To understand this is a more conservative design. All MBL is saying is that at this stage they think
we can infiltrate. We're saying we can't. And even if we did, it would not change. You would look at that same exact plan and we could provide for infiltration and you wouldn't know anything changed. the the the basins would be in the exact same area. We have plenty of room. If anything, it would
make the basin smaller, but we have plenty of room to accomplish that. So, if we go before Concom and Concom at that point says, hey, you not you're not infiltrating enough, you don't meet standard three under the D regs, we can then decide at Cong, do we have to do
it? If we don't agree at concom, we can appeal to the state and the state can tell us whether to do it. This is a state regulation. I came here tonight prepared to discuss the waiver list and the waiverss of local bylaws is this board's charge. That's what you're in
charge of to see is there a neighbor that's close by. Is there something nearby that we're concerned about from a local environmental perspective? Local regulations, not compliance with state law. And I think there's a misnomer in that MBL in one of their letters says that we have to demonstrate compliance.
I cited the cases that is not the standard before this board. We do not need to demonstrate perfect compliance with the state storm water management standards. We need to demonstrate feasibility where we have plenty of area on this site um in
the areas of those basins. if ultimately they decide that hey there's some soils here that are conducive maybe a portion of a basin we can convert to infiltration but we don't need to this board's this board's time is valuable um I think
MBL there for whatever reason this has been an issue that they've found that they wanted to push and I think it came from that what we discerned was a typo in the original soil logs of the whole Lumi Sand versus Sandy Loom. And you
know, we described that it was uh someone that wasn't necessarily experienced in uh certification at the time that may have just missed it. And so we went, we volunteered and we spent our time, our money to give this board assurance. We have soil logs now before
the board that confirm the plan. And our suggestion at this point is that that's sufficient at this stage. We do not need, our job is not to satisfy MBL. Our job is to show you enough that we have a
plausible design from a state regulation standpoint and to identify local concerns. So, if there's a local concern that I'm unaware of on on this particular issue, if there's a bylaw that regulates infiltration at a local
level, then there may be some higher standard. But uh you know we can ask MBL if they're aware of uh some bylaw. The only bylaw we're asking for a waiver from from a storm water perspective is uh Westport has a requirement that we
regulate volume. The state only requires that we regulate rate of runoff. Um we're asking for a waiver from the volume requirement. So, you know, I guess I I think uh attorney Poocci mentioned that I if the
board has a concern about infiltration, then a condition that says the applicant shall demonstrate that the final plans infiltrate to the maximum extent practicable, including the provision for
roof drains. um and where feasible in you know the applicant's discretion subject to concom review under the state regulations and subject to D review um if there's an area that we can do infiltration in then we can we can
design for some infiltration but to stop the record at this point where we're you know already 6 months into a hearing and try to satisfy some unassertainable standard that MBL has suggested is practicable
Because in certain strata uh in the test pits there may be sandy loom in certain strata that Christian is concerned well if the water table hits that doesn't do us any good now we have mosquitoes. So this is a conservative design ultimately
we're not ask we cannot violate state law and everything that MBL is describing is state law compliance. So I think we're arguing about nothing here. I think the concom was the adult in the room and came in and said, "Hey, they got to come before
us on this issue anyway. Why are we even talking about this?" Um, and so that's our position on on that point. Yeah. Why uh I kept harping because uh we certainly want to understand all this before we move on. And and uh certainly,
you know, one of the things we could do is just put a condition that said you're going to abide by the state law for infiltration, which you're going to have to do when you go to comp anyway. We realize that, but you know, there there is a a gate post that you have to go through. So, uh we certainly want to at
least understand that before we pass it along. Sure. That's the reason why we're spending this time on it. Sure. Absolutely. and and I I'm before you. Unfortunately, Christian, God bless him, works hard. He's taking a vacation. So,
I I commend him for that. Um, you know, John presented what the rationale was, and he conveyed to you that this is a more conservative design. We don't want standing water if it turns out that oops, we can't infiltrate. So why why
push to take that chance just to try to at this stage um satisfy this this you know whatever MVL says well we don't think you've done it to the maximum extent we don't think you've met the 65% of all impervious area um I think we get
it you don't have to keep repeating okay sorry I I just I came in late so I'm still a little heard it over and over again you know I personally agree with you it's like I it just seems like something that we can um put down a condition and move on to what we're really here tonight, which I
think is uh to look at uh the waiverss. Um so I but I do appreciate the fact that we I better I much better understand it now from everybody and I do appreciate that because it's it's kind of confusing if you're a lay person standing clay whatever you know
infiltration all of that. So, I I appreciate everybody's time, but I I think that I think we should get on with it. I get what you're saying. And con, it's ultimately Concom's Bailey Wick, Bill, you were going to say,
weren't you going to say something? You were sort of waving your hand back there. And being from board of health, I don't know. I'm Should I step somewhere? Yes. Do you want me to Excuse me. So, I'm here wearing two hats
because I'm I'm the conservation commissioner. Oh, that's right. And I was involved in preparing the letter that came in. And name and address, please. Say again. Name and address. Uh, Phil Weinberg, uh, 1702B Drift Road.
uh and uh you know so I I I agree that that um that this is a dispute that will ultimately be resolved at the conservation commission level. Um and I think the way the argument has been
framed is is right at a certain at a certain level. Um I think that uh that there there's a process that is set out in a lot of detail in the
regulations in the stormwater stand uh uh handbook that would uh determine whether or not uh the it's maximally feasible to infiltrate at the level or not or or not. And I I think what's
happening is that um the applicants consultant is kind of giving his best professional judgment about that but has not really um conducted the analysis that the handbook and the regulations require to make that
determination. Um and uh and so as I reflected in u my letter, I just wanted um your board to you know kind of understand that that I don't think that the information that the
applicant has submitted would rise to the level to overcome the regulations presumption that the applicant's got to the applicant's got to do this. the burden on them is to show because they right
now they're at 0% infiltration and uh and that is just inconsistent with what the mandate of the um wetlands
regulation is and uh and and so I think I'm not putting so their position is we're just going to defer that analysis to the commission. It's really none of your business. And uh and I guess the
point I made in my letter which is in an ideal world um that this forum would be a process in which that would be examined further so that the comprehensive permit that you
issued and the plan that was associated with it was more in conformance with what the commission would expect and then would facilitate that process. So that was not to put the
burden of making the decision on your place but maybe both parties would agree to dig further and see whether some things could be done. And I just wanted to make that clear so that
uh uh and I think the I think the points that the applicants um engineers made, it's not like they're invalid points, but I do think because of the soil characteristics and and what your consultant has said
about there being sufficient information to move to the next step in the analysis to see whether or not a particular basin is uh you know can be an infiltration basin versus you know and whether the percentage could you know the 65% could
be achieved or to what extent that's would be the next step and so I was just trying to convey that message that that's how I read your letter is conveying that right so when you say that if they're planning on
zero% infiltration that's almost saying they're building on wetlands right No, no. I mean it, you know, I I so I think the argument went to an argument about what kind of soils were on the site and then every the test pits
were um drilled and then the analysis of the soil and the kind of percolation rates of those soils indicated that well it might be feasible right to do it. And then the issue of well the soils might be
feasible but then there's groundwater issues and all I can say is that and I have everything I've learned about stormwater details I've learned in the last two weeks. Okay. So but I tried to
be a quick study and I you know what um what I'm saying is that um there are technical answers to resolve that that question. you know, you can do a groundwater modeling, mounting analysis to determine what is the uh what what is
the height of groundwater that you would use for design purposes because groundwater fluctuates over time. And but I at least at least in my analysis there is one basin that has lomi
sand which I believe the applicants consulted indicated if you find a site with lomi sand then I'll comply with the wetlands regulations. in one of the responses and the and the groundwater level was measured at around uh
um three three feet meaning it's 3 ft between the surface and the groundwater and the so and the solid waste regulations I mean the stormwater regulations say um it's acceptable to just have a a basin that's two feet deep
right you just need two two foot depth so it when I saw that I Oh, would you maybe it's possible here. I don't know. But maybe you don't want to um get into that level of analysis here because then it creates, you know, an
obligation on you all to kind of dig through all that. Maybe you maybe it's fine to put it with conditions. I just wanted to provide you with information so that you could make a decision that you felt more informed
about from the conservation commission's perspective. I'm just looking to see how much of this do I I really don't like kicking the can down the road. Although I think in some in some cases, you know, it's uh it's important to do that
because one committee has expertise where the other one doesn't. So uh so we have to sort of balance that and you know, so that's right. It's the reason why we're sort of getting into this. Yeah. So I mean we could just say across the board, well, health is going to take care of this, Com's going to take care
of that and and be done with it. But that's not really the way it works. we sort of have to be the you know the first gate to go through and it shouldn't just be a checkbox. So you know we need to understand all these things before we before we move on on it. But none of us are soiled adjects
you know so we're relying upon what the experts actually are saying. Right. Right. Well, it was, you know, um, uh, I mean, I think it is a, you know, as the applicant's attorney, you know, represented and I, part of the purpose
of our letter was maybe to motivate the applicant now that it understood the commission's perspective would try to um, make that process easier and
u propose some infiltration measures for this board to um adopt. So rather have to do it rather than having rather than having the unckedicked can come before us, right? And you know
that's our responsibility and you know we'll pick it up. But ju just to fill you into Roger you know based on this it's definitely you know what your peer reviewer has raised is a valid issue before you. it would
have benefited the process to be able to have that dialogue that was suggested in the conservation commission's letter based on the peer reviewer's uh findings. The applicant is clearly indicating they're not going to have that dialogue with you.
So I you're going to have to leave it at that. Um I can tell you if it reaches a point that it's a appeal before the housing appeals committee. I have these in litigation, storm water issues, um, storm water manual compliance. HAC will
take the position on appeal that what the applicant has presented to you is enough. That the applicant saying we comply, we will comply with state standards is a very loose burden. That's
all they're required to prove at the HAC level. And then the HAC will focus on issues that are based on more local uh more restrictive local regulations. So what might you know your decision-m can't be driven by what may
or may not happen on appeal, but I'm just telling you the reality of the situation. So it might benefit your process to move on from the issue because it's it's an issue that the applicant is again indicating they're not going to have that dialogue with you. They're not going to consider
a re They're not going to do the modeling that was suggested. They're not going to suggest a modification to the plan. They're going to object to it. So, I would just recommend you spend your time more wisely on other issues that are before you and it'll end up they
have to comply with state law. They'll be before the conservation commission on the permitting. Would have benefited the whole process to have a more robust dialogue with you. Um but they're not willing to have it with you. So, okay, just one kind of wanted to frame it up where you are. Well, we could certainly
put in a condition regarding storm water management and and meeting the state requirement and potentially, you know, the local downspout uh right that kind of thing we could just put as a condition rather. Okay. You're you're going to make
findings in your uh decision as well and you would make findings on anything that was relevant to what was considered and what was recommended to you. So you may want to have findings in your decision related to the peer reviewer's findings on uh the soils, right?
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Phil. Okay. Um so why don't we move on to waiverss? Sure. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, Christopher Agugustino, council for the applicant. Um, so I I submitted a letter to the
board dated May 9th and attached to that uh is the updated waiver list um that identifies all the waiverss from local regulations that we're asking this board to consider as part of this process. And
this is really where the rubber meets the road as far as the board's charge under 40B. Um and so we've looked at our plan, looked through the local regulations and identified what waivers we need. Um ultimately we've requested any waiver
that is required in order to build the plan as generally shown in the preliminary plans, but we do go to great lengths to be very detailed in what we're requesting. Um so we can do this one of two ways and boards handle it
differently. We can go through every one of them. Um although I did indicate in my letter that I thought there were a few that were specifically implicated in MBL's peer review in terms of some of the roadway geometry, the storm water
volume versus rate question, uh the turnaround radius for the um uh dead ends, um and the board of health uh perk rate. So, we can go to the specific ones, but I'm I'm happy to explain line by line. It just obviously takes longer.
Um, many of them are administrative in nature. Uh, can we uh can we just check go through and and check off, you know, and I talked to our attorney beforehand and like I said, some of them are documentation and right, you know, those kind of things which are uh a little bit
more straightforward. Um, and but I' I'd like to get a sort of a feel for for which of those are substantive and which are more paperwork driven. Sure. One of the things though I also talked to attorney about is potentially we might want to put together a a small working
group of the government uh of the town uh so that we don't have to spend everybody's time going through I don't know how many of these are sure I mean
30 I don't know it's 28 good guess but uh but certainly hitting the high points I think would be u Sure. Or say the the points that may be of contention. Yeah. That uh I I I I looked through this quickly and I didn't see anything. I
mean, we certainly are not going to give any blanket waiverss for uh for local requirements. If you need a waiver for a local requirement, I expect to see the waiver. You don't We're not giving a blanket waiver. Sure. For local
requirements. Yep. And I know uh your your council uh and and the way they approach it is is what you just described. Um you know, we can we can see how that plays out. I think obviously we'll go back and and really make sure we checked off everything, but
I I think ultimately um you know, we could probably get a comfort level on making sure that any waiver that's not explicitly granted is assumed uh denied, right? Um, so with that, uh, you know, I can just point out if if you have that
May 9th letter, um, the first few pages really are administrative and submission requirements that are essentially superseded by the 40B process describing like the plans that are submitted, the type of plans, the details in the plans.
Um, and we've already gone uh before you go on now, um, attorney, is is that something you could work with with us on to make sure that in fact all these ones that we say are administrative are in fact really administrative? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And I I just to sum it
up too is is when something is a procedural requirement or, you know, if it's a matter of paperwork or a certain filing requirement, that's you know, those are easily disposed of. If you have a a situation where there are procedural requirements that they're
seeking a waiver of you can definitely wave and you should wave procedural requirements, but then you want to look to whatever the substantive provision might be that would otherwise be applied. And so what you're going to want to do on the waivers and maybe they can kind of highlight where the issues are
is 40B definitely calls for a waiver of local regulations that you know would prevent them from proceeding with the project as proposed. The kind So what your analysis has to be is are there compelling local concerns that that
compel you to deny the waiver in whole or in part. So what you want to look at is is there a local regulation on like a health or safety issue or an environmental issue that is a compelling local concern that outweighs the need for housing. And so
you want to look at that and and then focus your decision that way. That's that would be the only thing that would justify denying a waiver is if you have a compelling local concern um that that mandates you to deny that waiver to
apply the local regulation as written. And and typically what you're relying on to make that determination would be department head comments, fire department, conservation commission, board of health, um conservation agent, you have one, peer reviewers, town
engineer, anybody like that making recommendations on what what is the compelling local concern served by this regulation and should you board uh uh wave that or deny the waiver. So that's just kind of right. That's the framework that you want to look at it. Okay. Thank
you. Sure. So, just um flipping through the attachment to that uh May 9th letter uh which is the latest and greatest waiver list list. Um one of the first ones that um I just wanted to point out could be
considered procedural, but it's also something that that boards like to consider is performance guarantee and bond requirements. And generally where we end up on this is we ask for a waiver. So, I'm on um section 3. C performance guarantees.
[Applause] I have a 3B. Yeah, I have a Keep going. Keep going down. It's like on page 3F. I don't have a 3. 3B. It's like a few pages down. 3B. 3D.
I don't have a three. I gota it's the fifth fifth page in that table and get them printed out right because I gota here electronically you know it looks like yours is printed landscape and mine is printed so obviously we have a printer snafu I
apologize but it's it's uh under the the planning board regs it's section 3C under the planning board regs entitled performance guarantees threeman I don't have one copy if that would help anybody You know what? If you're doing that, maybe that'll make it easier to cuz this
one is Yeah, this is the fifth page as well. Actually, the one you're looking at is highlighted. So, the one and that's the correct one, but it it's um so it looks like this. This one. So, you know, you don't
you don't need to have it in front of you, but it it's generally requires that the applicant post a bond or cash or a tripartide security agreement to ensure completion of the infrastructure before lots are released for sale. And I just wanted to point out generally where we
end up on this is um we ask for a waiver of the local requirement, but we generally build in a performance guarantee requirement into the permit that may mirror the uh standards under the planning board. regs, but because 40B is unique in the way that these
projects are built, often times um the requirements don't line up exactly. So, I think, you know, I think town council probably has standard uh bond requirements that they've put in comprehensive permits in Westport before and, you know, through a working group, I'm sure we could come to something
that's that's reasonable from a performance guarantee requirement. Yeah, I I I still don't see that anywhere here, but I don't have it. No, I don't have it either. Good. Yeah, that's highlight and nothing. I
think he doesn't have it into 3D. We don't have a 3C. So, we must we must have a different paper. No, no, it it wasn't printed out right because I'm I'm looking at what Maria printed out electronically and there is a 3C. I
have so I think it has to do I think it has to do with the printing issue not a and there's no page number so I can't tell if page I apologize I don't I can assure you it's not here it isn't here I think it's a printing
issue I think you got a printing issue yeah maybe missing because pages aren't numbered so we don't know there's a missing page All right. Right. Sorry. I mean, the performance the performance guarantee isn't the one of your biggest items anyway. I mean,
yeah, you know, I'm sure page may be other things on that page because there's going to be other people there going to be other pages are missing. You're missing too. Okay. Is that something that that uh that that you have done for other I mean, typically I'll put in a proposed condition. The applicant will object to
it or or suggest something different, a variation thereof, but it's not Typically, it's something that would be a deal breaker, right? It's not a Okay. And remember, you'll deliberate on a decision. If you end up with an approval with conditions, you'll deliberate on
that. Yes. And you will look at them as a board and you'll say, "Oh, what is this for? And why did you right, you know, put that in for a performance guarantee." So, you'll have a chance to vet these conditions further as you go
through it. So maybe we'll get lucky on the next one, but then the next few are more procedural. 3D, 3E is public hearing process. Um 3F is standards for final approval of definitive plan. And again, I believe these are all uh
procedural in nature. Um I guess the ones under 4. A one. Little A we get into road geometry. Yeah.
Um, and so you know, if everybody's on 4. A.1 little A I got I got little B. I am little B. I know little A. You know what? It might have missed every other page in your print out. That that's the old one. Oh, okay. Uh but if if so I'll tell you 4 A
is um the streets in the subdivision shall be designed so that in the opinion of the planning board they will provide safe vehicular travel. So we've already gone through this is sort of a very high level uh design standard that this board has already you know we've consulted with the fire department we've had uh
peer review as far as traffic and there was some mention of internal movement uh that was described. Um the next several are uh in that nature. You know 4.8.1. L the planning board shall be satisfied that adequate access for
emergency vehicles is provided. So again that's we have the letter from the fire department. Um the first one that MBL noted and I think we can discuss this because I can explain what's going on here. Excuse me a minute. Uh you keep saying planning board uh is written
here. Uh I'm not aware of the formal position of a planning board with this. I know conservation and board of health, but where where's the planning boards come in for this? So, um under 40, sorry, he was asking um where does the planning board fit in the
process? And for all intents and purposes, this board is the planning board. Right. That's I understand. Yep. And so to the extent you've solicited comments from the planning board, they would have written a letter to suggest whether or not they're comfortable or not. And I'm sure when we submitted the
application, we submitted, you know, 30 copies of the application that go to all the boards. And even between now and the close of the process, you can still solicit comments and questions from the planning board. But generally, the idea is that you would reach out to the other boards and they would provide comment
just like the board of health did and the concom Right. Exactly. But but they did originally they don't have to do a but they don't have to do a formal hearing. Correct. No. Okay. I want to be correct. That that was what I described you earlier is that that's that's a
procedural requirement. You wave the procedural requirement. You're not you're not allowed to send them to planning board, but you do want to stand in planning board shoes to apply what their standards would be. So you you do have a comment letter from planning board. I don't know if they commented on
that. Well, I'm just surprised that it doesn't say the zoning board. Zoning board the zoning board. But but it does mean us. Okay. But you you do want their Yeah. input on that. No, I So So the first one that was
specifically identified uh as something for the board's consideration and hopefully you have the page is is 4 A3B. Nope. No. Okay. Next page I have is 45. 4 485. Yeah. All right. Well, I'll
I'll start to describe it and maybe um uh you'll you say 4. Well, I think it's it's easy to envision, but the idea is that the uh planning board requirements require a leveling area as you approach an intersection. So, you don't want an
8% grade going up to an intersection. And the planning board standard is 25 ft within the corner of an intersection or the the threshold of an intersection can be no greater than 1% grade. Okay? So you can't have a 1% or or uh 1% grade
approaching an intersection. So um we actually on the two sides that come in from each side, the maximum grade is 2% in that area. So it's a 1% waiver. Golf View Lane approaching up. So where
you come up the road going into the development, that's a 4 12% grade. Generally grades um the maximum grade that's usually when you get into concerns about safety is 8%.
And when the HAC or boards look at issues of access, um the standard is I'll know it when I see it because it's a combination of like the number of units, the intensity of the use, um versus the uh situation
that you encounter on the ground. So, where we're at 4 1/2% and this road is servicing single family homes, um we think 4 1/2% is is well within tolerances. Um and we're requesting a waiver. So, we're requesting a waiver
essentially 3 and 12% um more than what the planning board standards would allow would. And actually, I apologize and you don't have it in front of you. They're just printing it out. It says the leveling area shall pro shall be
provided having a minus 1% grade. So I guess in an ideal world at any intersection the planning board standard requires that you're going down 1% to an intersection. Um and actually we looked at this
specifically this afternoon. If you want more testimony on this, uh, with respect to grades, especially at approaching an intersection, wouldn't or I don't think it did, but wouldn't that be part of the traffic study too of the fact that it
was a graded down and that would affect how traffic is flowing because you're going downhill and I don't it's odd that it did wasn't in the traffic study. I think generally where it's single family homes um that concern doesn't rise to
the level of of safety with 32 or 38 single family homes. If this was 200 apartments um with the configuration we have then that may have been something that would have been picked up. But where it's single family generally the idea is that
with fewer trips um it's not even something that may have been looked at. uh you know I it's not something that I had identified as a as a concern with with the overall layout but happy to discuss
it you know if anybody going down into a very flat road that is a dead end as well and from testimony and from visually going to that that road you could see a
lot of speeding going on on whatever the Westport Lakes Road is and that if you have a downward trajectory with speeding cars going this way, I would say that could be a safety
issue. So, I'm actually referring to the intersection between Golf View and the actual um subdivision roadway up here. Okay. This is the 4 and a half%. Okay. And what what's down at below? So, this wasn't analyzed because this was an
existing existing uh approved planning board. I don't think so. It hasn't been revoked. And I guess if we looked at it, it would be nominal grade. Um but I I mean if that's something you want to look further at the planning board, we
did write correspondence to the board that if there's any um you know if the planning board actually wanted to look further at it than their remedy maybe revocation, I don't think that's actually an option, but that's probably the worst thing that could happen. And
then in that instance, we would just ask this board for approval of of the configuration that we're looking for anyway. And this board has the power to grant it under 40B. Okay. So, which one were we were we on? Um 4.
A3.case B design standards street grade and it's about grades approaching intersections. I have a question about the the uh the format here. I guess uh you first column is is the title of the
uh subject. Second is the normal requirement for the town. Third one, waiver requested, but as I'm reading that, it looks like there it's the same writing as the requirement. Yeah, I think in in some
instances we added some commentary as to our rationale. Um, and you know, we can do that if the board has uh I mean, every board's different, but I think what we're saying is we're waving the requirements. So, yes, we did just copy it over, but I'm I'm providing the
additional context for the board's consideration in that we're looking for a waiver uh to get to 2% going I guess it's north and south and then going um east to west up approaching that is is 4
and a half%. my point uh in in a form I guess of a question uh you're saying wave this requirement that's fine that means that no requirement for a leveling area is that what you mean by wave because you don't put anything here
about from a minus1 to a plus two or a plus4 or plus any that I don't I don't see that here so every board's different but the requirements in the plan um I think actually we could recite that.
Um but I think generally the plan uh ultimately controls and uh John actually are those grades shown on the plan at the leveling approach uh just as contours but there's some
label called out to% just as contours. In other words, uh we don't know whether we're um could be 10% waving yeah 10 15 20%. You know, you raised a very good point. Um and I think I think that's
something that you know we could we could actually if the board wants to impose no greater than 5% to give us a little bit of wiggle room. That's a that's an appropriate type of condition. So or at least you put down what you want. Yeah. Yeah. Um, we could do that.
And it it's it doesn't work out in every instance, but I think you pointed out a good uh example of how that would make sense. Yeah. Yeah. Roger, it's preferred to do it the way Jerry is saying that you would if you're going to grant it, you would say granted to allow to allow and then you specify
and sometimes you'll even say denied in part grant. You know, but it'll be like nice to know what you want. So then we could make sure that what we put in is the right amount. Absolutely. Right. And and exactly why we're having this discussion. Yeah. So it would be good to go back. Well, I mean a lot of these
probably are not appropriate for that. But some of you know but in some cases where you're looking for relief without just waving it entirely then what the relief is would be would be
uh especially since these are draft plans. I I think you hit the nail on the head. In many instances, the plans show the standard or requirement. Um, and it varies again from project to project, board to board. This is a good example
of one because I I did ask because I know we didn't do detailed road profiles for the entire road. um which is not uncommon at this stage but where the board has this specific local regulation and we don't show the detailed uh grade
on the plan which if you approve the plan that would be the condition and then when we come back with final plans after concom board of health the standard would be whether it's a substantial change and the board would say wait a second I approved four and a half% and you're 8% then we would go
through the motions to evaluate that but I think that's not unreasonable to say, you know, no greater uh to to recite it. So, I think I think we can work on that with the next iteration. We'll we'll spell it out. And what I'll do is um
we'll provide a redline version of this um that shows what we what we added uh in terms of detail and changes. So, okay, I'll make a note and we'll confirm exactly. And in many instances, you know, we know it's 4 and a.5% as shown.
Um, and we think, you know, generally the standard is up to 8%. And again, when we're dealing with single family homes, um, it's less of a concern, but we'll propose something that the board can say yay or nay and then you'll have a number that you can point to when we
come back. Yeah. Uh, I would only point out that I I think it would be unfair to uh um ask us to uh have to look at this and then go find a plan to see what the number really should be. If you could in in in practical terms put something
briefly in there that would would be right there. No, that's that's a great suggestion. Mr. Chairman, if I may, please Brian done for the record with MBL land development and permitting. I think Chris I think Chris uh skipped over one other waiver
which was the profiles. It's uh section 3B3M ahead of that. the profiles would actually show you what the grades are um whether it's 3% 4% 2% and so on and so forth. So that's a whole another waiver
that they're asking for instead of uh providing that information right now and putting that the slope of the roads on the on the plans. [Applause] Yeah, we're going to go through each one of these, but he's just now picking out
ones that he thinks are um substantive. Yeah, this one was highlighted as well. So, the 3B. Yeah, the 3B. That's all 3M. Yeah. And that's a a plan detail
requirement. Um and and I think where the internal roadway if we do uh provide for a maximum grade then when we come back with the definitive plan the board knows that hey we're not going to have a grade that uh is any greater than XYZ
because there's there's not a lot of um there's not a lot of elevation change once you get into the development. if this was up the side of a hill. Right. Right. Right. It'd be more of a concern. But once you get in there and which is why we didn't feel that that uh detail was required, but if we do as proposed
suggest a maximum in certain areas, we'll come back with a red line on that. You mean you really should do it for all the ones that actually you're changing a number, not asking for an entire like even the next one, the dead end street of,200 ft. You know, we really should
identify. Where did you see that? Daddy, what? What number is that? 4 A 4 A 4 A because because uh our consultant had indicated 3B, right? But you've gone gone back.
Well, yeah. In other words, he was going back to one that we had missed, right? For 3B, uh I believe is what I heard. And now we're back for this one. I Roger, I I don't know
if were you anticipating having input from the peer reviewer on these or because it's helps to flesh out what the ones of of importance are, right? And what you want to be thinking about as opposed to Right. But I was thinking we
do go through with the attorney and then I can separately hear from from the consultant to see if if they have any other areas that that you know that they think are concern rather than rather than going back and forth go okay so
we'll come back to his 3D. Yeah. Right. So deadend streets and again um generally how the HAC adjudicates these is a combination of length and number of units and in a single family context where uh we have buffers on the side of
roads. Um, the one case I was involved in where a dead-end road was designed uh or denied, there was a pinch point where it was like a 20 foot paved width with trees overhanging. There was concerns about ice getting on the trees and then
the trees falling. Uh, and there were 400 units of apartments at the end of that that road, right? Um, and the HAC actually said, "Look, that that's a bridge too far for us." Um, in this instance, we're proposing single family homes. We have plenty of buffer on
either side of the road. Um so we are asking for a waiver from the dead end requirement. Um and we'd be happy to identify no greater than Right. Okay. Now does that include the uh the
first road going in what you just had? Um I mean I'd have to like road So, we'll identify exactly what the distance is, but I guess the question for discussion, you know, understanding it's single family homes, maybe with input from town council, you know, does
the board have concerns about fire access and safety for for single family homes that would rise to the level of of denying the waiver? Would you happen to know if the fire department because they they have reviewed and commented and did
not have a comment about that. Do you know if they discuss that or considered that the length of a dead end street here? I I I don't want to quote the fire department. I know there's a letter before the board, right? I don't have it
with me. I don't believe it addressed that at all. Right. I think they looked at the culdeac. Um, and we can and we'll get to Culdeac because Culdeac design is here. We're actually only one foot off of the radius requirement under the planning
board and the the fire department did look at the culdeac and confirm that the turnaround is adequate. I think ultimately if the board wants to follow up with the fire department on that question, then we have, you know, there's time to do that. Um, but my
takeaway is if they approved the culdeac, they necessarily would have had to have approved the the kickoff. Sure. Um, but certainly, you know, you're you can before the permit's final, I mean, you can even circulate the permit to other boards and say, "Hey, listen. This is where we're
at on this uh on this application. You know, speak now or forever hold your peace on the local waiverss. Um so so that's dead end length. So again we'll identify identify and obviously you don't vote on
this until you vote on it. I think you know where we're going through the process and I think we're soliciting feedback. Um and to the extent we need to make changes as we approach you know go time for the board to say yay or nay. Right. Right now go time is
June 5th. I will I will volunteer to the board. Okay. And I I think we can work towards June 5th if if we're working cooperatively with the board really trying to solve problems. I I mean
there's there's no reason to certainly 40B is an expedited process, but if we're working cooperatively to really solve problems in narrow issues, then I mean I'm not, you know, if the board wants to meet in a couple weeks after June, if you have time, I mean, we can
even do like a half hearing, you know, if you have other time uh towards the end of June. But let's see how far we get tonight. And you know, I don't I don't think where there's a cooperative process, it makes sense to say, "Hey, you know, you know, it's not not the
intent." It's really not. Um, so, um, the next one, 4 A 4B, uh, is about the design of the, uh, turnaround at the end of the dead end street. And the planning board prescribes a teardrop
shaped turnaround um and then has you know various uh iterations for certain configurations. And we were just asking for a waiver from that one um because we we we're proposing a culde-sac turnaround which
is actually better addressed under 4 A5. And I I didn't really highlight that and I don't think MBL highlighted 4 A 4B because it's more about um the the you know specific design that we're not proposing here. I I thought
one end I think you have a hammerhead at the end. No, they're both culde-sac. There's the hammerhead at the at the end of uh West Light. No, I think there's the hammerhead at the end of Westport Lakes Drive. Okay. So, John, is that that way for that? There's a hammerhead
at the end. Yeah. I think that waiver was just from the requirement that the planning board may approve, right? Because we are providing a turnaround for okay
um so I believe the fire department's letter encompassed that that configuration. Um but the next one is is really where the turnaround is is defined and the standard is uh that the culde-sac shall
have a radius of 70 ft outside travel way. We measured it and the number is 69 ft. So we're off by a foot. Uh that's the inside is 36. So the inside radius is 36. The outside is is
70. We actually do meet the inside radius just the right just the right away the right away. Yeah. Um so we're off by a foot. But I think if we define what we have we can spell that out and you know
to allow for right because here you just say wave all the requirements. Yeah that's a little Yeah. Is there any mention at all about uh keeping the uh u color sacks uh clear of trees,
vegetation, and so forth. That was a big issue in town a couple of years ago. The uh they had the right size, but but the trucks couldn't get around because the trees were growing up in the middle and they cleared it right out. So, the standard is all circular turnarounds
shall have an unpaved permeable center island that can withstand Ashtto H-20 loading. It does say the planning board may consider alternative designs. Um, we're asking for a waiver from the Asheville requirement, but I think since
you brought that up in the requested applicability, we'll state exactly what we have for a buffer in case somebody does need to go up on the road. um and make sure it's not um it's not overgrown. It doesn't That was a point
that that Yeah. Miss actually says that the board may require preservation of the existing trees in the center of the island. I have no idea why anybody would want to put trees in the middle of an island. Right. Making an obstructed view. Even shrubs make it so that you can't see people.
I've seen older developments that do a lot of that where you get down there and you feel like you're just locked in. And I don't like that design at all. Yeah. Well, the the biggest issue was the the larger fire trucks now and couldn't make the the bin, so they had to go up on
there and they were getting all scratched up and stuff, right? Probably also put in a maintenance condition. Yeah. Okay. Um any other comments or questions on
that one? Okay. Um actually interestingly the very next uh requirement is a local requirement that says uh the entire area within exterior lines of all streets shall be
cleared of stumps, brush, roots, boulders and the like. And I, you know, I think maybe we can, you know, make sure that doesn't that accomplishes what you're you're looking to do there. Um, so you know, MDL or if the board has
any questions about any of the interim ones here, but you know, I think generally these are are subsumed within the process and the plan that's up there. Um the next one that I had was a storm water requirement. Uh the next one I
highlighted is section [Applause] 5D.2. Um and it's a local requirement that regulates volume control and storm water management. Um, so under the state regulations,
you're generally only required to regulate the rate of runoff. You can have no greater rate of runoff um postdevelopment than you have pre-development. And the way that's done is through that discussion we had about
the detention bases. So you extra water and you leak it out over time through a smaller pipe. When you have imperous area, you necessarily increase the volume of the water because you're not infiltrating where you put pavement, the
roofs. Now, we talked about a condition to maximize infiltration, but even with infiltration, the volume increases. That's not regulated at a state level. where that is relevant and I don't think it's where volume is relevant is if
there's a outlet pipe that's going to a direct neighboring property or a road and what happens is you get a rainstorm and because the volume has increased even though the rate is lower and you're trickling out over time whereas
pre-development it might only run for 12 hours if the volume increases it's running at the same rate but you you might have a stream going down for two days because you have an increased volume. In those instances, you want to take a look at volume. Um, I'm dealing
with a project right now. It's literally on top of a boulder. It's on top of a mountain made of rock and they already had flow going down the street and we're having a discussion about how to deal with the fact that we might have water going down the street. The rates lower so we comply with the state requirement.
Um, but it takes longer for that that flow to disappear. Here, the site where all the drainage is going, it's all going to the to the east. Um, is wetlands. So, we can attenuate and it
doesn't if it flows for an extra few hours, volume is inconsequential. So, I don't think there's a local concern here. And so, generally, the state requirement would cover this issue. And so we're asking for a waiver. Well, it's
going to the east, but it's going to the east onto a road before it gets to the wetland area. So I don't think there's any point source discharge, which is like we don't have any pipe that's actually going to the road that increased volume is a
concern. And again, I I think if you want to hear more from the engineers on that point, if that's a detail, if like you're concerned about Gue Lane or Westport, we know the data generally. We can tell you what it is and if it's equal or less or if it's marginal. Golf
Golf View Lane doesn't exist. It's it's brush, right? No, right. It's a paper street now. Yeah. Yep. Um I'm more concerned about Westport Lakes Road where water is coming down Gulf View and
then before it gets the other side where it's wetlands. Yeah. So I I think we can we can you know provide a followup that says what the condition is there. Uh but right now we don't have an eye on
regulating flow as far as volume in that area. It's a rate concern and that satisfies the state requirement. So unless it was compelling and it you know the the terminology under the regs is imperils health and safety um you know
wouldn't rise to the level of something that would require enforcement of the local bylaw that would prevent the development. But um you know we can certainly provide more info on that on that point if you're concerned about it.
So that was one of the highlighted waiver requests as the volume issue. Um the next one we we've discussed a couple times and uh it's the the design of uh subsurface water
storage fire tanks. And if you recall, um, even though the regulation says one thing, uh, the fire department actually there is a letter on that point, right? So, we we kind of already resolve this. You know, the fire department gets what the
fire department wants. Um, and I think what we show here in the request, um, wave the requirement for fire protection shall be installed within a subdivision. Um, what section are you reading? Uh, section
5.1. So, I think what we'll do here is in place of that, we'll actually recite what the fire department required. So, rather than just say wave it, we'll recite what the fire department wanted and then what you're going to do
exactly, which is what the fire Now, you just say wave it. Now, you you know, Yep. We're going to say that we're going to do exact. We're going to write out what the fire department requirement is. Okay. I I would like to go back when you're sure done with that for a second.
Um back on 5D D uh point6 just as an example. It uses the term designing SMS. I don't know what SMS means. I I believe it's storm water management system. Okay, I
got it. All right. Am I right on that? I'm sure I'm sure it is in the context of what it is. Okay, thank you. Um, so we'll write in and I think there are probably a few of these that that we
can add some some detail on in the next iteration. Okay. Um and the next one we've we've discussed there's actually and we can discuss it in in more detail um is percolation rate standards under the local regulation uh for board of
health and it's actually just one of uh it's actually the only waiver we're asking for under the board of health ranks. I mean we'll we'll take a closer look at it but um we think we meet the other requirements as far as nitrogen loading and design requirements. So,
that's a good thing. Um, but generally, Title 5 allows for a 60 minute uh perk rate. All right. Westport has a more stringent 30 minute perk rate, meaning that Westport requires
more permeable soils that they perk faster, one inch per 30 minutes versus one inch per 60 minutes. Um the the the perk rate determines the size of the basin.
We've sized ours based on uh is it do we size it based on 160? No. What do we size it based on? Okay. So um we're asking for compliance with the
state requirements in this instance. They actually have a provision in the planning or in the board of health regs that says um the board can actually make a determination to wave that. So it's actually built into the
regs that the board can uh alter that requirement. Um all laws requesting a percolation rate greater than uh 1 in per 30 minutes may apply to the board for approval. So the the regulation already considers a waiver. It's built
in. And then it goes in and says in in considering a waiver, you should consider the proximity of environmentally receptive areas or sensitive receptor population, environmentally sensitive areas as those areas are defined as wetland resource
areas, velocity, flood planes, uh h rare habitats, um and environmental concerns. So we look we actually are proposing um to meet the the town the local setback to wetlands. So the local
setback is 100 ft from the soil absorption system and that's for the reserve area and the primary and we actually meet the local regulation there. So we're not asking for a a waiver on that. But I only say that to say that the state setback requirement
is 50 ft. So the state allows you to be a lot closer to the wetlands. So where we're meeting the local requirement, we believe there's a compelling interest to um uh to wave the local requirement. There's no compelling local concern that
would outweigh the state 40b mandate of the 30 minutes per inch of the 30 minutes per inch. Now the one thing you haven't mentioned is the fact that all new construction in Westport has to be a denitification system. We're not waving
that requirement. We're meeting that. Okay. The only one we're asking for a waiver on is the perk rate. We because we have to do final perk rates and we don't know where they're going to come in when we do all the final board of health witness. Ultimately, we're asking
for a waiver on the local regulations. So, the board of health wrote a letter on this and I know we have, you know, a member of the board of health um of course, you know, president um and so You know, I I think our
proposal to the board is, you know, the burden. We believe the burden's on the board to find a compelling local concern that would suggest that we and what's the impact of rejecting this? It would if we have a higher perk rate, if it
comes in at a a slower perk rate, then we wouldn't be able to meet the standard. But we don't know what the perk rate is yet. It also affects the size of the basin, right? um which again you know we don't know what it is yet. I think in one respect with
the perk rates in the planning board was before they changed it to the denitrification system. So I think maybe the slower perk rate is okay in light of the denitrification system. Yeah maybe. But maybe I mean this you know we we
need some clarification from the board of health on that. So, I'd like to speak to that, but you might want to come back to it. Yes. Depends on your Okay. And you know, if MBL has has comments as well. I think that was one of the last ones anyway, but
um we can certainly have additional discussion on. So, as far as um highlighted [Music] sections, you know, we we think I'm looking at these. I think the next few are are procedural in nature. I just want to mention that I I
believe that I have several pages that are not here. Uh I I have several blank pages and then it picks up again as a partial paragraph. Uh, so rather than waste time to try to figure what it is,
could I ask that the the next iteration of this have page numbers and that way there we can clearly see if we've got some missing? Sure. Yeah, that was actually the last highlighted one.
Um, there's storm water bylaw that actually reiterates some of the the local planning board bylaws. So like you'll see the last one actually the last one 7.2 the last one actually regulates volume right? Yeah. So that's duplicate of the one that we already
discussed. Um but we have uh John Marshon from Farland Engineering here if there's uh you know specific responses if if anybody has any specific comments um or questions about waiverss. But, you know,
we did try to sharpen the pencil uh and go back and I think we did actually eliminate several that were in the initial pass to limit what this board's actually being asked to to wave. Um, and so we can go back and and add more
detail as to exactly what we're proposing in lie of uh you know some in a few instances. Okay. Thank you. Can we hear from [Music]
Yeah. So, I'm here to speak about the local regulation preparation rate which I think is council expressed um a baseline of a maximum rate of 30 minutes per
inch. So, essentially, you know, you pour water in the hole and you track how long it takes to percolate through. Um, and as council mentioned, uh, under the way, uh, title five regulates it, it's
twice as long. Um, and also the title five regulations have a coefficient which converts the or which is kind well it's used to determine the dimensions of the of the Hfield or the SAS the smoke
absorption system. And um and so we have two grounds that we're asserting to um sustain the local regulation. And the first um and I think the um basis for which the local
regulation was adopted um which I think maybe was in 2014 um before my time was that it's a conservative way to um give uh to look at the risk to the public health in the
environment particularly for a project like this which is generating 10,000 gallons per day of sewage. Um and because unless unless a system like that is consistently and properly managed it
u it runs an unacceptable risk that sewage will break out if it's not able to perk um at that rate. Um and uh to the surrounding environment or it'll back up
and the 38 houses may not be rendered uninhabitable because they can't use their you know their plumbing. Um and so and as council um recognized there there is a built-in process within the
regulation the waiver u you know the the purp regulation itself in a site conditions requirement there's built in flexibility. So in terms of risk um we think this is a good way to manage the
risk which is to set a a minimum per rate that is um reflects um a more permeable soil to accommodate um sewage coming in. And it's
particularly relevant where you have such a high flow. Um and and then second, it's not an absolute maximum because it does allow the applicant to require to request uh uh additional
additional rateful and we can and we can consider it. And the second part of of the objection um goes to the fact that uh that other than making the statement
that well we might get a higher perk rate I mean a slower perk rate in that sense the applicant has not submitted any evidence to support that the local waiver will prevent the completion or
you know the implementation of the project and um I'll go into a little of detail about this but if you compare the level of effort that was put in on the stormware regulation in terms of making the case as to why detention
based there is none of that in this there's no rationale to do it except the speculative notion well you know we might not be the minimum and in fact this the the information that has been
provided is actually undermines the uh waiver request and is itself contradictory. So it was mentioned that the information that uh that was submitted to the ZVA as to the septic
plan in the U in the most recent set of plans which is the March 28th plan had the septic system designed with a 8 minute per crate which is five times faster than what we required and that's
how they designed the septic system that you would be reviewing at this in front of you right now. Okay. So if they're reaching 8 minutes and our rule um sets the limit at 30 minutes they don't need the waiver.
So, why do you need a waiver when you have a plan that says, um, we're doing five times better than that? But then last February, they did another perk rate. Um, and the perk rate not only
failed our limit, but also Title five, Title 5's limit. So, right now, if you've just relied on that perk rate, the location where they site the leash
shield is not viable and so there's no information that I think the board in the event it went up to the housing authors in fact you know this is
obviously where council comes in you know has submitted any information that what the local regulation requires is going to interfere with their project because that other you know either that site is
not viable based on the information before before you or is functioning better than than the waiver uh than our regulation requires. And um uh so uh and related to the related
to the um relationship between the site design and the uh and the per rate. If you increase the level of
the let me put this way. If they reach the maximum title five rate the size of the leech field would increase over their current design by
four times it's now basically a quarter of an acre it would be four times as big and when I look at the site plan there's no room for a lefield that's four times as big as what is in the design plans
that uh and so I think that their the site constraints are going to um lead them to I think is much more consistent with authority
maximum. So that's our case. I think it's better to protect the, you know, the residents and the utters and better to protect the environment to start off with conservative perfection rate rather than allowing them to go to the maximum state
because of the scale of the project. And we also think they haven't made a case to the board, you know, based on the information they submitted that justifies a waiver. Okay. One question from wearing your two
hats, right? you were so you're the con and you're talking about storm water and then you're the health the board of health so you're talking about septic in one instance in the storm word they're saying that the soils can't infiltrate
just regular old water and the next and on the flip side they're saying they're going to be able to infiltrate sewage water at a for you know at a very fast rate. Do you find that conflicting at all? Well,
[Music] um what I guess the best way to answer that is just looking at the data that has been submitted and uh and I think that and
this reflects a comment earlier which it appeared to me now as an expert that the soil across the site based on these test tests is fairly consistent. Um it's mostly these sea
soils with lomy sand and sandy lom. Um both in the perk tests that were done for the uh you know for the le shield and also for the but one thing that h has happened that has started with the
um there was a second um there was a second sampling or test pits that were done on the design on the on the leech field, but no percolation rate was done. But you but they did measure the
groundwater height and the groundwater was pretty high. It was very high. the when you look at the you kind of have to blow up the plan, but when you look at the the difference, I think there was maybe a three or 4 foot increase in the groundwater um or evidence of the
groundwater between the test that was done in uh 2000 I can't remember what did I write down uh two um uh
well the anyway it it had uh risen between 2022. So the next to last test was 2022 and the groundwater had risen from the 2004 test and that could have
um but without but there was no per rate. Now they have a 2025 test more or less on the same soils and it and it failed and it failed miserably because the groundwater is so high. So it could bring you know seasonal ground
or I'm not an expert enough to know but but that per test was done in February with snow on the ground and generally a contractor is going to try to make per tested for this instance probably in August or September. Right. Right. Well,
it was troubling to me in a way that the that even though the perk rate was um the last perk rate was done in February 25, the site plan that they submitted for your view referred to the 2004 per
rate. So, I don't really know how that happened, but um I was just saying compared to the I guess if I was in your position, I had to make a decision, I'd like to
actually see more of what the per rate is. But right now, you have to make a decision. You you'd have to decide that the that it's not per, you know, that it can't meet either the state or the local standard. I I don't really know what you do with that
from, you know, your position. But my, you know, all I'm arguing for is that there is a there is a burden on the local authority to make a case
um as to why it um you know to show you know as as to why it the state standard doesn't apply. But I also think it's reasonable to um
to require the applicant to kind of support the basic information as to why the local regulation which is is trying to meet a significant local concern is going to be a problem. And I
don't think they've done that I guess is what I'm saying. I think there are only two pieces of either it's going to be a great site and it's going to occur by or it's going to be shitty or it's a flooded site
and I think just to come in and say well at some point in the future we might get a you know we might get a higher rate that higher than 30 you should wave the local regulation. Um I I just don't think and I don't know what the cases say. I just
don't think that that needs even a minimum burden on their part to make the case as to why a local regulation to minimize threat to public health and the environment should be overridden. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Before
you're up next anyway. Okay. But I had a question for him. Go ahead. Um in the if I may, Mr. Chairman, in the letter from the board of health, uh from the the director of public health, u it says that there's been many requests to the
applicant to come and meet the board of health to discuss their concerns and um it uh continues at the end to strongly recommend the applicant to go meet the board of health, but also in regards to the septic system design and well
locations. if you could provide the information in regards to the well locations that you have an issue with. Yeah, I think that um you know luckheads actually I I I um I don't know the details of that.
Um I mean they're uh so our regulations require certain setbacks um and then Also, I think what has been raised is that
um one of the you when you drill when you drill drill a private well, you're looking not only at water quality, but you're looking at the quantity of water that's necessary
to serve the size of the home that you are servicing. And here you're having um 38 wells built on fairly small lots and
everyone in full buildout. Everyone comes in and turns on the shower in the morning, you know, goes to the shower, you know, uses a lot of plumbing. And so one of the things that, you know, we wanted to talk to them about uh
was have they looked the capacity impacts of the private wells that you know we would be proving. Um but I think that I think the director was using this
letter as a mechanism to reiterate a request that it is made to the applicant. Um to come in and about these. It didn't really affect the
question of the waiver request was just outside. Mhm. So, but we um I wish the conversations had happened earlier on the appropriate issue because
then um the you know the situation might have cleared up in the dialogue but it it didn't. So, we're just commenting on what we know now and what our concerns are.
Thank you. And does the board of health have ultimate authority over the septic? Yes. Yeah. In with and within our whatever waiver we may or may not get. Okay. Yeah. So like like they have they have to go to Kong. They still have to
they still have to go to you which we look at. So you'll they'll still have to go to you for the Well, I think the only difference is that if we make a decision that uh an applicant doesn't like it goes to course
doesn't go to doesn't go to D they can't apply the local regulation either so you have to make that determine right we give them the playing we give them the playing field in which very different from the from the notice
of intent part because there was no more local no more restrictive local regulation involved in that right that's but this there clearly is So yeah, Phil, uh was there any uh thought or
discussion about the dite uh system? He mentioned that. Yeah. So, um when uh when the uh first set of waiver requests came in,
the applicant did request a waiver of a local regulation which requires D9 systems for new construction. And uh and so in in our response letter to that, we made an argument as to why
we thought there was a local concern that overrode the request for the waiver. And I think probably close to where we have a big nitrogen problem in the east branch of the river. Um, you know, the
groundwater under this site eventually flows, I think, through Kirby Brook into East Ranch of the Westport River, which is one of the highest nitrogen concentration subwater sheds. But, and
our letter acknowledges this, the letter that relates to the waiver acknowledges um that their current design does incorporate for all the individual except the tanks. So it's a component of
that. So uh yeah, I think that's good news for everybody. We're very happy to see because our local regulation is sort of quasi state because the state's sort of taking a little bit control of regulations on the waterways and they're coming they're they're testing that
those in Cape and they'll be here soon enough. So in reality, our our local regulation isn't that local really. We're just preparing for what's to come. Yeah. Well, it was, you know, from uh you might say from a a preparation
point of view because we can we can avoid them they can avoid them coming in to the you know eventually can come back to the uh you know to the south coast communities and uh if they're you know and everybody who doesn't individual
owners who don't have septic system with denitrification going to have to upgrade right so instead of having been forced to do it. We're trying to prevent that. So I think in that respect the waiver would have been I mean denying the waiver I think would have been
not as yeah but um fortunately that's we don't have to put to rest. So happy with that. Thank you for your time. No. Okay. Mr. Chairman, start off with name and address and then
Brian D with MDL development and permitting. I'm the principal of the firm offices at five Bristol Drive in southeastern Massachusetts where here is your peer review consultant. Yep. So, uh, do you want to hit on any of the,
um, the waiverss that that they are requesting that we haven't discussed? Um, a few things. And then I'd like to reserve the right to look at the edited version. It's going to be uh,
looked at. And then also as a point of order, I don't know if you put on record uh, this evening letters from the board of health, from the conservation commission. I don't remember doing that part. So that might be something you and Julie want to discuss. Put those letters on record. Well, all the stuff that goes
to Maria's are all ongoing record. Okay, perfect. Um, correct, Maria. Sorry about that. All dates. The mic wasn't up. Uh the first part of the letter, and I think Chris uh talked about it in the beginning, the second paragraph is
really wording that says if they forgot something in the waiver list that the plans uh are to be followed pretty much. And anything that's conflicting or needed super that approval
uh uh would be needed would be pushed back to just looking at the plans. So, if they forgot something, they're going to refer back to the plans. So, I think that we want to look at the wording of that front letter uh to see if that's they're asking to wave a lot of things in the plans. So, then there's not going
to be anything on the plans. I I wouldn't do it that way anyway. I I do the reverse. So, I you know, if it's not specifically granted in the waiver request to the extent it's inconsistent on the plan, the the decision controls not. Yeah. Right.
um procedural stuff is that I mean we really don't have any issue with that. Um I think that um based on other projects that we've been involved in uh probably the uh section 3B3H definitive plan form and contents
uh which is um an accurate topography on on the ground. It is my understanding that it's information on the plans that was taken from the previous engineer. Which one are you looking at again? Uh sec like the third second page uh
3B 3H definitive plan form and contents. Okay. Um one is the topography. It's my understanding that some of the topography is come from LAR data which is from satellite imagery. And I can tell I can attest that some of that
topography can be off as much as nine to two feet. Um, also there they they mixed in with the plan contents the issues of the lot layout. I think that in our letter we discussed that all the loting plans
should have bearings and distances on the lots and stamped by a pl. Um the the other section section 3B 3M definitive plan form and contents. Again
it actually um is the waiver request is talking about the applicability about vertical curves and profiles and elevations. Uh which was discussed at at length earlier this
evening. But it the section itself talks about the test pits that are required um certain regulations article n uh article 11 minimum requirements of disposal and sanitary sewer so on and so forth. So um
I think that the like you said Mr. Chairman you're not giving blanket waivers. So, I think that this if they're going to ask for this waiver, it needs to be dissected more and um have them uh detail the reasoning behind the request for that
waiver. Um I think we discussed the percolation testing at length and I think we know where the board of health stands on that as well as the the regulations. Um, and [Music]
then I'm just flipping through the pages quickly. Um, I think that uh section 4A1A design standard streets location is alignment. I think there's been a discussion about minimum and maximum uh slope of the roadways, but I think that
some consideration should be made uh whether or not they should provide the slopes on the plans and also the profiles to make sure that the uh the roadways are designed for safe passage. Um 4A 4 A1A design standard streets
location and alignment. Yep. Okay. Um there's a a section on center line uh radi but I'm not too sure we have a plan that shows what the minimum radi is. So there's no, like you said, no blanket waiver. They should provide if the
requirement of the center line of radius is 150 ft, they should say, well, we're providing 100 ft and these are the reasons why they're asking for that 50 foot difference. That's
um section 4 A1G. Mr. Chairman, we can delete that waiver request. We don't need it. The road's not the road's not that tight of a curve at any location. So you don't need 41 a correct. That
that defines like how tight a curve can be. Um but we can do our job and just reject it. Um, the other one is I know we talked about this too and I think uh Chris also spoke about this is section A I'm sorry
section 4 A1.1 design standards of streets locations and alignment. I know we have a letter from the fire department. Uh, but I know that in our earlier review in front of this board, we also asked for a fire truck turning radius to be shown on
the plans. Their response letter said that they had provided that plan, but that plan has never been provided to this board. Uh I think we discussed at Nauseium 2 the section 4 A3B
uh design streets and standards grade um uh Chris eloquently described the negative slope coming into the site and that's re really is um you know that's the end of the the other subdivision that may have been approved and not approved. So, but that that negative
grade is really to keep storm water on the reason is to keep storm water on the property so it doesn't go off property off the street. So, I think that if they um you know provide some reasoning behind that and why that should be
waved, uh that would be great. Other than that, they should show those slopes on the plan. Um, dead-end streets. The next one we talked about that uh I think that we're we want to make sure that the fire department is okay with the dead end
streets and the length of the dead-end streets. Uh, next one is uh section 4 A5 design standard streets and turnarounds. Um I I think that um as long as the fire department is okay with that and they're
also showing that um that fire truck turning radius on a plan then that should be okay. The other one was highlighted in yellow, section 5D2, requirements, improvements, design requirements, standard 11, volume
control. I think we heard from the member of the board of health and and uh the member of the conservation commission at length about this. Um, so I I think that um knowing the soils out there and and knowing that
what the volume control could offer that uh there would be a benefit for the volume of storm water to be uh utilized as part of this design and also have the recharge that we discussed at length. I know there's a back and
forth about the soils. I think that that's that's been put to, you know, beaten up a lot. I'm not talking about that right now, but I'm I'm saying that if they looked at the recharge itself, I I'm I'm thinking that they could possibly meet this volume regulation if
they looked at the recharge, but the applicants engineers are are saying that they don't want to do that. So, I'm thinking that if they looked at recharge, they possibly could meet this standard of volume. um as part of that uh
requirement. Um Okay. Uh, fire protection on section five. I required improvements for fire protection. I think we discussed this at Nauseium as well. Um, I think that we want to make sure that whatever the fire
department has said in regards to the tanks, whether they're plastic or concrete or whatever kind of material comes forward is as part of Could you um Could you speak a little bit before you before you go to the next
highlighted one of um the setbacks uh yard or setback requirements? Um just explain what section was that if I may. Um section 7.7. They want to wave the minimum setback
requirements at the right. So, if you if you look at the zoning regulations and and I don't have them in front of me, it might say that the minimum lot size has to be an acre or an acre and a half and it must have 150 ft of frontage. It must have a 50ft set back to a building and,
you know, 25 ft sideyard. So, they're asking waiverss on the dimensional requirements and intensity uh to put all the lots closer together and the homes closer together. So based on the plans and those setbacks that are
on the plans um are what you're you're waving. So they're so they're asking for waiverss for all of those dimensions. But like the chairman said earlier, it shouldn't be a blanket waiver. It should be more specific. I'm asking for a waiver on lot area. I'm asking for a
waiver on frontage. I'm asking for a waiver on the front side and rear setbacks. and we're pro they're supposed to be 50 and we're providing 25. The side is supposed to be 15 and we're providing 10.
So, and like you said in your um in your critique of it, there there aren't any um the lot sizes aren't identified. Correct. So, there so they had Well, they are identified. They are they are now, but the bearings and distances have
not been placed on the plan. And usually that's something that's that's on the plan and it's part of that that requirement when you create a loting plan and it eventually is going to have to be done anyways. Um and what about having um what about waving the minimum
setback for the rear of the residential lots? Does that mean that they'll be able to be closer to existing uh to a butters? Ours is pretty close to six feet anyway. Yeah. So it doesn't Ours is Yeah. So they they could put the homes closer to, you know,
if they wanted to, you know, closer to the the other subdivision to the to the west if they wanted to. Yeah. With that waiver. So, but like I said, what Mr. Chairman said is he doesn't want to do blanket waiver. It should be more specific. You know, lot
lot so and so is getting a waiver of frontage, you know, front setback, side back setbacks, but not a rear setback, so on and so forth. So, it should be more specific and and to what degree, what feat, right? What what specifically
they're having because then when the building inspector looks at it on the final plans, he or she has to be able to determine what was allowed because they they'll check for compliance with your condition. So, you need
like we're going to wave front set back of 15 ft to allow 10 feet or whatever it is. I I'm sorry. I don't want to cut you off. You We done No, that's it. Okay. I I don't think though that we have to do it by a lot. No, we can do it by the
division saying at no point will the front be less than 15 feet rather than 25 or the back less than you just want. So, some of them could be six, some of them could be 10, could be 15. As long as they're all at least six. Yeah. Well, six is our one. So, you want the
building inspector to be able to look at the look at it and say, "Okay, you meet this." Yeah. Right. And the same thing with lot sizes. There shall be no smaller than 9,000 square feet if that's the smallest one. Okay. It's not likely we're going to have a problem with the Grand Pine Way because uh we only
require six feet. I doubt they'll be trying to get that question. 25 from the front. Yeah. Six from the back. I didn't realize it was only Yeah, but there's a difference between six feet and no feet. And no feet. Six inches. Right. Mr.
Okay. Wait a minute. Well, if they tried to do that. Yeah. So, Mr. Chairman, we actually do call out it's on sheet 10 of 27 uh building envelopes. So this is another one where we can well you know that's one of the things I want to talk
about after after our consulting here gets done how we can proceed and and one of those things is is rather than just say wave it just saying take the information you already know and stick it in here that you know the back setback will be no less than six feet
and the sides will be no less than 10 and whatever that's kind of like what we're saying is just have it have it be a little bit more detailed that's all we can carry it over from the plan to Does that answer your question, Constance? Thank you. Okay. You're very very welcome. Um
the uh next one uh next one is the the board of health. I think the member from the board of health was uh pretty uh eloquent in regards to uh their their comments on the perk rates and what's
going on out there. Um and I think that might be it unless unless Tracy has something. Tracy, do you have anything that pops out of your mind right now? But I like to, you know, like I said before, I started to reserve our right to comment once we get the once we get this draft and we start, you
know, editing and making comments on on things. Right. Okay. You can I'm all set. I can go now. Right. Thank you very much. Back up. What I'd like to do to proceed is two things.
one is um I'd like you to I'd say clean this up but expand this so that rather than except for those things that are procedurally changing documents and whatever I mean you're just waving that right where things you're not necessarily waving you're adjusting I'd
like to know what the adjustment is sure because waving just says you know all bets are off you can do whatever you want and that's not really what you're doing instead of you know if x you're doing y yep So, and I would like to see that so that you know on
this step one and then step two I I don't want to I don't want to involve everybody in discussing all of this. It's going to take us all year. So, and and I talked to uh our attorney about this. And what I'd like to do then after we get
clarification on these things is to have a small working group of somebody from the board, somebody from the applicable areas to just go and say what does this really mean and come up with a suggestion that to bring to the total
board at the next meeting so that we at least have some some consensus between saycom and the health and you know and planning and everybody that uh here's how we think we want to proceed to bring to the whole board at
the next meeting is that you can do that some very you know some form of that some form of it right what I was you know thinking is that you know it it sort of goes across a whole bunch of different areas so I I don't really
think it's necessary that we have a working group with somebody from concom attorney Uh what would you think about somebody from the board working with somebody from health and and then working with somebody from concom to go
over these issues? What are they a little bit of detail and say okay here's uh here's a recommendation to bring to the full board at the next meet at the next meeting. Mr. Would you also suggest
or recommend that a member from the applicant team or couple also be part of? Well, that's because I think that that we've done that many times before workshop. That's what I'm that's what I'm I'm going to work through with our attorney to see what's what's the most appropriate way of doing this.
I think that having the work in session like you're saying and having Chris or someone from their team there as well would be very very productive. We've done this in the past and it has brought all of the issues to a head and come to
agreement during those those sessions. Well, it it comes to a recommendation, not an agreement. Right. Correct. So that right. So there's an understanding of where everything sits during those working sessions. Um and I I highly recommend it because we've done it
before and it's been very effective. It's really up to the board if you think it's useful and then if it if you do think it's useful then what the composition would be. If you have a representative of the ZBA I would recommend having only one representative. Um anything
that gets discussed at any working group would be brought back to the full board of public hearing. Yes. So you also need the time for that. You right now your deadline to close the public hearing is June 5. Yes. So it doesn't give you a lot of time. No.
Um, you need a more you you need the the more elaborate waiver list before that working before that can even start because they're going to have to be working off of that. Yes. Right. You
know, I guess is it appropriate to ask for an extension now? It's it's appropriate to ask for an extension at any point in the process. You don't see any any legal problem though with with a uh a small working
group, one member from the board, one member from from our consultant, one member from the petitioner. Yes. And somebody member from health, whatever, and just work through those issues to come up with a recommendation to the board.
Yeah. Or a summary of where the final points of contention are. Yes. Right. Yes. Yes. Right. Yeah. I mean, it could be recommendations. Yeah. And as long as it's done and brought back in the public hearing so that everybody knows who met when and what was discussed and what was
the result of this? Anybody at this working group meetings that would uh record what was going on so that we you'd have to Yes. So would that be okay? That be Maria? Would that that wouldn't be a problem
having our our administrator without recording it just notes get lost. So, Mr. Chairman, I I can volunteer. I mean, we all want to get this right and you know, I think it serves everybody to make sure that the waiverss are accurate
and that ultimately a permit is accurate as well. And part of this exercise I either I don't know if town council has a form draft permit because some of these waiverss that we're requesting even though we'll identify in that last column the standard often times there's
a condition that references references the standard as well in the permit you know for instance the bonding requirement. So, I think what I was suggesting is um you know, I don't think we necessarily I think we could offer the
board another month if you know the board needs additional time to schedule this working session and then have one more hearing um before the deadline where we're definitely working to narrow issues. We're not spinning our wheels. I think we're all trying to make sure we
address everything and and make sure nothing's missed. So, you know, I don't see any reason to not extend the deadline to the end of June. Okay. To have a working session. You know, we can work with town council and and see where the board goes with their form permit,
suggest some conditions, and then come back to another hearing. The per the member that participates in the working session can uh present and we can resolve everything at that hearing and then hopefully be ready to move forward.
Um, how long will it take you to update your uh your waiverss? Uh, so I'll work all Memorial Day weekend and what we like to hear. Um, right. So, billing your client at 2x, right? So,
um, no, not at all. So, you know, I don't see any reason we can't have this back to the board, um, by the middle of next week. I mean, I we can move quickly by by like Wednesday of next week. So, one week. All right. Call at the end of next week. Um, and then
so calendar. So, you know, a work session the week of June 2nd. Well, it's not going to be the it's going to be uh a one-on-one. It's going to be correct. It could even just be a Zoom meeting. I mean, it's not It could be. I think meeting in person is
is really beneficial. It's not going to be over the phone, right? Right. To get, you know, the plans out and Yes. Um and you can do this as an advertised like I don't know how town council proposes to do it. No, I'm
not going to do it advertised. It's not it's not a subcommittee. No, it's there's only one member of the ZVA and there's not a Yeah. Right. So, and it's not going to be even like I I don't envision it, although it it certainly
could be that uh that it's one meeting with somebody from health, somebody from you know it it could be a meeting just with the health and whatever and then another meeting with concom but I mean if somebody from somebody from the petitioner but trying to
schedule everybody say somebody from health, somebody from concom somebody from you know whatever all the be all at the same time might it may that may not we found that to be most productive I mean we have involved with that you know I mean if it all works out that's fine
because that's some there might be some people that we might agree to disagree but but we can we found it to be most you know why you're disagreeing yeah we we found it to be most productive to have as many people from different town
boards attent we've had meetings have been 10 12 people. We've had the fire department who's been there depending on the issues and I think the issues we're narrowing here are identifiable. I mean we have a gentleman who's already volunteered his time. I missed your
name. Weinberg Mr. Weinberg I mean you know did you just did you just volunteer? Well I would he would but he's on vacation all the month of June. What I'd like to lean on attorney attorney Pooie for is is is giving as a top level of those that are mostly
administrative in in nature that we that we don't really need to bring to this working group and we can identify that. I mean I can send a a draft another updated draft when I send it on Wednesday. I'll really highlight those that are documentation related. You know
Mr. Chairman as a result of this meeting we kind of know what the hot buttons are right so far. Yes. Okay. So, and what we need to do. So, this can't happen by June 5th, which is which is the end of this uh which are which is our current
deadline unless you suggest a a continuation. Yeah. And he to the end of Right. And I I don't have any problem and you know I I consulted with the applicant and you know I think it makes sense to take advantage of uh this working session and push the deadline
for a decision to the end of June. So it depends on when the board's next hearing is. We don't have anything. We have something pending but not scheduled right at the end of June. No, we left some open. No, we don't have Oh, July 9th. I put it into July because I figured if you to meet with them
throughout June. Okay. So the 25th around the 6th 8th of June that's a well seventh is a Saturday so that's okay so
5th or the following Monday I guess yeah I mean we can figure out what's available for that but I think as far as the deadline it would be when is the board's next available hearing date will they meet just for us we meet just
for you guys. So, when are you available? We don't have a schedule. It we're an appeal. So, we it's we do have to make sure everybody shows up and you know, no vacations. Make sure that everybody scheduled. So, so you're looking at the
25th of June? Um, is the Tuesday or Thursday available that week? No. Tuesday week. Oh, right. Yeah, Tuesday we can't do, right? My side.
Thursday. Thursday the 26th. The Thursday. Yeah. Could everybody be available on the 26th? I might not be able to. Um I'll have to answer.
Um the 25th doesn't work. If we um What time would we meet on? If we met at 7 on the 25th. Um, do that. I think I could make seven o'clock. Yeah, we could do that. We just
don't want to get stuck. I know. It's Yeah. Yeah. Don't we already have something on the 25th? No. No. We don't have anything. The email 25th on July 9th. Okay. Okay. So, that one's out. I can't be there on July 9th. Oh, that was one
of the dates. Yeah. I see. Oh, I sent you. I see. Okay. Yes. So, the Can we do Well, July 9th is not when the So, it's okay if you're not here. Okay. I'll be at the Revs game. I already have
my ticket. So, um 25th. Okay. For everybody 5 George, which night can't you make it? The 9th of July. I'm I'm going to be a res that's not going to be this this it'll be something else. hopefully a lot
easier. So the 25th at 7 that's if everybody is available. Okay. I think you actually have to write you have a form for that, right? Yeah. I don't have Oh, no. It's a
Wednesday. No, it's a Wednesday. Um Yeah, you can just write it out. I request Oh, yeah. If you have I don't know if you have a standard form or We did, but I do, but I don't have it with me. Yeah. Yeah, I mean I can represent to the board on behalf of the applicant. I mean I'll I I mean I can confirm via
letter. Um goodness write it that we like it. Okay. Sure. Um I I'll write it out. Um you should vote it and follow that. Okay. Yes. Well, that's my next question is that that means the deadline to close
the hearing is extended for another 20 days. Is that correct? The deadline to close the hearing is extended to June 25. That's what you'll Yeah, I would I I would just make it the 27th, you know, couple buffered and so um I'll
I'll write this out and submit it, you know, right now. I think is there anything else we wanted to plan for? Try to set up a tenative date as to when we might want to have the workshop and see who might be available and see if that date needs to
be adjusted. Um If somebody we can do that, but we don't have to do that at this in in this in this forum. No, but I would suggest that send out a letter. Oh, yes. Well,
it won't be a letter. We'll we will contact each of the uh each of the commissions and obviously check with obviously you I'd narrow that, Roger. I mean, oh yes, your fire department has things to deal with that they don't have to sit through a meeting
with waivers. I mean, there are certain issues identified that are of importance. I recommend if the board of elves guy can be there. Uh peer reviewer obviously you can have counsel applicant a member of the board. You got to design you should designate that. You have to designate somebody here and somebody
from you know you you don't want every department you don't even want to ask every department to do it. may get a response that you don't really care for. And so it should just be the hot button issues with this with this con and and the purpose is not to work it out. The
purpose is to identify the issue, you know, and if if the peer reviewer can come up with a proposed condition that he would recommend that the board deal with an issue with, great. That can be presented. If you need to hear from
council about what the requirement is and what the reasons presented against it were, that's fine. But my point is, you're not there to issue the permit at this working group. It's just to try to work out the smaller issues and highlight and isolate
the more important issues and bring it back to the board. Right. And hopefully we can narrow them down to a small subset that we can discuss as a board. Right. Uh rather than 30 items. Yes. And and I would I would think it maybe something the week of the first week in
June. And you've got Phil here and he's like a twofer. I was just going to I was just going to say that um I appreciate the comment. No, but um I would want the health director and the conservation agent to
be there. Yeah. Yeah, because you're get down that might go in that direction and and I could, you know, participate because of my um historical participation, but I think
it'd be really helpful for them to be there. Yes, that would be one thing. And I think as kind of reflected what board of health tries to do is that we create an agenda and there's some times on it for a particular case to come up. So if
you were saying well this might be a 4hour meeting to go through everything. I don't think the health director or the agent would want to know what's my block of time to be there. And so that would be really helpful because otherwise
you're going to get pushed back. I can't they got too many things to do to sit to wait for their maybe a block of say they get an hour or two. Here are the issues. Okay, here's the priorities or here's the time or if you
uh now that I uh the the date is 67. No, we didn't we haven't set a date. 67's a Saturday, so that's definitely like the week of probably the week of June 9th or something. Yeah, because there's Yeah. Um, you know, then I can,
you know, talk to Matt and talk to Chris and they can plug that into their schedule and get back say this would be a good time for me that day and give them time slots, but then maybe they say have them available like for a phone call if something if something crosses
and we just need a confirmation. Okay. It also helps drive decision, you know. Yeah. Well, something else is coming up on the agenda at this time, so we have to wrap this piece up. So, first I'd like to see his update.
And I'd like Oh, very nice handwriting. Attorney Pooie, I'd like to have you then look at it and say, don't worry about 13 69 12 and 42 so that we just don't look at those. And then the group will then work on well the the working committee will then work on on those
other ones. Chris Chris did you say that that uh the 25th would you would be a little later? Seven start start at 7 o'clock. Okay. My question is do we still want to post for 6:30 before?
Oh great. Okay. What council just presented was a written uh uh offer to extend the deadline to close the public hearing to June 25th. So vote that. Well, usually we
have them read it. So that you make a motion, you you make a request and then and then we make a motion to do that. You want to go ahead and read it? Sure. Um, to the Westport ZBA, Westport Town Hall. Dear Mr. Chairman, please accept
this letter as confirmation on behalf of the applicant that the deadline to close the public hearing is hereby extended to June 27th. Um, I request that the board accept this letter as the applicant's request to extend the hearing to June 27th. You signed and dated it. I didn't
put a date on here, but I will. What is today's date? 21st. all day. 21st. Okay. We uh we have a request to uh uh actually is going to be Yeah. We we're going to request to extend the
deadline and then we're going to make a motion to uh to continue. Perfect. Okay. No, you're going to you've got to you have to move to accept the right first. first. Yeah. Yes. I thought you were
only going to move to the date. Yeah. No, no. We're gonna we're gonna make a motion to accept the extension of the deadline. Then we're going to make a motion to continue to the 25th. Perfect. Great. Thank you. Make a motion to uh accept the request for uh change of
deadline to 27th. June June. I'll second that. Any discussion? I'm just a little confused. I'm sorry. So you you have the deadline before we have our final meeting. No, the deadline's two days after.
Just in case. Okay. Just in case it becomes tonight, then we have to come back the next day for May. Oh, I was Oh, I'm looking at May. Never mind. Never mind. Okay. Sorry. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. No. Record show is
unanimous. Uh oh. Before I uh before I do this uh open up to to the audience for the public if anybody has any any question about this before we uh seeing none I'll make a motion that
we uh continue this hearing until uh June 25th at 7 p.m. June 25th at 7 p.m. I second. Uh, attorney BHA, we didn't even ask you.
Are you I assume you're I am available. You're available for asking us. All in favor say I. I. All oppose? No. That's that's approved unanimously. So, we will see you all hopefully. We're getting down to the end of this. Okay.
Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, uh, board members. We'll have an updated uh waiver list by around next Wednesday. And the more detail you can put in that so that we know exactly what it is you you're asking to wave would be
really helpful. Sure. Thank you as always. Uh thank you attorney Poochie for I mean you've been invaluable help here. As you know, this is something that we do not do very often. Oh, you're doing well, though. Well, I think for a while
we're kind of flailing, but uh Okay. Uh second order business is uh meeting minutes for uh April 9th, 2025. Uh Maria put together the meeting minutes. Thank you. Thank you.
Um, and uh, so I will make a motion to uh, approve the meeting minutes of April 9th, 2025. So moved. I make a second. I made a motion. Somebody second. Second. All in favor say I. I. I. All
oppose. No. Um, has every is everybody up to date on on making sure that they have either been to the meeting or watched the video? Yes. I know you did. Did Did you sign something? You did that. And you did that. Oh, you watch already done
mine. You did. Um, she has my And you were halfway. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I got done and she has the sheet. Okay, great. Okay, so we are all uh capable of voting in the Didn't you miss a meeting? No.
No, there was another meeting. It was another meeting you missed that wasn't this one. Yeah, I got you. Um, no, I missed you. Couple of other things. Well, ain't coming. Oh, we have to Oh, we have to vote on who is going to be the representative in this working group. Well, I think I obviously But you
think you're going to retire? I think it's going to be in Maria, but obviously him. Yeah, I think Ray. Well, somebody make a Well, I'll move that uh our chairman be uh the working group representative of the zoning board. I
second. Gee, thanks everybody. That is unanimous. Okay, we have we have a motion and a second. All in favor? I can I vote no? That's Yes, you can. Okay, so I I will coordinate with um the concom with
health with our contractor with the petitioner and um and obviously if there is the only day that everybody else can meet, you can't then have to do another person, right? Have an emergency. Well, it has to be another date, I
guess, because we Okay. Um, that's going to be a fun schedule. I mean, the the whole idea in that is, you know, there's 30 things here. We don't want to discuss every one of them, but we sort of want to at least have somebody have gone through it. Yeah. And and not only that, but what is it you're
giving up? And and from the contract, from the petitioner, what what does it force them to do? So, uh, you know, I think that's a I think that's a a reasonable approach. Um the last thing I have is you realize that they had a town meeting and all the zoning boards and
all the all the bylaws were all you chief pretty much unanimously approved. Of course it was only about six people in attendance. So it wasn't the whole it was not a a very well leave or it wasn't a well attended in general was that because I was I was away. I couldn't
make it. So I I just watched I was riding a I was riding a horse in Montana. That's a lot. Wasn't a lot. wasn't a lot but um but but there wasn't even any negative discussion about any of that. Well, it wasn't very controversial. It was not very controversial. I mean, basically the
second um that's all I wanted to the Airbnb. The Airbnb they just sort of got everything they originally wanted. Yeah. Well, kind of. They still have to do reg they still have to do some paperwork. Yes.
But because the town now has the ability legally to take away the right to do it. It's that one, right? Which they never had. Of course, they never had the right to do it in the first place, but but now they have there's a mechanism for it to go to the to the select board and have
neighbors come in and complain and make a decision about it. And they never had that before. And that's most and most importantly, not complain to us. And not complain to us. So that was all the proof. Um, how' the new moderator do? The new moderator was awful.
In my opinion, it it was well the the brand new. It was brand new. I mean, you throw somebody in that somebody who'd been doing it for 20 years. Obviously, they it's they know how to do it. So, you know, it's it's a rough start. You have lessons. I mean, it's a rough
start, but I mean, it was it was obviously disjointed and uh you know, hopefully over time that will, you know, it will improve. I mean, that's I think he was nervous. Yes. Right. I was I was sitting if he's ever been to any other town meetings, I would be. I was sitting
near Steve Fors and he was like popcorn up and down little Okay. Any other any other uh any other business? So, let me see. I got to put it in. Did we actually schedule the one for you? Yes. July 9th. I mean, you're actually I don't think I
sent you an email, but I'm I'm good. Okay. Because I think it's going to miraculate that question. We have another meeting next week on I'll ask you after. And Jeff's going to come to that, correct? Yes. Jeff Lake. Yes.
That's one without any frontage. Well, that's the one that has Right. Right. And there were well we don't want to talk about it. Right. Okay. Yeah. Something like that. I I drilled down the laneway all the way to the phone.
June 25th. Several neighboring properties to that has been before the board before. Right. I looked on the site to see if there's any documentation. There wasn't anything for cones. Not on our not on our site.
Well, it could be uh using different addresses at the time. No, I guess uh could be a Davis um or it could just be a zero, you know, because they're vacant lots, so they don't always have
numbers. Well, it seems like Seems like there's a lot of houses down here down here. Okay. Have fun. Bobby Gill, okay. Hey, is there any other any other uh any other business? Oh, I make a motion to adjourn the
meeting. I second. All in favor? All right.