e e e e e you want to Crank It Up B set okay there're being 6:30 on uh February 19th I'm going to start the zoning board of appeals with the Pledge of
Allegiance Pledge of Allegiance to the flag United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible Liberty Justice for All I guess I don't know all roll
over under Mass General Law chapter 38 section 20f this meeting is being recorded petition tonight uh zero Westport Lakes Road continue hearing on application of pine Bridge Estates LLC and Bradford deed for a comprehensive
permit pursu to master onal law 40b for a development of uh Westport Lake Drive consisting of 38 single family homes on individual Lots which are to contain two or three bedrooms with 10 of those homes being
designated as affordable deed restricted homes the subject property is located at zero Westport Lake Road and is shown on assessors map 31 lot 3B 3C and 4G and again this is a continuation so and the way that we will run the meeting
is I'll have the petitioner come up actually we're going to tonight we're going to uh is going to be uh discussing the uh traffic aspects of this um this project so I'll have our uh our consultant come up and give a summary of
of what he found uh looking at the traffic report uh after we get through with that I'll open it up to the floor for comments on traffic so um if you want to do an opening Mark otherwise I'm going to have
Pat come up and give a summary but again we're going to do traffic only tonight do we want to wait for uh actually uh we we we have yeah why don't you try calling him he's an altered it anyway so we have another alternate here but um
that's for for the sake of um for continuation yeah um anyway voting on uh I assume this is going to be another continuation this is going be for of course Mr chair so voting on this will be myself Roger
manard conon ski Janice day Ray Elias and Cynthia ktz will be voting on uh when we get to the point of a continuation CU I'm obviously you know this is going to be continued probably several more times of
course I uh I prefer to wait if we could I'll find out what's what's going on with yes we're also missing Jerry I'm sorry Jerry's not here as well right he won't be here you know Jerry Jerry's not going to be here he oh so he wait oh Jerry Jerry's at home watching this on
TV don't say anything um what I'd like to do at at this at this point in time is can I hang on a second I want to make sure if um if George is going to be here then I we wait for him because uh then he's fully read in
yes no okay go ahead so can I reach him can I reach him no I left so name you know sure uh Paul cussen from delic Associates uh we are the cons B Consultants for the uh for the
development and um there's been some correspondence since the last meeting um a traffic uh report um was prepared by our consultant Jeffrey Durk who was here tonight uh that has been submitted to the board um
that report has been reviewed by your Consulting engineer and um they had made some comments and uh those comments have been answered by by Jeff uh but before
we get into so I at the pleasure of the board I thought that maybe we would have Jeff do an overview of the traffic unless you really no that's okay you can do your overview and then I'll have uh our consultant you know get you know
give his perspective on it sure so at at this point in time however I um since the last meeting uh the development team um has hired uh Chris agustino I'd like to introduce Chris Chris want to come up Chris agustino is a an expert in the
area of uh L use uh and also an expert in the area of 40b Chris and I have worked together um and Chris if you want to say a couple of words what would be your role come on up thank you Paul thank you Mr chairman
Christino address uh Chris fraustino Council for the applicant uh an attorney at Roberto Israel and Wier 25 5 State Street Boston Mass uh and Paul just wanted to introduce me as uh another member of the development team but we look forward to hearing the presentation
on traffic this evening okay good thank you good um so Jeff uh I'll have Jeff Durk come up and just say a few words about the development and quick overview Y and then uh maybe the board may have
some comments and then uh over to your consultant to answer any questions Jeff Jeff is with vaness and Associates so good evening uh Mr chairman members of the board um as you heard by way name name an add yes um by the way of introductions as you heard my
name is Jeffrey Dirk I'm the managing partner with vaness and Associates we the transportation Consultants on the project our place of businesses in Andover Massachusetts um so I will give you kind of a high level overview of the transportation study so you can hear from your um review consultant but happy
to go into any specific details that um you might have on the traffic study you might want to ask your consultant some of these details um we did have the benefit of a peer review so just kind of some of the history as it relates to what we've undertaken as a part of the study or the uh for the project uh we
conducted an initial Transportation impact assessment in December of last year so toward the end of last year um published that assessment and you've since had a peer review done uh of that study and you'll hear from your review consultant shortly um in essence as it relates to their
review of our transportation analysis um the findings that you'll hear from the consultant is that all of the technical methodology uh that we use in assessing the impacts of the project um they've done their job as the peer review consultant to make sure that the study meets the required standards that the
Commonwealth sets through the Massachusetts Department of Transportation uh they set the standards we have to follow in preparing these Transportation Assessments in terms of uh the ways we that we go about collecting the data what type of of data is collected uh how we adjust that data given that westport's a seasonal
community so we want to look at seasonality of the traffic volumes uh how we look at estimating the amount of traffic the project will produce obviously the Project's going to produce additional traffic on the roadways and so we need to assess what that impact is uh and then lastly looking at what the impacts of the project are and when
we're looking at the impacts of the project it's looking at delays on the roadway so as everyone's familiar driving on roads and coming up to intersections um generally you experience delays at stop signs you need to stop to wait for traffic to clear so that you can then pull out at an intersection uh the other thing that you
see is queuing so if we have backups say getting off the highway getting off of um Route 88 um there may be backups that happen in front of you cars waiting to turn onto the roadway so we look at the backups that happen you those cues before and after the Project's traffic
and we see whether the project is increased delays or increased queuing at those intersections so we've undertaken that as a part of our an Anis and again your review consultant is taking a look at it um so what you hear in terms of the findings of our assessment the project is expected to produce somewhere
between 30 and 40 additional peak hour trips so if you're looking at the roadway as it exists today um we're going to be adding about 30 or 40 trips over the course of an hour um so that amount of traffic is spread out over a 1H hour period and we looked at what the
impacts of that additional traffic was going to be what we saw in terms of delays at intersections uh was the project didn't cause any increases in delay that caused uh appreciable queuing so if you looked at what happens out on the roadways today you're not going to see much difference before and after the
Project's traffic both at present um but also looking seven years in the future so the change before and after the project uh it didn't show any material impacts and you'll hear from your consultant that you know they concur with those findings uh there were two things that your consultant had asked us
to come back with some additional information on uh the first was looking at the sight lines coming out of the property so if you've had a presentation of the the site plan itself as you're exiting the driveway and you're looking to the left or right uh there's vegetation that exists and so as you
look at our transportation assessment we've recommended that some trimming of the vegetation take place uh that vegetation trimming would either occur within the project site or what's known as the public RightWay so it doesn't happen on private property it occurs either within the site most of it I believe is within the site and would be
taken care of um as a part of the construction the driveway U but what we your consultant asked us to show is what's known as a site triangle so the site triangle is uh we pick a point in the driveway where the driver would be sitting and then we make a triangle looking to the left or right to the
point where we extend from the driver's eye out into the roadway and then connect it back and that creates a triangle within those triangle areas that's where we want to make sure there's no objects placed that would inhibit sight lines so that was asked to be provided so that as you look at the
site plans you can verif ify that what needs to take place is under the control of the applicant in terms of clearing vegetation so we provided that plan to your consultant um the second thing was asked was for us to look at motor vehicle crashes at the off-ramp from um Route 88 and it was actually the
southbound off ramp so as we looked at the number of crashes that were happening at the intersection of Route 177 at the route 88 South Mount offramp the number of crashes that were happening was dispropor proportionate to the volume of traffic going through the
intersection uh So based on the volume of traffic that goes through there we would expect a lower incidence of crashes than is actually occurring there um that doesn't necessarily mean that there's an issue as it relates to safety but what it does mean is you need to take a more deeper dive and look at what's actually happening at that
intersection uh so what we did was we requested crash reports from the Westport Police Department so the police department uh took the time to pull all of the crash records uh for the most recent 5-year period for those ramps and provided them to us um what that information is um hopefully none of you
have had the experience of having to fill out a crash report at an intersection but as you're filling out that as much of a pain as it is to actually do it for transportation professionals what it provides to us is your feedback in terms of what happened to you at the intersection which direction were you traveling um and then
what happened as a result of the crash did someone rearrange you as you were getting off the highway uh was it you slid on Ice things like that so the crash reports give us that type of information so we can actually look at what's happening at the offramp intersection uh so again we use crash
data that was provided by the Westport police department and as we looked at the crashes at that intersection um there were 14 crashes over the 5-year period eight of those crashes were people coming off the ramp and turning right and I'm sure you're very familiar with that ramp and this is not um
uncommon when you've got an offramp where it's yield control and it's kind of you slip around to the right um and what it is is the uh the vehicle that's following thinks the vehicle in front of them left because we're all focused on the traffic that's traveling in this case would' be going westbound you think the car in
front of you left but it didn't because there was a car coming in they stopped short and then someone rear ends them so of the 14 crashes that was eight of those crashes um the rest of the crashes was a combination of people it was actually single vehicle crashes on the
on the ramp so people hitting some of the signs that were there didn't involve other vehicles uh there was also a um I think three crashes on 177 someone there was one where a vehicle was passing on the right and got struck so that was a citation um the other crashes were just
motorist not paying attention to what was going on at at the intersection itself so you know the deeper dive into that says yes the number of crashes are disproportionate but what's actually happening is just people not paying attention to the car that's in front of them getting off the ramp and it's I think as I said it's something not
unexpected so we provided that information to your consultant and I know um that was recent so I don't know if they've had a chance to look at that but those were the only two comments that we had on the transportation study um the other thing you'll see is recommendations in the study we always provide some recommendations mostly they
relate to the site plans and the site plans that have been developed for the project um they've Incorporated all of those recommendations so sidewalks width of streets um dimensions of driveways so we want to make sure the driveways are sufficiently long so Vehicles don't stick out into the street uh so we
provide those as guidance and I know those have all been in incorporated into the site plan um and your consultant has had a chance to to look at those recommendations so that's a very highlevel overview of the traffic study there are traffic counts in the traffic study um as well so I can I can talk
about those vehicle speed measurements as well U we've incorp we've taken into account all of those existing conditions as a part of our analysis and again your consultant has uh verified that we've collected the data and assessed it appropriately so i' be happy to answer any questions you have now you probably hear want to hear from your consultant
and then i' be happy to engage in questions or followup that you might have or your consultant may have okay that's good okay thank you well thank you very much okay hi so uh my name is Patrick Bradley I'm a traffic engineer at Chapel engineering our office is based out of
Mal 2011 Boston Post Road uh so we completed a review of the traffic uh study that was provided Ed by bii uh Jeff kind of gave a large overview of you know all the points in the project so I don't feel need to necessarily go
through all those again but um in terms of the way that the study was uh completed it followed all uh dot guidelines in terms of data collection um uh getting crash data speed measurements all those kind of integr
details that you need for the base of the study so all those were done under do standards um in terms of actual CH generation for the the um development itself the uh volumes are very low there's not many very many impacts on the study roadway uh or the
intersections uh as Jeff pointed out it's very low volume uh expected during the peak hours uh for this kind of development um as he had stated there were two points uh that we'd like to get more information on when it came to the actual uh study itself one of which was
that sight line triangle uh which I did did uh see in the response uh letter that we had received and uh it shows that there's Clear Sight lines and uh identifies any areas within that triangle that there should be uh no obstructions in terms of like larger
vegetation or signage stuff like that um in terms of the crash data he had mentioned that he did get reports from uh the police department I have not seen those uh the actual diagrams anything like that so we'd like to just see uh those specifically they were not a part of the um the response letter that we
they did receive uh earlier so that's just one thing that we would like to take a look at just to confirm um what he was saying in terms of uh driver intive being the issue uh for those accidents but uh just an overall statement um the report follows dot
guidelines there minor impacts to the surrounding areas and um o overall it should uh really have no impacts so um I can answer any direct questions if there are any in terms of any you looked at um the sight
line from the Golf Road to West Lake Road getting on and off of of the the 40b project yes um is there anything in there that describes how how to make sure that that
that those sight lines are are in fact cleared and remain cleared uh in terms of that you mean how do they reinforce that show mean that there's a they talked about the the triangle of site
um but there a rain in there that talks about what kind of vegetation or no vegetation or I let Jeff answer the question I think his recommendation was that any areas that are in the Triangle uh if on on our our property be
be cleared and maintain that so that could turn it over the Cris but that could could be done in the way of a condition of the permit um and and also could be further identified I guess on the engineered plans yeah because that's
that's certainly the major coming on and off of of your development yep uh is going to be you know one of certainly the major aspects of of safety getting on and off of the of of your road from our road onto Westport Lakes Road right
yeah and that's yes so uh not only making sure there's a clear line of sight but making sure that in fact it's consistently because I've seen you know say okay you put you know small schrubs in there and then 10 years later there are trees so
uh it's how do you manage that other than just saying you're going to continue trimming happen condition it would be a condition of the permit mhm so therefore if there was a violation at some point in time it's an Enforcement
issue uh so I just add we so we also serve as peer reviewers for municipalities as well and so one of the things that is often requested as the site triangles as Paul was saying they're shown on the site plan so that when you endorse the plans the site
triangle and I actually just minut so what we do is this is the site triangle provide yes what you see that address exactly what you said so what we usually ask is this be included in the site plan set so when
you do get to a point where you endorse the site plan these notes are shown on there and it's enfor so if for some reason there was a Seline issue that building inspector or the zoning enforcement officer has this plan part of the record set enforce the
requirement to keep it clear but by having in site plan set your it doesn't get lost it stays with so for all the area within the site triangle no I'm asking a question all the area within the site triangle except for the road
portion corre is that owned by um the applicant so the lines is that is that owned by the applicant the applicant owns the the land on this side of that land the other side is within within the public way or an Ean area in fact this is a private
way it's a private way so then this is within the Ean area and then they would have rights to be able to clear that as being someone who owns property along the road right and then they and they would also then be required to maintain it correct okay and the notes say on here exactly what the chairman was mentioning which is says No Object shall
be placed in this area the yellow areas that exceed two and2 ft in height and that's under all conditions so you couldn't have something placed in that area that would going to have a stop sign there correct there's going to be a stop sign well there will be a stop stop sign yes okay there has to be there has
to be a stop sign so so how does that affect your your line of sight oh it doesn't so when you the stop sign itself yeah when you think about like a stop sign itself it's just a small pole and the sign itself is up high the sign the
sign height is 7 foot to the bottom all signs are supposed to be mounted at a s foot height so that you you can walk under them it does you don't hit your head on them yes I know but I mean I mean I mean when I come off of my street the stop sign is in the way so then it's not installed properly so this this one
is installed per standards and we've cited well it really depends upon the pitch of the road as well because if the stop sign is here and and the road's got a a pitch up it can it can impact and this this road is pretty straight flat so the height is the height is relative
to the elevation of the pavement of the driveway because the and2 ft the driver assumed the driver's eye is assumed to be 3 and 1/2 ft above the pavement surface so all of the measurements are taken from the surface elevation of the driveway so once that driveway elevation
is set no objects within that side triangle area we always say it's it's 2 and a half ft the reason for that when you think about this you when you come in when we're when they're building the road and it comes into intercept Westport lak's Drive it needs to be at the same elevation so the driveway
elevation West lak Drive is going to be roughly at about the same elevation so when we measure up 2 and 1/2 ft above we're looking to a car that's coming at you Long westports Lake Drive as you said it's straight relatively flat relatively flat right so so we don't
have a lot of change in grade that would affect that but you are right the the measurements are taken from the surface elevation of the driveway which should be pretty close to the surface elevation of the intersec street otherwise they couldn't intersect each other okay okay um that then I mean you went into a lot
of detail about that intersection what about the safety of the rest of your of your 40b development so the so the roads are designed to function safely and the width of the roads comply lines of sight for coming out of your driveways for and
there's a bunch of curves that you have there's culde saacs or whatever so have um Pat have you have you even looked at that part of it uh in terms of safety analysis not exactly no okay but the only so those all need to be looked at what I would suggest is that the speeds
within the site you can't this is probably the worst case in terms of the sight lines when you're driving within the site you do want the curves and everything because it's going to keep the speeds down so if you're going 25 miles hour that's probably the fastest You' be a going the sight line for 25 miles hour is generally you know you're
talking about sight lines needing to be somewhere between 80 to 100 feet um so they're not very long because people are be they're going to be going slow but I would also fire trucks need to maneuver but you do want some geometry in there to slow the vehicles down as they're
going through they want to keep the speed okay so that still doesn't ask my question had has you have either have you looked at the safety on your part of the we have that's why we provided recommendations to make sure that it's safe because because you have a a te
there where right that branches off you have sight lines there to make sure that people going back and forth have enough Vision to to not slam into each other correct so so the recommendation says that sight lines similar what you see here have to be provided within the site we're also putting that intersection
under stop sign control so people are going to come in and stop and then be able to look left or right there there's no surface topography that would cause any issue but again this this issue of don't place any objects that exceed two and half ft in height would would apply anywhere within the project
site anywhere within the project where you we an intersection and that goes on documentation somewhere It Go on the site ples that's that's where I would suggest that your review consultant can you know make a recommendation we typically want a note on the site plan so that again it's a part of the record
that you endorse rather than saying comply with all the the requirements of the traffic study and then the traffic study is not connected to the site plans and it ends up in a different file in site plans but the your zoning enforcement officer if there's an issue they're going to pull the site plans that you endorsed and then follow those
so the note should be on the site plan and as as the engineering is evolving we will make certain that that is on the plans that hopefully eventually will be endorsed by the board in addition the uh
what you're concerned about maintaining that area vegetation wise and so forth uh we could include that in the home in in the HOA documents to be sure that it's the respons it would be the responsibility of the HOA
okay um that that gets off to a whole other issue here is that uh you're starting off with a very small number of houses you're building in which there's a we could increase it if you'd like no no I mean you you have 38 but you're going to build you know 10 to start with
that's not what it says in um the engineering report they're saying that it's not going to be done peace meal yeah it says it's going to be done all at yep response to the site plan said it was all going to be done at once they got to find the piece of paper the the
so I again my question was what is it because I know earlier in our in in early meetings you said you were going to do a peace meal peace meal but then in in farin's response he they specifically said it was going to be done all at once let me let me clarify what what we said was that yes we're not
going to be building all of the 38 houses at the same time okay so what will be happen happening is that as they go in and and put in the utilities and clear the the roadway and so forth that would all that's not going to be done in
phases the the you know the rough road and and so forth we'll be building will be most like can you back that up again sure so what'll happen is is that the Gulf View Lane going up okay and then you got a road going to the left and right all of that would be would be
grubbed in and brought to uh to a point where it's ready for uh binder course okay all right the houses would be we're not saying we're going to be building all of the houses at the same time M so
it it's tentatively that the houses would be starting most likely on the left and and be going as the houses are sold and so forth be building two three four houses initially mhm and as the houses you know
like any development you you continue building the houses okay uh so so it is a it is a what it is essentially it's a semi face approach you you you rough in the whole yes
Street and then you build as you go but at some point I mean it's possible that you just stop and that's what happened with the with the with with Westlake Drive they just built so many houses and then didn't build anymore because they couldn't sell anymore so guess the I'm
not sure about Westport Lakes Road whether didn't want to sell them or they couldn't sell them I don't know what the condition was there so your plan it is it is our intent and and the developers that we would be building in accordance to Market acceptance we're not going to
intentionally stop and build one house a year or one house every you know a couple hous that's we don't make any money like that and you you go bulk is really what happens so it's the intent to continue right through now whether it's going to take you know a year and a
half two years or two and a half years to build all the houses I don't know but it's not going to take 10 years I can you can put that in writing if you like you know what what what what I'm concerned about and this is from a safety aspect from a from a traffic
standpoint is uh uh and for some period of time you're gonna have a very very small homeowner base so who manages all this stuff while that is happening the developer the develop the developer is what happens is that when you start
selling the first two or three houses there's there's a um an HOA fee every buyer has to pay so much per month well there's not a lot of there's not a lot of money on on day one right so what happens is that when we do the closings
we collect in advance 3 months operating costs uh so that that goes go into the kitty as the house is so in the beginning it's the developers responsibility for example snow removal and and those kinds of things there's not enough money in that budget but
hopefully the budget is established in such a way that at some point in time uh what's called a turnover event in in the documents the the the turnover uh is is is turned over to the HOA then it
becomes totally their responsibility and usually that's at about 70% of the total units M mhm but up until that point then the the developer is going to maintain the road maintain the cutting down the
the you the lines of sight and and setic system and the septic systems until you get to the point where the homeowners there's a turnover event correct okay I think when in one of our earlier meetings you the first or a second Mr Farland who actually isn't here tonight surprising um his engineer yeah said um
um that typically in developments that he have done the developer funds each lot is let's say if each lot is assessed $100 HOA that the developer funds that until those those lots are sold so therefore there's not
a an empty kitty yeah that it's we have typically done it differently okay the developer is resp so what happens is that the to HOA and according to the legal documents okay that money has to be set into a separate account so as you start collecting money you put that
money into a separate account when the units are 70% completed it's it's turned over so that account becomes the HOA in the meantime the the uh the developer is not kicking in a 100 bucks a month the developer the development finish the
developer uh is taking care of that responsibility okay and that's something we could put in sure the decision yes that they and and you can also Al have the opportunity to review or have Council review our HOA documents absolutely right yeah we we have no
problem with that yep is there is there any outstanding issues that uh uh that that we need to consider for uh for traffic analysis uh the only thing right now would just be to uh get the actual
police reports um from VII if they say that they have them we just need to see them just confirm what they have that was the only only outstanding just so you just want to verify that you correct yeah what the uh traffic uh uh incidents
were correct yeah um was that Jeff that Jeff's report uh in the report it said the supp report he just sent out as it today no was no a few days ago the the report I have is from the 7th and it said that you it
would that reached out to the police department and once you receive the reports you will follow up or something I don't I don't have and it did that I just don't have the follow up I don't know if it was sensed that was done Jeff is that correct je you would have just
received it yesterday at the that's take a so he'll review it's in your R box yeah we'll review when you just kind of respond just let you know if it's you know just to verify that right yes
um there uh have there have been police reports for accidents on have you looked at uh police reports for accidents on um West Lake Drive the police department actually provided us crash reports for all of the
intersection that's what I thought yeah yes all of them the only one that that um required further review was was the off ramps the there's a there's generally a low incidence of crashes within the area itself that didn't as I said as we're we're looking there are
crashes but it's not disproportionate to the volume of traffic going through the intersections um the other measure that we look at is the state publishes High crash locations um and that that's based on a different metric what they look at is the severity of crashes so they don't
you know these little fender benders the state's not so much concerned about that what they are concerned about is Crash locations where there's either fatalities happening or a large number of property I'm sorry personal injury crashes if there's locations with fatalities or large number of personal
injury crashes they get published as the state's High crash location list um there's no high crash locations in this area so it's a it's a different way of looking at crashes they're more the state's more concerned about addressing personal injury and fatalities and focusing on that and spending money
there uh rather than the fender benders you know we're concerned with all of the crashes and so that's that's why you know we don't have any High crash locations as it relates to the state but we do have a location where there's a lot of fender benders uh so we wanted to see you know typical things signs pavment markings and trimming of
vegetation um we try to see if things like that could address what's happening U this one is just driver error because as you said it's if you look at it you just see people just rear ending coming off of that ramp I know they also went into uh are upcoming projects in the
neighboring cities or towns we did and uh there were some but they were like in Dartmouth and and titon and right and titon corre so that's fair distance away right Westport identified two projects but they were also far far removed from this area that they weren't going to add
any additional traffic but your review consultant said close enough to Dartmouth at T and see what's going on there so we reached out as well to those communities okay so we just you just need to get the the reports yeah just just give us the time to just review the report if it was sent
yesterday I don't believe it was uh fully reviewed so mean is there anything else you need to look at from a from a safety and and traffic standpoint in terms of traffic no it was um we didn't have any many issues with the the study itself it was all performed under do standards like we had said so there's
can you just sort of for the audience just sort of give an overview of you know of actually the process you went through so that they can get a feel for you know you know for uh uh you know for the effort that was done sure so um we review each step of the report as you
know they present it to us um it starts with identifying project location or um sorry study locations which is you know nearby intersections that would be affected by the traffic and so we confirm those as um locations that would need to be studied um traffic data is uh
recorded at all of those intersections which we review uh they look at seasonal and um previously Co adjustments uh to uh adjust that data if it needs to be um those were all done for this project for those volumes and we agreed with the the
U that analysis uh after that they we also look at you know obviously the crash data uh at those uh locations to see if there's any um uh High crash uh volumes U like the uh the southbound uh exit ramp being one of them where it has
a high crash uh volume basically um after that we also look at the um the actual analysis of the intersection so uh you look at the the level of service is what it's called Uh basically it looks at um the volume of cars going
into and vehicles in general going into intersections uh the rate that they come in um and basically it breaks it all down into uh level of service uh uh like volume so it's listed from A to F
anything over uh D is really considered acceptable uh e is okay sometimes f is obviously a failure of the system it usually means that either the intersection is uh backing up too much or especially for like a signalized intersection if like the timings are are not appropriate you'll see like large
cues and stuff like that so we uh analyze uh the reports that they have given to us uh usually as a syn a Synchro report um a type of software so we analyze that data that they've provided to us to confirm that uh you know that they've added the a proper
amount of traffic to those intersections given um the traffic uh generation rates given by The Institute of Transportation Engineers it they provide a a large database full of uh studies that they've committed uh for different types of developments like residential retail
commercial stuff like that um and so they used uh the proper it um codes for that for single family housing um and they also then used uh the US Census Data for journey to work which basically uh it's a database uh for the entire us
but you can break it down by um certain towns and it gives you uh volumes of the people who live in that town and where they work basically and that gives you an idea of potential distribution models um for the traffic so for a residential
development obviously people come to and from work so it's a journey to work model so we can get the distribution there so we confirm those as well um so basically we just kind of go down the list of things that they have provided and we just double check and uh make sure that it follows along with the
guidelines now does it U does it go down into looking at things like uh when school was let out uh so uh because I know you know in this particular uh the bus isn't going to go
down that road so you know anybody with kids are going to be down at the intersection of 177 and and Westlake Road right so uh that impact it at all so there are two analysis periods that are done it's the
am and the PM peak hours the am peak hour is between 700 and 900 a.m. and the PM is between 4 and uh 6 p.m. um typically we're just looking at the the vehicle trips from uh the houses uh based off that it data uh we don't necessarily take into account uh you
know bus trips or something like that but usually especially for a neighborhood as you know a limited number of housing units there's not going to be like a ton of bus stps within that there's going to be none because it's a
West right I guess my question which I think is sort of your question is that there's going to be 38 units there right um be 38 kids which means 38 people with cars bringing going and you've only
estimated 30 to 40 trips at peak hours and would that change given the fact that there could be more because every house let's say if there's a every house has two cars let's say one car takes kid to
work kid to school comes back maybe finishes up and then goes to work and maybe another car goes works I just think the 30 and 40 uh cars at peak hours may be low given the fact that there isn't going to be bus service up
there and that means that every if if we assume every house has one child or even both of they're all going to go to school at the same time that's 38 trips right there and then not including uh going to work trips right
so and that that 40 trip is based on buildout or just what's there now uh it's based on buildout yeah that' be the total number of units and um so what can I say for that is uh the standards have us use it models in order to generate
traffic uh especially with residential uh units there's a lot of studies that are done with those there's a lot of data points to pick from um as for the uh you know going dropping off a kid coming back and then leaving for work uh
I mean it's a possibility that think they could get that all done within the same you know hour and you're adding more trips but uh in terms of the standards that we use um for traffic reporting uh they don't include that it's it it could include that but it's
just it's no one is asking them where they're going in these peak hours it's purely volumes um you know based on the development uh it's purely Anonymous so it's just kind of the raw data that comes from it not change all service
right then what about I mean I guess could we do some sort of specific study regarding um schools and busing because as uh chairman said that their kids are going to be dropped off at the corner of
177 and Westport Lakes Road that means knowing everybody there's going to be there could potentially be 38 cars lined up at the end of which would I'll go away from the beginning of 177 all way to the back of the development mean is there any sort of study that can be done
to sort of figure that out if I may what's been it's like any other subdivision same like Briggs Landing we did bring nighty Briggs Landing is not off of a the short is that's off of tickle road but that's a that's not a private way and buses go up there right
here you're going off a private way and buses will not go the buses will not go on Westport Lakes Road because it's a private way Bridge Landing is off of 177 going in in tickle off tickle road yeah and I mean I've seen there's an
entrance off of yeah is tickle yeah you're right yeah there two entr that's that's a that's that's a Westport Road a Town Road West it wasn't always a town when we first developed that it wasn't always an accepted road we went through
a long period uh before it became and I'm not sure all the roads are accepted several of them have been accepted so no I'm saying tickle was you know that's why they could go into the development because they well why can't they go into the development here because Private Road they wasn't private at the time
it's private no no no U um referring to Briggs Landing no no I'm referring to wport Lake Road is a private Lane that's why and and and West and Briggs Landing was as well for many years the tickle road is okay that's
correct I I don't I leave that up to the I leave that up to the professional question was directed to my consult thank you for answering question well I brought about a different thing but he can answer as well as he did I think uh in terms of a specific study you could
do for say specifically School strips um there isn't necessarily a guideline or a a concrete way of doing that what you could do is you could simply just double the amount of trips but even in this scenario I it doesn't really seem like
it is there any way of looking at other similar uh situations across the state to say okay there's another uh you know area that that is so similar to this I even in the town we
have a lot of other private rows that uh that are similar to this and I assume they have the same problem right and I don't know whether there's any traffic issues related to that houses like you know I'm on a private road right all there's five houses on that private road
and everybody there's no kids on our road anymore but they all bring them to the top of the road right that's only five right not 38 uh so what I would say to that is you could certainly look at some similar developments and uh take some uh traffic
cenage to see what those volume suppose we okay we do have some other areas in Westport that are similar to that we can just reports for for those areas to see if there's any issues with private roads and you know especially around the the
school time right uh I mean just generally speaking uhu like I've said before um the development at least in terms of it is is low volume uh I understand the concern with the uh potential of extra
trips given you know school trips and whatnot um what would I say to that is yeah you could if you had similar developments that are similar in size and have you know similar kind of access point you could get empirical data from
those sites just to see and compare how they go with it um that' be dependent on similar sites in terms of you know uh a number of buildings or you could you know that would be the best way I would suggest
about going about that if it's a true concern other question we definitely know it's concern of the residents on West Port L Ro I mean we we know the concern of the residents on Westport lak Road they've told you know they've said too much so
question from the board before I open it to the public anybody uh from the public want to talk about traffic traffic only traffic only so I was you quick
mentioned name and address oh Tony uh six West Drive sorry Tony who R there was a mention about 7 to eight accidents per year coming off of 88 on to 177 I think that's how I wrote it down
78 accidents I don't know like how it was mentioned my question is on coming off 88 to 177 mous Mill Road being the M Wick Street there there's about a dozen houses there we are now looking at the
next street over being West B Le drive with only five houses there with I don't know probably 15 cars there already with three accidents and two years with 38 houses being added to that
with another 15 houses added to that on top of it all where would that study be and then also like the vegetation part of it we're talking about the gulf U Lane only we're not talking about the vegetation that was abruptly cleaned out
over the last 3 weeks on the 177 side so like who's maintaining all that's that's the owners of that property let's not go down that rabbit hole I know we will deal with that okay what do you tell so my my question is there there's a lot of
traffic already going in that way with very few cars going to the West Fall Lakes area we're adding 38 houses with two to three four cars per house there's going to be a lot more traffic there was
a mention of seven to eight accidents per year I don't I don't know how I wrote that down I don't know if I misheard that was you were talking about accident coming off of8 88 right was that was it per year or to ask
the chairman if he wants me answer okay was it seven or eight per year or go ahead so Mr chairman as I mentioned the Westport Police Department uh provided crash data for five years five years right five years so so there were 14 crashes at the ramps over a five years
over right so not all in one year right so was spread out over the 5e period and it was fairly dispersed over those five years okay so you know my concern is so 5year period eight accidents we're looking at almost two per year um what is that
going to do to it when we Add 38 houses plus finishing off the development that would be my concern okay thank you next Manuel theond 53 Grand Pineway Westport now the engineers that you they talked
about the line of sight the triangle when you come out of Westport lakes and you look to the right it's a hill it's probably about 120 130 ft now anyone coming off coming going east on
177 to to stop for that kind of traffic coming out of one out ofest sport Lakes it's going to be quite different than what it is now now Forest Hills there a Forest Hills on 177 forest forest park they had to add an extra Lane in the
middle so anyone coming down the hill would go into that site and take a left and a right has that been considered or that has not been considered at all at a center lane so that you can take a left believe that's not considered because that's
part that would be part of the traffic study that whether that was required or not is that correct yeah but that you we're talking about 14 accidents but that was not considered from that location 88 was considered in front of Harry's
would on Grand Pine Way there's accidents there almost every month that wasn't talked about right here but I know at this point this is a brand new Pro brand new development how do you consider the amount of vehicles
that are going to be going in and out of that location and the effect that it's going to have looking to the right where you're going to look at 120 ft the person coming on 177 cannot see Westport Lakes at they can only see it right towards the end now if if there's a car there taking
a if there's a car there waiting to take a left all they're going to do is get rear rendered yeah has that been down that road several times and you have a reasonable visibility I live on Robert Street we have 200 houses that all butt up to 17 7 and we don't have the line of
sight that you guys have in we don't have a ton of accidents oh no I'm not I'm just saying just generally speaking I'm talking about the research that was done so we do research but we don't talk about the potential of what can happen when all this is when
this development is in place what that studi what stud is they only mentioned the horse neck the 88 coming off because that was a high there was more accidents than there should have been based on the traffic so the study with and he's L the
study that was done at the corner of 177 in Westport Lakes Road you didn't see a a high amount of accidents based upon the amount of traffic and
therefore you concluded that having more traffic go through would not raise the incidence of traffic disproportionately that that's that's I understand that I'm just saying if the the potential of having that many vehicles coming out of Westport Lake
going right or left or going going into Westport Lakes right or left actually they considered that and they did they did not suggest in our I you did not propose the turn lane and the our and I would Lan our our our consultant that
you would not based upon this the traffic on 177 onto Westport Lakes Road you would not not suggest a a right left hand turn you know the extra little turn L thing so so if you go down the road 177 and you hit Forest Hills or Forest
Park they have maybe what 30 or 40 houses in there oh no there's a lot of houses in there okay so that that center lane is not feasible to even talk about here today it's well it's feasible to
talk about but tra studies said it's not necessary so I got it because the traffic studies said they needed it I would beg to differ but that's just my opinion thank you now anybody else good evening Bren perer 26 Westport
Lakes Drive just have a couple of things if I might might go over as far as traffic and access uh is concerned I think it would be important to note that um Westport Lakes Drive required a mate dot uh access permit back when it was first constructed and that that permit
has since expired and the access the access permit in and of itself was never completed it was never signed off and it was never never followed through and there was no certificates of completion or compliance so as far as site access and traffic um at this moment in time uh
the board should take under consideration that um the state highway permit is expired and it was never followed through on I did provide copy of that whole entire that whole entire permit um at the last meeting there's some other things that
were talked about by the applicants represent representative um there was there was a lot of talk about there's talk about sidewalks and HOAs and who's going to be responsible for what and and he spoke about it today so I feel like I should be able to to
talk to talk and against it where HOA is responsible for we've been over this before where there's supposed to be an HOA for Westport Lake Drive which doesn't exist it exists in on paper but it's it's not our responsibility at the moment it's a developer's responsibility
where we're talking about 38 houses being built in a new subdivision off of a subdivision that already is essentially defunct is it seems to be a a clear and distinct problem and to put that in into um into the
plans into into the into the methods the requirements for for this build out or the proposal as far as the board is concerned to make sure that those things are held accountable for for the for the 40b proposal I would suggest that
um just that alone would not be enough because the develop the the current Developers for the 40b we we all have great discussion as far as who is responsible for Westport Lakes Drive currently and we all know what happened
with Westport Lake Drive over the last almost 20 years where they also had restrictions and things that they were supposed to do to finish Westport Lake's Drive which never occurred until now because now all of this is being brought up and hashed up now all of a
sudden they're trying to fix everything you put restrictions on the 40b and assume that they're going to act in good faith I'm not sure that that's the case considering what has already taken place over the last almost 20 years with the same people essentially and we can go
back and forth about that for probably three or four weeks on who's responsible for esort Lakes Drive who was responsible and who now is the the current applicant for the 40b the 40b has sidewalks proposed up in that development behind off of G
Lane Westport Lakes Drive does not have sidewalks there's some significant considerations where uh in in the traffic study it talks about sidewalks and where they end and where they connect or don't Connect into Westport Lakes Drive I think it's very important
to consider that Westport Lakes Drive subdivision as of now has no sidewalks there's all this important talk talk about sidewalks in this that about pedestrian traffic on the new subdivision but to get to the new
subdivision it's it's def funed doesn't have those abilities there's no sidewalks as far as I know there's no plan for sidewalks to be put in I think that's a significant problem where you have this nice allegedly safe
neighborhood of 38 houses that all have to pass through West ball L drive that isn't to standard to the same standard as the 40b wouldn't be held to okay I would argue that there's a significant safety
standard or safety issue where all of those people have to access Westport lak Drive which is not not safe up the standards to get to that
development okay and but the contractor has no authority to do anything with Westport Lake Drive and nor do we have any nor do we have any to do we can we can no we can deal with West like drive but the fact that
Westport Lake Drive was built without sidewalks that was the standard when Westport Lake Drive was done there's nothing we can do retroactively regarding the sidewalks there is plenty we can do and and I think that we have
been working with other departments in town to address your concerns regarding the conditions of West I understand I think what it comes down to is that you're looking for all these safety standards in that subdivision but like I
said they don't follow through so it's unsafe to get to the safe location yes yes yeah I agree okay um just one point of uh as far as the traffic the review that was done on
page six of seven uh subsection 25 VII noted the majority of the crashes in the intersection of rout 177 in Old County Road they make a a pretty good analysis of of a location not at westm lak D but where Old Colony
Road comes into to 177 there's a number of um suggestions of what could be done to make the approach more safe I guess my question is some of them some of them
include doing things on State Highway property that I would argue that they would have to uh get significant permission to do these things from the state yes like as these are suggested trim remove existing
vegetation install a stop sign on Old County Road add a reflective red tape replace a stop line install a stop ahead warning signs consider relocating a passing zone the whole area is a passing zone
part of the traffic study says that should there should be a consideration of changing that area as from a passing zone to a no passing zone how there's some pretty significant suggestions in here to
where this would require some significant permission to to complete or accomplish to make the approach to Westport Lakes Drive safer I'm trying to Old
County so Old County Road right across from the mobile where it turns into Main Road Old County comes from 17 well that's not really old County that's Maine that it turns into old County but it is Old County yeah but what I'm saying is there's some significant okay
there's some significant suggestions in the in in the uh in the in the study that talk about approach the Westport leak's Drive and some significant things that could be done that seems like those permissions would not or
potentially I mean you could petition Mass do to make some of those changes but I would argue that that those those changes or petitioned to make those changes need to be done in advance of approval thank you okay thank you guess
I'd like to ask count I mean there is recommendations in that traffic report to make the existing surrounding infrastructure safer is that something we should be considering yeah I I would ask um and how do we consider that I'd recommend uh
hearing from Mr Dirk on that because I know he's dealt with mass do issues other words how how would he how would he typically uh deal with those types of recommendations with Mass I would ask their consultant first okay don't you
want M Mr Dirk does work as peer reviewers for board other municipalities so Mr chairman we we recommended um in the transportation assessment that independent of even if independent of this project so even if this project were not to go forward we
recommend Ed specific measures that could be undertaken at that intersection um they may sound major to some people what I would suggest is signs pavement markings and vegetation clearing I can apply for a permit tomorrow and I would get that permit in 30 days to be able to
go out and do that work it's not major work um it's trimming up some vegetation in it's in the Southeast corner of the intersection so if I'm coming up old County to 177 I'm sitting at the stop sign that issue of the sight lines sight L is looking toward the highway you trim
the vegetation on the inside of the guardrail um the stop sign there's already a stop sign there what ends up happening as you know um over time the reflectiveness of the stop sign Fades so it doesn't as your headlight Shine off of it it doesn't shine back to you to
give you the visibility of the sign so what we had suggested is consideration should be given to replacing the sign so it gets back its reflectivity what we usually do when we have locations with high crashes is the other thing we do is we add add reflective tape that you can get at Home Depot that goes on the sign
post that does two things not only with the replacement of the sign picks up the headlights makes it reflective the tape's reflective as well right we have a lot of in stop signs in Westport that are uh LED correct with you could do
similar things like that it's so in this lot of them yeah well in this case you do that if the sign somehow is people are disobeying the stop sign but that's that's everywhere yeah that's not necessarily what's happening at this this intersection but there is a need
for as you said putting the sign in the proper location making sure that it's highly reflective so we recommended that signs and pavement markings it's reapplying those markings so that they're better visible we did recommend you typically do not have passing zones
through intersections yeah especially with a gas station there because if your driver trying to come out which you don't want to have you're not expecting people to be passing each other in the intersection so you're not you're not expecting that to happen so what we had suggested is that consideration be
should be given to not having the passing zone go through the intersection but that if you're going to have it it happens to the west of the intersection not there so that's all we recommended but but to the extent that we needed is that something that you just recommend to the state because the state would have to do that well you could apply for
a permit to do the work or the state can do it so the same thing it depends upon how the board goes apart as um goes through the approval process on the project um it requires a state approval so even if there was consideration to saying you know we think you should do this it has to be subject to mass do
approval because um you saying that they have to do it it's not within their control it's the state's control so permission can be asked of the state to do that the state can say yes or no um so it can go either way the developer
can make application to do it the developer can say to the State hey we've taken a look at this intersection and we think this should be done independent of the project and then let the state these are maintenance things they can they can consider it um as well so even with us providing the traffic study to them they
would look at that and say okay well thank you we didn't study that area we appreciate the recommendations it could go as as far as that as you saying the applicant shall make the state or shall submit the results of the traffic study to the state for their consideration to implement those um but again I think as
council is said um it's requires a DOT approval so anything that you were to suggest that might need to happen along 177 is has to be subject to the state issuing a permit because the developer um is not entitled to that permit they have to request it right we ask for so a
permit is asked for and let's say a permit is granted correct then who does the work um if so if the permit so the either if the applicants the um if the applicant is requesting the permit um um they're the applicant then the state would issue the permit to the applicant
to go out and undertake the work is what would happen that permit is it just gives the applicant the right to enter upon State Property to make the improvements is basically what it is yeah so we could I'm I'm going to talk to my attorney as as we the same time is
we could request in conditions that the plan the traffic plan has submitted to the state requesting permits to do XY and see if granted applicant will take care of that yeah right right that would be the subject to Clause of it that that
is a tricky in say especially with the gas station right there that's true because the people are coming in and out of that gas station very quickly and interfering with the traffic that's especially it's egressing w that was there was a study done for that too because that's a relatively new gas station yes Mr chairman yes weren't
those issues raised when the permitting of the gas station I have no idea my understanding is that that was was raised okay and it was a responsibility of the developers of the gas station to do that work okay that's my understanding I just wanted to note I
can craft those conditions in the event of an approval with conditions I would have DPW wherever your Highway people are weigh in to you during this process if they typically I'll say sort of a collaboration DPW and Highway engineer
whoever Highway superintendent and they weigh in on the process so I I'm sure they have not seen the recommendations for the offsite Improvement so I I would request that they comment on that as well right you know and uh yes we go
back to the highway department with the uh because because we are going to be adding that much more traffic just down Road from it yeah they you want to have them weigh in on have a look at this because if they initially commented they didn't have access to any of this
information I don't think they have commented this even if yeah yes okay but do you have a town engineer uh we have a we have a the highway department supervisor I think there's an engineer yeah oh great yeah
is okay any other comment from go ahe just just a short rebuttal uh as far as that conversation that was just occurring um I would argue that um our Highway Department would have nothing to do with or make any comments on this considering uh the private way aspect of
Westport Lakes Drive and the fact that route 177 is a state highway so that would be problematic to to our attorney is saying it's not problematic no I don't agree with that I I typically would have in other words that the town yes county is a Town Road and 177 State
Road your town people that are responsible for those types of issues will typically collaborate on those types of issues that wouldn't be a problem I'm not saying that they have the authority to do it no or have the responsibility to do it perit they would certainly have might have relevant
comment to you about the viability of that okay okay I understand that the the the the the origal the initial traffic study was done by the applicant or somebody the applicant paid to do the traffic study correct so so those suggestions that were from the
applicants person the company that did the traffic study of there and the gentleman that just just spoke made made it seem like something like what I brought up or what's in that would be so easy to accomplish uh to file their permit and get it within 30 days which
I'm not sure that's the case but if if if it's that easy to to accomplish As He suggests just a moments ago then I would say that that would need to be put in as part of the requirements it was their traffic study done by their company those are the suggest that done by them
the gentleman just said that it would be very easily accomplished to well to propose those things have control over I understand whether Mass do allows that or not right that's besides the point but the the point is is that it's
reflected in the study by their consultant he makes it seem like it's very easy to get done I would say then do it well I think you know put it in put it in I think we've already discussed sort of impromtu that we probably will I understand it was
discussed but the gentleman just got up here and said it was so easy to get accomplished just do it then you're asking us to put something as in a condition right and I think what I I would would request from you is if you think of things that should be
conditions keep them running tally and then when we issue our when the draft then you can compare it to what we're mean we're already thinking that this make the a condition okay so instead of you know so I would say make a list of what you think the conditions should be based on the presentations that you're
going to be hearing over the next few months and we can compare them to our conditions to make sure that it's it's adequate thank you Mr chair yes um hopefully we will be able to participate in negotiations and
discussions of of the permit of the conditions of the permit yes an open meeting so one of our one of our concerns is that this is a pre-existing condition if it's simple as clearing some vegetation and that's it's not a big deal okay but you if they all of a
sudden want to change the roadway or different kinds of things like that then it's a pre-existing condition we have to talk about that but simple things if you know Mr Jerk said you know it's easy to get permission to clean that up that's not a big deal from our point of view
but we'll participate in where how those conditions should be from our point of view then could you take care of the Cumberland uh gas station in Main Road here too well the is the issue the issue that I have is the issue the issue that
I have is with with that gas station Etc is that there was no followup okay regarding the conditions of that permit I understand there was a lot of uh legal e and so forth that regarding that permit and so it's a frequen and it
applies more to them than it does our Westport Lake Road and and our development Road right here I'm sorry just the most that's the wor you have more input you have more information than that like we haven't gone you know
we were not part of that permitting process so we have no idea what happen so I would request when we do if when and if we do bring it up in our conditions and if you think that perhaps it's not your responsibility but yet there's there was there was something in that existing permit of the gas station
that should be added we would appreciate it if you could bring that to us that would be through the that would be through the planning Bo But there again if it's as simple as you know cleaning up a little that's not a big deal but so that's that's what we're got to talk about but if you contest any condition based upon you
think it's a pre-existing condition we would like you to provide us with a paperwork to prove that I will see what I can get from the planning board but from what what I gathered through the last few conversations with your consultant we don't we don't have a DOT
permit that that's valid at the end of 177 in Westport Lakes Road now and if we were if you were to do all that work you need to get that permit so we should make that as part of it too no that's that's unac that's unacceptable that's an unacceptable condition can't go over
there in clear brush without a DOT permit we haven't gotten to the condition so we'd have to look at how would how that would have to be crafted obviously there are some things in there that that would be acceptable to us and there are some things that might not be so we have to get to that point condition we're going to have to work
with Council and that yes okay any other comments Stacy Pereira 26 Westport Lakes Drive I did my own little traffic study well not really traffic study but I just did my own little research so I do have
um Westport Police Department um reports of accidents I am curious on what the 5year period was that the traffic study was done are you a um chairman if we can I can ask what did the five
years yeah it was 2017 to 2021 2017 to 2021 and I'll just note that 2021 is the uh newest year of complete data that massot has oh okay so that's why it's that that's why you didn't do 22 and 23
because it wasn't available right it's it's not official data until the system has confirmed all the crashes from that year basically so right that's Co years too so it complicates things great so I went uh to Westport police department and there's 33 pages of just from when
Westport Lakes Drive was established there's 33 pages of incidents um there's like a certain some um D some like mileage range that they um re that they printed this up for me um just with four
houses there prior to our fifth house that just came along this summer there was three accidents on the road involving three of us so three out of the four houses between 2022 and 2024 there was um three accidents can
you can you describe like what kind Bender Benders back Enders so one was an incident where uh someone was pulled into the driveway and backed out out to and then they got sideswiped okay there is some speeding that also happens with
some of our neighbors that we've you know had some professional discussions with um unfortunately because it's a private road it's not like we can go to Westport police and ask for a one of those monitors or right to be placed on
the road MH so between like two of our fames unfortunately we've had to approach each other and say Hey you know watch out for your speed there's some young children on the road so the three incidents so one was um pulling into the driveway backing up like you're going to
reverse um another incident was someone one of the families were pulling in another family was pulling out so they it crashed at the beginning of um Westport Lakes driveing 177 and then one was as it was described today taking the
left over that Hill they got rare renon so taking the left on to 177 I'm sorry Westport Lakes from 177 they got rear engine so that happened in 2024 um so I'm confused on the traffic study
on how it just um concentrate I mean I understand that the the um amount of accidents or whatever had occurred on one one Route
88 com on to 177 but I would think maybe more of a comparison would be mous Mill Road I don't know how many houses are on mous Mill Road but if I had to guess I would say maybe 30 just on that road because that's an an over um a dead end
also so I would just be curious on if like if that's more of a comparison versus the um the gas station and you know R 88 and 177 I also pulled the school bus routes and there is no other
um bus stop that picks up 30 children the most is 10 to 15 children and that's Nova choke yeah and I've actually dropped off one of my missed the bus stop ran to a Nova choke and had my child go on the bus they're not Cars
piled up on Nova choke they're walking their child to their bus stop area so I just want you guys to be aware of that um also when we brought up Rober Street Rober Street has a blinking light so I
feel like that's not really a comparison also and the same thing with tickle Road tck Rober Street and tickle Road cross from each other yep so I don't really I don't really think that that's much of a comparison to Briggs Landing with those kids because um that's not a private
road it's a road of Westport and then it intersects with 177 which is a state highway and there's a blinking light there that's all okay thank you I'm going to be a roundabout anyone else I think all the other intersections
correct me if I'm wrong have been studied but you didn't conclude that there was an exer in amount of accidents there so every every Mouse Mill and 177 was looked at for accidents and then all
count Oak County and 177 and all the other I mean and and Westport Lakes Road in 177 was Lo but there was not based upon the traffic flow or numbers it didn't seem exorbitant
okay no other comments um can I can I ask a question who you okay so I know I know this is a long process and you have to restrict comments about specific things during these meetings I just asked when you
would open the floor to um you know the elephant in the room that I've been bringing up since the uh start of this process you've been talking about who's running the show well I again I don't want to get to it now I just want to know I'm I'm I'm to cut it off anyway
because U I allowed everybody to voice their opinions in the first couple of meetings well not the first meeting because it was introductory we don't have any authority over the certification of the contract that's
Mass housing if you look into 40b regulations Zone the zoning board aspect of this of the 40b has no authority over the certification of the contractor if we were to say anything about it it would be thrown out in court that pretty
accurate pretty much yeah we wanted to hear your gripes and everything because I think I think it's important for us to understand it but we can't utilize that as part of our deliberations my argument is is some of the things that I have to speak about um
brings into the aspect of site access and as far as my my my understanding is from all the other meetings site access is everything for this project and some of the things that I have prepared uh that I need proper time to speak about
I'm not asking for that tonight but I do need some time to talk about those things and I has nothing to do with site access from attorney POI we can't talk about about West West Lake Drive that's not our job but I think you have to
because the access to the 40b we can talk about the safety aspects of the traffic but they are not responsible for what happens on West Lake Drive we can't make them responsible for it that's not in that's they don't have they they have
no control over that what they only can do what they have control over okay I I I'm okay with that except the argument is control and who has had control right I'm I'm going to digress with that but site access site ass and I'll argue this
again site access is everything and if you don't have if Westport Lakes Drive in and of itself is not a viable access way to the 40b then the 40b can't take place and there are very important to the highway department it is a viable Road okay and according to the state
that came out yes gave him the permit yes yes we age I'll I do need I will need time to to talk about that thing that stuff because it directly reflects site access I in
the case of the planning board currently with what's going on between Westport Lakes Drive and the current developer and the past developers there are many questions to be answered on whether the current sub division is is intact or if it's potentially revoked and if that's
the case if if the subdivision becomes revoked then the axis is gone has we are aware of those issues thanks to you we are yes considering those I don't I don't know if there's any more information that we really I I I I I I can tell you that I have more
information I think we have enough to I will take it up with the planning board and then I'll bring it to the zba because it's important thank you okay what we need to do now is plan what we are going to do at the next meeting unless you have something El we have if we have time tonight I thought
on the agenda uh was some of the engineering uh we we talked at the last meeting that we would try to finish so I have the engineer here tonight and I and I know that you know we gave you a quick overview a couple meetings ago of the
plans we have presented some plans your con consultant has reviewed our plans um so we're not ready to do that yet well your consultant did uh okay so
what's your what's your pleasure I mean what what can we accomplish at the next meeting you want to do storm water management you want to do what we want to do this in blocks sure I want to get I want to get blocks done at a time trff is pretty much done there some cleanup
understand it now yes the next block is what is it storm management overal engineering is it you know go ahead sure the storm management is all part of the engineering yes so I think what we and we have submitted a report reviewed by
your engineer now between now and the next meeting um Brian your your consultant um will review our response to his review similar to what we done traic okay and and hopefully at the next
meeting uh the two Engineers would have had time to discuss it between themselves and maybe sort of have a combined report or one report and the other regarding the engineering which would include uh you know we'll make the changes I guess to the plans that we
talked about the triangle and that sort of thing and and the storm water management is um you know it's it's it's a complicated it's a big right yes so um the traffic was bigger well this is a lot of but the
numbers I mean when you start looking at this it's way above uh pay grade yes um so that's so I'm hoping that at the next meeting tonight I I basically see the traffic sort of resolved a couple of
cleanup issues all right and I hope to do the next meeting same thing with the engineering well the engineering is a cover of what the engineering is going to be discussing how the road is devel the storm management report is how it all works
together okay there's a a plan already been submitted to the Conservation Commission so the wetlands are no longer an issue um so I think on the engineering we're going to be discussing the location of the roads are
we going to be ready for this next for the next meeting depends on how five year one pushes up it's usually about don't we have one scheduled or is it we have next week 26th of March of marchek that's that's POS my calar February
26 yeah 26 oh no no no no and we will be the only thing on the docket because when we have these all right we don't schedule anything else it's just not so we can't do it from March 26 we have a meeting schedule and something on the docket
that I prefer to do the first week in April we're we're almost up against the deadline yeah well there again we talked before about extensions we're going to we're going to cooperate with with that line is June okay June 5th I think is where so it's moved to June 5th but
still in the beginning of April that's only two months well well I'm saying the 19th won't give us enough time okay okay yeah I don't ra i' rather not come not be here with nothing right I agree I just want to make sure that we have a zba schedule for the 26th or we were going to of March of March that's
we have one on February 26 and one on March 26th March 26 is is a different matter it's going to be a long meeting so yeah that's not this no okay okay so we would have to schedule it some other night that's why I
suggested the 19th but Mr C wants to go farther well 19th is not going to give us enough time what about the next week April the first second third fourth so you be here I don't so that's okay yeah I mean Jerry's not here
tonight so yeah what day is that April April 2 we have the first Wednesday of April Chris you available AV okay U are you available April 2 April second yes um let's just
make sure remind your members you can Mullen in but we can only miss one hearing session so you want to make sure you maintain your five voting members yes um but uh if you can't make that one I don't think I can I'm not absolutely sure hopefully you don't have to miss another one though
because you can Mullen in for the one but you won't be able to miss two um always under the impression that you can only you can only take watch the video one one time yes so that's already happened tonight with one meeting member right yes so he can't miss anymore he can't miss anymore exactly same for
everybody else so if you're planning on missing one make sure it's the only one the only one or somebody who hasn't missed a meeting let Janice who's been here for all of them then could be I mean could go come in to pinch hit yeah
I I don't love changing voting members but yeah you could do that but I I would prefer you to you know you kind of said who your voting members were at the beginning would be good to stick with that group well my plan has always been that the we have five regular members
and two alternates my plan has always been that I want the five regular members to be the final voting members for the decision as long as it's as long as we can manage that got if something happens and somebody's sick and can't come and whatever we have two alternates
and as long as they have been involved in the process the whole way that's why we have alternates and I would utilize one of the alternates then as the as a final member I'm just I'm just reminding just keep in mind Jerry needs to know that he's used his chit yes okay may may I
ask a question would you please finish what you were saying as what exactly you thought you think that will be addressing the next the engineering engineering yeah we weren't allowed to finish what were you saying well it's going to be we're going to be talking about anything you want to talk about but strictly from engineering they're
going to take a look at the storm water management plan and and based on the way the roads are laid out and the location of the detention basins and the Lo and the location of of drainage uh outlets and so forth does that all of does all
of that work from an engineer ing point of view so uh we're we're proposing as to how that's going to work in this report the engineering is the storm war is which we haven't gotten yet right do we have yes we just got it yesterday
yeah we we just and I have additional copies tonight and I'm not sure how many copies it's pretty thick but and and we're sending that or have sent that to your Consulting engineer and they can review and they they may want to share
CAD drawings between themselves and so to make it easier for your peer review engineer so they're going to take a look at all of that and he's going to come back and says yes the engineering works so storm water management and how that
impacts engineering is there any other aspects of the engineering that we're going to be that that you think no I mean there's there's going to be at some point in time the the uh septic system that we have a common septic L but that
is permitted with the Board of Health right so the septic systems and where you put your wells and all that that's all identified that all has to be identified on your plan yes we're show there's a separation well the the the we have the location of the wells and typically you need separation
between a well and a se but in this particular case we have a common septic system yes which is near the entrance of the roadway and that's got to be permitted by the Board of Health um and and they they may have someone take a look at that I'm not sure Brian I mean NBL
will take a look at that or not I mean we've we started to look at some of our comments FR me Mr chair so some of our comments are addressing the proposed septic system and by for the record uh Brian done with mdl Land Development and permitting I'm the principal of the firm
five Bristol Drive in Southeastern Mass so we you know we've made some recommendations on the septic system I've noted uh on the letter the the design that's currently in front of you is for a 56 unit septic system so that
there's there's some plan changes that need to be made and addressed by the applicant Engineers so there's and there's a lot of things about the drainage that need to be addressed like test pits uh confirming soils um they
were using in the drainage analysis uh the Northeast soil data but some of the test bits that they did weren't shown on the plans but they provided the test bit data shows lomy sand and Sandy loone Sandy loan but they didn't provide any
infiltration uh part of those Basin but is this something you go back and forth with yes I'm sorry so you send him a plan he looks at it our our consultant looks at it calls you up and say hey I got or emails you or whatever I get I get issues in this area and you yeah
we're going to try hope to resolve it or at least identify now let me let me back up the whole bit from a 40b point of view plans that have been submitted to the zoning board of appeals are to be
preliminary in nature but yet provide enough information for the board to make intelligent decision about the development with certain conditions we're going way above that where these plants are much more than preliminary
and they're not finished plants so what what will happen is that as we go back and forth right there's still could be some conditions that Brian that we have not met that Brian would like us to me that can be conditioned in the permit because as we go back and forth with
these plans that's not the last look you're going to make a decision and in that decision you're going to say X Y and Z so we have to comp con conform our plans have to comply with all of the terms and conditions of that permit and
then that final set of plans at post permit okay is given to your engineer to be sure that we have complied with all of those things before we come back to the board because the board has to sign off on those plans so it this is not your last you
know as we go back and forth this is not your last look at this so the the regulations are very clear in that regard and we're going to try and do as much as we possibly can to to satisfy you know the plans to 90 95% completion
okay attorney poochi yeah the process that I prefer you to follow what I what I would recommend is that the peerreview has provided a report he noted a number of issues uh in there I don't recommend an outside the hearing process where the
peer Reviewer is communicating with the developer or the consultant but for a specific issue that may come up that you want them to communicate on what I would recommend instead is that the applicant formally respond to the recommendations and the questions raised in the peer
review report and usually they'll do it in a they reproduce the report they put the comments in and then they put their reply and so either they say the plans have been updated accordingly see XYZ plans or we object to that condition or
that information was provided previously that they respond formally to all the comments okay and then you have then have an opportunity to they produce that to you you see it in advance and then you can have that discussion with the applicant and your peer reviewer at the
next hearing but that's that's the process that I think that's a lot cleaner yeah well okay there again we're trying to time wise Mr chairman if I may pa um I don't know how late you usually go uh just in the evening but since we
have everybody here it might be helpful to make just a preliminary cursory presentation since my understanding is that the board really hasn't seen uh the most recent iteration of this 38 unit plan presented by the applicants
engineer and then maybe if just very preliminarily you identify anything that you might be interested in seeing uh answered or a question you might have that might advise the peer reviewer to look at specific things so that we might
now that we have a month or at least between now and the next hearing if we do a preliminary presentation now it might trigger things that we can resolve between now and then rather than waiting for you to see it for the first time come April um so I don't know how late you go on Wednesday night not it's not a
matter of time it's a matter of uh what kind of I mean a a cursory overview I'm fine with anything more than that no and that's all it would be just a very cursory overview if um because I knowbody sees something that you have experienced with in a prior uh
development in town that you might want to point out or proximity of one feature to another feature and if there's nothing fine but we've at least given the board a glance at the plan presented by the engineer the engineer can show this is where the wells are this is the
entrance configuration this is where we're putting the common leeching fields these are the yeah I mean we' we've seen all this before you're saying that there's been major changes is that what you're saying no but I think I understand so we've seen all this before but have you received a a Pres from the
engineer as far as how the pieces are put together and based on that do you have any initial comments no that's what we're waiting for the what we got to lose to let them give us what 15 20 minutes or whatever it'll take but before before we get to that we we have respond what
you're suggesting you know with the engineers going back and forth with a letter you know item by item we have uh which you have not yet seen and we just did it two days ago we have already initially
responded yeah what what I recommend is what I said so you you'll have you'll see the peer reviewers questions and comments and then the develop you know usually they'll put it in bold phas after that's how the store the the the traffic was done just like the traffic
exactly yeah and you see it in advance and then that informs your it makes you better prepared for your meeting to ask questions and then if you had follow question yes but but the only I was getting at though is that is that similar to the traffic they sent him a
report he then asked questions you know documented them in in the reports you know and sent it back to the and we've responded and he responded we saw all that traffic so it was all documented but we didn't wait to come to the
meeting for him for for the traffic our consultant to say I've got issues your with your report all right well your your peer reviewer issued a report with all the questions and and it went to the and we've answered that and answered them and so on traffic on traffic no no
on on the engineering too yeah right but we haven't gotten to that part yet right okay I'm okay I'm good so if we've gone back and forth with the engineering any why we need another five weeks or four weeks well because there's a lot more that there's more that we have to respond to okay and there's going to be
some additional questions and some testing that looking for and that there was a lot in your report and I really appreciate it um I mean I it was very informative you and we've responded item by item I don't know if you've seen that
yet but we've we've submitted that she should haven't seen that but um you should have want to thank you for that yeah we have the from Farland right I'm sorry yes that's that's so so what happened is that Fallen engineering has taken nbl's and item by item has
responded so you should have that just oh that which is today we that's correct that's correct yeah okay you done that to me seen that yeah was think yesterday it got sent around oh you might have just gotten well can we can we just let them
do a quick sure review let's make it quick because we he just wants to see it yeah it'll refresh us we've been going this for a long time especially the changes from the last time they looked at it
cop more there five of us you you want to full report of the traffic you're more than welcome we'll make as many copies as you want we all want a full report of if anybody if anybody on this board can understand this hats off to him but we'll give you as many copies
thank you we'll give you as many copies as you want do we all want a copy we had three dig sorry yeah you should have well yeah I've just given you three right now storm water I'll give you five I give you 10
storm this a storm water you want a copy yeah I'll take the stone I mean that's why you have the technical give me a report on it's pretty complicated stuff well you you know you made a You made a comment that I I got to justify my sherper exp you made a comment I'll give him more copies okay you did make a
comment that uh he was in front of the last Conservation Commission and it was extended till March 11 it wasn't approved that day no okay because you said we we've been through con no well no the the Wetland line has been approve I just wanted to make sure that that was
not what was heard you know what I mean okay good evening for the record John Martian from Farland Corp um been working closely with Christian Farland from our office I believe he had given a brief overview of the kind of the layout of the site uh the number of units
um uh the project includes approximately 2,450 ft of new roadway um in addition to the construction of Gul Vian uh the total Site Area a Development Area is 255
Acres um 16 of that will be uh new land disturbance um as far as storm water um what we analyzed were these two Wetland areas on the site a northern Wetland and a southern
Wetland um we have off-site runoff and on-site runoff contributing to five basins throughout the site um these are detention basin we're proposing to treat the water with
storm scepter units for water quality um and we analyze these two design points um for the 2 10 25 and 100e storm events make sure we're not increasing runoff to those uh Wetland
areas um and our analysis shows that these five basins allow us to slow the runoff enough so it meets preexisting conditions um a lot of the changes that were made
as a as a result of MBL letter um I would characterize as clerical notes details um uh I don't know how into the details you want to get about the I don't want to get into details just top level
summary you yeah um some of the changes we made we added some uh some lot labels some bearings and distances to the lot labels provided pipe capacity cels great Inlet capacity cels
um uh yes some just additional detail and notes on the the lay out of the site really okay Mo most of the changes that were made I don't think most of the board members would notice it has some of it was like meets and
Bounds on on certain issues uh those kinds of details which are important from an engineering point of view but from an overview point of view lay people with all due respect would you know would not maybe notice all of those
changes the roadway is in the same Lo the roadway is in the same location we have not changed the road the length of the road has not changed um there may be change on the location of the septic system The the Reserve when you do a
septic system you need a a an alternate help me out a little but as you do you need the septic system and then you need a reserve in case the septic system fails fails correct so right now we're having a bit of an issue with the reserve the location of the reserve so
that may that may or may not change and if it does change that may or may not affect when we go to the concom as to if we're encroaching more into the buffer area don't know that yet so that's something that that Brian has has rais
that we really need we really need to take a look at but all of the detention basins are all in the same location now some of the pipes may be changed the outfall the INF you know from an engineering point of view based on the storm water management plan some of that has
changed but I'm not going to noce it has a full has a full survey been done here uh that was another issue that uh had been raised we were we were utilizing concrete bounds put in is was that a change they're proposing we're proposing some bounds throughout the develop um
say that again John we're proposing uh Bounds at yeah they're having they're having a pro closing the survey I'm sorry from what I gathered in the information I've been reading that was part of something that's going yeah
that there's when they do the survey a little bit B on what I but when they do the survey they have to all the points have to kind of come together from what I gathered it's required that you put in concrete five five 4x5 concrete a aound
to answer your question that aound general area aound is usually four five in square it's concrete pillar y that goes maybe 4et 5 ft High goes into the ground okay so that it doesn't get moved
right oh so where your property lot yes well not every single lot right but as as they do the boundary around the perimeter of the property those bounds will be there so that later on another engineer and so forth it's it's it helps
the engineers and subsequent the when they're actually doing the sight of the actual houses too they'll use those BS to the new that's right that's correct well when you said in the in the the very beginning of tonight's meeting is you're going to
build this whole Road from the get-go that's my understanding they will build well when you say the whole Road well and not a the base Road the base Road not a finished product the whole Road build this all of that all of that left and
right and left and right assuming that issues here right um I don't think the road will change I'm not going to say I'm just talking about your yes that this may be def fun you may have permit to build that road right um
and you'll build all this as well the turn arounds correct and then you'll just build the houses again it's it's a it's the rough it's the rough road rough road right yes so we have to when we're going to clear all that and make the a draft
Road yes that's correct that's correct now the houses on the far left of that that that butt up against the houses there uh to the right yes you've looked at I assume maybe it's bad assumption every house is going to have a well yes and every well has to be at least 100t
from anybody's septic correct there's a problem with one right I I think it's got to be 100 feet from a septic from us from I don't know what part of the septic but 100t from the edge of the septic yes the regulation is 100t from the absorption
system to the well the absorption system okay right so the absorption system you have to look at the house is that back up but there might be we can so there could be an absorption system back here that would interfere with a well over
here not public comment yeah we got as built plans from the Board of Health for these Lots we have the septic location shown on the the detailed locations I guess that's all going to come out in plan somewhere we talked about before that you know you might find you might say okay this has
to go here but then you can't drill I guess well yes I mean John is saying that that the location that the are you showing all the walls on those locks John as it relates to the abutters that that's the that's the question I think I
can answer that question they're on the plans however there's 50 foot radius around the wells the septic systems and I'm not too sure why there's a 50 foot radius H when the 100 foot is when 100 foot is requirement we noted that in our letter
okay again there seems to be conflicting information some days you and that's we got to respond to that report I don't I personally don't know the answer that's what I'm asking I'm sorry I'm asking about the wells yes some days right today you're saying that every house lot
is going to have a well correct in previous meetings you said there may you there may be shared Wells because you may not be able to drill a well on that prop on a lot so what is it this I don't I don't I don't uh he might have said that but
that's not what we're showing you said okay I'm just okay H each it's the intent that every house will have it am I correct joh yes yeah every house will have its own we previous meetings now what Brian is Raising is that he's saying that he has a concern as to the
the as to the location of these Wells these are all all a lot of wells they have to be a certain location distance okay to to the setic so we have to provide that
information okay all right that's if not if it isn't then we got to relocate the well so I guess gu up last regarding like here is the well here
yes that really restricts the access of this land owner to the back of his yard of no why out of the the out of the ground they're all
differents mine mine is about that high mine too any those they could probably use is the other side of the so so John can you can you respond regarding the location of the septic systems on if that's the right term on those abing lots as it
relates to the Wells yeah so we we show the leeching field and the the tank for each of these houses um so we show the leeching field the soil absorption system and the the tank for each house um so how far are you away from that these Wells shown here are minimum of
100 feet so we we we had to move some of them this radius shown here is 50 ft we were showing that as in relation to the septic tanks we have on our lots to show that we're okay 50 feet from those but so they are 100 so that's why I think
contrary to what your attorney has suggested that that maybe as as the engineers are going you know they should be able to talk between meetings yes but again it's got to be you know yeah yeah right okay well hold on
Roger no why why can't why can't why can't the Eng other developments we've done and we've done a ton of them I talked to the chair yeah sorry so that's not how I do it okay what what I I I'm hearing different things is there a
response to the peer reviewer report item by item but you said it's not complete or it's later he wants some of yes it it Brian just indicated that they still have some concerns so a response
to answer your question a response has been submitted line item by item which we received yesterday through year right we have not had a chance to take a look of course corre so we need time to look at that information I don't know what it
says um because there was a lot of things that we identified as as issues um I don't you know I think John said that they were clerical and small revisions I don't think that the things that we're talking about are clerical
items we're talking this uh Mr Elias talked about a survey uh we don't have a a PLS that has stamped the plans we don't know where the on the ground field survey was even done I have no there's no notes on the plan that says there was
an underground field survey from so on and so forth the pl actually say they're illustrative illustrative means a picture the plan should be Illustrated they should be defined enough like what Paul was saying earlier enough for you
to be comfortable issuing the comprehensive permit there are a lot of things engineering wise that need to be addressed so so A variation on what I said would be that an up an update from the peer reviewer when they have a
chance to review the response they can update their letter their initial and they you know and they'll sometimes the peer riewer will will say this was the applicant's response no further comment required that that's done that's
satisfied or we still have issues on this or we disagree on that so you want this in one place so that you know you can see it back and forth and then you keep narrowing the issues right right and the only thing I'm saying about I don't like uh to have boards that I
represent allow sort of a freefor all between exactly your consultant and their consultant or the applicant and I'm not saying it's improper in certain instances but usually you've narrowed the areas much more defined at in which
case then you say yes it's fine you you can confer on that issue and we'll hear back from you but but I don't like a general authorization between the applicant going with like at our next meeting when there's still some outstanding things we can then Grant
position permission for their engineer and our engine our consultant to talk about point B that's the pr and D that's my preferred we we're listening to this or reading this stuff ahead of time like now like I made comments like like he
just said we're going to see that again we're going to see back and forth I I agree with our attorney we should not be doing it over the phone amongst who No it should be public right here actually can
I think the process that we've engaged in thus far is exactly what Town Council is describing to the board everything is is going through the normal channels the peerreview report was issued by MBL Brian Dunn and a line by line response
with updates was just very recently completed and submitted and the result is the updated plan that Brian has not yet had a chance to respond to so between now the next hearing there will be an iterative response of that back
and forth between the engineers that will be presented to the board hopefully before the next hearing so that you may have a chance to read it and prepare for the hearing and and ask questions I think we do have an opportunity now where
preliminarily uh MBL has identified some high level issues the feedback from from some of the board members is very helpful um so if there's anything else that the board might want uh the engineers to look at specifically I know calling out the appropriate setbacks to
identify leeching Fields is is definitely an important issue but if there's anything else that at a high level the board wants to see I think now would be the time to continue that conversation and then the engineers will engage in the the common well-known process of going through their peer
review reports which they're both very familiar with and and Town Council it's exactly what he's describing um and I think from there as we narrow issues then it's certainly appropriate for the engineers on a specific issue to work to
troubleshoot that together and in some instances it may even be appropriate for a single board member that might you know have an engineering background potentially and I don't know Town council's position on this but um the guidelines for 40b and 40b uh as a whole
generally encourages what we refer to as work session S I read that so to the extent there's some engineering issue that's come up repeatedly and and we might not be able to um you know fully vet it in the context of a public hearing it may be appropriate and it
could be publicly advertised you know towns do it differently um it's not a quorum of the board though but it's a design of the board meets with both Engineers potentially to help resolve those issues and then that design will be able to report to the board and say I
heard the concern from the neighbors I heard the concern from the board during the public hearing I was able to have an extensive conversation with both Engineers we discussed this issue in detail here is my thought or here is my report to the board and then you're
hearing it from one of the one of your own board members uh but just generally the process is proceeding exactly how it should proceed there's nothing outside of the norm here the standard back and forth between the engineers is occurring the most recent report uh what was the
date on the report and the revision date uh February 13th 14 so what what's the date I think um the storm order is February 13th yeah storm feary 13th the most recent revision date on the plan
same is the 13th all right Lucky 13 so um the the plan before the board currently and in the possession of NBL is the February 13th revision um that's likely going to you know to the extent
um actually we won't have comments before the next hearing but I think the February 13th revision date will be discussed at the next hearing we likely will have an updated plan set that maybe addresses those and we'll probably present that at the next hearing um to maybe be able to check off some
additional items before then so with that in mind I think we've received feedback on Wells um setback of features for the septic system uh we heard some questions about survey um is there anything else at a high level having
heard this preliminary presentation or that at a very high level understanding that Brian hasn't had a chance to you know fully receive and and review the 13th revision uh but at a high level is there anything that we would want to identify now so defend me Mr chairman um
one of the things I've heard loud and clear was public safety issues U part of the site plans we have not seen any uh Westport fire truck apparatus turning movements through this subdivision I would recommend or suggest through the
board and through you Mr chairman that the applicant engineer get the fire truck data from the fire department and uh prepare a fire truck turning plan for this subdivision pretty common pretty
common yep we can I thought we said this to the today we did we got a we got a I hear what Brian's saying as a common thing we'll be glad to do it but we did get comments from the fire chief he was happy with everything yeah but having a formal thing with the equipment and
knowing the size the reason why I'm asking for it because the plans do not Identify some of the radiuses of the cuac uh on the plane or the Turning uh or the intersections and what the radi of the curves of the curbing are and the
pavement so it would be a a lot U better to see that the truck turning movements are M uh for the public safety they already just based on the original comments by our fire department they've already changed some of the the least the road going in there was going to be
some there was going to be a bump out and they changed something yeah yeah like for instance in a very Tech run around on the the vacant land to remain there's a there's a T intersection there but there's no Dimensions there that
doesn't tell us I mean we can scale it right identify it but it really should be shown on the plan how how wide it is how long it is what the turning radius is for that Pavement in that area so it's clear to the contractor what they're going to build but also to us
and to you that it meets public safety issues so we will do we will do that even though we still have a letter from the fire chief saying that it's okay but we will do plan so yeah it's a pretty standard thing that we do on most almost all subdivisions and are are we
contemplating that the peer review is going to review what's been submitted and then indicate in the report what's been resolved or was still open I yes we'll go through the same process we did with traffic I want to make sure the pewer you have time to do
it sure going to April 2 that's that's F all right actually if chair Doesn't Mind Brian what would be the deadline for you to receive a turning radius plan uh in order to incorporate it into your report
in advance of the next hearing so that maybe we can add some structure to the schedule to make sure if there may be other things that we may want to submit so what would be a drop dead for you um well to get a response back at
least two weeks before the meeting how many two weeks before the meeting because the only way that you can start to narrow your areas is through your peer reviewer narrowing it down for you and so that that really has
to take place or or you're really wasting hearing time so but I think one of the the bigger things is the test bits and the soil data uh that needs to be verified so I would I mean through the chair I would
recommend that the applicant engineer start to do some of that to confirm um the soil data in these basins right and these are these are comments you've already sent to them yes sir right okay if I could Mr chair just um and again I
know uh MBL just received the plan if you could just describe for the board and everybody what area in particular you're referring to as far as additional testing and and what testing you would
recommend and then we'll you know hear the request to the board and and obviously we can troubleshoot in the uh in the inter room okay so since since is the subdivision um also we're they have to
file with the Conservation Commission plus the town's regulations we have to file uh everything they should file everything that's in compliance with the storm water rules and regulations and all 10 standards okay one of them is
that soil testing is required in every single one of these ponds they're they're calling these ponds detention Basin so they're going to hold water right okay but I'm what we're saying is is that the D's regulations requires
multiple tests inside these Basin and we've got a handful of them and they're not even located on the plan I have we have no idea where these tests will perform other than what was shown in the on the septic system in the reserve a we don't know where these other Pond other
ponds had test or not because they're not shown on the plans so there is a reement I think it's like every Square fet we're supposed to have a test a soil test but on the refusal log the soils um and then and then make sure that your
your detention Basin or your in infiltration design is in in accordance with the separations either 2 feet or 4T depending on the mounding so right now we don't know where that test bit data is there's test data further in the
detail sheets that identify the where the basins are that they did these C pits are Sandy LOM and lomy sand which allows for infiltration even though they haven't Quantified that in their drainage design they're calling this stage storage
they're going to have standing water in these basins but I know that they're going to they're going to drain down we know that based on the soils so if they designed it as an infiltration Basin the basins can actually get smaller and not take up so much room so
that's some of the coms we have so that's why I'm saying that there's there needs to be more test pits out here and then we would like to witness those test pits to verify what John and his office are doing okay and Mr chair if I could
just uh confirm is that just for the the basins you're asking for additional testing or does it have to do with the septic as well it also it also regards to we mentioned that in our letter that the reserve area is lacking some test bit data for the septic system Reserve
area to have per Title Five a certain amount of test pits per your field and your reserve area and they're lacking that right now okay so and and certainly those are uh appropriate engineering questions to ask I think from a 40b
perspective there's a balance between the level of detail in terms of the amount of testing that's done at a preliminary level before we even know whether this board is inclined to Grant a permit and actually putting a shovel on the ground and building it and
certainly everything that mbl's describing is appropriate preconstruction um there's definitely some dialogue that's going to take place uh between the applicant and the board as to exactly what the timeline looks like for
that type of testing ordinarily I would not expect that to be a pre permit condition that the board would say we're going to stop everything get an excavator out there and go do test pits that Brian Witnesses um but there may be certainly uh appropriate additional
information to put on a plan to identify exactly where the existing test pits were done what the results of those test pits were and how they relate to the design I think Farland designed this a certain way I I understand that if
you're going to take into account infiltration you could potentially um reduce the size of the basins but I think are we proposing think but I think understanding we're not proposing I know but I think understanding the issue we'll be able to present a report to the
board to explain why we've done it this way why we think this is the appropriate way to do it and then it's up to the board to decide with the advice of their engineer um you know whether or not that's that's something the board would uh Brian Mr chairman I I I disagree with
what Chris is saying because there's a conflict and design they went with and said that they had D soils and C soils out there and designing to the extent practical it's in their drainage report however the
test pits that they put on the plans say there Sandy LOM and lomy sand which means you're going to have infiltration so it's a conflict in their design it needs to be confirmed understood I would think we
would need to know in in order for us to approve this I would think we would need to be confident that in fact the your Retention Ponds however they're designed are adequate from a preliminary perspective absolutely MBL MBL needs to be able to
say I have enough information that from a preliminary standpoint I am comfortable that they can achieve final design and and move forward but beyond that um that's why and again I I you know we we need to go back now that we're hearing some of these uh questions
from the board and discuss exactly you know whether it's a conflict because he might have had a certain thing in his mind that didn't necessarily present a conflict and that's why we're going to have some back and forth um just within the development team as well and if two
weeks prior to uh the next hearing we submit additional information to MBL then Brian can digest that information hopefully sooner I we we can certainly submit reports and letters um you know that that address some of these initial
questions we're hearing and I think to that end that's that's very helpful I mean are there any other highlevel initial questions that um that NL is is wondering about my con my concern from a
developer's point of view is that is and Chris has indicated it's a it's a balance for the board Bo to feel comfortable to a great extent but yet it's not appropriate for the developer
to go through all of the expense to design it to 95 you know percent standards without getting some indication from the board that you know this looks like it's it's going in the right direction that's that's I think from what I've heard so far from our
consultant Brian right right that I don't I feel that when he's saying it's Sandy and L and LOM be sand or whatever I see that and I just think the beach and it's just all going to go be running through but you're saying you're going to hold it all in I think that's a significant conflict that there's you're
going to have to resolve and I I again I don't know how yeah but I solves that because again I'm not a a a a civil engineer or whatever type of engineer you you'd need but you know he's saying he needs more data so so from aimin
basically we want more data I mean that's the way I feel well I I agree but but it's it's it's a balance okay as to normally like like Brian was saying 5,000 square ft the rules and regulations require a test we do every f
a test for Every 5,000 square F feet and spend all that money and time and the board say there's no way in hell I'm going to approve this damn thing yeah I think what what we what we aim to do and and one of the reasons uh generally when the detention patients start out they
want to show there's enough room and if they're oversized that's a good thing so from a design standpoint if we can show that it's feasible and hey we might even have the benefit of infiltrating to make it smaller um we will respond to that
issue that mbl's raised I think our job is to show it's feasible so identify the conflict but if the conflict is well we want them smaller and we want to make sure that you know the standard is they have to be drained within 72 hours but if the final uh approval from the board
if the board says well you've shown it's feasible but we have a concern about the time period within which it's going to drain which is it's a common concern uh when you're when you're detaining so if that's something that we're hearing now we'll we'll identify that issue far I
don't think it's feasible so you got to prove to me that it's feasible because from what our engineer is saying to me your design doesn't seem feasible I think we it's not necessarily what yeah let's let's let me ask let me
ask the engineer a question my concern is we have meeting on April 2nd sounds there's an awful lot of work that still needs to be done will we John you're going to have adequate time to get all the information that that Brian is sort of suggesting uh so we have to get that
done if it's if it's two weeks before April's 2nd so call it March March 16th 17th so that's only going to give us three weeks three weeks three and a half weeks is that enough time uh I guess it would depend on when we
get the next round of comments from MBL back no right now based on the comment what what he's saying right now on the testing that's got to be done that's and and you know what has been done already so is that going to give us enough can we respond to all the things that
they're looking for by the middle of Paul just hold on there he's suggested additional testing I think we need to go back we've heard the concern about conflicts in the permeability of the soil and the design of the detention
Basin we as a development team need to go back and figure out whether that's in fact a conflict whether we have a reason that we did it this way and so we don't know whether additional testing may or may not be the answer so certainly additional test pits you know it's
likely it's not feasible to do between now and the next hearing but we'll have an answer on what our plan is at the next hearing and then maybe between now and the close of the hearing if we determine that it makes sense to do additional testing between now and the
close of the hearing perhaps we we can do that but we have to go back and determine exactly what it is doing eight testing in the ground right now right right so we can definitely take that back so Wells Wells leeching Fields um
turning radius uh the you know design of the detention SL infiltration SL wet Basin um you know anything else uh from a storm water perspective uh from wellwater that is is a common theme that the board hears or
that other projects in town have addressed that you might be interested in in learning about here anything else Brian that's the other thing that uh kind of popped up was the the waiver request yeah we were going to talk about that yeah I mean at some point you're
going to have to go through all of your U uh requested waivers yes and that always get amend it as you start going through the process and find more and more information we we could do we we should do certainly that's at the next meeting but at some point go through all
updated way I agree and is Brian aware that the septic system is going to be a denitrification system uh well I'm not too sure I mean if it's no it doesn't if it's over if it's under 10,000 it's on your
planification I say that again no the requires it yes I that's a that's a local local Rule and so the state's going to override us on that yes so this is the thing is is you as a board you have to look at the waiver request and look at their
justification I I haven't seen a justification of their waiver request there are some waivers that are missing so that means if they don't add to their waivers and don't vote on them that means they have to comply
with them M so if there's a local regul regulation that says denitrification is required by the local Board of Health and they don't ask for that waiver that means they have to provide that that's correct but the same but the same token
we don't have to provide justification we would could just say we're asking for a waiver Roger this is now a conversation like we're having dinner and everybody's talking and we we can't do it this way so the end the pew provided a report they responded to it
peer Reviewer is going to have to report back they can provide further information to him in the meantime he's going to have to supplement his report prior to your next hearing and then you discuss what he sees are the remaining issues at that point right if you have questions and comments at that point you
can do that it don't I I don't agree with anything that was said about the standards of under 40b if you have a local regulation and they're seeking a waiver they need to justify it and then you need to justify your decision right you can't just willy-nilly in the 40b
process say no we're going to deny that waiver where we're going to deny that request you have to base it on legitimate local concerns that outweigh the need for housing but you can't do that in the abstract you you need to know the concrete standard uh this is uh
we need a waiver of that and this is why we need it and by the way none of the harms that are designed by this regulation are are going to happen because of our mitigative measures that we're proposing to you in other words
they justify it that giving you a compelling reason why you should the waiver and then the 40b process the only thing that is relevant to it is that you have the ability to wave something that you otherwise wouldn't have been able to
wave right no matter if they proved it or not so the these conversations can't be had in the abstract has to be centered on that next report and then it'll inform your questions and comments from there and the applicant's always free to say we're not providing that we
we don't agree that we need to provide that level of detail or we don't need to provide this or the reason we're doing it that this way is XYZ it's for the peer reviewer to give his final recommendations to you I don't agree with that or I do agree with that or
here's what the issues are so it really has to be on that kind of concrete you know see the report in advance and and right then have the discussion it really has to start to go through you Mr chair maybe we don't have the applicants
sitting at the table the whole time you know maybe change the format a little bit so it doesn't just end up in a general conversation with five or six people talking I have a comment that I that every time I see this map here I
think and I know know that it has nothing to do it's not something that you have jurisdiction over at this point but at some point the state did maybe it's something I should ask the con concom because you said that you just got uh a sign off on the wetlands um is
that correct but not just it was some time ago but yes yeah okay so when this when the first round of development started I remember reading a uh a document from the state that identified all of that
area as a wetland correct and then all of a sudden about 10 years into it that became part of that like it like it opened up like the Red Sea and so that there was this
road that could be somehow brought in there um on what used to be identified as Wetlands but then all of a sudden magically wasn't anymore and so every time I see this I just look at it and I'm like how did that happen how did it
just like happen where now there instead of one large Wetland now there's this one and this one and there just happens to be this road how did that happen well I think I I think what you're referring to is when the development was
originally proposed it was proposed for a nine-hole golf course with many houses and there was a lot of wetland that then all of a sudden required me filings and and and the developer and
and this is only a small part of the total acreage uh so the total acreage was about 234 acres of land and this represents how many acres 25 no what is it 25 25 so
it's a small po so yeah so at one point in time there was a map and there was uh the golf course proposed and a lot of wetlands and Ne and there was endangered species issues uh a whole bunch of issues right so the developer decided
not because of the meeper filings and all the things that they were going to go through uh that most likely it was not going to be he couldn't maybe maybe not get that approved so he abandoned that plan that did not change the Wetland
over here so there was and that Wetland that was on that plan is still there it hasn't changed nothing's been developed so that Wetland is still there on the remaining part of the so whenever if and whenever they go to develop any other section of the property they're going to
have to deal with that Wetland there so it didn't go away it's still there and the endangered species in that area I think one of the one of the species that was identified at that time got delisted so that's no longer no longer so when when I say we got approval or the
approval has been granted from the Conservation Commission regarding Wetlands as it relates to this plan not all of the other Wetlands that's still there I don't know if that no thank you for clarifying I think that
helps you I don't know hopefully okay well it does a little yeah I mean I was just like how dides that happen Okay Okay uh thank you so so we have a plan for what's going to happen next uh is April second what did we say second yes is
that is that still appropriate for everybody you I think so if if necessary and we need to have that extended for some reason we can always ask for continuance and Grant the wait well we have to be here if we schedule the meeting right when we schedule the
meeting we're here okay so that's April 2N right okay um so I will make a mo then to continue this hearing till April 2nd at 6:30 in in this uh uh conference room
second I have a second discussion yes can we change till o' I I mean that makes it tough tough for people to have especially people that did any any traveling I mean getting a little bit of dinner would be nice before you come here just have a
late launch I agree with you you know unless the applicants want to cater a little something for us $49 each so we have a motion we have a second uh I second that motion
discussion among the members Janice okay now this is this going to be a problem he wasn't here for part of the meeting he was here for the remainder of the meeting the yeah no there's too many he can't vote he can continue to participate but he won't be able to vote
that's going to be a problem then okay let's change it to another date because he can't that why is that a problem though you have the five you have you still have five voting members well we have at least two or three more meetings to go right and Jerry's already missed one Jerry's already missed one I'm
probably to meeter this one we're going to get to a point where we you're going to miss the April second one possibly about 85% yes okay so why don't we change the date but I probably will miss the sixth or the ninth as well so I don't know if it how about the third
fourth 5th does it have to be on a particular day I'm going to be out of town no okay but that whole time period I think I think so I'm not absolutely sure but I'm looking at it like I really like to have a
vacation you typically go away I really would like to get I think we better off pushing it for another leek could we go April 9th wor is that probably could have would have should have I'll definitely be back by the 16th
but that's way too yeah it's too late but I've I've got one out that I can do and watch you can do one so that's that's all I'll do I proom unless I come down with I really don't want two people out the same day that problematic right
then that's 1 2 3 four and then we're counting on Jerry because we don't even know Jerry's schedule why don't we do the ninth ninth George oh he I would prefer the 16 but that's that's it's getting late that's starting
to push it I'm I mean can we do a like as he suggest as an alternative evening rather than Wednesday is it an issue with the space here no no we we can't do Monday we just generally you I mean we can do
Thursday but because Monday's are they're in here right I I'll I can't do there is a I'll be here what's that I'm driving back from Kansas I'll be here by the nth yeah well another day or two is not going to
make any difference if it's easy for everybody 10th or 11th I mean I she can't be here the 10th oh okay so let's I mean I schedule I don't schedule Atty poochi 9th okay with you what 9th yeah um Brian April 9th that
gives you another week to find things out as well that's same with us same with you uh anybody else you have no idea right yeah could be a problem could be a problem but hopefully it's only one
so okay so I will amend my motion to uh to continue this hearing till April 9th at 6:30 in this conference room do I have a second on that a second all in favor I all oppos no you uh that's
unanimous so we will continue this hearing uh April 9th at uh at 6:30 and at that point we will review the engineering plans April 2nd is out April 2nd is out
so thank you thank you Mr chairman uh we have a little bit more business to to to to work on and Janice you you
need yes yes we did we do something have when the principal called you after class what do you think no I've been the office before no it's about it's about another R so
anyway uh it was wait till they move next order of business is meeting minutes for January 29th Maria has provided our meeting minutes for the 29th she's prated to
everybody everybody make comments I make a motion to approve the January 29th 2025 meeting minutes all in favor I I that is uh are there any other business that that need
to be discussed I uh there's nothing going on now with essentially with the Articles that's still in front of the uh of the select board it didn't come up at the last meeting it hopefully come up the next so I didn't fact that I didn't go
that was a good thing know I was going to go too and I and I we had a late dinner and I couldn't make it and nothing came up came up so um no other business oh I make a motion to adjourn the meeting second there all in favor I
I'll oppose okay Val you can cut us off so just to