Conservation Commission - August 18, 2026

18th meeting the conservation commission is being recorded. Please stand to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God indivisible with liberty for all. All right.

Soil permit River Falls landscape number 458 251 Southern I'm sorry State Road.

Mr. Chairman, this is soil permit renewal for River Falls landscaping 251 State Road so permit number 458. The report date is August 6, 2026.

Description of the work the owner has filed requesting to renew their soil permit number 458 to store materials at the State Road property. The site is very clean and in good working order.

Recommendations. The Westport Conservation Soil Conservation Board should grant a one-year approval for soil permit number 458 at 251 State Road.

Any questions?

No.

Motion.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Okay, that was Jason and Kevin. All in favor?

All right, that's unanimous.

All right. First uh hearing for septic for Greg Masters, 162 Reed Road. Anybody hear from Mr. Masters?

That's an idea, Mr. Chairman.

Good evening. Uh Matt Po, South Coast Engineering here on behalf of the applicant, Greg Masters. Uh this project pertains to the repair of a failed septic at 162 Reed Road. Uh as of now, the plan's been approved by West Border Health Director. The closest point from the field um to the limit of the BBW is 54.9 ft. How you take that? A staked water line is proposed between proposed

disturbance and the BBW. The water will be installed prior to any disturbance will be maintained until the area has been restabilized.

It's basically it's a septic repair and turn it over to the commission for any discussion.

Thank you, Chris.

Mr. Chairman, this is Greg Masters, 162 Reed Road. This is a request for determination of applicability filed by South Coast Engineering with Matt Pike here representing. Report date is August 5th 2026.

Again, as Matt mentioned, this is a buffer zone sewage septic system repair.

The applicant is filed to repair the existing sewage disposal system in the buffer zone. The property is located at the intersection of Forge Road and Reed Road. The wetland area, wetland flags 101 through 105 and wetland flags 2016 accurately shown on the plan. assisting cess pool will be pumped and removed per title five regulations. Proposed leeching field will be 55 ft with grading and 30 excuse me and 30 ft from

the wetland edge. Erosion controls are shown staked in place just out of just outside of the proposed work. Erosion control shall be the limit of all work approved and remain until the area is stabilized.

Uh resource areas be impacted as buffer zone recommendations. The Westport Conservation Commission should approve the proposed septic system repair with a negative box 3 determination.

And for the record, this is board of health approved.

Any questions?

No questions. Motion.

So, I'll move to approve the plan for 162 Reed Road septic system repair with a negative box termination.

Second. Phil and Jason. All in favor?

All right. Unanimous.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Ronald Malu uh 13A Tickle Road. Accept

them.

Okay. Lawrence Silva from Silver Engineering Associates offices at 1615 Bethford Street in Bridgewater. Uh this is for a uh a septic upgrade to repair uh for the uh for the house that's located um it's about 125 ft back. uh this the buffer zone 100 folks to the pond itself there is it's a grass area with trees uh that exists between there the system is being located 100 ft plus uh from from the pond itself

uh we're encapsulating the area for sedimentation control we a dewatering pit as needed here and uh it's basically million time operating system. That's that's how you're fairing right now.

All right. Thank you, Chris.

Mr. Chairman, Ronald Manu, 13A Tickle Road. This is a request of determination of applicability filed by Silver Engineering Association Associates rather. Report date is August 5th, 2026.

The site visit was also on August 5th.

The owner has filed to repair the existing sewage disposal system on the property along South Topa Pond. The existing will be abandoned per title 5 code. The new leeching field will be proposed just within the outer 100 foot buffer zone limit. The plan calls for a deatering pit and is shown with a row of hay barrels in a 10x10 area. Erosion controls be installed just below this

work area and will remain until the area is stabilized. Again, this is a buffer zone project. Recommendations. West Conservation should approve the sewage disposal repair at 13A Tickle Road with a negative box 3 determination.

Border health. Got it.

I'm not sure if this is pending board of health or not. I would Board of Health is uh approved pending a uh Thank you.

basically a deed restriction. Perfect.

They want a de restriction.

So, board of health has approved it. Mr.

Chair, thank you so much for any questions.

without a motion.

So, I'll move to repair uh to approve the uh septic system upgrade at 13A Road uh with the negative box 3 determination.

I second it.

Still in all favor both.

Thank you.

I just feel the I just want to make sure that understand that was verbal to me as far as the approval for board of health.

They said they needed pending board of health. Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Steven Borland, RDA, partial 1D 219 CR Chab Street per test in the Park.

Everybody.

Yeah. Steve Borland. uh actually 861 Main Street in Norwell. So I came quite a ways down here to come to the meeting.

Uh what we're going to do is we're going to go in and conduct some percolation tests. There are a series of wetlands that are involved in this. There's a couple of bordering vegetative wetlands and a couple of isolated vegetative wetlands on site. Uh this is on the south side of Chav Street. So, what we've done is gone out, located all the septic systems in the area and the wells

in the area so that we will meet the setbacks if we dig the percolation tests out there and they're successful. Um, so I'll be coming back in front of you guys. And this the work that we're conducting right now is actually an exemption under the Wells Protection Act for testing, but I just wanted to come down and show the board respect because I haven't done anything in town yet and uh just want to meet everybody.

All right. Thank you, Chris.

Mr. Chair and members, Steven Barkland.

This is map 21, lots 9 AC, 9AB, and 9 A D. Basically, these are existing lots uh from the Warren Messier estate that were undeveloped on Shabbat Street. Type of filing is a requested termination of applicability. The wetlands have been flagged by Brad Holmes from ECR and been um somewhat feel verified by myself. I did meet them out there uh to see the area and uh what they're proposing. Uh

detailed description. The act has filed to request the commission allow percolation test to be completed on pre-existing lots of record on Shabbat Street in Upland area has been determined and observed by the agent during a site review with the applicant.

Proposed perk test are to be temporary and for planning purposes to establish a potential development is viable. The activity will be completed as far from the BBW as the area will allow. Uh resource areas impacted again is a buffer zone. Recommendations for the board. The Westport Conservation Commission should approve the percolation test for Shabbet Street with a negative box 3 determination.

Second.

Any questions?

Motion.

I'll make a motion to approve tests.

Second.

Jason. All those in favor? Opposed?

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Stephen. Thank you.

Okay. First hearing for the night. Ryan Melo, notice of intent 79D drive replace failed septic system in the buffer zone.

Anybody here for Mr. Melo

in case you want. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. Yes, he did bring them in.

Right. Thank you.

Uh good evening, Matt Pike, South Coast Engineer, and he on behalf of the applicant, Ryan Melo. Um this project, uh pertains to the repair of a failed septic system, 79D drive. This plan has been submitted to the board of health, is not yet approved. Um it will require some local upgrade approvals as listed on the plan. There's three of them there. Um and the meeting is scheduled for August 31st for that.

The uh we're asking for a read here reduction of setback to private water supply hundreds required provided 51.2 reduction in setback to BVW 50 is required provided 14.2 civ analysis uh was conducted in the park test.

Um so this site is con there's several constraints here. There's a gas transmission easement on the property.

Uh there's a BVW, there's a buried concrete slab that's to the north of where the proposed system is. Also, a portion of it's going to have to be removed. There's a buried slab there. Um there's a well there and just the overall size of the lot is also a constraint. And then in addition to that, the soil conditions um is require a leeching system that's quite large. I think there's a one in 30.

So, um, as far as the wetlands, the BBW is located on the southeast side of the property, continues in a Wesley, uh, direction to the south of the parcel.

Uh, the closest point for the proposed SAS is, uh, 14.2 ft. Um, before the, uh, project will start, a stake water line will be, uh, constructed and it will be, um, maintained until all the work's completed and the original stabilized.

And I'll turn it over to the commissioner now.

Okay, Chris.

Mr. Chairman, this is Ryan Melo, 79D drive, a notice of intent filed by South Coast Engineering with Matt Pike representing. Report date is August 6, 2026. We have a file number. It's SE802852.

Uh, this is pending board of health as Matt also mentioned. Uh, we also did have the green cards provided ahead of the meeting. Detailed description of work. The owner has filed to repair the sewage disposal system on the property.

The existing cesspool will be abandoned per title 5 regulations. Wetland is located on the other side of the existing gas line easement that crosses through the lot. Leeching field and tanks will be installed behind the home.

Leeching field will be the closest to the wetland at 14.5. Matt said 14.2 give or take to maintain the farthest from the existing well. That's basically why we're getting the system pushed to closer to the wetland is to maximize that uh variance request for the weld setbacks. Uh as he mentioned, erosion controls be installed around the work area and shall be the limit of all work.

Uh this is a pretty confined lot. So there's not much options here. So recommendation recommendations to Westport conservation should approve the sewage disposal system repair with standard conditions pending border health. Um, that's all, Mr. Chairman.

All right. Do you have any questions, Matt?

Any questions for the table?

Any questions from the audience?

I just have one quick question. So, the the distance from the uh existing well, it's the same property owner's well.

Yes. Correct.

Yeah.

Yep.

All right. It's tight.

Yes.

Yeah.

All right. No other questions. Looking for a motion with the recommendations.

So, I'll move to uh approve the plan for septic upgrade at 79B drive. Um the standard conditioning board approval.

Second.

Is that Kevin?

Kevin.

Thank you. Phil and Kevin. All in favor?

Oppos?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have BPH holdings notice of intent lot 2 Marott Drive construct a single family dwelling grading in a pertinent uh utilities in the buffer zone.

I think he gave the green cards for this one. Mr.

Ch.

Uh good evening. Matt Pike, South Coast Engineering here on behalf of the applicant DPH Holdens um site plan for the construction of a single family dwelling septic system storm water control measures located at lot 2 drive um also known as assesses map 52 lot 28. An ORAD for the wetland delineation uh has previously been issued by the West Concom.

Um a straw wall will be installed as shown in the plan prior to any ground service shown here.

Um it's going to be maintained until the area has been restabilized. The closest work to the DVW here is 46.1 from the DVW and that's grading. And the closest structure to the DVW is the deck and that's located 85.3 ft from the DVW.

And I'll turn it over to commission.

Thank you.

Yep.

Mr. Chairman, members, BPH Holdings, lot 2, Mark Drive. This is a notice of intent followed by South Coast Engineering with Matt Pike representing.

The report date is August 10th, 2026. We do have a file number SE82853 with no adverse comments. Green cards have been provided. Site visit was also on August 10th, 2026.

Description of the work. The applicant was filed to construct a portion of the single family home deck and patio within the 100t buffer zone. The wetland line was approved on an order of resource area delineation and the line is consistent with what was approved. The rear section of the home deck and patio would just fall within the buffer zone.

All other work is within the front and outside of the commission's jurisdiction. Erosion controls will be staked in place at the 25 foot no activity designated area and to remain until the area is stabilized. Resource areas impacted. Again, this is just a buffer zone project. Recommendations for the board. The Westport Conservation should approve the single family home patio and the deck with standard

conditions. Uh not pending file number.

Chairman.

Thank you. Any questions?

No. Any questions on the table?

Any questions from the audience?

Motion to approve.

All right. Do we have a second?

Jason.

Second.

Kevin.

Okay. All in favor?

Opposed?

All right.

Thanks, Kevin.

Josh, I'm sorry. Josh Kavalo 47 Robert Street install well with driveway and buffer zone.

Good evening L. How are you?

Good. How are you?

Good.

Thank you for what? Being efficient.

Doesn't happen too often. Thanks.

Paul just wants to grab some of the donuts that are in the back room. So, I'll put them on the table. He wants cookies there.

Intermission environmental here for Josh Cavalo, 47 Robert Street. Uh, this lot was approved about 6 years ago. There's an existing concrete block garage on the property that's to be demolished and a two-bedroom home installed in its place.

The wetlands to the rear of the lot like 100 through 102 through 10180 being involved. The well is going right back here approximately 8 ft from that wetland flag and you need to get access to get the well dweller in there and bring the water line up to the house.

The subject system is shown in the plan.

It's about 106 ft to that closest wetland slide. And there is some grading in the buffer zones. You can see probably about somewhere around 8 or 9 ft.

So fences to be installed all the way down around this driveway so to speak.

And uh that's pretty much it. Two bedroom house DI system. and all that is going on there due to the proximity of all worlds. That's pretty much it.

Thank you, Chris, Mr. Chairman. Josh Cavalo, um 47 Robert Street, represented by Len Potter from Westport Environmental Design. This is a request for determination of applicability. Report date is August 6, 2026.

I believe this is pending board of health plan.

Yes.

Yes. Thank you. detailed description of the work. The applicants filed for a previously approved determination for the same work. This was a project that the uh determination had expired from the prior owner. He had unfortunately passed away and the family has since uh sold the property to Mr. Gavalo. The new applicant is proposing access wellroad into the buffer zone. I say within 5 ft

to 8 ft of the DVW limit. The remaining work for the single family home in the sewage disposal system is beyond the buffer zone limits. As Lenny mentioned, there's some minor grading. The well access shall have a dewatering basin excavated to collect all spoils from this well installation, especially being this close to the wetland. Uh the well companies are usually notoriously discharging their spoils uh in the

downward direction. And so I'd like to have some method to collect those. Any road materials used for access shall be removed and the area allowed to reveate uh to the maximum extent allowable. Um row of boulders or a split rail fence shall be installed along the erosion controls as a permanent limit of future work. That way we can visually the slot is really tight um and any future

expansion should be coming back to this board. So that row of boulders will be physically there for us to have a visual of if anything encroaches.

Recommendations. The Westport Conservation Commission should approve the proposed well and access road with a condition that an excavated sump be constructed to collect the wellspoils road base removed after completion and a sprit rail fence boulders installed as a limit of future work along the erosion control limits. And this would be pending border health. Thanks.

Any questions on questions from the table?

Motion.

So, I'll move to uh approve the plan for uh construction of a new house at 47 Robert Street um subject to the conditions set forth in Chris's report.

Thank you. Second.

Second.

Second from Jason. All in favor? Hi.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Dudley Milicanin, nose of attend 14th Street. Demolish and rebuild garage in the buffer zone and flood zone.

Stutter stuttering bill.

Thank you.

Good evening. Sean Leech, Northeast Engineers, representing Trip and Dora Milikin tonight. Uh first street. This is the third house in from Horses Road on the south side of First Street. It's a pretty good size lot as those lots go down there. It extends from First Street all the way to the town property at East Beach. Uh it has a file number SE0802854.

What's being proposed is an existing slab at grade garage, one small garage that is going to be removed in favor of a large garage with space above it on uh pier supported uh structure and a way connecting the existing house which is also on existing peers. This is required because it is in a flood zone. It's in kind of the BE19. The property splits VE20 VE19 on this thing. So, it's built

up. The project is within 75 ft of a bordered vegetative wetlands which was flagged. Uh the front of the house is out and the driveway is out of the bunker zone. So what's being proposed here is just adding on to an existing structure uh slightly larger garage with a breathway that's going to be on pier support as required by FEMA.

All right, Chris, Mr. Chairman, excuse me. This is Dudley Milikin 14 First Street notice of intent application filed by Northeast Consult Engineers and Consultants with Shaun Leech representing. Report date is August 10th 2026.

We just received the file number SC802854 um with no adverse comments.

Detailed description of the work the owner has filed to construct a garage with a studio above in the VE zone elevation 18/19 and within 75 ft of the bordering vegetated wetland. Pros garage will be constructed in accordance with the FEMA regulations for constructing in floodprone areas. An existing garage will be removed and a 34x 26 new one built approximately in the same place.

The design will require installing 10 12x 12 in concrete piles with a concrete slab on grade. The garage will include a studio above that will have a second floor structural bridge that will connect to the existing home. The pros lower portion of the garage will have breakaway walls that will meet the FEMA standards. Uh the current home elevation is elevation 17. Uh this home was

rebuilt prior to the current elevation that we have existing today. Roof runoff shall be infiltrated as a condition of approval for the new garage. I I think that may be beneficial. Uh recommendations. Again, this is a flood zone buffer zone project.

Recommendations. This Westport Conservation Commission should consider a vote to approve the proposed garage to be constructed in accordance with FEMA's regulations. Install all roof runoff from garage into a dry well system to be infiltrated. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Any questions, Sean?

No.

So, what is it going to be? 2 ft off the ground.

Yeah. Two and a half or so. All right.

Any questions?

Any questions from the audience?

All right, there's no questions.

Looking for a motion.

Some motion to approve.

Second.

Kevin and Jason. All in favor?

I

Westport 0 and 279 Hicksbridge Road.

Improvements to landing and construction of a new dock. Anybody here for that?

Yes.

Good evening, commission. and Adrien Dunk from GCA here to represent the Hicksbridge Landing Project sheet.

Espresso cookie espresso.

The Hicks bridge landing project is the reconstruction of the existing public access boat ramp um into the east branch of the Westport River. Um so the existing boat ramp as you may be familiar is deteriorating in place. Um and the proposed project, this is the existing conditions plan.

The proposed project

That's I brought an easel, but I thought it'd be fine. Um, we'll reuse the existing access. It will, um, open up the entrance, um, to create wider sight lines. We'll regrade the side entrance.

Um, and it will rebuild the boat ramp in place. The bow ramp will be constructed, um, currently it's a 14t wide surface.

It will be reconstructed as an 18t wide surface um for trucks to back trailers in and it will have two 6 foot wide curbs on either side. So it'll be 30 ft wide total. Um this allows for the curbs to transition into the floating docks.

Um and that makes it ADA accessible. So the goal here is to make recreation safer and more accessible. Um the boat ramp will also um end at the upward slope at a higher elevation so it remains usable under a larger storm events. Um and then the whole site will be regraded slightly. It'll be raised about 1 ft to meet that higher boat ramp elevation. It will be paved and there will be storm water management for storm

water treatment on site. Um as part of this there's also restoration of the area. since pedestrian access, small boat access, and larger boats will all be using the boat ramp. The beaches will be restored through beach grass planting, um, as will the the bank.

There's a small section of salt marsh that will be in an area that will become boat ramp. Um, and that is proposed to be excavated out kind of on block. So excavated to below the root zone and moved to the far end of the site and then also a salt marsh restoration area.

So our goal is no loss of salt marsh but a relocation.

Um so ultimately habitat enhancement and recreational enhancement allin one.

Thank you.

Thanks. Thank you Chris.

Will chapter 91 be part of this as well?

Yes, chapter 91 will be required as will a 401 because there'll be about 127 cubic yards of dredge.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This town of Westport.

This is Hicksbridge Landing. Uh this a noticement application filed by GZA. Uh report date is August 14th, 2026. There is a file number SE2849.

As she mentioned, there will be a chapter 91 requirement and a 401 requirement for this project based on the impacts.

Detailed description of the work. The notice of intent has been filed by GCA on behalf of the town of Westport. The project is proposed to make improvements to the town six bridge landing. The improvements will include a new boat ramp, new dock system, regraving of the parking area, installing storm water management, and paving of the existing gravel lot. Proposed work will be located in the land under the river,

salt marsh, coastal bank, riverfront, and land subject to flooding. The boat ramp will be regraded and will be replaced with a new 18-in wide ramp, uh 6' wide curbs with stone revetments along the sides. In the process of widening the existing ramp, an isolated section of salt marsh will be altered approximately 289 square ft. There uh this will be replicated. There will be a replicated salt marsh proposed to

provide 564 uh square ft rather. This will be constructed to the suddley end of the parcel as she identified and they'll be enhancing that marsh uh to add to that as she mentioned. Equipment will be rem will remove the section of isolated marsh with the roots intact and relocate to the proposed excavated area.

Plantings will consist of bare root plugs of cord grass planted 12 to 18 in apart. Grading along the edge of the new pave lot will require a small retaining wall along the top of the coastal bank.

They design this design will provide a coastal enhancement planting of beach grass within that area. Uh it appears they have some cooler logs set up in order to uh hold back that grade and establish that beach grass. Dock will be constructed of non CCA wood products.

The overall design meets the town's stock policy. A chapter 91 license is required. Storm water quality will be managed through an underground system that consists of deep sump catch basins, a vegetated swale, and a subsurface infiltration system. The paved area will contribute less runoff from the current gravel lot or at least contaminants that come off the gravel lot. Overall, these

improvements will enhance the area we're providing coastal resiliency and better water quality. Um overviewed the project with the GZA representatives and it it meets my concerns uh with the plans that they have presented.

Recommendations for the board. The Westport Conservation should consider approving the proposed Hicksbridge landing improvements with storm water management and with standard conditions which I will identify including the salt marsh and beach grass plantings along the shoreline. That is all, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you. You have any questions?

No, sir.

All right.

Feel a little sir. All right. Any questions from the table? Mr. Mr.

Are you guys using the existing dock floats or are you getting new floats?

Um, I'm not positive, but I would suspect new dock floats.

So, the brand new ones that were just installed, what's the plan?

Oh, you know what? Jeff is here. So, yeah, I can't speak. Sorry. I'm just not sure about the actual floats. I'm sure I know about the wetland impacts. So, thank you.

Correct. Thank you, Jeff Bull from the Town Landing Commission. Um the old floats were actually dangerous at this point and because people were getting bad splinters and falling through them. So we had some leftover grant money from some early earlier grants and we bought new floats that will be reused as part of this project.

Okay. But there'll be additional floats purchased that will match those and provide a whole lot more linear footage so that it won't be as many crowding issues as we currently have there um during busy times. So it'll be it almost doubles the amount of linear footage because there will be access on both the east and the west side of the southacing uh finger of the floats where the floats currently run north.

Mh. The primary float sections will run south.

Okay. Same width on those floats or they going to be because I know when the highway department comes and takes them, it's a it is a process.

The wider you make them, the longer you make them, the harder it's going to be for the highway department to Yep. That's all been coord coordinated with them.

Uh and we had that experience the first time. They were a little shy about it.

Yep.

They had no problems lifting them out this year.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions?

So, um, you mentioned the existing access onto Hicks Bridge. Has there been any attempt to reutilize the historic other access? Cuz I that's question one.

Question two, has public safety been consulted on on that? Because my understanding is that the police department will not sign off on that plan.

So my understanding again is that significant effort was put into reusing both access points. Um the only town access is the existing access.

Um that's the only legal existing town access available at this time. Um and so that is what's being moved forward with.

Um there's not been traffic accidents in that area and the sight lines are going to be improved as part of this project along with um you know rating and slope changes. So it should be safer than existing but when you make it much more accessible it's going to be much more utilized. So, the odds of a traffic accident increase with increased use.

And my understanding is that public safety will simply not allow that to be the permanent solution.

I can't speak to what the police department and public safety approves for the the road access. Um, you know, our civil engineers are versed in that and you know haven't put forth an un you know an unapprovable illegal plan.

It's it's just it's a significant component of the project. It's it's how we get in. It's how we get out. It's how we take a right into oncoming traffic when they come down the hill. And it doesn't matter what you do to improve line of sight.

When you tow a trailer, you are still crossing the yellow lines in right into oncoming traffic. There's you can't change that.

I think that's an inherent challenge of of the location, which is why we have to work out the other side. if that legal access becomes available, you know, I think that that could be evaluated, but it's it's held the project up for several years trying to get legal access and it's not been correct.

Not been able to be obtained. So, that's not not available at this time.

All right. Any other questions? Any questions from the audience?

Yes, sir.

Could I speak to the public safety issue?

You want to extend yourself to the podium, ma'am? just already state your name. That's fine.

It's Jeff Bull again from the town planning commission. I have spoken with the police safety officer. He is aware of the plans as written. Uh when we measured sight lines, they're actually better from from the the lower entrance.

I would also mention that that upper entrance has only been in use since about the year 2000. Doesn't go way back. It only started being used when there was construction on the bridge such that both that the current entrance exit was not available.

So this has not gone on forever. Um and the sidelines are better if and I my understanding is in civil engineering what's uh generally considered the best is to have the entrance and exit at the same location. If you could move the whole thing up there, perhaps that would be better. It would mean straightening out Hicksbridge Road because the bend and the road and the speed at which people

come around that bend are a problem. And so the sighteline to the old not the old but the 2010 exit was not that great anyhow uh because the speed of which cars come around that bend. So, it's generally thought that while this isn't the best, it's what we have to work with. And uh there's been in multiple attempts to work with the property owner to the east, there's been no movement. Uh and

the longer we delay this, the more concern there is that the lower section of the boat ramp will fall into the river, at which point this will become much more expensive and people will not be able to launch at low to midtime. So, we want to move this along. It's a lengthy process and that lower section of the boat ramp is just hanged by one cable. So, we've gotten this far. The

state seems to go with it. I'm not I don't think we have final sign off from the police department, but certainly that's their perview. I don't know how that fits with conservation.

Well, if if the police department is on board with this, which I don't think they are, why is it never in writing with this? But, you know, it's a we've had fire department sign off on projects regarding like the width of roads. It It's not an unreasonable request to have a major stakeholder formally express their support or lack thereof. like I I I can't support this knowing that at some point there'll be a

fatal head on and then who's liable when we pay for something that forces people to pull out take a right into oncoming traffic? If somebody comes down there doing 50 mph on a motorcycle and some person pulls out with a truck, boat and trailer, there's nowhere to go and it's not going to be a minor accident. So, I get the sense of urgency. I get the ramps in bad shape. I get all that. And

I I'm I'll be the staunchest supporter.

But, you know, someone will die on that road at some point. And I just would love to have that issue addressed so that we can just have, you know, unanimous support for this whole thing.

It's just a major major component that we just don't seem to have a plan for.

All right. Any questions? Anybody other questions? Audience, anybody? All right.

Did you say the entrance get make you make it wider the entrance?

Yes.

How much wider are you making it out of curiosity?

There's improvements you mentioned to make them right. The improvements um I don't approximate width 27 and 1/4 ft is the fallout um for the proposed plus there'll be a better sidewalk better radius. Right. The radius is not good. I the whole guardrail is being kind of set set back with a sidewalk there to open up the view. Um, so the guardrail to the west on the bridge side.

Yes, the guard to the west and that sidewalks being that's that's not the that's not the issue. The issue is the is the the guardrail and the steep incline to the east.

Yes, that's the problem.

Right. That's where they're going to be.

Right. There's a tree there currently and some other vegetation on there that's going to be removed to open up that view uh along to the east.

All right.

Anybody have any other questions or a motion?

Our job is to assess the impact on the wetlands. Now, the safety issues are certainly important. Is there some other entity, some board whose responsibility is to look at that?

Police department.

Police department.

Yeah.

So, we can just make a motion contingent on the police department making a final sign off on the um safety of the proposed entrance.

Okay. Well, you just Is that something they do for every drive, you know, driveway?

I mean, you know, I wouldn't say every driveway. No, no, I mean, you know, the landing on East Bridge Road, is that is that signed off on by the police?

Well, he's a tenant, I believe. Right.

Um, his he I I I think it's at kind of their discretion. If there is a project that warrants either, you know, a stop sign, a flashing red, or flashing yellow, we have an officer who um who handles those issues. Yeah.

Is it normal, Phil? No, not necessarily.

This this is more a town project where there's some safety concerns have been expressed. So, in this case, I don't think it would be uh wrong to maybe make some assumption that the police should uh have some comment. If you leave it alone and they just keep using it, assuming the bow ram doesn't collapse, it's it's worse than it's going to be after they they make it wider and and open it up

more and pull the guardrail back. And I just think it, you know, it's the best you're going to get with what you have to work with. I personally would love to have the top open because that's what I used to use, but if it's not possible because the the people who own it aren't going to let us use it or rent it or lease it or buy it, then I don't know

what the other option is. I mean it's I just say well I mean normally at least normally when we do this we make it subject to board of health etc is because we know that it is the standard procedure for the agency to you know to issue a formal approval you know every time one of these comes in. So, I'm just saying the police department might feel like there should be a better solution,

but I don't know if procedurally they're required to sign off in the manner that you're talking about.

Absent that, I don't want to make restriction on it forces the police to say, well, we don't really like this, but we have to sign off on other project goes.

Well, well, I think we just we just make a we don't we can't make contingent. I don't believe you got the job really part of the but I believe we can ask Chris to contact the police and let them know we approved and if they have any comments they can deal with the the board of uh the select men or the landing commission directly because if the police want to shut it

down they can do that without us but I think it meets wetland's requirements to to um pass it and it you know that's why we should pass it and then let the police deal with it and be just Chris can notify him tomorrow. This is all a stoplight that's triggered by a, you know, vehicle moving up to the rail.

I don't know. There might be ways to fix it, but I don't want to require that the police sign off on it.

I mean, I, you know, I've invested a lot of time and energy into that project and I'm also I'm in the boat business. I know a thing or two about boat ramps and I know Oh, it's not a good situation.

It's not a good situation. that is, you know, when when there's an accident, all of us at this table are probably going to know the person who's involved in it.

I mean, it's going to be a we're a small town, and I just can't sign off on something without every stone unturned to prevent that from happening. And I I just think that there's a little bit more effort to be invested into the uphill exit. Like we were close with the Masonic Lodge a few months back close and things went sideways. I I have not given up on them and I don't think

they've given up on us. I think it's worth some effort.

Well, I understand your passion. I agree with you on the the overlaw, but I think from a wetlands perspective, they they do meet the requirements and if the police want to stop it, they can stop it. This can be notified tomorrow. They want to stop it, they can stop it. you know, look, put it on put on their plate. But we have no, in my opinion, no right to deny Yeah.

the project based on the Wildlands Protection Act.

And do you know just and I don't want to belabor this whole thing and take the whole, you know, but um what will historically there were signs up at that ramp and it was it was vehicle and trailer parking only. It was not a parking lot and we've got the rowing folks that use it. I'm I'm all about access, but as we make it, you know, we pave it and we make it more

accessible and the ramp works better so more people use it, um it's going to be increasingly more and more difficult to make a swing when you pull a boat out of the water. So, it what are we going to do permit-wise for like parking there and who's allowed to utilize it, who's not, you know, and I understand what you're asking. I unfortunately I I'm a wetland scientist.

Um, so I I don't I don't have those answers about the parking permit restrictions. Um, you should be attending landing commission meetings, maybe.

No.

All right. Any other questions? No, I'm looking for a motion.

Okay. So, I will move to approve the Hicksbridge landing um upgrade um with storm man storm water management uh facilities and with standard conditions.

I second it.

All those in favor?

I abstain.

All right. Uh that's four passes with four people and one abstension from Jason.

Thank you.

Thank you. Chris, you can just Yeah. If they want to see the plan, they come by the office. You can call or you can drop it off. Yes, sir.

How many parking space?

How many parking void?

Sound West River Oyster uh restoration east branch. Anybody here for that?

Yeah.

Commissioners Daniel from TMC. I'm here with my colleague Sean Terrell from Master Vision Marine Fisheries and Mary Rimmer from Rimmer Environmental Consulting to talk about this project.

This project proposes the restoration of shellfish resources, specifically oyster through the east branch of the Westport River in an area just south of Hicksbridge on the eastern bank extending down Cadman's Neck with a site in Cadman's Cove and a site on offer each spectacle island. Um restoration will be accomplished by the placement of shell culch um through various mechanical means depending on the site

depth in the bottom substrate. That will be followed with the placement of spaton shell that is cultivated from local oyster broodtock and live singles procured from regional oyster suppliers.

Um, staging will not occur in wetland areas or on the salt marsh. And where we stage shell and culch, we will use standard erosion control procedures to prevent any runoff of sediments that are contained within that culch from moving downhill into the river. Sean, anything to add to that? Uh, so we're hoping to um distribute the culch in the springtime, like end of May, beginning of June. That's based on the spawning

patterns of of wild oysters. Um so we've been looking at water temperature data over the last 30 years and it looks like um the river reaches 66° which is sort of a magic number for oysters around the end of May, beginning of June, which gives us like a 3we window to distribute culch before the larville oysters settle out of the water and um settle onto those shells and create a reef. Um there

was some miscommunication on EMF's side in the comment letter. Um doesn't necessarily reflect um our intention to culture in the spring. And I've I've talked with the folks that do environmental review at TMF and we're going to um we're going to submit additional materials that explicitly lay out what our plans are and why we need to culture in the spring. And they're going to submit a revised comment letter

before the order of conditions. And that's based on migratory fish.

Uh the the toys that we're going to incur on would be yeah time of year restrictions that we're going to occur on would be horseshoe crab which is starts June 1 and uh winter flounder which ends May 31. Um and then there is um you know diagrammus fisheries uh time year restrictions there but we don't have really any impact on that. Um, I think we'll propose to if if the uh horseshoe crab time of year restriction

isn't waved, we'll propose to do scuba surveys to just investigate whether there are horseshoe crabs in our restoration sites before we put colch down. And because the winter flounder time of year restriction has to do with the laying of flounder eggs, like towards the end of that time of year restriction, those uh I'm sorry, flounder eggs are are now juvenile flounders and are mobile. So

the least important part of that window is the end of it. So we'd only be incurring on the end of it. Um and this would be reflected in DMS revised letter. So, we're proposing we would provide Chris with some revised letters and supplemental materials that would then be incorporated into the order of condition. Fine.

And we would abide by whatever DNF decides on that.

All right, Mr. Chairman, members, town of Westport, east branch of the river.

This a notice of intent filed for shellfish habit restoration. Um well, Rimmer Environmental provided all the documentation here for this notice of intent. I believe Mary is standing silently in the background. She's all prepared, but I think the a lot of information has been presented to the board. Report date is August 13th, 2026.

The file number is SE802851.

Our agencies that have been contacted so far are MEPA and Natural Heritage Endangered Species Program. As they mentioned, DMF will summize a newer letter for their concerns. Detailed description of the work. The town of Westwood through the Nature Conservancy filed a notice of intent to restore oysters in six areas within the east branch of the river. Locations have been chosen after reviewing the existing site

conditions. All land owners adjacent to the sites have shown support. Four locations will be along the Cadmin's neck uh east shoreline near the vineyard in Cadman's co and in Cadman's go I'm sorry. Two other areas lie near upper spectacle and lower spectacle islands.

The DMF shelf planting guidelines will be followed with spreading shell materials across the bottom. A barge will bring shell materials out to the site and a small excavator will use to spread the shells. Uh all areas range from 1 acre to 2 acres in size with depths ranging from 3 to 8 ft. The shell materials will be placed in the spring just before the natural spawning of the local oyster populations. Over time, the

oyster reef will be seated with other adult oysters to promote growth. Oyster reef creation will benefit uh specifically the water quality when the east branch um which I think is very important. And uh I also want to mention the watershed alliance has provided us a support letter which is on file um identifying that they've fully support this proposed project. Um, with all that

recommendations, West Point Conservation should approve the oyster restoration in the selected areas of the east branch of the river following the protocol established and following the DMF shellfish planting guidelines and any follow-up DMF comments that are provided. That's all, Mr. Chairman.

All right. Uh Mike Sullivan, who was who's the I think the president of uh chairman of the board for the watershed was supposed to be here tonight, but he had a family issue. He had to go take drugs. He had to go to so he asked me to read his letter. I'll read it. It'll be a lot shorter than he was actually here.

That's that's that's going to be a bonus.

Dear Chairman Jonas and members of the Conservation Commission, on behalf of the Westport River Watershed Alliance, I'm pleased to provide our strong support for the Nature Conservancy TNC proposed oyster restoration project and the Westport River Estuary and its request to proceed with necessary permitting process. The WRWA has been an active partner in planning and developing initiatives with the Nature

Conservancy, the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, the town of Westport local shellfish growers, and other community partners. The project is intended to establish and enhance native oyster reef habitat within the estuary by placing locally produced fat on shell and to support the development of self- sustainable oyster population over time.

Oyster reefs provide important ecological functions with estuary systems within estuary systems estuarian systems, excuse me. They create complex habitat for fish and for invertebrates, contribute to biodiversity, stabilize bottom sediments, and filter nutrients and suspended particles from the water column. Each establishing healthy oyster habitat Westport River therefore represents an important opportunity to

enhance the ecological health of the estuary while supporting the recreational, commercial, and cultural values of the river. The WRWA has participated in site evaluation, project planning, stakeholder discussions, and the development of monitoring approaching approaches associated with the restoration effort. We look forward to continue our involvement by providing scientific and technical expertise,

local knowledge of the Westport River ecosystem and assistance with project coordination and monitoring as appropriate. The project is thoughtful and collaborative approach to restoring an important native species and enhancing aquatic biodiversity in the West River. The WRWA supports TNC's request to move forward with the required conservation commission review and permitting process. Thank you for

your consideration and for continued commitment to protecting the natural resource of the West River for the town of Westport. Sincerely, Megan James, executive director. All right, now Mike can watch it.

Procedural items. I just want to quickly be discussing this project at their next meeting.

We'll be discussing uh Chris Patale signing as the permit holder. They've already approved the project.

Correct.

Okay. Since the town is the actual applicant in this case and also that you'll be notified of other permits as they're required for we need a coral and water quality certificate core and any one permit license.

Thank you.

Yes.

So no culture in November.

Are you going to put Okay. So we're May June next year, right? In order to get it in the water just ahead of the spawn and not have it become foul with algae and other silts so that the larv So if you if you're I think what you' mentioned your special condition would be that if the that we comply with DMF uh comments and any updated comments if they may issue as a result of additional

certain we may do to refine the time of year.

Correct. Restriction that would be fine.

Okay.

Does anyone else have any more comments or questions in the audience? You step up to the microphone.

State your name for me, please.

Sure. Uh my name is Jack Cherry. I live at 744 Drift Road. So, just up from where these guys are doing their good work. And I'm also a member of the uh Westport River Wershed Alliance Board.

Uh, so I'm here to just support what they're doing because I think it's really important for the health of the river and the wershed and for our town.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Do you want to go and say something?

Good evening. My name is Nancy Mobly. I live at 88 Cummings Lane in Westport. my property, my dock is actually fairly adjacent nearby where this good work is going to be done. And I'm also a member of the board of the watershed alliance.

And so I just want to speak on behalf of both as being a property owner and also as a board member of the watershed alliance to ask for your approval of this proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is everybody else like to speak? All right. I have a motion.

Motion to approve.

There it goes. Uh Jason seconded it. Kevin Kevin made a motion.

He beat fell out on my second favor.

I approve now.

Thank you very much.

Thank you guys.

Thank you. Thank you. Good luck on the project.

Thank you.

Cornerstone place notice of intent 392 uh s road 9 subdivision with roadway and above zone. Anybody record, please?

Thank you.

I didn't expect them in, so I'll shoot from the hip.

I don't have a report.

No, you guys blew me off last meeting, so I didn't do a report tonight, but you guys open the presentation um and we move forward from there. Okay, sounds great.

You won't be you won't be getting a vote of approval tonight from us cuz we we know that planning board has some some information that want to be answered.

So, thank you.

Thank you for clarifying. For the record, Jacob Cross from Gutter Consulting on behalf of the applicant.

I'm joined tonight by John Marchan from RM Corporation.

So this project proposes a 9 mile subdivision within buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland. So I'll start with the existing conditions and then move on to what is proposed of the project. So the property is located at 392 SD road in Westport and is about 30 and a half acres. The frontage over here is partially developed in the past.

There were a couple structures and paved parking area that has since been removed. The rest of the site is undeveloped. There are two DVDW systems in the western and eastern portion of the site with a non-jurisdictional isolated wetland here. These cast 100 foot buffer zone under the weather protection act 25 ft no activity zone under your local bylaw. These resource areas were confirmed with the issuance

of an ORAD last June I believe. So June 2025 and then what is proposed by the project is apologies I forgot my angle.

So this notice of intent as I mentioned it's for a n lot subdivision. However, this application will just be for there we go. This application is just for the roadway and associated storm water infrastructure with uh separate permit applications for each of the houses and jurisdiction. So this roadway will be 22 ft long and enter from the front of the jump spot on road or sneaking through the site like this. The

primary portion in the buffer zone is this pinch point up by this northern finger of wetlands here. Besides that, everything is maintaining maximum separation from the wetland. And this is holding about 25 ft away at it closest point. Um storm water. So everything east of or everything west of this high point here will be pitched towards the water quality swale towards the front of

Sodom Road. Everything to the east will be pitched down towards the culde-sac where detention basin is located off to the east here. Um that is pretty much what's proposed at this point. Each lot will have once the time comes for permitting will have their own title 5 compliant septic systems, subsurface infiltration basins. So that'll be covered there. And that is pretty much what is proposed at this time of the

project. Um we met with planning board last Tuesday and one of their suggestions was with the initial submitt as the road runs right along this northern property boundary here, we'd be requesting six waiverss primarily due to this and kind of a few other associated items. So for you tonight, we had prepared um a very preliminary mockup showcasing a design that might shift the road slightly further down. So this

isn't stamped or anything, but if we were to do this, we would be able to avoid, you know, five of the six waiverss that we requested. Um however, this would put the road slightly further into or into the no activity zone holding about 20 ft at this closest point. Um, so before we move forward with anything, you know, exploring any of this sort of alternative, we wanted to see if this would be something that

would even be permittable with you all tonight. But really right now, you know, we're discussing this here. This we have for you tonight.

So now open for any questions or comments.

Mr. Chairman, again, I apologize that when I saw the planning board's comments, I didn't think you guys would be coming here, but you never opened the hearing, so I appreciate it.

Yeah, I apologize for this meeting. This is a wetland delineation that's been approved as the um applicant chose. Um in my review, I totally did not realize that it's a cold water fishery.

Jesus. Yeah, it's this section of Angeline Brook traverses this property.

Um and it falls under the critical habitat of the state's concerns for special areas. So the concern of moving your road isn't the concern the planning had. That is a very minor concern. Their concern was the drainage and other aspects you were proposing did not meet the critical habitat criteria. Uh especially since this site has a very very high water table. Um not all the lots have passed

percolation tests. Actually there are numerous failures on the property. Um, so this is kind of a very aggressive subdivision approach um, without having all the lots viably buildable at this point before you tonight. Um, I don't like people to do that because it leaves it leaves everything hanging because now we got to wait for them to get their perks and uh, who knows how long will transpire before this is actually

considered a viable subdivision.

with that. Their drainage is designed as storm water basins in the rear. There's a pond designed in adjacent to the culdesac. There's also a place designed on Sodom Road. There is currently a connection to a wetland across the street with the drop inlet structure on this side of the road. So, I want the applicant to be aware that there are 100t setbacks from that drop inlet that you're not really identifying. you're

identifying from the wetland that it flows through, but that little inlet does apply because it drains directly to another wetland. Um, under the storm water management guidelines, the ponds that they have designed make the twoft separation, but this is a fill project in order to make that happen. So, this roadway is going to be raised um again.

So, they're manipulating the land to make it work for their proposed development under cold water fishery habitats. This is C and D soils. This is not an infiltration site. This is not a site that can maybe meet the coast the uh cold water fisheries stormwater management needs. So this applicant has to consider um how they're going to approach that. Um they are close to the 200t setback from that in it's an

intermittent stream. That's why I didn't realize it it applied to cold water fishery. So the intermittent status basically traverses this whole 30 acre rear portion and it begins to be perennial somewhere south of this property on the other side of Orlando Drive which is you know a considerable distance to the south. But however, critical habitat, the community has spent a lot of effort to to preserve

this angeline corridor and I think that their planning board's concerns and this commission's concerns should be how they address uh the storm water for this project. Um I tonight would ask that the commission uh accept opening of the hearing and ask that they request a continuance. I don't think they're going to be heard till the 22nd of the planning board. I'm not sure. So, I'm recommending that they continue this

hearing till September 29th on our agenda and we'll proceed from there. But I strongly urge the applicants to look at the critical habitat and meet those conditions if you can. If you can't, then I strongly urge you to lessen the project and its length of imperous area uh to what is manageable.

Um critical habitat is thermal pollution is the biggest problem with these critical um cold water fisheries. That's why you can't have detention ponds. The water sits there and warms up like a pool and then it slowly meters out. It could potentially increase the water quality or the temperature of that existing stream. So there are certain ways that they would have to treat their

water. Um that's basically all I have. I I think you guys are aware of that. And lastly, you showed all your perk information except one, two, and three which are within your storm water basin at the culdeac. I find that suspect. Why did you show all the other results except those three in that basin? Is there any reason for that?

I'm not sure, John. Everything else in the drainage report includes it, includes failures, includes some that passed. Um, but there were those three were not included in your drainage report.

Uh, good evening, John Har. Um, the logs that were provided in the uh stormwater report were from form 11s, which were just for the septic holes.

Um, so we can certainly provide those logs in the report on the plans. Are we?

Yeah. Well, again, the planning board requires it on both basins. You got to do it. Again, I be very honest with you.

The perk you got in that front lot, I can't I wouldn't even accept. But you got three failures on that front lot and you got one an inch and two. That just I don't see how you can get an inch and two when you got three failed within 15 ft of each other. So, I question some things, but that's not my pervy at this time. I'm more concerned about the cold water fishery

and how you address it. The length of road seems excessive. You don't have all the lots perked. Uh more specifically, none on the east side, one on the east side, two on the west side, and the rest have all not been able to get there because of the border health having some lack of staffing. So that that's basically so I request the commission considering.

Would this end up bordering the gentleman that owns the 40 acres at the end of Orlando?

Will this what would it abut property?

They abut a section of land that comes off of my away.

Yes. Okay.

Yes.

Yeah.

Yes.

Wet wet wet.

It's tough land.

Wet.

It's not wetlands. Mr. Chairman, for the record, it's wet land because of the high water table that is seasonally present on that site. So, that's all.

I'm going to make a motion to uh continue to September 29th. I'll make a motion to open the hearing and to continue.

Do we have a date?

September.

September 29th.

September 29th.

Second.

Second.

That work for you.

Cool. Okay.

All in favor?

All right. That's Thank you guys.

Thank you for your time tonight.

Thank you. I just had a question for some. Is there is there a separate provision in the storm water ress or the the guidance that released the cold water fisheries?

Correct.

Okay.

Yes. There specific. Yes. So that the treatment of that water is not allowed to enhance its temperature and before it's discharged. So they like drainage swailes that get rid of the water. They don't like getting any water to be held behind or you infiltrate it back into the ground to let it naturally regain a common temperature.

Right.

So, all right. So, we have a bunch of dust certificate compliances. First one is Charlton and the boat house grow uh sea 2624.

Mr. Chairman, this is Charlton corporation. This is a request for a certificate of compliance uh by forth engineering. The date report date is August 11th, 2026. The file number was SE802624.

Uh description. The owners have requested a certificate of compliance to be issued for the repair conducted on Charlton's WAF. The fin sink holes along the edges of the filled bulkhead. The repair were completed and a letter from FA Engineering has provided with an aselt survey plan. All work was completed in accordance with the plan of record recommendations. The Westport Conservation Commission should approve

the certificate of compliance and issue um with the remaining condition to allow the Charlton Dog Corporation to maintain the authorized structure and allow the extension of the existing chapter 91 license. That's all. Mr. Chairman, you have a motion.

Motion to approve the COC.

Second. Second fulfill. All in favor?

I opposed. All right, that's unanimous.

Chris, real quick about that dock. The corporation, this is still a dock that you can pull up to and attached to. Correct.

Any structure that's a full filled over Commonwealth tide land becomes public.

Becomes public.

Yes. They do not own the water that that sits on. They own the property, but they cannot deny someone to tie up to it, to stand on it, to walk over it.

Well, they would say otherwise.

Then I would recommend that you contact me and I will make calls to the chapter 91 people cuz I know it has been contentioned before, but that has been taken over by the by the Charlton Doctor.

Yes, it is not a private setting as they think it is.

Set up as a private. There's a public easement allowed to go up and over.

Correct. There's the ability to tie to it because it's a structure in the middle of the water. It's not again they have applied for the permit to fill in tide lands. Again, this is a filled bulkhead. So, even more reason why you have been recently told by by a lawyer that is over there that they own that Charlton Warf.

Yes, they own it, but they have to allow public use of it.

How about something as simple as just public access signage?

I know they they say the opposite right on the dock. No, not to not to get on the dock.

But if a town if if a town entity puts post signs that would eliminate they are required under chapter under new one to post a sign that references how pedestrians or public can get open over the dock. Yep. The Charlton Corporation has been very um they st the sign like 50 yards up the bulkhead that said no passing beyond this point. So some of the signage that they have placed is not correct.

Yep.

Every bulkhead has the right for people to go up and over. And if this is in the I don't see why someone can't tie off onto it. They're not doing anything wrong. They're tying off to it. It's not that they're establishing it as a mooring or anything along those lines.

And it's right over the channel, this particular spot, too. So, there may be some ad hoc back and forth, but by that, but um I don't agree they're correct in that interpretation, but All right.

Thank you.

Alanto realy sea 2761441.

Continue that one to the next meeting.

Mr. Jim, we got the plan late and weren't able to uh meet our onee deadline.

So, what what is the next the next meeting?

Next meeting is is September 1st.

September 1st. Okay.

I'll make a motion to continue to September 1st.

Second.

All in favor?

Close. All right. Beautiful.

Which one is this? Make sure I got the right one here.

Next one is uh resigned certificates of compliance. So these are all resigns.

Yes.

All right. Christopher selection sele 19573rd Street. Do we have reports on these?

What's that?

You you have you got to read the report?

Yes.

All right. Go ahead.

These basically are certificate compliance that were previously issued.

Mr. Chairman, the applicant owner has filed to request a resigning of a previously granted certificate of compliance. The issuance was never recorded. So, Mr. Slesinger is undergoing a sale of the property. He's getting his uh ducks in an order. So, recommendation, Westport Conservation should approve the reissuance of a certificate appliance for file number SCE80. Up, it should say 115. Correct.

11 N5. Sorry, I was plugging and chugging.

All right. Look, I got them backwards.

That's okay. We'll fix it.

Okay. Uh motion motion to approve.

Second.

Second. All in favor?

All right. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Next, we have Christopher Slesinger, SE8182, 73rd Street.

Yeah, I kind of put the wrong file number. Chris Leer, 73rd Street, Certificate Compliance, August 10th, 2026 is the date of my report. File number is SE801882.

Um, detailed description. The applicant owner has filed a request to resigning of a previously granted certificate of compliance SC801882.

The prior issuance again was never recorded. Recommendations. Westport Conservation should approve the reissuance of a certificate of compliance for file number SE1882 for Chris Slesinger, 73rd Street.

All right, we have a motion.

Motion.

Yep. Mo second.

Motion to kill. Second from Jason. All in favor?

All right. Next we have Chris Mleser SC802610 uh 883 Thirdrd Street.

This is the other property Chris owns uh purchase later at a later date. This is Chris Leer 883rd Street. Certificate of compliance. Date of this report is August 10th, 2026.

File number is SE 802610.

Excuse me. The applicant owner has filed the request of resigning of a previously granted certificate of compliance.

The prior issuance for this one again was never recorded. So recommendations, Westport Conservation should approve the reissuance of a certificate compliance for file number SCE 802610 for Chris Slesinger, 883rd Street.

All right.

Jason. All right. We got a second.

Second.

Second from Phil. All in favor? Opposed?

Okay. That's unanimous.

Okay. Okay, we have an extension for Taylor McNamara SE825 09708 Hicksbridge Road.

Correct. Taylor McNamera is a parcel that's been sitting off of Hicksbridge Road at 708 708 Hicksbridge Road. She's requesting a three-year extension for file number SE82509.

Some of the infrastructure of this project has been completed um but the owner has filed to request an extension for 3 years um so that they can finalize the home construction which is still pending. Resource areas impacted. This is a buffer zone recommendations.

Westport Conservation Commission should approve a three-year extension to Taylor McNamera at file number SE80259 for 3 years.

All right. Motion.

Motion to approve.

Second it. Motion from Phil, second from Burr. All in favor? I oppose. All right, that's unanimous.

All right. Uh we have unanticipated we have main road well discussion for um Bisco and Cory. Chris, Mr. chairman uh in reference to a recent correspondence that was sent from the geologist for the Bisco Corey applicants uh kind of not chastising George Campbell's letter but had some rebuttal to what George had identified as his concerns. What I asked the board tonight after speaking with Mr. Weinberg. I It's

recommended that we contact George and have him uh submit a rebuttal to this letter and respond for us in accordance with how he seems uh fit for his explanations on how he interpreted his information and how the other gentleman interpreted his. have a motion to uh hire George Campbell to write a response letter to the uh Cory Disco well.

So moved.

You have a second.

Second.

All in favor?

I rebuttal of the rebuttal.

It's like job security for lawyers and the whole project.

Yeah, kind of is. But um we have some bills. We have Chris Capone.

Mileage $348.73.

Motion to pay.

Second.

That was Jason. Kevin Jason.

All in favor?

Oh, that's unanimous.

East Bay Media $451.50.

Motion to pay.

Okay. Kevin, do we have a second?

Second.

Second.

All in favor? All right. That was Kevin Burke.

Uh what else?

We have postage $100.

Motion to pay.

Motion to pay.

Second.

Okay, that was Jason and Bill. Bill that Jason's bill. All in favor? I All right, we have Woods Woods whole group $3,935.

This is for the um the study there, the professional services study. Need a motion to pay.

The grant that we had for the um speech barrier beach plan and the Atlantic A and Beach A management plans that is what that funding is for.

All right. Motion to pay.

Motion to pay.

Do a second.

Second. Second for federal. All in favor?

Oppos?

We have serpent $1,468.70.

And what is that for?

Serpent is for the open space plan that we currently have brought to fruition.

We're on the final uh draft uh for our open space plan for the town.

All right.

We have a motion to pay.

Motion to pay.

Thank you, F. We have a second.

Second.

Second from Jason. All in favor?

Opposed? Thank you.

And we have minutes from July 7th.

Let's see people who are present.

Myself, Jake, Kevin, Phil, and Jordan.

We can do this one.

Yeah.

Does anybody have any issues or changes any for the July 7th meeting minutes? If not, a motion to approve.

Motion to approve the July 7th minutes.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Second from Kevin. All in favor?

I.

All right. And we have a couple minor housekeeping to roll over some sick time that's not been used for President Leon.

Correct.

I don't think I need a vote on anything.

No, not no you don't, Mr. Chairman. Just your signature would be suffice.

Can we just deny it? You can, but I'll just your name out.

Can I take it for when I go to work? I can take some of your time.

I will give you whatever you need, my friend.

I hope I'm here long enough to use it all.

Yeah. All right, that's it, kids.

Motion to adjourn.

Okay. Do you have a second?

Second.

No, Phil.

Phil. Okay, that was Phil. That was Kevin and Phil.

Okay.

All in favor?

All right. That's unanimous. Yeah.

All right.

Thank you.