Planning Board - August 25, 2026

I would like to open the planning board meeting of Tuesday, August 25th.

And uh I hope everybody would join me in in pledge allegiance to the flag.

I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

We're going to wait just a few minutes for the assistant planner to return. Uh, but the key action items we're going to be starting with are basically ANRS and releases of consultant review fees. I'm sure you're all here for that.

So, uh, the public hearing for Old Harbor Road, uh, will probably be starting around 6:15 and it may be a little bit later depending on these ANRs.

They're

all

N my copy of this on the iPad just scrolls up and down, doesn't it? Usually maybe you can fix it.

establish.

You want to

Okay. We've started the meeting and so first up will be Inheritance Lane file number 23-0C close out and release of a consultant review piece.

Sure. So the project was signed off by SW Cole on June 16th and the planning board could could you hold a second? Could you please not be speaking to each other? It really is hard to run the meeting that way.

So for Inheritance Lane, the project was signed off by SW Cole, our peer consultant, June 16th, and then the planning board released the shity um this past June on June 30th. So now the final balance with S SW Cole has been paid and we'd like to release the remaining consultant review fees to the applicant. It's about 3,600.

Okay. Is there a motion?

You want a motion, please? I move to close out and release the remaining consultant review fees uh and interest for inheritance lane.

Second.

All those in favor?

I I Next is Rosewood Lane file number 23-039C close out and release consultant review fees and shity.

Sure. So, this applicant had submitted an asbuilt for this project back in early 2025, maybe January, Feb. Um, and they had requested a waiver from installing the gas line due to constraints with the utility company.

The decision, which was stamped by the town clerk on December 18th, 2024, states a condition that if gas was installed, they'll update the asill. So, um, at the February 11th planning board meeting, a shy of $10,000 was established. So, the gas line has now been installed. The asbuilt has been updated and our peer consultant with field engineering has signed off on the project. We'd like to close out this

project by releasing the remaining CR fees and the shy balance. So that'll be $10,000 for the shy and about $2,000 for the remainder of the consultant review fees plus interest.

Sorry, plus interest.

Plus interest. Exactly.

You want one motion on this or two?

Well, two, I think two, please.

Two. Uh I move Mr. Chair to close out and release the consultant review fees upon payment of the final field engineering invoice.

Second.

All those in favor?

I I have a another motion on this which is to release the shity and interest also for Rosewood Lane.

Second.

All those in favor? I I Okay, next up is approval not required or ANR file number 26-5111A which is a request by Andrew Kaplan to create three parcels from assessor's plat 63 lot 17 and combine them with lots four five and 16 for land located at zero El Michelle L way.

Uh, good evening. Sean Lee, Northeast Engineers, representing Andrew and Peter Kaplan. This is for a partial land they own on Saudi Pond. Uh, it's a right now a vacant lot. It's basically an unbuildable lot. What the they are doing is dividing this three this small lot up here the entirety being here into three lot or three parcels [clears throat] that are basically just the extension of

these lots and these parcels we will be combined with those lots and added to it. So it's basically a very simple cut up a lot and parcel it out to the three parcels lots. So to be clear, so the parcel to the north is getting a piece.

This parcel is going with this one. This parcel is going with this one. And this smaller parcel is going with this one.

All right.

Any questions, comments?

No.

I'd entertain a motion.

Okay. Mr. Mr. Chair, I would move to endorse the ANR plan for [clears throat] case 265111A as presented on zero Elise Michelle Wei by finding it meets the requirements of Mass General Laws chapter 41 section 81P.

Second.

All those in favor? I I next is approval not required ANR file number 26-5127A request by Shauna Haynes for endorsement of a plan creating a parcel from assessor's plat 45 lot 7 and combining it with plat 45 lot 8 for land located at zero old Horsene neck Mr. Chair, um, seeing as it's 6:15, I think we should come back to the ANR and open the public hearing.

We'll do this.

Okay.

Okay.

They can wait a couple minutes.

Sure.

Uh, good evening engineers representing Sean and Robbie Haynes. We're here tonight. Uh, this this you're probably familiar with this parcel. This is the parcel with the wave traversing from old horse road um going onto the Smith parcel to the north.

What's happening here and this is a two-step process. So tonight we're here to present uh this parcel being cut out with 157 ft of frontage on the way to be combined with the Hannes parcel which is in the back. So I think you're familiar with uh what's going on there. This is a landport parcel. So the first step in this process is to get the endorsement of the planning board. We're cutting out

this lot. This has to go to the land court and then we'll be coming back with probably a very the exact same plan with just some slight changes whatever land court requests uh in a couple of weeks uh basically for for this parcel. Land court wants to see that this meets the requirement of the town. you know, it's an ANR plan and that we'll probably come back. We'll be requesting some

monumentation be placed on this lot as to land for uh when we move forward.

So, the the intention is to combine that parcel lot two. Yes.

With lot two.

Lot two is going to be combined with this plat 45 lot 8 uh which is the Hannes parcel in the back here.

Right. And again the reason uh to create a frontage on this way this is solving that driveway problem but we we couldn't grant right we maintain the 50t width coming onto the parcels as required by zoning and it says 150 ft plus another 50 ft uh over here and this will solve the problem I would hope. I think it will. Uh, so where does that road connect, Sean?

So it connects it. It actually showed up on the land plan and the petition plan shows this as a way. And if you read the actual certificate for this parcel, they recognize this as a way, but they don't recognize who has rights on the way. So the part the most probable is this parcel here and probably another parcel heading out to Division Road.

So it would connect to division road not to uh horse neck road.

No for neck.

This is old horse neck road new horse neck road. So it comes off of course neck road traverses the property and goes out and vision road being on this side over here.

I just was confused by the gap in the uh oh that's because of a shading thing for this thing. But there, like I said, will we be coming back? Uh because Lancor will want to specify the way and the rights and everything on here and also specify some type of monumentation. I'm sure on this GIS over aerial show the way going all the way across. I was Yeah, I looked at that. So,

right, just to remind everybody that that parcel to the bottom right was looking for right? Looking to build a house on the western end of it uh with a driveway that came off of that ancient way but did not touch the property.

Yeah. You're you're familiar with the uh the solar field and the vision road. The way is supposed to come through there uh and it connects if you're familiar with the land used to walk uh this way that comes through.

Mhm. uh and goes all the way through every year after they're having Super Bowl Sunday to get to the Right. Right.

Yeah.

Okay.

I didn't entertain a motion.

Mr. Uh, chair, I vote to endorse the ANR plan for Zero Old Horsene Neck Road, case 26-5127A, as presented, finding it meets the requirements of Mass General Laws, Chapter 41, [clears throat] section 81P.

Second.

All those in favor? I I Thank you.

So, next up is the 6:15 public hearing.

for Old Harbor Road file number 26-4922 SPA-LID comma 26-4925 SP- FFF and 264927 SP- CD which is a request by Longbuilt Homes and Charles Merrill [clears throat] uh and two others for LI site plan approval and special permits for common driveway and flexible frontage at 425 435 461 and zero Old Harbor Road map 87 lots 2 3 and five including creation of nine lots and associated development So

this is uh a continuation of a previous meeting and uh I don't remember the date.

No, it's not.

That was preliminary.

Okay.

So this is excuse me.

Do you want a motion to open a public?

Yes, please. Uh Mr. Chair, I uh move to open the public hearing for 435 B Old Harbor Road.

Second.

All those in favor? I I This is the public hearing for all three.

Right.

That's what I meant to say. I do.

Okay. Good evening. Uh Tom Morris with Zen Consulting Engineers. Um so the the development is asking for two special permits and site plan approval as you said um for flexible frontage development with common driveways.

A yield plan has been presented that shows a conventional subdivision um creating 13 lots.

Um and what we are proposing with flexible front edge is nine. Um trying to reduce impact to the site while also reducing cost. So it it makes sense for the developer kind of either way. So it's a it's a better design having less impact.

Um so yeah, go down to the grading sheet.

So, it's three driveways each serving three houses. Um, there are for for the existing conditions, there's a there's a large open field area with house number 435 and a few out buildings. Um we are utilizing the access of the existing driveway for one of the common driveways and extending that back to two more houses.

Uh the drainage has been designed to be infiltration and detention combination basins. Um there's five on the site, three down along the road, one in the middle of the site, one out back where the Rhode Island property line, the drainage has been designed in conformance with the town and state uh regulations including the volume requirement of the town to not increase the 10-year flow of volume.

And we've gone above and beyond that with the basin here on the south side to reduce the volume up to the 100redyear storm. Um and that was done I think I presented this during the preliminary because when we looked at the existing culverts which are the design points for the outfalls um it heads right in the direction of an existing garage of one of the abutters across the street. So we wanted to

reduce that as much as possible um even beyond what's required.

And then it also meets the town's requirement of 80% rate reduction in the larger storms 25 and 100red-year storms in all design points.

Um, one thing that came up in the I think it was just the town's comments was that the existing culverts were being used as drainage mitigation.

Um, I just want to clarify that they're not being used to mitigate any storm water. They are points of reference in the design where we're saying we have 10 cubic feet per second of rainfall runoff going to it in the existing state and then we're using that point of the cover to make sure that we're reducing flow going to it. um so they'll be less inundated because there are existing

drainage issues there now. So it should help with the function. Um we're also proposing along with it to clean, repair, replace as necessary because a couple of the coverts there are in rough shape, partially buried, broken.

So, we'd like to clean those up as part of obviously that'll be part working with DPW to kind of do it how they want it.

Uh, we've received the first review from MDL along with the staff findings.

Um, it's lengthy, but the key issues are not very numerous, put it that way. Um, there's a handful I'd like to discuss.

I have plenty. I don't know if you're ready for questions or Of course. Yeah.

Okay. So, um, the applicant has been signed by Charles Merrill and by Rebecca Smith, I think that's her name.

Um, as trustee of both other trusts that own these two parcels. Uh, and the planners tell me that they can't find any reference to Rebecca Smith at the registry of deeds as one of the owners or the trustee of of one of those um trusts that the nominee trust in one of these other two parcels.

And secondly, one of the the we've been informed by the uh collector of taxes that uh one of these lots is in tax title.

Okay.

So technically the trust doesn't own it at the moment. So the town does and I don't think the town is a signature to the application.

The town owns it or nothing. Is it just a lean or does the town own it?

The document says, "This land is taken because taxes as defined in chapter 60, section 43 assessed on the property of Lynn Poland trustee tour behavior nominee trust 435 Old Harbor Road uh were not paid within 14 days after the demand for payment was made upon then fallen trustee.

After notice of intention to take the land was given as required by law, they remain unpaid along with interest and incidental expenses and cost to the date of taking as follows. It gives the amounts. So I'm not a lawyer. I don't know what that means, but it it's it's a problem.

So do you know anything about this? I don't [clears throat] least represent one's homes. A tax taking isn't uh transferring title to the town. The town doesn't own the property. Um the tax taking can be uh removed by the uh payment of taxes and the amounts owed. In order for you to own the property, you have to auction the property. It's not doesn't happen through a tax taking a dog procedural tax taking.

It takes a while.

Yeah. So, but anyway, that that's that's one of the issues. The other is u we have no idea if the correct trustee have signed the application for these two lots and the I'll speak on that issue too. She she has been appointed an accepted appointment and they neglected to record those documents. Um I'll provide those documents to you. They're supposed to be recorded. They were supposed to be

recorded today. I didn't get the recorded documents today, but I'll provide those to uh the top planner.

So, and also because it's a nom both of them are nominee trust, right?

Um it it doesn't mean that that new trustee has the ability to sign for this. I mean to commit the the u the lot to u be part of this decision and um I think it was suggested that that the beneficiaries have to sign that she it depends on what the it depends on what the trust gives her for powers right so both of them are nominee trusts unless that's changed

I I'm not I'm not sure. We'll we'll investigate that.

Okay.

[clears throat] And what I'd like to do, I mean, not just look at this picture, is go over the bylaw and and you tell me how you comply.

So uh the design standards are retain existing roads and laneways and we know from previous um information that there's a farm road that goes through here.

Yep. Um, and so the project shall retain, reuse, and/or enhance existing farm roads in laneways rather than construct new roads or driveways in order to minimize clearing and disruption of the landscape and shall take advantage of the existing lanes and shall foster the use of low impact development techniques and shall minimize loss of significant large trees or I'm Sorry.

Sorry about that.

Sorry to self-destruct in 10 seconds.

There it won't do it again. Uh so in stone walls and shall lessen the disturbance of existing topography.

So I know this that existing laneway and you can see it on this plan.

Y um describe how you're you're complying with this section A 6 8.6.38.

So we are using the existing driveway here. I just want to reiterate that um to limit disturbance.

The trails that you have going through the back of the parcel here do not connect out to Old Harbor on our parcel.

So there's no way to use it as an access point. Um and it doesn't begin until you get up to the crest of the hill. So, the majority of where we're proposing the driveway is completely outside of anywhere that could be reused.

Um, and just where they're located, it's not really feasible to unless we completely change the roads to clear out more area and kind of cluster the houses together.

It would be a very strange setup. It's not really feasible to use these lanes for what the driveway is.

It also talks about preserving them and the right to use them by whoever has the right to use them. So, um, with your layout of where the houses are, I believe at least one or two of the houses are planted right on top of this.

Is that true?

Yeah. Um, we go to the casting again for one of those homes. Uh, yeah, nobody actually uh has any uh right to use those. Anybody using those language at this point would be a trespasser.

There's no there's with we've examined the title. There's nothing on record that gives anybody the right to use that property for those purposes.

Okay. So, B, reduce potential number of driveways.

Um, so we've done that by doing the common driveways and we would put more houses like we could do the six houses on one driveway, but the the common driveway bylaw says only three houses on one driveway. So, we've reduced it as much as we can.

Right. The intention is to reduce the number of curve cuts on the public road.

And this is three versus the two for a subdivision. Correct.

Correct. And if I guess I don't know if you have the the power or you'd be willing to make it uh I don't know if it' be a waiver or variance for the common driveway.

It is potential that we could have these two come together.

Um but then it would be against what's written in the bylaw that it serves a maximum of three. I I don't think we have the power to do that nor I don't think I would have the intention to do that. it become a subdivision road as opposed to a driveway.

Right. So that's why we reduce it as much as we can.

Okay. Uh C. Preserve stone walls and edge of field vegetation.

The project shall preserve existing stone walls and edge of field vegetation. As these traditional landscape features define open space edges in a natural way and maintain corridors useful for wildlife, using these features as property lines may also be appropriate to establish lot line boundaries if this does not require constructing buildings and otherwise sensitive locations.

So, so we reduce impact to stone walls as much as possible.

Um, I don't know if you still have the presentation plan from the preliminary, but it shows uh we showed a a length of stone wall to be removed in several locations, all being relatively short.

Um, and one of the staff comments was that the disturbed wall areas, those stones should be reused to create a new stone wall in another location and that's not a problem. We can add that on.

So um so I guess the question would be can you identify every existing stone wall and existing edge of field vegetation and what is being removed and what is being retained.

Yeah. So, we've done that on the presentation plan and I can just keep Yeah, I could provide it again. Um, and we're going to have some modifications based on the MVL review.

So, we're retaining over 94% of the stone walls on the property. There's 28 uh 2,820 linear feet. We're retaining 2,660 linear feet. Um and then that 120 uh linear feet will be reused um on another portion of the site.

And then the edge of field Oh, here it is. Yeah. So we have existing edge of field vegetation where this existing field in the back of the houses or the house and the outuildings meet the existing tree line that's being retained. None of those trees are being cleared.

So all of the existing hedge field vegetation that is on the site will be retained.

Okay. Uh D site buildings carefully. The project sells site buildings either at the edges of fields or in a wooded area.

However, septic systems and leech fields may be located in fields. Buildings and clearing of land shall be designed and performed to minimize tree canopy pre penetration and to avoid crest lines of hills as seen from public places and public and private roads.

Wherever practicable, the project shall open up views to survey building only through the selective cutting of small trees and pruning lower branches of large trees to create a filtered view and shall not use clear cutting involving the removal of large areas of growth or the removal of mature trees exceeding 24 in DBH.

So, actually, could you go back to the presentation?

So, you can see we've got the dark green is the tree line. Um, we're trying to clear only out around the houses and some of these areas are a little bit bigger just from where the drainage is going. Um, especially down here with the S that we put into the driveway and then keeping the trees coming out toward that bend. We're trying to screen from the road. Um, and then again, we have another

staff comment about landscaping that's required. Um, we can certainly add that in. I kind of wanted to talk with you about what type of vegetation we'd like to see. Um, but the along the along the road where the basins are being put in, we'll propose a row of plantings to help screen the basin from the road as well.

Okay. But I'd like to particularly uh direct your attention to uh buildings Buildings and clearing of land shall be dis designed and performed to minimize tree canopy pres penetration and to avoid crest lines of hills as seen from public spaces. So many of the houses on the west side are at the crest of the hill.

Yeah. So how does that how does that comply?

So we are putting this this house is going where the existing house is going.

Um and these two houses are kind of being put back as far as we can.

Um, and my thought when reading that regulation is to not impact views from the public road.

And here that the crest of the hill is 20 ft above, minimum of 20 ft above the road and then drops back down. So there's no view from the road that is being blocked um aside from the sky. Like there's nothing that you can see from the road, especially with once you get out of the existing field location, you've got all the trees here now. You're not seeing anything from the road now. So we're not

impeding any views. So, if I could uh offer an interpretation of what the bylaw was intended to do, it would be to not have buildings at the crest of a hill because they're really high. Um, and so you don't want to um have them very high, especially on this site where the water table is high.

Right.

Correct.

So, all these houses are going to be popped up in the air and you're going to feel around them, but still they're going to be higher than normal. And if you put them on top of the hill, they're higher yet.

And that seems to be going against how you're supposed to uh deal with our bylaw. So, We'll move on, but I just So, no, I it's it's a it's a good point and we have to come to an agreement on on what's right. Um, the idea the general idea of the bylaw is to reduce impact to the site um to be a low impact development essentially and to reduce the impact to the neighborhood.

Correct. So, we're providing screening from the road. You're not going to be seeing these houses. Um, in the wooded area here, you've got a tree line that's being retained at the back of the abuing houses here on in the front along the road.

Like I said, we have the S here with the tree line to remain. You're not going to be seeing those houses. the sight line that you have down from the road. Any tree with any height is going to block.

Even if the house is way up high on the hill, it's going to block your view. The house isn't going to be up above those trees from your sight line. And the houses here, yes, you'll be able to see these two, but that's because this is an existing field. You can see the whole thing. No matter where we put the houses over here, you're going to see it. Um,

even if we tucked it way back in the corner, you're still going to see it.

Okay, we'll move on. So, E, used existing vegetation and topography to buffer and screen new buildings. The project shall design and locate building envelopes in relation to the road or driveway in a manner historically or visually appropriate to the neighborhood.

The project shall use vegetation as a backdrop to reduce reconstruction, maintenance, or snow removal on any well common lot. No, I'm sorry.

The prominence of the structure. If vegetative buffers are used, a minimum depth of 50 ft of mixed indigenous ground covers, shrubs, and trees shall be provided. The principal structure in any accessory structures shall be grouped on each lot in the cluster where they shall be placed behind tree lines or nles rather than spreading them out across the open landscape in a sprawl pattern. So it's basically the same

thing I just told you about the screening that we're providing. Um trying to keep them out of view, reduce impact to the trees. Um and again here you have no vegetation there. We are going to propose some plantings um to help screen along the road.

F minimize clearing of vegetation. The project shall be designed so as to minimize clearing of vegetation, particularly at the edge of the road that provides access or any other adjacent road and clearing shall be limited only to as much clearing as is necessary to to create a driveway entrance with adequate sight distance and width to safely accommodate residential and emergency vehicles. For

example, the project shall use curves in the driveway to increase screening of buildings from the road.

So the the drainage structures are a particular concern to me because they're right on the road and require a lot of clearing and there's nothing. So there is no alternative to having the basins where they are up along the road because that is the low point.

Um doing drainage, you you have to to get the water into it. It has to be done at the low point. So there's nothing that can be done about that. And we're going to provide as much screening as we can from the road.

And again, I just like to point out that it's It's not going to block a view that you can see now from the road. You'll have a burm coming up, but the entire lot is coming up pretty steeply now, too. So, you're going to be looking at the same thing minus trees, but we'll be adding plantings to help with that.

There's no alternative if you want to build nine houses. You mean correct?

There is an alternative. Well, the alternative is building 13 or less.

But we're already reducing what we can get by.

You're you're reducing from not the existing condition, but from uh the maximum allowed. And so I just challenge that there's no alternative. I think there are alternatives.

Well, any number of houses that go in there, there will be basins along the road.

They will be smaller, yes, but they will be [clears throat] where we're proposing them. No matter what, no matter what development goes in there, the basins will be where they are.

It's just that's just the way the topography works out on site.

I disagree, but let's move on. So, what would you propose?

You could move the basin away from the road and have fewer lots.

Fewer lots doesn't impact where they're located, but if I move them away from the road, sure, possibility physically, but then we're not going to be able to collect the runoff. It's all going to go out to the road, which is not allowed.

Well, so under regulations from state and town, we do have to put them there.

I disagree. I think that if you left that wooded, had less lots and have the drainage for whatever whatever development you're doing, uh, removed from the road and kept it, uh, trees.

I don't see why that's not an option.

Anything you put in, if you clear trees at all, say we put the tiniest house we possibly could and had one single driveway coming up. The second you clear those trees and put any impervious area, you have to collect it or else you're not going to meet drainage requirements.

You can collect it before the trees, not the driveway as it's coming down.

You have to collect.

I don't think a little driveway is going to cause you to have such a huge retention basin. So anyway, I would refer to other people who might know more about that, but I just I I don't take at um face value. You're saying that they have to be there and they have to be the size they are and they require the the clear cutting of trees to do so.

So the size can be reduced if the town bylaws are waved for the volume control. We're not asking for that, but it is possible. Um reducing collecting the volume.

I could lower the elevation of the basin and reduce the size, but that would be a that would be a waiver required. um which you have not wanted to grant on previous projects and I don't know if it makes sense in this case where you have existing drainage issues to wave the volume control anyway.

I think the volume control is really determined by where the water's going after it leaves your site and if it's going into the town right away. Um, I don't see how we would wave that, right? Yeah. I don't think it's a good idea to wave it. I'm just saying that's the the only way that they could be reduced. They're the size they are because of that town regulation and control volume. If it were just a state

requirement, they could be smaller. They could be lower.

Um, but it's just not the way it is for this town, for this site. don't think it makes sense.

And to to just to go back to F a minute, uh the clearing of vegetation.

Mhm.

The bylaw uh references shall shall shall it doesn't give us many opportunities. I think we could change it if we wanted to, but it it's it's a requirement, not a not a uh not a suggestion. So, let's go on to G.

Minimize slope disturbance. The project shall minimize crossing of slopes that exceed 10% with roads and driveways. If necessary to build on a slope, the project shall take advantage of the topography by building multi-level structures with entrances on more than one level, walkout basement, etc., garages, under buildings, rather than grading the entire site flat and by using the flattest portions of the site

for parking areas. So I don't know what your sites what you show on that uh plan is uh very steep.

So it's a the driveways are a maximum of 10%. Um which is essentially exactly what the existing rate is. We're holding very closely with the driveways to the existing rate of the site. Um, like you've already noted, the houses have to be up higher because of groundwater. Um, and if there if there were sewer available here, they could be lower by eliminating basements um, and putting them on slabs. But

because it's septic, regardless of if it's a slab or a basement, the house has to be where it is to get into a gravity fed septic.

So, are you offering to bring sewer down this far?

Uh, I I just think that, you know, the the fill that's in the in the east part of all of these houses um is substantial um and to create these driveways and these house sites, do you have any idea how much fill you're going to have to bring in? I can do an analysis on it and get that number to you, but I don't have it off hand.

Again, the the fill in front of the houses is in relation to what's required for the septic for the tank to get it into the field.

So, we're minimiz we're keeping it as low as we can to meet the regulations for putting in a septic field for each of the houses.

because obviously that's a development thing too like we don't want to put Phil here because that costs money. Um so we are reducing it as much as possible.

And so what's the height of your basement ceiling?

Um right now we have them set up is 7 and 1/2 ft from floor to the ceiling in the basement. the top foundation, which is standard. Um, a lot of houses now are actually putting in 9 foot foundations.

I've seen them 12 ft, which is insane.

But so uh KH the project shall site buildings and develop other areas so as not to block trails or paths traditionally used as access to backland or that are established wildlife corridors. This provision shall not be construed to create any access rights.

So you've already said that the existing trail through the woods who some of Butters to the west have been using forever are not uh an official easement.

Do they have the right to still use them? I don't know. We have a lot of documents that seem to imply that.

wrong.

I think the key document that I've seen at least um is not a recorded document making it not binding as far as I understand it. But uh Lee is an attorney. Um he's gone through this.

He's found that there are no rights to use those trails.

even if they've been using them for 20 years to access their own property.

That doesn't mean they haven't been trespassing for 20 years.

Depends on the circumstance under which they've been using them. If they've been using with permission, um then there's no prescriptive rights. Uh if they've been using them, claiming to have now prescriptive rights, that's up to them.

The courts clearly recognize this unambiguously.

It's up to that party to prove to the court that they have those rights motivated.

I think that the their access date from before Charles Mero owned any of this.

Has nothing to do with No, I mean I think they probably got permission from Reverend Lawrence who owned it previously and let him let them use it.

They very well may have, but he didn't give them legal rights. He gave them permission, right? a temporary use a license.

That's it.

Okay.

Any questions from comments from the um there was reference that the chairman made on on clearance. Uh do you know um how many acres of trees are there now and uh what percentage will be clear?

Yes, I have that on the presentation plan that we provided for the preliminary. We have almost just under 685,000 square ft um of woods existing and then we're retaining three over 350,000 which is just over half of the existing trees.

So about 300 uh,000 square feet are being removed.

Correct.

That's my question. A lot of things.

I'll can I go? I just have one question.

The planners report uh that was provided you guys uh mentions the conservation agent having some concerns around wetlands to the north. Can you point those out?

Could you go to the any any one of our plans?

So, it is located offsite on the other side of the road here. We are in the works to get that delineated. Um, and looking at it preliminarily, the 50ft buffer would basically come right up to the rightway line here and the 100 foot does come out and cover some of this basin. So, we'll have to file an NOI for that. I was just I wanted to confirm that because I couldn't see it like I

saw it on the GIS but I couldn't it wasn't any like I swear I assumed those were but yeah I wanted that was just conservation um I I have a lot of difficulties with this plan and that uh it it uses the site [clears throat] very difficultly and um yes there's a proof plan that shows that you could put a subdivision in um I look um at that uh fairly carefully and um

that would be a real task.

Um the each of these slopes the average slope coming up from the road there is 8 1.5% it's 8.7% there you do your leveling strip at the road and come up at 10% that uh that roadway cut to be compliant with our subdivision would be um in in both cases at its maximum a little more than 5T and you have to chase it up uh 260 28 80 ft to the crest of the hill

before you come back on grade.

Mhm.

And that would have street drainage in it.

And it would this would be a very expensive um subdivision to build and every problem that you have now with the storm water basins and all of that would all be magnified by this. Now you put in approved plan then you produce a this plan that creates nine lots.

Now, this plan requires a special permit and and I know you know this this idea that we have regulations that um uh require volume reductions and heightened storm water uh controls from the state regulations. And the reason we do that is the town has no infrastructure.

It it's all well for you to say if you were sewers, we wouldn't have to do this. If we had water, we wouldn't have to do this. If we had drainage, we wouldn't have to do that.

The town in its large measure is a very rural community, right? And I understand and that's why I said I [clears throat] I said in the same breath that I don't think it makes sense to ask for a wave on those, right? So [clears throat] I I think I think they make sense for this development.

So we look at these the reason we have these regulations as we're we're um we have the character of the town which is highly valued that we want to preserve and then we have our obligations to um uh plan for growth and and make sure that it fits with with the infrastructure that we have. Um and when I looked at your the presentation plan, there's some things that um in these storm water basins, you

show the clearing line inside the basin.

So if you look at your calculations, your flooding areas that that if this plan here, you'll see that the tree line is right up against the dyke that you built. But but if you were to capture the water in that, you'd actually be flooding inside that tree line and that happens behind the two existing houses.

It happens in the big one. It happens in a little basin down there that you show the grading.

Um but essentially you have this very steep hill coming down. You build a dyke on this end and then catch the water in in that area. The plain fact of the matter is when you go to build that, they're going to tear those trees out and and create that basin. I mean, if we look at some saltwater basins everywhere around this town, that the the the forest isn't retained inside those

basins. So, you know, it's one thing to show that you could do that, but but it's probably not physically possible.

So, um could I just address that before you move on?

Sure.

Um it is unconventional. We don't typically do this, but we have done it a few ca in a few cases in other towns.

Um, and we have been able, the contractor has been able to physically create it.

Um, the reason we did it is to try to retain some trees. Um, and it actually will help a bit with u runoff from the site size of the basin. um as well as some treatment from the runoff you get from the yard that goes directly down. You get more vegetation.

But essentially when they go to construct this, they're going to create a small level area down at the bottom here and then build up the dyke like you said. Um and then back down to the slope, meet the slope down at the bottom.

So, we're building it on three sides. It will retain the water. Um, and we we've seen that it is physically capable of not clearing trees to do that.

Well, um, you you know, I um I I know how this is done.

Um, now I'm um, you know, I've seen a lot of stuff built.

Mhm. So, um, and it's it's one thing to draw it, it's another thing to build it.

Um, and and it's our job to make sure that uh we we we take whatever precautions we can. Now, in in looking at the drainage structures, um the the big basin down at the U corner, um it it has no pipe in it. It's uh its discharge is only controlled by the overflow we and then down a rock face and and then the water has to be smart enough to come down that rock face and

find its way into that drain. So there there's going to be some some work that needs to be done along the road to to tie these things together. Yeah, that was one of the MBL uh recommendations was to add a small sunk below the culprit there and I did look at that.

We're able to provide that.

Yeah. And and and I I saw their comments and and also the basin that's behind the the two houses on Old Hab Road.

Um it's it's its basin outlet just dumps onto the ground. I know you've knocked the flow down, but my experience has been is that when you the while the calculations work once you put that pipe out and on a 9% slope, the water is wise and and it finds it creates its own channel to the road.

And you know, I can show you maybe two or three thousand examples where that happens. So the the idea of of of capturing these theoretically knocking the peak down and then discharging it onto a very steep slope is is a dangerous idea and not likely to work well. So I mean I I will go through all the calculations in detail but but basically I think this plan is working the site very hard and

and and also the reason it's a special permit is that is that our obligations if we grant you the special permit is that we have to find that it's more beneficial to the than if you were to do the subdivision.

That's that's the goal. The reason we grant special permits for you is that there has been some benefit to the town.

So that's the test we have to have and and I'm I'm not there. I don't see the benefit to the town right at the moment.

And also I was just thinking if just my consulting engineer hat if you did nothing but come in with an ANRI plan you could get six house lots why we I I don't get the economics of tearing this whole site apart for nine lots if you when when you have sufficient frontage to get six lots and one of them you could wrap a lot around the existing house and sell

you know you could put and we would not have any we don't have control over approvals not required plans and you you could get a plan and put for sale signs on it we can't nothing we can do we can't we're not trying to stop people from using their land we're trying to make people use their land wisely [clears throat] Um, not that it's not a that is perfectly viable option. Um,

but I just like to point you're probably saying that because it would be less impactful. Um, good. If you combine that with common driveways, you could have one drive the existing driveway you could use that and you could do another common driveway over there and next thing you know, you only got two curb cuts in the whole street.

Drainage will still be required. um to meet really.

Yes. Once you really It's not the way it's always been enforced, but it's the way D is enforcing it now. Four maze count. If you break four lots, if you go up to five, you still have to meet full state storm water.

Well, we couldn't we couldn't enforce it.

The board of health would still enforce it. You have to look Oh, yeah. You you it is it isn't a get out of ticket. It isn't a get out get out of jail free god. You've got to do capture the rainwater. You've got to do all those kinds of things. But that's everybody does that, right? I'm just saying you'll have similar impact. You'll have the basins along the road like we're proposing now.

you'll have significantly reduced impacts if this if this were six whatever this is you know so four four acre lots or something and it would still be a special permit doing the common driveways as well so you'd rather have six driveways than three and that much more pave service that much more runoff what I'm saying the ability for home owners to clear what I'm saying ability for home owners

We could certainly speak.

You know, the board doesn't uh what what I was suggesting is that if you did a common driveway, you could have one additional curb cut. You do a common driveway for the three lots on this side. You do you use the existing driveway and you make it a common driveway for the three lots on that side. You got two curve cuts. One of them already exists. You get a new curve

cut. But with an ANR plan of six lots, the those homeowners all have the the right and the ability to do separate driveways.

They could. Yeah. So they could.

Doesn't seem to make sense to me. It seems what we're trying to accomplish.

Develop or it's a difference. It's just a difference of opinion, sir.

Okay.

So I think the disconnect we're having right now is that we're trying to do this development to reduce impact to the site, which is the benefit to the town.

That's the whole point of the flexible frontage and the common driveway. So, we're doing everything that we can to reduce impact here um while still reasonably using the lot.

Um we are reducing. Yes, the subdivision would be very difficult. Is it possible also? Yes.

So, and that would be a complete lots of things are possible that are not economic.

Correct. But it's also far more impact. It would be clear cutting the entire thing to provide drainage everywhere.

I'm not recommending it.

I know, but I'm just So maybe the bigger problem is we we came in with a preliminary and we've discussed all this and now it seems like you've kind of taken more aggressive approach to this against it.

Um, we seem to be somewhat on the same page with the preliminary and now everything's a contest. Um, and it's not what we want. We're trying to do the right thing. Um, well, I I don't see how we don't know if I was ever on the same page, but um, you're you're entitled to your impression at the board. the the concerns that are being brought up tonight were not brought up at least in

the same regard that they are tonight.

So if if there is a differing opinion and we you don't think this is viable because it's too impactful um then we have to reassess. Um, but we are doing what we can to try to minimize impact.

So when you say minimize impact, you show us the plan with 13 lots and say it will we could do this and what we're proposing is less impact than the 13 lots.

What Bob Daylor said is, well, that's not the only option. You could do ANRS for six lots and then you're talking about your proposal has more impact. So, you're setting a benchmark of what you can do with 13 lots and then saying that's what we can do and we're less bad than that. That's essentially what the that's what the bylaw is created for. It says to create the bylaw very well.

It's this is what all of these in every town these cluster subdivisions everything like that open space should be public.

They are you create your yield plan that's the number of lots you can get.

In this case we're less. We have no problem with that because we have reduced infrastructure.

So, it's it's a it's an offset for us that pretty much equals out um give or take, but it's a reduction in impact on the site by reducing clearing, reducing runoff that goes to these basins, the size of the basins.

And if that's not something that we can agree on, then the there's really nowhere to go with this aside from doing a new development.

Okay. So, um if there's no more from the board, I'm going to open it up to the public. So, uh, the deal is you're talking to us and to me and not to him.

And you're not asking questions of him.

You're asking them through the chair.

And I want to limit it to 5 minutes each. And please don't repeat everything somebody else said. So, if anybody else would like to come and please identify yourself and your requests.

Hi, Paul and Karen Long, 453 Old Harbor Road. We're at Butters. We're one of those front houses. So, before I get into my talking points, what Robert brought up about water potentially coming down into our land is one of our major concerns. Um, we're not opposed to building and having new neighbors. We're new to Westport. We've been here for a year. So, we welcome it. But, I just

want to make sure it's done right. And, you know, some of the points that we have are, you know, the flexible frontage that you talk about. Just make sure we know it's discretionary. It's a special permit.

And so, it does not have to be done for nine lots. When the 13 lots came up, I was this first time I saw the third potential 13 subdivision. That really scared me. Nine is also a lot. Um, by having all the discretionary uh frontage also, you know, that was made to have larger lots. That was made to have large lots. What this is doing and we look at the lot size of the eight

or nine areas seem to be right on the edge to squeeze anything you can into the area that they have and also I think it's within surveying error that you have to go look at that. So I just make sure you want to look at that.

The last point well is the common driveways. Um, I think this is supposed to be capped at 500 ft with a 10% grade with 3% at the beginning.

We live up on a hill, it seems to be a pretty steep grade. So to go the houses behind us, I think also would maybe over that 10% grade. Just wanted to make sure you check all that. Appreciate what you're doing. Uh, we welcome neighbors, but we just want to make sure it's done right.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Uh my husband took part of what I was going to say, but having been in one of the two homes on that part of Old Harbor Road, um the grade the difficulty we have getting out of our driveway can be pretty treacherous, especially in the summer months when the road gets very crowded. Um our neighbors, the camps who are here, they have a mirror. We are also going to get a mirror. So, nine homes could

potentially mean 18 cars coming in and out of that very short stretch of road that is very windy, very narrow, no shoulder bikers motorcyclists people are coming up from the beach area, going very fast down the road. I've had a couple of near misses just going to get my mail. So, I can't imagine that number of cars navigating that stretch of road, that very short stretch of road. Having

said that, like my husband, I welcome new neighbors, but I wasn't as concerned about the water before I got here, but I'm very concerned about our property and the impact that it's our backyard.

Will our backyard become a lake? I don't know.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

So, my name is Ryan Kim. This is my wife, Jamie Kim, and we live in that house there. Uh, we moved in 2012 into the house and been there for 14 years.

Um, our kids have grown up in that house and it's um we we definitely can um appreciate the the wild nature of the area, the stone walls, the if if could you pull up the the picture of the green or in what they're kind of the pre and the post of the forest the green if you can I mean I'm actually surprised um it looks like if you include I mean this

is all primary forest here and it's also just um lots of big trees lots of wildlife, but I don't understand how this is maybe I'm sure the math is right, but it looks like more than halfway is going away. But um even if it's not, I guess um it it really is just that sort of going to dramatically change the I can't remember the words in that in that that that the clause in in

the in the town bylaws, but it just it's going to dramatically change the the [clears throat] view from the road, the the um the the drains. This is all feeding at a sea grade all the way down the West River which is like literally here. It's a very it's not a very short distance in a sea grade. Um so I worry about the nitrogen from the septics not just for us but then the river but also

um we've had flooding in our basement probably three or four times. This is all primary forest back here right now.

I just can't even imagine the hardcapes the driveway even with as you said water finds a way. She found a way into our house three times and like math like 2 ft of water in our basement when this is now houses three houses behind us instead of primary forest. I mean can you imagine um we have stone walls here that run into into these woods. Um that's I I I guess so to protect some of

that they're going to take remove some of them rebuild the stone walls which were built hundreds of I can't even imagine that but um this is very concerning and and um even some of the trees they're having here in the area behind these these these drainage basins there's going to be a flood zone in front of like uphill from that I just don't see how a 100 foot tree is going

to survive that but I they have the green there so it's fun that but I we're very concerned and you know I agree that like there's only so front to General Harbor Road is a fast road and we just don't want I mean, you know, I think whether it's six or four I I just feels like totally different than the entire area. Um we've seen some of the other roads that Long's done in Westport and

we know what that looks like and it's again house is fine, but it's you know nine houses I guess just feels like there's only so much function but um anyway appreciate your consideration and that's good. Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. Uh my name is Rose White. I'm the a butter to the north of the property that director butter. Um so I'm the owner of uh 415 Old Harbor.

Um right there.

Um, and I did I I wrote down my comments.

I'm going to read them just to and I'll and I'll try to be quick. Um, uh, I am just learning about this proposed project after getting a notice from the towns who have not had a lot of time to review and understand the proposed plan.

Um, I have not heard directly from the developer or owner about the plan. So, I'm doing my best to interpret what has been filed with the town. I understand and support the goal to create new housing and would welcome new neighbors at the property um because it sat vacant for a number of years. Um reviewing the plan, it appears that many of the new houses, including the two houses that

are proposed j adjacent to my property, would be built at levels that are higher than the current grades. the house proposed closest to my property, which is that one. Um, uh, is it's about 150 ft from my home, is designed to be built on top of a steep new BM rising up from the property line. Um, which would be a significant change to the site in addition to the overall height of the buildings. I'm

concerned about drainage and other impacts from this proposed grade change and and also to the the impact the visual impact of having a building that's basically about 50 that the top of it would be about 50 ft higher than the than the current grade. Um I would ask that the proposed building elevations be shared with the abutters and with the planning board. Um uh and that the new buildings be built at the

current grade and that the grading of each house site not be built up. Um I would also ask that the new homes be built with basements below the current grade to minimize the height of the new buildings and mitigate the impact on a butters and the street. Um and I agree with the staff concern noted about changes to the grade of the ridge. Um, I am also concerned and have questions

about the impact of the building of a burm along Old Harbor Road and how changing the grade adjacent to my property will affect the drainage and flooding on my property. I agree with the concerns of the conservation agent about impact on on the wetlands and drainage. As this is an issue on the northern end of the site, the area close to the road often fills with water. If that is built up, I'm concerned that

water may instead fall on my property um where it's so much lower than the than the site. Um I would ask that the planning board consider having a peer review of the engineering plan.

Um, finally, I would also ask that the developer host a meeting with neighbors and abutters to review their plans and hear comments and answer questions before any action is taken by the planning board. Um, this plan would bring significant change to this section of Old Harbor Road. The site is surrounded by conservation land in Westport and Little Compton. I urge the planning board to carefully consider how

this site will be built to ensure that it is developed in a way that both creates needed new homes while minimizing impact on residential abuters and ensuring there is no adverse impact to the conservation lands that abut abut much of the site. Um, I strongly support the creation of new housing here and would ask that the planning board continue this hearing to allow time for the developer to listen and respond to

questions and concerns noted by by staff, community members, and others while any before any approval is granted. Um, thank you very much. And I will I'll leave a copy of this.

Okay. answer one of your comments. Uh this is being submitted to a consulting engineer.

Oh, wonderful. Okay.

Next.

Um I'm Josie Wllom. I live across the street at 460 Old Harbor Road and I've been there since the fall of 1978.

And in the 40ome years I've been there, I've never had a drainage problem. Never had water in my basement. And of course, we do have a lot of French drains in our yard. But my issue is basically with drainage coming from nine houses across the street. And my other issue would be nine new wells and nine new septic systems. How impactful that would be. Um you know at the harbor of the water um

you know there has been a water issue not in our area but further down the road. So that's one of the issues I have. I worry about erosion too from all this drainage.

And I also think nine houses, it's just not in keeping with the neighborhood. It's abnormal for the neighborhood. Then I don't think there's any reason for this level of variance. It seems that every by law that Mr. Whiten mentioned, there was a reason like, well, this is how we could do it instead. So, um, I'm totally against the project and I don't mind some houses. I have some neighbors over

the years. I've gotten many new neighbors and they're great. But I think nine new houses in that plot of land is just way too many.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I need to get her name. I couldn't get her name.

Um, Josie Wen.

W L.

Okay. Thank you.

Anybody else?

Yes. Uh Tim Renie, uh resident at 303 Old Harbor, uh for the last 5 years, but long term with uh this actually this property. Uh, interestingly, I had it under agreement with Reverend Lawrence many years ago and prepared plans and talked with Reverend Lawrence about the easements. And I have a totally different opinion of that easement that cuts through their property because it did go to Old Harbor Road. It has just

not been continued there. But both in writing and in terms of fact, it was, you know, went through the property and connected. In fact, the proposals that we discussed, which never came to a planning board approval, but with Reverend Lawrence and then actually with Charlie Merrill, the owner, current owner, an applicant here, who has seen all of these plans, who I've actually presented these to him in years past,

and he found them admirable, was to come through in as the bylaw indicated along that old laneway to maintain that as a and to come in through that property to access some of the property working with the existing um topography laneways. So, and [clears throat] that we had a totally different opinion, legal opinion regarding that easement and the rights.

We did not consider it abandoned at all.

We were looking to work with that. So I would question uh their legal opinion that that is a hard and fast rule where currently a couple houses are. Uh in addition, we also talked about and showed them at the ANR lots approval, which was, you know, you have the ability to put six lots, create larger lots, and to deal with gravel driveways and other things that are more in keeping with the area and actually

favored by residents who choose to come to Westport in this area. So, um that lays out very nicely. Charlie's seen those plans. He's he's got them. they know they can do it. Um, choosing not to do it. I'd say would note that, you know, I don't know all the motivations for Charlie to um, pursue this level of development and almost to threaten as far as I'm concerned a um [clears throat] 13 lot subdivision, you

know, that would tear apart that whole area. But I don't think that's a very effective way to treat your neighbors and to go ahead with getting a project built in Westport. There's also the issue of um perks and water wells and uh how that's going to be impacted and I would say I don't know whether they plan to on these 13 lots or nine lots to basically are they going to sell those lots perked

with wells drilled and knowing their water rates. That's that's a whole another thing. I'll bet you he's not thinking of that. Well, that would be that that would be the homeowner's problem, but it could well be a problem.

And perks were something that both uh Reverend Lawrence didn't want to give.

In fact, I had asked for the time to just three perks and that was basically refused. So, and I know Louisa Dery got involved in the Nature Conservancy about this piece of land being very integral to uh the character of the of the area as well. And um I would hate to see that exploited here and to give into uh you know legal opinions that I I think are questionable and you know so be it. They

want to play hard ball and do 13 lot development. Good luck guys. Uh it's not economical and certainly not in keeping with this area. So I hope they Charlie in particular wises up and considers being a good neighbor.

Thank you. Thank you.

Yes, sir.

[clears throat] Hi, my name is Chris Spicer. I live at 357 Old Harbor, which is about three or four lots to the north towards Adamsville. Um, my grandparents bought that property of 32 acres between Little Compton and Westport 102 years ago. I'm privileged to be a third generation there. And so, um, first of all, thank you for all your attention to the character of the neighborhood, um, all

the specifics around canopy and stone walls and fields and so on and and the many comments made here. So, I want to just kind of make a nod to the broad brush, the the benefit to the town. Um, and part of the benefit for the town is not just our section of town, but it's our partnership with Little Compton. And as you know that whole ridge that newas hill is a fabulous collaboration between a

lot of conservation agencies the little copen a trust the westport land trust nature conserancy uh someone else I'm leaving out there um trustees of reservation um that's protected so much of that hill and so uh this is just an assault on that philosy ophy and that stewardship of the land that we prize in our area um and that my family's been part of for quite a long time. We donated

development rights to the a trust in Little Compton. We've donated a right ofway trail that's going to connect the old harbor refuge to the Little Compton lands through our driveway. Um, so I don't expect that we we all follow this particular path, but this is such a rude kind of um counterpoint to what's been such generous stewardship of the land. So, thank you for your time.

Thank you. Thank you.

Is there anybody else?

Okay. So, I'm going to go back one step and talk about the flexible frontage on these lots. So, there's been questions about why do we do this? Why do we why do we allow uh lots that are uh have less frontage?

And uh the whole point of granting the applicant reduced frontage is supposed to be a better land use result than conventional development, not simply fitting more unusual shaped lots onto the property. So there's nine lots here. Lot number one uh has 100 has proposed front 100 ft and the minimum per our formula for the lot size would be 89,991 ft. Their proposed lot size is 103,528

which is compliant with this bylaw.

Number two, the the metrics are it's 146 ft of frontage. Uh the minimum lot size would be 61,000 odd feet and they're proposing 80,000 square ft. Lot three is 101 ft wide at the frontage. Uh the minimum would be 88,000 square ft for that lot. They are proposing 120,000 square ft. Lot 4, uh they're proposing 60.96 feet of frontage. The requirement then would be 147,000 square ft and they're uh proposing 150,000.

Lot five is 65,000 65 ft uh at the street. Uh the requirement would be 38,000 and they're proposing 140 144,000.

Lot 7 complies with our bylaw for frontage and area. Lot 6 uh is 121 ft and the requirement would be 74,000 ft and the lot size is 115,000 ft. Lot 8 is 100 ft uh frontage. The requirement would make it 89,000 or 90,000 square of square ft. And they're proposing 125,000 square ft. And lot 9 complies with 150 foot frontage and 60,000 square ft. So, so there are there are parts of their application that comply

with the bylaw in terms of lot size and the number of shared driveways. The questions still remain about the compliance with the um the other aspects of the bylaw and I think you mentioned that you'd want to have a continuence to change something.

Well, sir, yeah, we have the review letter from the review engineer. we have some technical items to to do with that, but then also with your input, we want to provide more plantings to provide screening. Um, so we're looking for input on if there was any specific plantings, areas for plantings that you would like to see. Um, so I I wanted to Yeah. So, I'd also like to respond to your reply that uh you had

to have the retention basins right on the road on I don't know which lot this is. I can't tell. But the the one with the existing house and it looks like you have a retention basin removed from the road.

Removed.

Well, away from the road on the left.

You got to go up. It's this over here.

So up there. Is that the septic?

This is a septic.

That's a septic.

All right.

Mr. Mr. Chair, I just have a question.

As you were going through the proposed lot size and the minimum lot size, I wasn't looking at this. I was looking at the plan. They and those numbers are different really.

Uh so lot one for example, which proposed lot size in the table says 103528 on the plan it says 90,27.

So, and almost all of them, uh, the table lists, uh, the proposed lot size is significantly bigger than the plan does.

That that's on on the proposal that's before us.

You're correct.

So I I think the bottom line was that they're still compliant, but it was just narrower margins.

I think one of the speakers said you may need to get things surveyed because they're within a margin of error survey.

They're very close, but I think uh they still comply, but I I don't think by as much of a margin as the table does.

Well, actually looking at the table on the footnote around that table on what whatever sheet this is, uh it's the footnote is is lots 2,7 and nine have standard required frontage 150. And then the application and the review says that only seven and nine have frontage meet the frontage requirements.

So I think we need to go back and correlate between the drawings and the plan to make sure which one is accurate.

So just looking at this I think was lot two was the one we have the yes the discrepancy with. Um, if you go back to the front edge there, Mhm.

the number you're looking at, the 146 is only a portion of the front edge. You have a section here on a different bearing that brings you up over the 150.

It's just separated because there's a bend in the road there, but you do have the total frontage.

Mr. Chair, could I make a general comment, sir? Um could you you bring up the uh uh green and dark green plan with forest?

So um one I I have three points I want to make. One is that um one way to look at that is whatever you said it's about a 50% reduction in in area. Mhm. Um and the reason we there are a lot of reasons we value forest. Uh they absorb carbon dioxide etc etc. Um but they're also habitat for living creatures that need to move around.

And so um and to move around they need continuous cover.

Um and so on the left slide there there's significant amount of continuous cover. on the right side you may have 50% of the trees but they're so carved up that uh you don't get the continuity that is important at least for some species. That's first point. Second point is um and I I'm repeating myself from our last meeting I think is that you representing the developer look at at the boundaries of the lot line and

say what what's the most I can do here.

Uh we as the Westport planning board look at Westport, not just the boundaries of of this um and uh the laws pertain that our chairman went through pertain to the boundaries, but we're also not in the back of our mind, in the front of our mind. Uh thinking about how does this fit in Westport because that's our charge is Westport. it's not this law. And um and so we think of things

that sometimes are spelled out in the laws uh and sometimes aren't about does this fit in a neighborhood because fit is like beauty, right? It's in the eye of the beholder. Does it does it fit?

Everyone here might have a different view on that. Um and but a number of the complaints or observations from the neighbors are that this does not fit in addition to worries about things like drainage. And the the last thing I I would say is that uh almost everyone said I I would welcome new neighbors.

And neighbor is like my favorite word of all time because a neighbor you can't be a neighbor by yourself. you can only be a neighbor in relationship to some other neighbor. You care for each other, you know, you pick up the newspaper when they're away. It's neighbors is about a relationship.

And um as one of the commenters said uh one of the existing neighbors said um the uh what what you can do with 13 lots is perceived as a threat and it's rude.

Now, those uh words don't appear in our laws, but uh that determines whether this fits in a neighborhood. You know, you don't get off to a good start if you threaten and if you're rude. Um so um several people suggested or maybe it's only one my memory is not what it used to be uh that this be continued so discussions could happen maybe some trust could be built and listening could

occur and um you know the idea is that whether it's uh six homes or nine or 13 that these are going to be people in a neighborhood. Uh a and they I assure you are going to want to be part of the neighborhood. Um and so how you develop this is going to make it easier for them or harder for them. Uh so I I think the uh discussion among uh the developer and

and other neighbors who've been here from one year to what 130 years is that two you yourself 102 102 yeah is uh you know that's probably everyone can learn from that. So, um, if that's what we would get with some time, you know, I I think might be worth continuing to allow that process to see where it might go. It might not lead to an answer, by the way. Might not.

Um, those are my thoughts, Mr. Chair. I would like to say I I apologize if I came across threatening um the 13 lots.

I don't intend it to be that way. I do see how it could be taken that way. Um, the intent of me bringing that up is just that it's it's part of the process for these for permitting these and it's my comparison. It is the comparison point to a reduced reduced impact development. So, that's our stance. We're not I'm not trying to threaten um I'm trying to point out what is [clears throat] allowed by right and

what we're trying to do.

So the 13 lot is allowed by right but with conditions.

Correct.

So it's not as if you can just do whatever you want.

Right.

Nothing. just looking for the continuence date.

Yeah. So, yeah. Um the other thing that as we're considering continuence is at the same time we've applied for ANRS on all nine lots and um we don't have much discretion when we have ANRs before us but we're not we're not considering the ANR at this moment because we didn't open that thing But after we close this, we're going to have to consider the ANR that you applied for for the nine lots. Uh, and they usually

when we have a uh flexible frontage that gets approved first and then you go get the ANR to make the legal lines.

Yeah, that's what our intent was. If we if we did it out of order, I'm I'm sorry about that. But so soon as we're done with this, we're going to have to ask you either to withdraw the ANRS or to um continue. But ANRS have a very short window where we have to Yeah, we make a decision.

We can sign an extension on it though, right? Or not for We can sign an extension and we have that ready here. Yeah, that was our intent was to but I think we have to sign it for longer than the 21 days cuz I'm not sure we're going to get through this you back here before 21 days. So So um what are the dates?

It looks like you have Yeah, sure. So, um, we have October 6th, October 20th, then we go into the November meetings.

Okay.

October 6th.

Mhm. Okay.

So, if you're looking if you're looking for any type of approval, I I'm not back till the 20th.

I cannot do October 26th. I'm out of country.

So, which which is the next date?

20th.

20th.

Mhm. October 20th. And we have Is that enough time?

uh depends on so we'll get the revisions done um and sent back to you and MPL.

Um and I'm sure there will be some back and forth. Usually it's not just one revision when you have these reviews. Um so it it depends on how quickly they get back to us after we revise it.

I'd say we need at least two weeks. Mhm.

between when you give it to us and MBL has time to look at it.

Right.

The other thing to keep in mind is usually we meet twice a month. But in November, our regular meeting date is election day. So we don't meet on that.

So if the next meeting from October 20th is November 17th. Okay.

So it's it's a month later, not two weeks later.

So, how much time do you need to to do this and perhaps reconsider what you're doing?

Um, I think we can certainly have revisions made to be ready for that October 20th. Um, so I would probably suggest that we continue to that. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there's going to be outstanding items with MBL andor the board. Um, so it will likely be continued again, but there will be probably good points to discuss at that meeting.

Okay. You want to a motion, please? Uh, I would move that we uh continue the public hearing on Old Harbor Road to uh what what hour? 6. No, it's not 65.

4:15.

4:15 on October 20th.

Starting in September, we start meeting at 4:00.

So 6:15 on October 20th. 4:15.

Yeah.

Second have it.

Okay. Okay. All those in favor?

I Okay.

No, don't go away. We have to deal with the No, we have to open that hearing first.

What?

Yeah.

I'll send you a copy.

November.

So, our public hearing wasn't on the ANR.

So, we don't do anything on the ANR. We do.

Thank you so much.

So, I added the easements to the law.

That's why there's table and what I said to you guys. I added the ement.

All right.

Please remove your conversations outside

conversations outside please Mr. Ready.

And

could you can't close the door. Just tell them to get their their discussions outside.

Let's quiet it down.

Okay. The next uh public hearing is a little bit late. I'm sorry. The 6:30 public hearing for dome surf file number 26-3662 spa-l continued from 72826.

Good evening to the board. Attorney Mong here again on behalf of the applicant Nome Surf uh and Westport Medical Developers.

some developments from uh our last meeting. The plan has been amended. Um

is it okay? Do you have the most recent iteration where the with the driveway?

Okay. Okay. Yeah, this one. Yeah, that perfect. Um, so some of the concerns I just cover.

Yeah, I'll wait for you guys to

all good.

So, is that the right one?

This one is. Yes.

Okay.

It should show the access driveway running all the way down past the mon.

Okay. I have two different versions of this but Okay.

So, I'll start off by saying that we're not seeking approval tonight. there.

We're still in conversation with the fire department and kind of narrowing things down, but we feel like we've uh gotten pretty close to where we need to be and our hope is that we'll be able to continue one last time and come back and seek an approval at that time. Another update would be the variance that was spoke about at the last meeting. Michael and myself agreed that it was probably

best to just seek the variance and rather than wasting time and trying to argue whether or not it could be approved or not approved. I think the lot's a prime candidate even if it isn't uh grandfathered to get the variance based on the shape topography and the new relaxed standards of a variance. Um so we went ahead and submitted for that.

We are on the agenda with the zoning board for October 14th to seek the variance. Um, I've also been in conversations with Ralph, uh, the fire chief and Lieutenant Darren Nunes regarding the design and, you know, how we can make this work for everybody. Uh, so I'm going to go right off the bat and start by saying we have scrapped the cabin cottage idea and are now instead going with the route of

what's considered a temporary structure.

Um they'll be basically glamping tents.

You know, tents made with uh like solid wooden poles are a little more rugged and could be, you know, put up for months at a time, but per the fire code and the building code, they can only be up for 180 days a year and then they'd be taken down, which, you know, falls in line with this intent behind this, which is to utilize them in the nice months anyway. You know, they were never going

to be insulated. They were never going to have heat, power, hot water, anything like that. So in this instance, by converting them into um you know temporary structures, we avoid the necessity for the fire department to require us to bring the driveway out there. Um in talking with the chief and talking with Ralph and talking with Lieutenant Nunes, it's a lot of all-around support and

again I think you know you brought it up in the first meeting where being chair Mr. and we're on a plan of how and not if. And so we're really working with that. I think this is a great thing for the town and everybody I talk to seems to share um in that appeal and and happiness to have something like this come to our town. So, we're really working hard um to accommodate everyone

and and try to address everyone's concerns. So, I don't want the thought of us converting to a temporary structure to seem like we're trying to skate around fire code. Um, I'll be honest with you, the in conversations with Lieutenant Nunes was how we came to that. Um, in that, you know, they're required to do certain things under the fire code where their hands are tied and they have no uh ability to wave that.

And so if we would have stayed with the cabin model, we came to the conclusion that it would likely require the access driveway to go all the way to the back and that's just not feasible and also would derate from the idea of getting out into nature by having a 20 foot wide driveway in the middle of it all. So, by converting over to these temporary structures, we're actually going more

into the idea of being out in nature and experiencing the character of the the woods and and being out there. And, you know, the tent's actually going to give a little bit more of that feel because it's, you know, a tent as opposed to wooden walls and structures.

Can I ask a quick question?

Yeah.

Um, the old plan was, I think, four yurts or whatever we were going to call them. You were going to call them. Yeah.

And one service building that had a toilet shower etc.

So what what about that service building? Is that still part of the plan or is that also gone?

The plan will be to keep the service building. where it's located is going to depend on. So the only thing is is and building on that is the fire code requires that when you have a structure located behind an another structure, the fire department has to be able to get within 25 ft of that access door or front door um from their entry point. So essentially from wherever this access

driveway ends would need to be 25 ft to that entrance. I am not sure whether or not that's going to apply to the outhouse or bathroom building.

Yeah, the cottages now converted to essentially tents [clears throat] will likely remain in the exact space that they are. I mean maybe we go back to the five. I I'll talk with Lieutenant News about that being that they're temporary structures now. Um, but we would obviously need to keep the bathroom Yeah.

in proximity to that, especially with ADA compliance and all of the things that go along with that. Um, in talking with uh Farland and and the design here, they were under the impression that the fire access that came all the way to here needed to be 20 ft wide. In talking with Lieutenant Nunes, he stated that, you know, to kind of find a happy medium, we may be able

to reduce the width as we get closer to the structures because the turnaround is located here. So, they'll be able to come in and then back down or drive in and back out. This this does meet the sweat path analysis for, you know, engines and whatnot and is designed with those standards in mind. Um, so with that being said, the intention will be when we come back with our final plan to

show tent structure style with the access and everything will be in compliance with the fire code. That was something that we've been working through over the last couple iterations of the plan was what do I know we were talking about this last meeting. What do we qualify these on? What do we classify them as? Where do they fall within the code? And it was proving difficult on all sides. So collectively today, we

decided to pivot to the route of temporary structure, most especially because nobody's going to be staying in these structures during the winter months. So it it does fit to be something that's up for 6 months out of the year and then taken down during the cold. Um the access driveway has been widened to 20 ft per fire code and per the request of the fire department. Um, this plan does not show the sight

triangle that you brought up in the last meeting, but we will be putting that on the final iteration. They're aware of that. We had a meeting today to discuss that. Um, we're going to continue to keep the concrete walkways. Even though these are going to be tents, we do want to provide fire access in an emergency to be able to get to them with a stretcher, a wheelchair, any of those

sorts of, you know, wheeled apparatus to where they can get down there. Um, so as much as we're removing these, we're going to retain the concrete access to keep things ADA friendly, um, and also make it a bit easier for access purposes. Um you can see the fence has remained around. I know that was a concern um in one of the prior meetings about you know kind of keeping the kids

within the space. I think we talked about that at the last meeting. Um and so that does remain around the building.

We just now show additional access here for fire from um the access driveway for the fire department.

Um, I believe those are the major changes.

The building is now 80 by40 without the uh, you know, cutouts, which I don't know if we showed that on the last plan. Do you have any notes on do we think I covered most of what we changed from the last iteration? Um, I kind of went through the staff comments quickly. I know there's no landscape plan that is intended, but obviously we wanted to finalize the layout before we, you know, spend time putting plantings

and and etc. Um, but I'd welcome any comments the board may have as I think I covered most of what's been changed.

Got a question around the concrete walks. You're talking about ADA compliance. Um, so you're only comp you uh your walk is off of your fire access and your turnaround road on one side.

The other side it just kind of ends.

You'll see up top there with the uh gravel terrace. I didn't know if there's plans for them to enter and exit the barn that barn complex. Wouldn't you need to have that concrete walk extend such way so they could get access to be fully ADA compliant?

I did notice that. I I don't believe that the ADA compliance I I don't think that the gravel is not ADA compliant. It was that the fire department had requested that because of the long stretch that it was to get out there.

But I I'm not going to, you know, derate and say that I don't share the same opinion where because we do show concrete, it's a gravel driveway. There was concrete. I uh believe Mr. Bullet and I talked about the concrete pad for the um handicap spaces at the last meeting. This is a concrete walkound. So I do think it makes sense to probably connect at least a walkway portion. Maybe not concrete

the entire gravel tower, but but run a run a path at grade to where it just is contiguous all the way.

So I do I do see that and kind of share in that. And also I'll just add that in our meeting today, this entrance right here doesn't work in terms of the 25 ft to the front door. So, we are going to be spinning the entrance to the dome to either enter from here or here or here. We're going to play with the concrete walkway, but that will all play

into, you know, the layout for the final iteration of the plan.

So, uh around the dome, uh what's the height and then also how does that of the tip of the dome for that structure the top?

Yeah. Is that dome also a temporary structure which will be taken down? No, the dome will not be.

Okay. And then how does that fit into have you guys done an assessment on how that fits into the current uh central village site requirements like as in height requirements?

Yeah, both or how it how that structure fits into the current plan.

I mean somewhat I do think that heightwise I believe it's only uh 20 some odd feet tall. I 25 I think 25 ft tall. Um, we don't I don't have the specs on it, but we do have them in with the engineers. Um, I don't know that they've ran a distinct synopsis with that in mind, but I do believe that, you know, it fits within the district and being that you really

won't be able to even see the dome from behind or from, you know, main road, that type of thing.

It won't be any taller than the We're not going to just have like this giant white dome in the back that towers over the building or anything like that.

Well, if it's 44 ft in diameter, it's probably 222 ft high.

Yes, that's Yeah, it's about 22 to 25 ft high.

And that is more of a permanent it is considered a permanent structure which is why the fire code requires to get within the 25 ft.

So I I would assume that you could move the uh bathroom building closer to where the driveway is.

Yeah. So if they require if it's required that was kind of where I was going with that where it may have slide that's pretty easy to move.

It's a small I want to say it's 10 by 20. Yeah 10 by 20.

Because it's not built yet. You don't have to move it. You always move it on paper.

Exactly. Exactly. Yes. Far easier that way.

When do you want to come back?

So, I was listening to dates from before. I I had originally hoped that we could come to the second meeting in September, but I don't know if you're full.

Our consulting engineers going to get us the review in in time, not in time for the September 8th meeting, but the September No, September 22nd.

It would be the intended. My hope would be, and I I talked with Michael about this, we can run continuously with the variance and the site plan approval.

We've we've extended the closing date on this multiple times, and the seller is eager. Obviously, everybody wants to wrap this up. Um, and so the hope would be that we could get site plan approval at the second meeting in September and then subsequently follow that with the zoning board meeting and hopefully get the variance and then be able to close on the project. So I my question around that

you know what happens first in parallel uh if you if ZBA comes back with all these restrictions around your you know around what you can do that's going to impact your site plan for for the variance to be granted that it's they're purely basing it on whether or not we have the right to build on that. They don't even have this on their uh approval or their um scope. Their decision is purely based on whether the

nature shape, topography of the lot lends itself to being construed as a buildable lot based on the reduced amount of frontage. So it's not a special permit where there would be conditions. It's, you know, not in that effect.

So, and I Michael and I both spoke about the fact that they can run separately. I mean, we do run the risk obviously if you give us site plan approval and then they don't well we don't have it and now we're back to the drawing board. Um, so so Matt, do do you know when this when this section of it was uh approved sometime?

It was probably at the time that the Cumberland Farms was cut out of this.

Yeah.

To be honest with you, it's actually after that. Cumber Cumberland Farms came around I want to say in the ' 80s if I'm not mistaken 70s. Yeah. So I mean they've even predated that. This weird like layout here has been there since.

But actually when I don't Nicole may be able to speak more to the history of it than I can, but Nicole's lot at one point was part of this whole 2012.

Yes. But in 2012 was when this partial parcel was subdivided off the same piece.

So this piece and this piece were all part of one when Dr. Ken and then Dr.

Ken subdivided and split this off. Kept this and split the medical.

So and what we talked about in the last meeting was it doesn't necessarily lend itself to being And I have my own legal opinion on the matter. I do think that it's a buildable lot, but for the interest of time and energy, and myself and the sellers attorney have talked about it, it doesn't make sense to get into litigation about whether or not it's buildable lot. I think it makes far more

sense to just get a variance and proceed that way, right? But to to get a variance, you have to have a reason.

Yeah. And the reason is clear. Due to the nature and topography of the land that was created back in 197 whatever, which predates zoning for this specific law, we have 69 ft of frontage as opposed to the requisite 150 ft. And you know, we have a good good argument. And honestly, the variance standard under the new law is even more lax. Um, and there's more considerations in support

of the variance which came out earlier this summer. So I think when Ken split off the medical center, he figured that that was enough to cover for a road.

Yeah. Because if you look at a road to I don't know where, but so if you look at the plan that's on file from 2012 and I believe Sean Leech had done the wetlands analysis at that point, there was a pocket to where you would have been able to run the road down and access that upland portion. But then when Farland came in and saw him 10 years later, obviously things change,

the wetland is now a contiguous wetland and you would basically be impossible to get to the back. So I do think in the same, you know, I share the same opinion that they thought they would be able to cut a road. You know, it would be tight, especially here. I I want to say it was like 45 ft or something like that. So it's basically just enough to get a roadway through. But now with the

wetlands concerns and everything else is it's tough. And so what we've discussed with Primacare was, you know, if there was ever to be any further development in that upland portion in the back or, you know, when I say development, obviously no main structures or something along the lines of the cabins or something like that to create a vital access easement through primare because

on that what would be the south side of the building, they have an ambulance lane which always remains vacant. And so in the case of a fire, they would be able to get back to that portion. But I mean, we're in discussions with Blizzard's Bay Coalition and different, you know, conservation agencies that intention is not to, you know, turn this site into large development much like my predecessor here this evening.

So it doesn't show in these plans, but how far back does this lot go to the west? Does it go to existing conditions?

Does it go to Angeline?

Yeah. All the way. I don't know. You This is like 700, I want to say.

Who wants those lots on the 794 here?

Over here to the left.

Yeah. So, from from here to the front corner, which is the back of the Cumberland lot, is 795.

Mhm.

And then I want to say it's an additional what, another two? Yeah. There's about 1,000 ft to that. And this is all I want to say. So, one over Yeah. Westport Conservation own Land Trust owns this.

And then I think it's the Brook um I might be wrong. Angeline Brook over is on the other portion over one more.

So yeah, as you can see here, the the wetlands comes all the way through. And as we had discussed in previous meetings, it's about trying to do an access easement, you know, through here.

This one wouldn't be possible. And even if you were to try to cut a driveway in through there, the replications, you'd be over the 5,000 foot. So what would I shouldn't ask but from there from where you're ending the um development development this way this way or that way that way what are you going to do with what do we have left uh probably I want to say when we did it today 795 was about

probably like 500ish 5 600 ft from the end of that last like yurt site and a lot of it's wet but it's it's this is all wet the whole portion but the lower part is not this is wet as well here there's a pocket that runs down to the Westport medical developers and then the uplands comes here now Primacare's building is essentially suited cited here and what I was saying is if we were

to ever do anything back here. There would be an emergency access easement um for that. But again, like we're not talking about you would never be able to put a driveway. Primacare is not going to give us an easement to construct a driveway to put a house back there or anything like that. It would be more of like to create walking paths and something like that.

Okay.

Uh Mr. Chair, I uh cannot attend September 22nd.

Uh, and Mr. Chair, we don't have a quorum on the next meeting of October 6th.

We only have two people.

Yeah.

So, that puts us what out to the 20th?

Mhm.

It is what it is.

Well, how many people do do we have a quorum on the 22nd September?

Yeah, we have um three other public hearings that date. And no Jared, can I ask a question?

Yes, ma'am. If you come up to the microphone please question. So, I am the butter to the north. Just quick question. So, a 22 foot high dome.

No, please identify yourself.

Oh, sorry me. Uh, Nicole plant 803 Main Road. I own Scrapler and Hardwork to the north. Um, a 22 foot high dome in Central Village will be seen from Bay Coast Bank. It will be seen by my office building. It will be seen by main road from this curve of the road. So, I disagree with with the applicant that it will not be sold to the central village zoning bylaws. My 22 foot, you can see

everything from my behind building. I can see down the street. So, I question why they are getting approved for something that we have standards for.

Approved and I'm asking for that to be reviewed in the review. Um, chain link fence all the way around. They're talking about that. I'm sorry. I know from the six foot chain link fence.

It's a 4 foot chain link fence.

Um, the new plant's a six foot on the property line.

On the property where there's a 4ft stone wall already is that I don't want to look at a six foot.

You were concerned about children jumping.

Okay. I want something.

We're not having a conversation between you.

So, I'm asking that it's not a 6ft chain link fence in 10 years that it's all rusted out. That I have to look at on the property line. I don't want it on the property line. Um and then so my question is to that is again we have central village standards we have certain things that we've come to here but my other question is we have now we have tents that was a new thing today

that we have people sleeping in tents in central village um again we have bylaws and that and we have and now we're not talking about camping in central village we need to talk about standards that we have to keep up um and we would not allow this on a commercial property in town. I am so for the project, the front part of the project, but you guys keep at we keep moving the bar every meeting

that we have in this and I really don't understand why we keep moving the bar.

Where does the employees sleep when they come and they have people staying on this property? We never talk about that.

Where are the employees sleeping and staying when they have people on their property? There's got to be an employee staying on the property with them. Are they staying in the tents with them?

We're not talking about a lot of things and we're kind of ignoring a lot of it.

When you go to a property or a camping ground or something, there's somebody staying there. I'd like to know where all this stuff is, but we're not addressing a lot of the issues. My property is right next door. I got phone calls with the police this morning on another property near ours. There's issues all the time in Central Village.

I hope the board addresses with the police department directly and not their word for it of the issues around this property. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

May I uh first and foremost, we're talking about a sensory dome. We're not talking about like a disco party dome where people are going to be playing music.

This is a place for children with special needs to go and calm down and be able to have access um to a space that is unique to the area. I don't believe there's any within a 100 mile radius of us. And I think Mike could probably um attest to that. We've received already a special grant um that is focused on this because it is such a new and unique technology that has worked well in other

areas um and provides this sensory experience to these children that are not able to have um you know this type of an experience elsewhere. We're talking about Central Village. Central Village, Central Village, but Central Village is the heart of Westborne. And what better place to have a space that is so unique and diverse for, you know, members of our community and members of our surrounding community that are

plagued with, you know, special needs and, you know, the the notion that it's going to be seen from Bayos Bank. Post bank is open 9 to5 9 to 7 on Saturday or Friday I believe and a little bit later on you know other days there are really no residences within any distance that are going to be able to see it. My aunt lives in the uh villages I think it's called the

villages adult community and you know you may very well be able to see the tippity top of it at 22 ft tall. Again, we're not talking about some massive dome that's going to plague the community and, you know, create a disco party at 2 o'clock in the morning. Um, Cumberland Farms is open 24 hours a day.

No, it's not.

It's not.

It closes at close at 11:00.

Okay. Well, this one closes at 11:00, but the children would be past their bedtime at 11:00. And I can assure you that everybody would be going to bed at that time. I do understand your concern about where the employees are going to sleep. It's a mixeduse district, so if need be, we could maybe provide sleeping quarters for the employees in the building. But, you know, I'm going to

leave that up to no, and we'll have the answer to that question when we come back. They may also very well just be in one of the tent structures um to be, you know, hands-on and and in close proximity to them. Uh if the concern is the type of fence, we were talking about a vinyl lined chain link fence, which would never rust. Um, but if that's a main concern and that's what we're

getting hung up on, I'm sure we'd be happy to discuss making it out of pine or, you know, something maybe more rustic that's visually appealing, I don't see a concern with that whatsoever. Um, to be honest with you, the fence was brought up as a concern of yours in a previous meeting. So, that was why we included that. And I do share that concern. You know, we want to keep

the kids safe at all times. Um, but I can assure you that the children here are not going to be a disturbance to the neighborhood. um they're going to be enjoying the fact that they get to spend time in a rural setting where there's really nowhere else for them to be able to do something like this anywhere else around here. You know, some campgrounds may have ADA compliance, but we're

talking about a entire, you know, project that is dedicated to those that have special needs from a state-of-the-art sensory dome to a a place where they could be one with nature. And I I do think it lends itself to being something that is uh an incredible asset and something that the town could showcase most notably in our, you know, the heart of Westport. Um and and I I just feel that it it's very

fitting for where where it is. I'll do a code synopsis with uh Ralph and with Farland Court to ensure that we are complying with any special requirements of the district. Um, but at the end of the day, if it really came down to it, we could build a box around it and put the tent inside of it or put the dome inside of it if that really was what it

came down to. And I can ensure that that would meet any requirements or concerns that they may have. I believe it's 40 ft for the height restrictions within that area and we could put it under there if we absolutely had to, but that would be an additional cost and would, you know, change the scope and also take away from the fact that there is this unique dome.

I mean it, as you said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I built one.

Yeah, I love them.

Yeah. I I think some people hate them, some people love them. It's like anything else, you know. Um but what this brings to the property is such a key point and a key focus of this project. Um and as I mentioned, there is grant money available to help fund this project as a result of having the dome on the site. And so that's a huge, you know, foot in the door to kind of get

this all the way through to completion.

Um, and so, you know, while I recognize there are concerns, we again are really trying to fit in with the community as much as we can, but also stick out a little bit in the fact that we're creating something that is so unique and so special for um, you know, people that have these special needs and give them a place to really uh, you know, kind of kick back and enjoy the rural nature.

John, um, couple of points. one uh we're Central Village is a wonderful part of Westport. Um and it's got, you know, the Quaker Meeting House and 10 Cousins.

It's got a variety of styles, Le Market, and it it it doesn't look like Sturbridge Village, thank God. Uh it's a living place. Um and so uh this is a different structure but we have lots of different structures already in Central Village. Uh the second thing I'd make uh I'd raise is that when I drive by uh here uh and look at the playground uh what I see a lot of the time is uh mothers and

fathers and kids enjoying themselves in what is a pretty unusual structure. Uh, now it's not a building, but uh, does that fit in with Westport? I I look at the activity in around that playground right there and say, "This is so cool about Westport." And it's so cool that it's right here in the center of town. kids uh exploring uh possibilities uh with their parents looking on in an

unusual structure. So uh I know it's a different rule because a dome is going to be a structure and not a playground, but I I think when you it depends on whether you're looking at the dome or whether you're looking at the activity uh that's going on in the dome or around the dome. Uh, I think that's what determines how you feel about things.

And I I doubt there's a person in Westport that doesn't drive by that playground and say that is an awesome addition. Um, and and so I think the activity that you've got going on here, I do think the issue you raised about uh where do people where do supervisors sleep agree uh can't be, oh, we'll figure it out.

No, you got to figure it out before you come here. Absolutely.

And we can uh evaluate how anything fits with the central bridge regulations next time.

Yes.

So I I think that it is u uh good that Nicole brought it up um because it wasn't my focus but it should be. So definitely just a quick question. uh has I know conservation has been through I know you've been to conservation before but I'm just curious uh it's identify as a priority habitat for rare species back there so I just would like to make sure that yeah they did they verify all that

study yeah we we had the I am not a wetlands nor am I an endangered species expert but we did the right thing and filed with them and got their approval um conservation I believe we're on for them in September so you know we're again we would likely extend that to right around the time where we get our final approval hopefully from you guys um so that everything can run congruently and you know the project can

take off but they are familiar with the site and and that study has been conducted.

Okay.

So so any more from the audience? So, do we have a date? Uh when we October, you said October 20th, right?

October. One motion, please.

I move that we uh continue the Gnome Surf uh application to October 20th at 4:15.

Mhm.

4:15. Got it right that time.

There's hope for me.

He's learning.

That was a motion.

Second.

Second.

All those in favor?

I I Thank you, the board.

Thank you.

Have a good night.

So, next is the assistant planners report.

All right, let's get through these.

Sorry, give me one second to find my note.

Okay, so for Francis Estates, they are finishing up that storm water design. I'll just scroll through the photos. Um, yeah, these are the reports from August 6th 10th 12th 13th 14th 17th and 18th. Like I said, they're finishing up the storm water installation. Um, and then they're moving on to electric. In addition, the applicant has pulled permits for the building foundations.

So, chugging along. I I'm the inspections will probably slow now after they've totally complete this installation, which they're almost there. Um, and then you have um Oh, actually, these weren't in the packet, but yep, I'll just finish up the photos.

Um, let me know if there's something you want to see. And then for Herring Run Farm, there's just a lab test of the moist moisture density for the project's gravel. Um the field results of that gravel will be shared next meeting. So that was just a quick update. Um and you can see the report here.

Okay. And remind me again where Harry Run Farm is.

It's like [snorts] off of Drift Road. Um it's just uh two houses. They're just finishing the road.

I'll show you here.

Hershey's Way.

Yeah. Hershey's way if that rings a bell. Right. Shallow road.

Yeah.

So here's here it is on the context.

This is the roadway and then this is the second lot that's actually assessed to Drift Road.

I don't know if that helps clarify.

So it's between Fifth Road and 88.

And what's the road to the north?

Is it the extension?

Mhm.

Extension.

Okay.

Yeah.

And that's it for me.

Okay. Minutes of August 11th. Mr. Chair, I read the minutes. I think they're accurate and complete. I move approval of August 11th, 2026 minutes.

I second that. All those in favor?

I I journ.

Uh no, we got one more thing.

Oh.

Um other business.

Uh I just wanted to bring up the fact that uh we used to have work sessions uh like once every other month or something and with the anticipation of trying to cobble together uh master plan well master plan we got so many things going on uh and also articles for town meeting of next year.

Uh it isn't too early to do that to try to figure out what we need to do.

Um and what things we need to change.

So, I don't know if it's possible, but I think sometime in this fall, we ought to have a work session and wanted to give people's thoughts and ideas whether or not we should do that.

They would wouldn't have anything unless we had a R that we had to do, but there would just be um talking about anticipated uh town meeting warrant articles and uh anything else that we wanted to discuss planning wise.

You want to try and pick a date?

Yeah, please. Uh we don't have to do a Tuesday right?

Could be any day. I there's a good space around November 3rd because we don't meet on election day.

You want to try the fourth?

The fourth.

Fourth or fifth?

Yeah, sure.

Uh if we're meeting at at 4, I prefer the fifth to the fourth.

Okay.

So, that would also be at 4:00 then.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Sounds good.

I can I can meet in the afternoon on on Wednesdays.

Can you meet on Thursday?

Defend it. Can you meet on Thursday?

I can meet on Thursday.

All right.

That's not I guess we don't need a motion for that.

But um I just need to confirm if CBC meets, but I think that's that's usually I can't remember if it's the first Thursday or second Thursday of the month.

Yeah. What time?

Uh it's usually 6:30, but yeah, you'll be able if our work session lasts 3 hours, we're in trouble.

So yeah, Mr. Chair, not to prolong the meeting, but uh what what What is the status of the the master plan, the new master plan?

Uh I think that Michael has it out for bid uh with and I think that uh they're focusing on Serpent.

Uh, and we need to have a meeting with uh, uh, Grant King at Serpent and Jeff Walker and Serpent and Michael and myself. Just make sure that Michael is okay with doing it through them. Yeah, the last two we've done inhouse and we've had very large community input.

We don't want to screw it up. So, so it it's it's something that'll be happening in the next week or two and then I think we'll be ready to sign the contract.

Anything else?

Move to adjourn. Second one in favor.