okay you know that we record this uh primarily so that we can get good minutes and if someone misses the meeting they can they can watch it um I my intention on how to get through this meeting Jake so that it doesn't take us into tomorrow morning I is that first of all I asked people to think of their motions in advance so we're not trying to craft motions in the meeting because that would just kill a lot of time and I appreciate the fact that people have spent time thinking about their motions and writing them and getting them to us in advance so they're well thought out I really appreciate that that saves a lot of time I then what I was and so everyone's had a chance to look at those motions and uh think about them uh my intention was to go down that list uh read the motion and say who wants to make that motion and someone will say I make the motion who wants to Second it someone's going to say I second it and then what I want to do is is you know uh who wants to speak you know Robert's Rules of Order who wants to speak on it I not have people repeat arguments over and over again uh if it's consensus then uh I'll call for a vote fairly quickly uh if it's divided I'll let the debate go for a little while but I don't want people repeating each other uh and uh if it if I ask for all in favor all opposed and it looks like a close vote we'll do a roll call um and thenn yeah I I think we we should probably take roll call anyway because there's some folks who um don't have cameras working or cameras on and also um I think that the minutes should reflect who's voted for what well if it's unanimous for something then I don't think we need a roll call some of these May sorry but you do on a remote meeting you have to roll call vote all right all of these are going to be roll call yeah and I suggest you do them in the same order all the time like go down your list something and call on people but yeah if you're remote meetings has to be welcome okay all right uh I thought we' done some motions before but may maybe I'm wrong on that so Michael you've got the list right right so uh you can go down and call a roll okay so we'll do that um and um uh so I I think Jake can answer your question uh we'll do that now if even though the uh uh motions have been thought out and uh made and we see them all so uh you know uh our committee is a subcommittee of the planning board and we were charged by the select board so these motions whether they're approved or disapproved will all go to the planning board uh so the planning board knows uh all the Motions we considered uh and what we thought about them you know these were approved unanimously these were approved by a close vote these were disapproved but they'll know what our advice was because that's what the select board asked us I and that's what I think we need to do uh is give them Our advice we thought these were good ideas we were split on these we thought these were bad ideas so on uh and my feeling is uh we should not delay that uh we should you know get on with the business our our business is writing a report on climate resiliency I don't want to debate e speech you know till the end of time uh so I'd rather get that done tonight and and get on with our real work uh that's my personal uh view so I hope if someone looks at a motion and says uh this motion is pretty good but I want to amend it you know Robert's Rules is okay offer an amendment if it's seconded then we debate the amendment the amendment passes then we're uh then voting on the amended motion so on and so forth and I'll try and run it as best I can according to Robert's Rules we all know Henry Robert you know wrote Robert's rules in New Bedford so we'll go with the local guy and uh do it his way okay does that answer your question Jay thank you for the explanation I just want to lay out the logistics so thank you yeah okay uh uh Mark rasmon has joined uh welcome Mark okay um now back to theh first item on the agenda uh minutes of February 15 thank thank you Amy I I read them I thought they were excellent they were complete they accurately described it but if anyone else has read them and feels that that something needs to be changed in the minutes uh please raise your hand otherwise I would love a motion to accept the minutes I move that we accept the minutes I think that was Bob daylor who who moved to accept them second seconded by Jim White and all in favor say I and opposed the minutes are accepted thank you very much that was quick good precedent there all right now we're at uh staff updates and I saw constant ski has joined us welcome constant um staff updates Michael you're on yeah I have three the agriculture subcommittee is holding a talk on climate change and agriculture obviously in Westport and March 27th at 6m this is at the W Port Grange which is at 931 Main Road and um I don't think he's on the call but big thank you to Joseph vsby for heading up this initiative and and taking on uh a significant amount of the work from the agriculture subcommittee report the next I have here is are um we're working on potentially a a national Cal resilience fund Grant this would be a joint Grant application between Dartmouth Little Compton and Westport were looking at doing a broad planning level document um that would identify Coastal threats and Hazards and opportunities for increasing Coastal resilience that would kind of be the the seed ideas for going and look going after Grant funds to actually Implement projects and finally we are going through an RFP process for to find a a consultant for our Hazard mitigation Plan update our RFP is due next week so we're expecting to contract with a consultant by probably the end of April that's it okay that was quick all right uh fourth item on the agenda is an e speech presentation it says by Tony and Kevin is it you Tony that's going to give this uh yes John okay uh now do you need to share screen Tony uh yes all right I'm setting up the sharing right now I could see it now uh now I can't okay uh can you see the presentation uh yes okay if I can see it I'm assuming other people can see it as well let us know if that's not the case but you're on Tony we can see the see the screen all right so uh this was presented in a longer form to the planning board this has been restructured uh per John's input and it's really focused around these four motions um with just some porting uh background and slide material related to the four uh so we can just take them one at a time and cover them okay so the the first motion is uh deferring medium and long-term recommendations until the Buzzards Bay Coalition Gooseberry study report is published um so that report looks uh broadly at our section of coachline including East Beach uh it's a $1.3 million study uh a lot of contributors Boston University would whole Virginia Institute of Marine Science they're doing lots of measurements and data collection uh and developing a model for water and sediment movement uh they're evaluating Causeway versus no Causeway slra Road um uh changes in the model to see how that affects the water and sediment movement uh they're looking at normal and storm conditions um and I think this the the purpose is to help inform um you know local governments and residents uh regarding uh you know Coastal Dynamics um that are affecting us and I think getting this information would be very valuable uh to for us in any kind of uh medium or longer term recommendations so the the issue of the causeway has uh been um known uh for a long time uh the old time that were around uh in the era uh prior to and during uh the early time of the causeway where the um erosion was happening um you know there are quotes and articles old articles related to that uh this one States this article from 1979 water used to flow freely between the mainland and the island and the beach always had a plantable supply of sand after the federal government built the present Causeway something strange happened that these are the uh the the alimer that they're quoting here the title currents between the island and Mainland which Alzheimer say were incredibly strong were re-rooted around the island and instead of depositing sand on the these beaches began taking it away at a rate of two to three feet per year uh so that's the um you know the anecdotal information um from them and then when we look at the shoreline transect history and this is C courtesy of Mike Sullivan's research um and the Mass Shoreline postal erosion viewer uh we can see that prior to the causeway on the left and these dots here are represent uh Shoreline surveys um that there was a trend of accretion so when you're going in this uh kind of negative a vertical axis as acction uh and then you have this uh this colored era where the co the causeway was constructed uh in various forms but in its final form by the 1943 um and that rep that started an era of a very Market erosion over a 100 feet of erosion on East Beach and this can be seen in a variety of different transects uh and then culminating in a second equilibrium uh where um the beach was heavily cobbled and essentially somewhat static moving in and out slightly over different survey times but um really more minor movements relative to what occurred during the causeway era so the uh the causeway study team is going to do a a summer 2024 update uh they're going to release findings from the model that will help State and uh town and state officials and land owners make decisions about Coastal management um the completion dates the end of 2024 so I I would uh uh recommend that we um wait wait to get this information before making longer Term Policy recommendations that does not preclude shortterm so therefore I motion that CRC defer medium and long-term policy recommission recommendations until the Bo Berry costway study report is published and we can cover this voting later yeah okay so let's go on to the second one uh that's a motion uh to implement a policy for the town of Westport to push Beach Cobble uh overwalk onto the road via storms back onto the beach from when it came um so here we have an the example of the cleanup efforts following uh the uh December uh end of December 2023 storm um you can see there was a lot of Cobble washed onto the road uh here it has been piled uh by heavy equipment and there's a line of trucks waiting to basically haul the Cobble away from where it was deposited um this is not a natural process um this was occurring at both ends of the road uh there were thousands of cubic yards of material removed um this Cobble was taken away unloaded and spread in various destinations so you can see in the far distance with the red circle uh the town beach at that end uh on the photo on the right this is the gooseberry parking lot um there were trucks that went up John Reed Road there were trucks that went up drift Road um and you know we don't know where else it was taken um I think there's also some in the Gooseberry Island parking lot now anyway this is not a natural process um now regarding the state's input in the East Beach Corridor vulnerability study on page 13 as Woods Hole group looked at the past management practices and overwat history on East Beach Road they stated in past practice the sentiment removed from the north end of East Beach Road would be deposited on the south end of the town beach where erosion is most acute however the state determined that this practice was not an officially permitted maintenance activity and the practice was stopped now some somewhere this institutional knowledge was lost and this this practice began again and it has occurred in very significant scales uh particularly this this past winter storm and uh evidently prior years as well the reason why the state stopped it is according to the wetlands protection act this is mass CMR 10.27 any project on the coastal Beach shall not have an adverse effect by increasing erosion decreasing the volume or changing the form of any such Coastal Beach or an adjacent or Dow drift Coastal Beach so that's why they they blocked it um and then the town of course recognizes that U you know removal of rocks off of the barrier Beach is is is wrong they've passed a local ordinance to that effect because they want to preserve and protect the beaches um so I drafted a a highway department shower Road clearing policy it's actually very simple it just involves taking the material placed on the road depositing on the in the setback uh on the oceans side properties AB buding the road so that material can then be put back onto the the beach from which it came and then I suggested that the highway department have a contract with a supplier of compatible Cobble to be used for emergency repairs okay so uh the side effect of course is that the road will be cleared more quickly it's faster to Simply push the Cobble back than it is to pile it wait for trucks load them unload and spread um I've already mentioned is illegal per Wetlands protection act at 310 CMR so I therefore motion CRC recommend select board draft and Implement a highway department policy whereby storm deposited Cobble on the road is pushed onto the town right of way on the beach Lots south of the road from when it came moving on to the third motion um and this this one's a very important motion um replacing the Cobble removed from East Beach so historically uh as I mentioned in one of the earlier slides East Beach has achieved kind of a new equilibrium following the 100 plus feet of sand lck after the Conway construction um the shoreline has been relative stasis um with smaller Shoreline movements in and out uh you can see those in the uh blown up slide in the lower right corner um it's not monolithic Retreat it's some years it's in some years it's out um depends on a variety of patterns but essentially it's mostly in stasis with some transect showing minor erosion other showing stasis and large uncertainty magnitudes so from a shoreline perspective beaches are very elastic and absorb wave energy protecting damaged Inland structures um and that comes from Dune elevation and Shoreline depth the elasticity elasticity limit for protection is the beach Dune level uh shown with the red arrow so that's that level is is very important relative to what is happening in the ocean um when you have wind driven driven Storm surges and waves that add to normal high tides that can overtop the beach dun level and cause Inland damage so that that protection level um of the Dune is is critical um and sure enough that's what happened in this these winter storms uh the bottom is a tidal gauge and you can see from those uh High green peaks in uh for the 1218 storm and the 110 and 113 storm on the right that there was fairly significant storm surge three plus feet and this occurred in a time frame where there was uh very high uh southerly winds uh Peak 62 miles an hour significant waves Heights the 20 foot range so that combination is what caused the overwash and the Damage uh again it overtopped the beach um so the volume of material on the beach is critical so here we have a shot of the cleanup process that was occurring following uh the the winter storms and you can see in this picture the volume of material that is being removed relative to what is remaining on the beach um and the volume that is being removed is extremely significant here it is uh in some cases equivalent to what remains so you can imagine uh relative to that Dune level we're stripping the Dune level that's protective of the Road by doing this um and this process here was repeated two and a half times this winter alone so cumulatively this has been extremely damaging to the protective nature of the beach uh this is an example from not this winter but the prior winter where I noticed on my lot that it was noticeably lower and many rocks were missing um and after I found this photo I saw why because the material that's piled there in front of my lot I received none of that in the spring that was all taken um so again this is just an example of um the harm that this practice causes um so let's let's contrast that so this is the sea level uh rise from the Woods Hole tidal gauge measured from 1932 to current um so the average long-term trend is .12 in per year uh with some slight upt in recent years so keep that .12 in per year in your mind as a reference point and we'll compare that sea level rise to the cumulative amount of Cobble that has been removed off the beach by the road clearing practices um as that material um ends up on the road and is cleared that that is gets removed from the ecosystem um at least locally and what that does does is it it basically exposes the roadway to more overwash because the material that would have protected it that would AB absorb wave energy is gone um and the effect is uneven along the shorelines the the lots that are narrower or parts of the beach that are narrower um end up with a larger percentage of the Cobble on the road whereas the deeper lots that cobbles redeposited within the boundaries of the lot so what what happens there is it accelerates um the erosion in the narrowest part of the beach um and uh let's see um and also the the mix of sand and Cobble the deposit pattern is that the heaviest material settles out first so oftentimes what's what's deposited on the roadway is the Cobble and then there's sand that that may wash Beyond it so we're disproportionately removing the hard Cobble um so that also tends to accelerate erosion so we have multiple uh very negative effects here um that are going to leave the the town infrastructure much more vulnerable to overwash and I predict that if we leave the the uh the beach in its current depleted State we will see very regular overwash for minor storms that we historically have have not seen that have historically been um basically that that wave energy was absorbed by the beach so um on the uh the planning side so the recommendation here is to um replace the Cobble that has been taken from the beach U that was washed up on the road um that will restore the protection lost by removing it uh as we mentioned the beach Doom level is the protection Li limit red it will reduce the frequency of overwash um I believe that that is a moral and legal and environmental obligation uh also uh in in the same context there are certain roadway pinch points adjacent to town owned Shoreline um and there the pinch points are often areas with narrow distances between the road in the ocean and so in discussions with Rebecca Haney of coastal zone man management the recommendation is you know uh Beach nourishment for those areas to provide more protective material between the the uh Ocean and the road so uh these these things are basically work hand inand for Road protection um and then we looked at a couple of funding sources here um including czm we I discussed some of the grants with Rebecca um and there's other Grant options being evaluated the applicant would be the town of Westport and uh the grant team can include volunteers we have some folks that are uh eager to to help with that so In Sum summation of this item Coastal beaches serve the purposes of storm damage prevention and flood control by dissipating wave energy by reducing the height of storm waves that's actually right from Mass CMR a significant amount of beach C washed onto the road has been removed leaving the beach dun depleted and much lower this effect is worse where the beach is narrowest and most vulnerable in order to protect public infrastructure the Cobble removed must be returned and replaced on the beach therefore a motion CRC recommend equivalent quantity of Cobble removed from East Beach Road be returned and replaced on the beach from when it came okay last uh motion um I recommend preservation of East Beach as a coastal resource for future Generations uh so the East Beach vulner vulnerability MVP study did a public poll uh in that poll um there were overwhelming responses to either take gradual incremental actions to increase protection or immediate and aggressive actions to incre increase protection um the the relocation option was was U not nearly as well imported so when we look at the uh concept of plans Retreat um as I mentioned the there's a lot of downsides here so the each Beast residents overwhelmingly don't want it the local business owners that I spoke to don't want Retreat uh the abandonment of East Beach Road means loss of Ingress or egress routes affecting Public Safety um in the event of some uh catastrophe any structural mechanical or electrical problems with the Fontaine Bridge could strand residents if there is no eess path available uh if East Beach Road has been abandoned uh there's also the loss of real estate tax revenue to the town if that road is abandoned and those those properties are eventually uh abandoned in a fuel Retreat scenario and that's approximately $290,000 per year in real estate tax now that is in addition to loss of money spent at Westport businesses by residents um and and a reduction of visitors if this this area is not as accessible and open um finally there would be an increase in trucking and vehicle traffic through residential neighborhoods um there is a lot of commercial traffic on East Beach Road that then is routed up 88 in particular uh silven Nursery there are uh just a quite a bit of 18 wheelers with uh commercial um uh Nursery products loaded on to them that today go up Route 88 um if East Beach Road was um abandoned that traffic would have to snake through residential neighborhoods in in Westport and the quantity of it is is surprising that okay so um I I I would like to um recommend preservation of East Beach as a coastal resource for future Generations um these werey overwhelming survey choices uh that also protects the public infrastructure along East Beach itself and it's a coastal resource with a strong Community a lot of natural beauty you have the town beach Gooseberry Island Access the lat Allen's Pond Wildlife brings in you know funding to the Westport to the town through real estate and local businesses um and for resources we you know we care for and protect our natural resources for future Generations so they can benefit from them and that's consistent with our town model as the coastal agricultural resource community of New England so we want to make sure we protect those resources for future Generations I wanted to work in this quote because I liked it the best way to save the world is to focus focus on just one piece of it and the best way for us to do that would be to work to make our hometown a better place so the crcn planning board should recommend preservation instead of retreat therefore I make motion accordingly preservation means working to preserve East Beach as a coastal resource for future generation through means such as Beach nourishment and maintaining public infrastructure including East Beach Road and that's it Tony uh thank you very much if you think that flattering the chairman by including his quote is going to get you something forget about it but uh I I appreciate uh very much that uh you took a presentation uh that you'd given to the planning board and uh cut it down in in time and focused it on on the Motions that you and Kevin uh had put together I see one hand uh so far Michael solivan thank you John thank you Tony I I was just going to we've got a couple sets of motions that came through today and I made the suggestion by email and and I'll I'll make it again um here John is is this I mean there's a lot of issues here you've got short-term sort of tactical issues about how the highway department should should be treating this um you've got a long-term issue about the road we have a study going on as I think the presentation noted um about the impact of the causeway on these properties is this subject it seems like it's since it's something that we had on our MVP study and on our Water Resource committee priority list is this something that at least portions of it should be remanded to our committee for further you know delving into the details of you know the legality I'm not sure about the legality of deser town have the right to do these things do we not seems like I'd like to it would be nice to remand this to the water subcommittee and get uh some detail sorted out so we can make a recommendation to the full committee here well um my answer to that would be it could also be remanded to the infrastructure committee because we're talking about East Beach Road uh but I don't want to remand it to any committee as I said at the outset of the meeting I don't want to spend the rest of time talking about East spee FR we have a report to write on climate resilience that's our real job I think uh we have these motions here that um uh our our vehicle for giving the planning board our opinion opions on what should be done with e speech Road I know we can debate this till the end of time I don't see a value in that I think uh this is the select board's decision uh they can wrestle with the issues that you talked about Mike I think we have the ability to discuss Through the Motions that are before us the pros and cons that you've talked about and issues about the legality of where do you dump the uh cabble uh the select board can find the answers to with the Town Administrator and the town counil that's their job and so I'd rather give us the wisdom give them the wisdom of our input and get on with uh the job that we have before us Dave sprogis thanks John and uh Tony thank you for a great presentation um um in an effort to perfect your motions um I have uh three recommendations is now the time and this is a question to you John is now the time to perfect the Motions or uh does that come after a first vote no what I would suggest Dave is I'm going to take these motions ions in the order you've got them I'm going to ask like the first motion is I move that we defer medium and longterm blah blah blah and we'll and then I'm G to ask Tony do you want to make that motion and then Kevin do you want to second that motion and at that point um if someone wants to amend that motion uh Dave if if that's the motion you're talking about then you might say look I'm in favor of this but I want to amend it and then we can go on from there does that make sense to you complete complete sense yep so I'll hold my comments until we get to the Motions okay and and we'll just take those one motion at a time in the order that uh uh that we uh that we all got them from Michael Burrus and so to Mike Sullivan's point the first motion talks about deferring at least medium and long term and he might say I want to amend that uh to or one of the other ones that had to do with the road uh to remand to uh the water subcommittee I mean I don't want to stifle debate but uh I I gave you my feeling but that's just my feeling we have a committee here of 20 people so everyone's got their own feelings on this I just want to use the motion mechanism to try and get us to decisions so we can keep moving forward any other questions seeing none let's see how this uh uh vehicle drives all right and so the the first motion I'm going to read it it says I'm motion but that's not the way it goes right I move is the way it goes uh I move that the climate res and Tony thank you so much for this presentation because what you've done with the first four motions is to give the argument or or the justification of a large group of people whose uh Lots border uh he speech road that is the basis for these first four motions so you've made that very efficient I appreciate that so the first motion is I move that the climate resilience committee defer medium and longterm e speech policy recommendations until the buzzards bake Coalition Goosey Causeway study report is published uh now Tony are you g to you will you be recorded as the maker of that motion sure yeah I so move okay and and Kevin are you the second of that motion yes okay uh excuse me EXC me go ahead Sean I don't think they can make a motion as part of the committee if they're not part of the committee uh they are according to Michael burus they are official members of the committee okay so I'm just going by the list Sean that Michael burus sent to me of official members of the committee yeah I stand okay all right Kevin Kevin was just appointed at the last select board meeting I believe so he's pretty new so just a point of order just to be sure yeah State your point Jim yeah so just a point um I believe that Tony uh owns property on East Beach but is not a citizen he's not a voter can he be a member and I'd like to ask somebody who would know I don't know who that is but all I know is he has been uh appointed by the select board and he has served on this committee for two years or so John if it would help I'll make the motion and Kevin can second I think that puts to that removes that question but but it gets to the issue of who's going to vote and official members are going to vote and I'm relying on our town planner uh Michael burus who's given me a list of official members and I will quickly read down the list of official members John Bullard sh atel David Brown constant ski Shan leech Jake mcgan Ross Moran Ray repos and Mark rasm and Davis CR Michael suoman Tony venzio James White Phil Weinberg Robert dlor Donna Amaral Michael yogman Jeff Canton David Cole Joseph Eng being and Kevin Kurt sorry I have another technical related question so um I think I think the answer to we can appoint people who aren't residents in town you don't have to be registered vter or anything to be appointed and I I believe I know Kevin Kurt was appointed um I'm not I I'm I believe you that Tonyo was also I do have a question though about the appropriateness of people who have a who are a budding East Beach Road who own property a budding East Beach whether it's appropriate for them to be participating in the vote um why should they not be uh I I I'm I'm just raising the question about whether they have a conflict of interest I don't know the answer to that well um I don't uh see why uh these people who have the most to to lose uh cannot voice an opinion or vote on uh uh what is uh what you're asking the select board is asking in terms of recommendations uh for East spee Road uh I you could be right because you're asking for recommendations to other Bo rather than um B policy so I I mean I'll I'll defer to the chair on this one I think that's a pretty solid argument actually making a recommendation we're we're making recommendations to the planning board which is recommending to the select board so this is like two layers of um insallation so I'm not worried about it I I think their opinions and ability to vote they've been well Kevin hasn't been but Tony's been a member of this committee for two years so I'm not worried about his eligibility to participate um and same with Kevin Mark Rasmus and you have a your hand up yep yeah I I thought it would just be helpful uh to give everybody information about the study timeline um so yeah so obviously the um the research the the project team um they have confirmed that they are on schedule for delivery of the final products of the study by the end of 2024 which was what their their contract is and they are on scheduled for that so Tony was right um that we're looking at data to be published published by the end of the year they have also however knowing how pressing this issue is said that they would be willing to make a a summary of findings to be expected report to the community uh late this summer so we're we're six months away from a from a slide deck think of it that way and we're nine months away from actual published published reports so it's it's it's not too far out but it's um it's a little ways out I just wanted everybody to know that so goad Mar finish your thought since I have the floor my um I mentioned these to Tony earlier today I two concerns of the way the language is written um I worry about that we all probably all 20 of us probably have a different understanding of what's a short a medium and a long-term recommendation action uh there's a lot of subjectiveness in those terms I what I think is an immediate thing somebody else thinks is long term so I worry about the lack of clarity on that um I think that could get confusing for the selectman as they're trying to make decisions um I don't know what to do about that issue without actually crafting definitions here which could be tough to do um the other what other one was uh a sense of lead time in Project planning and implementation so you know say we want to support a beach nourishment project sometimes putting that request into the Army Corps of Engineers you're you're in a queue for five years do we not want to put in that request Quest today and and not lose that time so I worry a little bit about um letting the T of the flexibility to apply for funds to make recommendations to legislators for things that may not happen for years but we need to get in the pipeline I wouldn't want this um motion to restrict that either those are my concerns okay uh here's uh because this is the first one I I don't mind taking a little bit of time on this one uh as um people go through this we we're aiming for a vote and as Shauna said everything has to be a roll call vote if people want to speak they're speaking to the motion which Tony made and Kevin seconded and so the first thing I want you to say is whether you're in favor of it or against it for example as chair I'm not going to speak on the Motions I'm just the referee to try and keep you know the meeting into control but to try and give us an example if I were speaking on this motion I would say I Rise to speak against this motion and the major reason is because I think the medium and long-term impacts on East speech have uh to do with a lot more than the Gooseberry Causeway they have to do with sea level rise they have to do with hurricanes they have to do with a lot of of things that are far beyond uh the causeway and so I think our recommendations need to include medium and long-term uh recommendations thank you that's but the first thing I did was to say I'm speaking in opposition so when when you want to speak please the first thing we want to know and you could say just I Rise to speak in favor of I has to speak in opposition and sit down okay Jim I I I Rise to speak against this uh this motion uh for basically the first reason is what you just iterated that uh it isn't just uh the erosion that may or may not be caused by the causeway and number two uh or as the climate resilience committee uh we're supposed to be uh writing a report but the our business is never ending and it isn't the case that we're going to come up with long-term Solutions uh tomorrow uh and it it'll be an evolving uh process and I just think that this motion kind of hamstrings it also from what Mark R M was saying that you know longterm we want to do Beach nourishment with the Army Corp dredge material it may take years to get that and that to me is at least medium if not long-term um process so I I don't see what it gets you to to pass this particular motion thank you thank you Michael Soloman thank you John I I rise in favor of this motion I I don't want it I don't want it to hamstring but it doesn't seem like late summer or end of the year is very far off and buzzit Bay Coalition and the the uh charitable Foundation that has paid for this or much of it uh we talking about over a million dollars spent to answer the questions that we're asking right now I think it's not only not wise to wait but it's also disrespectful to wait uh I mean to um to take action take any substantive action um before we get this study thank you and thank you for being brief too any other uh Shauna so I Rise Against this motion actually because the the Motions further down are actually recommending Pol making policy recommendations so maybe that's um so we are making policy recommendations so are is the idea here maybe maybe we're back to what Mark said about medium and and long term because I mean we're we're definitely making policy recommendation in number two right here so I'm a little confused about that although I get the spirit of it the spirit of it is don't do anything dramatic or costly until we get this report back I get the spirit of that I just worry about the need for it thank you David thank you John um so um Shauna identified exactly one of the per points of perfection I wanted to make for motions two three and four is not withstanding motion number one I move that whatever it is for for um motions two three and four so that's an element Perfection that I would like to see on the later uh motions so first of all David are you speaking in favor of motion one or against motion one I'm in favor of motion one and in answer to Shauna's concern I believe that motions two three and four should start with not withstanding motion number one well wait a minute we'll get to motion two when we get to motion two David so you're speaking in favor of motion one yes okay let's leave it at that okay Jake um I write to speak in favor of this motion as well and I stress I think sha is pointing it out and that was my concern kind of at the beginning is that there might be some conflict with some of these motions and what gets support and what doesn't so I just hope that we get some clarity after you know if we take a vote on this you what kind of happens with the other ones because I see a situation where you could support one and then have another one that's technically in conflict with that so that's it I RA in favor of this so you're in you said you were in agreement with sha but she was opposed to the motion but you're in favor of it I'm in favor of this motion but I understand Shauna's concerns further down the line as to you know recommendations to the town and how to address this I think that the money that's being spent on this um essentially uh study from Buzzard's Bay is probably going to give us a fair amount of information for the whole Coastline in that could be helpful in long term when I when I think long term I'm thinking more like a three to five year window not you know six months to a you know I think short term is probably six months to a year you know a two to three year time frame and then three to five after that but um that's how I would Define the medium and long term thank you okay thank you Jake Tony so I I I'm in favor of the motion um I uh to to answer sh's concerns I view that those other items are more short-term uh and this was mainly done out of respect for the amount of funding and science that's going into this and they their stated reason is to inform um uh residents and local government for for policy uh decisions so it it just seems like common sense to take advantage of of that information thank you Tony any others and if there no others we're going to get to a roll call oh Kevin I rise in favor of this motion um it only makes sense to try to accumulate as much data as possible before we start making any decisions which are going to have a huge impact on the entire area um in respect to the money that's been spent so far on this I think it makes sense as we heard from one of our other colleagues to wait until we have that data to before we make any long-term recommendations this you know is a policy where we have to take it in steps this first one obviously looking at more long-term solutions to what's going to happen in an effort to make our neighborhood and the beach more resilient in the hopes that it would reverse um so I again you know to keep it brief I think more data is better than taking a vote without that data I know we need to make a recommendation to the select board but I don't think we do our committee any Justice by making a recommendation without the total amount of data that we have the ability to collect thank you Kevin any others if not we're going to go to a roll call and uh again we're trying trying this out for the first time see how it goes all right uh Michael you want to run us through the roll call yeah I'll start with the chairs um John Bullard uh no Shan Shelt shuel I Jim whon Jim whon no again hi Jeff Canton I'm in favor Tony venzio yes Kevin Kurt yes in favor Michael yogman no Michael yogman no okay thank you Bob daylor yes David spres yes Michael Sullivan yes yes Jeff Canton oh sorry Jeff I already called on you Bill Weinberg yes conon ski yes Sean leech he left the meeting David Cole and Mark resm no Mark had to go at six oh no I I'm still hanging on here I gota go soon yeah um yeah SE I voted yes Mark a yes and John's a yes so I don't know if anyone tallied this I forgot to tally it but I do believe that carried uh you gotta tally it Michael if you're gonna do the roll call tally it m well am did you tell you I think it was a l to three that's what I had as well no I didn't I didn't tally it either all right in the future figure this out this is the first who's gonna tally who who's gonna do the tally I I will do it I apologize for that okay all right it's the first one it's a test drive we know it passed we're just not sure it's 11 to3 is that what people said I think so yes I okay all right we'll get congrat ulations we got the first one done all right uh the second uh uh one is I move that the climate resilience committee recommend that the select board draft and Implement a highway department policy whereby storm deposited Cobble on East Beach Road is pushed onto the town RightWay on a uh beat on the beach slot south of East Beach Road from when it came uh Tony are you making this motion I so move I Kevin are you seconding this yes okay is is there discussion on this I see hand is that the hands on this motion Kevin you're first uh you're on mute Kevin I apad for that um I I support this MO because it's the beginning of an effort to try and renourish the beach which has been adversely affected by the latest storms and the actions that were taken in order to clear the road um in a recent storm approximately two weeks ago um we had no excessive High Tides but we did have a southernly wind and a compromised area um roughly in the middle of the road between addresses 100 110 and 146 saw some overwash and a lot of seaweed and sand accumulated no no Cobble probably because of the lack of Cobble to some extent but it was not a significant storm but we're already seeing signs that the road has been left extremely vulnerable and go God forbid you get a hurricane this uh this wall um you're going to have a road that is been severely impacted and you're going to be talking about uh what do we do to replace it or do we abandon it at which time you're going to have a lot of uh adverse effect on property owners Commerce the infrastructure that you talk about um it's all going to be affected so you know I support this motion all right thank you and and you certainly made the case in the presentation as well David sprogis thank you John I rise in favor of this motion with uh two modifications the first one is a notwithstanding Clause um regarding motion number one and the second modification is to provide the uh Road cruise with sufficient latitude to be able to effectively move the uh Cobble back onto the properties and I think the telling photograph Tony if I could ask you to back up to the aerial photograph of the um of the loader uh on the road there yes now if you're that loader operator and you've been instructed to put that material onto the onto the property that is right U uh just inside the ocean of it you've got a pragmatic problem you can't do that with drive without driving over the uh the the the hobble in front there so I would recommend an adjustment to the language that allows the operator of the vehicle to have a little bit of latitude to put the put the material plus or minus uh one property or plus or minus some amount of distance that doesn't hamstring them does that make sense so uh uh David uh if I can comment just to keep this simple uh I think your first suggestion not withstanding item one uh to avoid having to do an amendment is really unnecessary language we don't need it it's kind of understood if we pass this that it's not withstanding so we don't need that language and I think what Tony and Kevin have done with the language about pushing the Cobell onto the town right of away is to avoid legal uh problems that the town can is not allowed to dump uh onto private property so they're saying don't dump it onto private property put it onto the right of way so I I would suggest that uh you not mess with it but uh uh Tony and and Kevin can do that you do you hear what I'm saying Dave I hear what you're saying um I I hope that it affects the desired outcome I I again I rise in favor of the spirit of this motion but I think we want to be careful not to write it so narrowly that it creates problems uh in implementation okay Mike suan um I rise in favor of the motion I just address David's concerns we're we're we're expressing a spirit of what we would like to have happen this is a lot this is quite distant from the sausage making that will have to occur with regard to uh special order of conditions that will have to be issued to the highway department to do this activity so I I appreciate your concern about the details of it but I think it's just the spirit of hey the material came from these Lots we should put it back there and and so I rise in favor of that I think Mike you're absolutely right by the time it gets to the planning board and and the select board they're going to figure out the details of it and I think you're absolutely right that what we're doing here is what's the spirit of the thing you know so you're absolutely right about that Kim white I would like to uh support this in principle uh I just have a question uh it's it's really indeterminant where the town right away is and where the Lots stop there is currently some Stakes but they're not staked at every lot and I just would like to uh some legal opinion that we can we can do this uh from an environmental Point BM d uh whatever but I I just would hope that we could do it in a legal fashion thank you uh Kevin um my my thoughts in regards to the staking of the road and the pushing back onto the town right away um that's something that we did discuss when a brief presentation at the board of Selectmen meeting last week and it seemed like a general in favor with the board I can't speak for everyone in regards to pushing it back onto the southide and I did have a brief conversation with the Town Administrator during that time and I I suggested to both him and the chair of the board of selectman that I would be in favor of coordinating any efforts to locate where it would go uh obviously common sense we would think would Prevail but obviously there's always that legality issue that comes into play but I think in an effort to make sure we do what we can to protect that road that it it needs to go south whether it's uh splitting uh from one hit uh one lot to another or a few feet one way or another onto the town right away versus the private property I don't think the private property owners are going to be very concerned about it they want to see that material go back so they can a protect their property and B work in conjunction with the town to protect the road thanks Kevin Jake um I also rise in favor or rise to speak in favor of this motion um I think Mike Sullivan and Jim both have pointed out just our concerns as a member of the Conservation Commission many of these East Beach property owners are coming before us with their notice of intents to obviously um you know do work on their property and we want to make sure that with the generalization of this is you know you don't want the highway department not knowing where the mean highight tide is you know where the where the material gets deposited obviously if this remains in the right of way as others have pointed out that that will be I would I believe sufficient but when you start looking further down whether it's replenishment and all that I think there's going to be a little bit more um analysis done on that as to you know how it will be dealt with from conservation planning board and everyone else so thank you all right I think uh Weinberg well I I do appreciate the spirit of what what what people are saying I guess I'm concerned arguably as we as decision makers haven't well one whether it's really in the scope of our uh you know mandate as to what we're supposed to be you know focused on but that we haven't heard from the highway department in in a way it's very open-ended um as to if this creates an obligation I think I think Tony just say I I just think Tony raised the issue what if a hurricane you know what's the level of storm uh that the would have the highway department or anybody you know choose to do something outside the the general or the open-ended language of of the motion uh good question uh I I think you know as Mike Sullivan said the gist of these policies are we're trying to capture a spirit of what should be done when I worked for the federal government it was a regulatory agency and I said to the people worked for me Focus first on doing the right thing we have good lawyers when we know what the right thing is the lawyers will figure out how to make it legal but the first thing to do is figure out what the right thing is and I think the right thing here was captured in that sign on the beach that Tony had as part of the presentation don't remove stones from the beach that's a Westport regulation right that's the right thing don't remove stones from the beach and so we we need to figure out and we have bright people in the highway department and the Town Council how when a storm hits not to remove Stone from the beach and so it's their job not our job it's their job to figure out how not to remove stones from the beach Jah I just want I'm in support of this motion I if if this was a motion that was before the select board to create the policy I would absolutely not be for it because there's not enough meat here right we haven't gotten that logistically the things that we mentioned um but because this is us as a climate committee making a recommendation that hey we think this is generally a good idea so please go work on it I do think the select board is going to have to work out a lot of details along with you know probably the planning board but I think that this is enough for this committee's recommendation thank you Jim whiten uh Sean I just just uh covered the area that I was going to try to cover because I I really think we need to have a discussion with the highway department and uh the select board and Town Council and everybody else to figure out what's legal and what's appropriate thank you Sean thank you John I'm a little tired of seeing that sign about removing the cobbles that that sign is in relation to a bylaw that I drafted regarding people removing for personal use in their yards and things like that it's got nothing to do with the Wetland protection act or any of these other things that's item number one second second issue is moving Cobble from the beach everything's good as long as everybody's doing the right thing so people are placing stuff illegally on the beach should we be helping that out by putting it back also or should we know so how will we know someone who's and I've watched it all last weekend doing things without permits and then we're just going to let that go and keep it moving forward seems kind of crazy to me to me the the goal of the highway department and they can try to put it on each side and they did but realistically a lot of it end up on the North side so did the North Side put everything on the south side and vice versa what if it came from the other direction what if the ways came up and dragged from the north side to the South do we put it on the North side it seems like drafting a policy good idea but drafting a right policy is a better idea now Sean were you speaking in favor or against the motion I'm against the motion okay thank you is that it Tony yeah hi John just briefly uh it's been my experience that the storm events typically wash material from the beach onto the road in in that direction uh I did review this policy with a number of equipment operators and they said it would be very straightforward to implement Okay Kevin you want to speak again or should we go to a vote um I don't know if it's just uh kicking a can but uh in in reference to Sean's uh response uh I've researched with conservation and every single property owner on the south side of the beach has an order of conditions either in place or an application before the Conservation Commission so I just wanted to make that to be part of the record that it is not true that no one has permits on that side in activity is being done in order to make sure and maintain a their properties and B the resiliency of the road for the time being until we can come with a policy that best suits everyone okay let's go to a vote all right I think I think people know how they're going to vote on this and so uh Michael you're gonna call a roll and someone's gonna keep track right yeah uh yeah John Bullard yes sh shuel sh shuel I Jim whon yes Jake mcgan hi Jeff Canton I'm in favor Tony venzio yes Kevin Kurt yes Michael yogman yes Bob daylor yes Dave sprogis yes Michael Sullivan yes Phil Weinberg yes constant gee yes Sean leech no um is David did David Cole leave okay I don't think David Cole's here and Mark resus Mark wanted to be uh he had to leave couple of minutes ago he wanted to be recorded in favor uh well he's not here but that's 13 to one okay so the motion carries motion carries all right two down uh the third motion is I move the climate resilience committee recommend the equivalent quantity of Cobble removed from East Beach Road be returned and replaced on the beach from whence it came Tony are you making this motion I so move and uh Kevin you seconding this motion yes I do all right I see a couple of hands up uh Kevin you're first um because of the nature of the situation and the fact that a lot of material was lost to the various actions that happened after these storms you know in regards to the storm itself and the storm surge which relocated a lot of the material on the road and on the North side and probably suck some back out into the bay however you know as you can see in the slide presentation a lot of that material was relocated from the coastline a leaving the coastline extremely vulnerable and in turn opening up the road to more impact from the next storm um there's nothing to protect the town's Road and people who own proper don't have anywhere I shouldn't say don't have anywhere are limited as to what they can do in regards to resources to replenish what has been removed so I think the aim of this motion is to try and solve the problem that this hardship has created for many of the property owners and in turn also assist the town in protecting its own infrastructure that material needs to come back there is an amount of material at the town beach a little bit on Gooseberry Island and a couple other locations no it would not make up for everything that has been you know depleted but it would be a good start and an opportunity to put it in the most vulnerable areas those pinch points as Tony mentioned during the presentation in order to be able to at least give the time the the road a chance until we so come up with a better suggestion in regards to whether it's grant money private property nourishment whatever the case may be coastal zone management has shared an interest in working alongside of us to the point where they'll come down and show us how to restore the beach once the material is brought in so there are opportunities for replenishment and we would like to be explore those opport unties and be able to do so thank you Kevin David frogus thank you John um I accept um that oh I rise in favor of this motion and I accept the your sausag making comment and such but I still think that there are uh two um uh areas of possible Improvement for this one is um um H how much material are we talking about I think uh the it's incumbent upon us to have an estimate of the amount of material uh that would be replenished um and that could probably be done through some of the historic surveys the second thing that um I I think needs to be called out is it's incredibly unlikely that we're going to find the material that was taken in order to replenish it um I expect that a substitute material is going to have to be uh put there and as such um I don't think landfill is the right thing to stick there so I think it should be specified that it's either the Cobble that was removed or something like the Cobble that was removed because if you put landfill there it's just going to blow away in 10 minutes let me ask a question um David because uh you're on something that I was thinking about too uh Kevin do you mean the uh uh cabble removed in January or do you talk about all of the Cobble removed over the last 20 years I'm referring to the most recent events December 1718 and January 10 and then again January 13 rough those dates roughly so you know in in that aspect before this these events last summer it was sufficient enough to where everyone had the material the material that was there and it was affording a reasonable amount of protection obviously more is better but it was affording a reasonable amount of protection for the road since that's happened um I had a meeting on December 21st no no I I don't want you to go more into it but I I think and I don't think this needs to be amended yes but uh what you've said I think answers David's question because it identifies the material that would be removed it's not coming from a landfill it's the material removed in the last three or four storms because you know where that material is um yes and only to add one uh minor uh part to that equ is we have sought out suppliers of like River Cobble and brought it to conservation and we have had it approved uh the problem becomes implementing um return of such cble at whose expense that becomes the issue because you know not everybody can afford $1,500 a truck Road for caral okay I think that's why this is up here Michael solivan kind of wanted to wait till shaa spoke but um I well I can go to shaa first and then you yeah why don't shaa want to so this is a case where I just cannot support this motion it's it's um I I again appreciate kind of the spirit of I actually don't appreciate the spirit of it but I don't want to really go into that aspect but I think it's impossible to implement I think it is a practical impossibility and you know maybe our resilient I respect those of you who are going to vote in favor of this because you know it's the right thing to do for resiliency but there we have no way of measuring where what how much C involved we have no way of knowing the volume we have no money in the town to pay for it so um again I respect all of you are going to vote Yes on this because I appreciate the spirit of what they're trying to do I just think it is not feasible or practical thank you Mike Sullivan I putting myself in Shauna's shoes I I you know this is really we're trying to adjudicate a problem here that's already happened and as much as I'm in agreement that the town should do something to rectify a situation that um they've exacerbated with this policy I I don't I don't know that a recommendation or or a motion from this committee would be helpful but I almost want to change it to given the unanimous vote on number two we would suggest that the town look into some type of remediation effort here for example um and I don't I don't know if this is this is not a complete answer but did you know that at Horseneck Beach they're now taking the stones off of the beach piling them up in the woods which seems kind of silly uh especially since I'm not sure it's a good policy as far as the erosion of Horseneck Beach is concerned but certainly throwing them into the woods in a pile is not helpful and it could be could be used on E East Beach but I almost I I I would I want to support this but I don't think it's within our purview to try to make this decision thank you uh I saw Sean Sean did you lower your hand I'm sorry yeah no I didn't I'm I accidentally did I trying to take my myself off mute so uh very simply uh if you look at the now Infamous what happened at sced Beach and up near Boston where the residents put $600,000 worth of sand on the beach it disappeared two days later uh basically private property owners are responsible for their private property I don't see how the town can get involved with putting stuff back onto the beach and any type of quantity measurable or immeasurable and I don't see how even you know what gets to me is it wasn't unanimous Mike the vote on number two by the way you're right I'm sorry Sean you're right I'm sorry uh and that drafting policies that say the town will do this the town will do that when you have hypothetical situations is kind of crazy thank you Tony uh yeah a couple of points here um so I I appreciate um Shauna's practicality uh I have done a number of different estimates um I've estimated the amount of material several different ways um we do know that the the uh Dune in front of the road has been drastically reduced so if we do not do anything we will have constant overwash in smallscale storms it is it is we we will have created a disastrous situation by mismanagement practices so the therefore I believe it is imperative from an environmental perspective that this be remediated it's also imperative from a moral perspective that this be remediated because the very property that people are walking on has been just taken right um and I also believe that it's a legal responsibility because it was taken in violation of the wetlands protection act now in reference to the comment of about uh you know other Beach nourishment projects remember that East Beach has based on Shoreline measurements achieved kind of a stasis because it was heavily cobbled and the majority of the material taken off the road was Cobble right so that material generally holds in terms of uh uh you know beach erosion based on all the shoreline transect data that we have right but when we do like vast amounts of removal we're talking about thousands of cubic yards we destroy that equilibrium and and basically invite a disastrous situation so I believe that it's imperative that this be remediated for the sake of the infrastructure and also for the sake of like I said you know what what is right to do morally what is right to do environmentally and legally thank you uh Jim White I find that hypocritical uh I I would like to uh either amend this or vote against it um I think the town uh cannot be held liable for this they're just clearing the road if we're going to change the policy we change the policy on how they do that but I don't think any liability to do this nor the money to do this and uh if for instance they have to remove some of the Cobble that's that's creating the on the the town beach part of East Beach uh that you can't park there because the Cobble is piled up uh I would be in favor of the town's going to move it they could move it and distribute it down the road but uh I don't think they have any liability thank you Sean do you still have your hand up or or no no I don't sorry all right Mike yagman yeah I uh I like Jim's idea and I'm goingon to suggest that we amend this uh motion um to something equivalent to uh the notion of equivalent quantity of Cobble I think is unrealistic and impractical but I think we could change the language to something that as much as practically possible um uh removing the quantity of Cobble so that it gives the town some f ability cognizant of its fiscal implications and cognizant of the fact that uh um you know what's really feasible so I I agree with the uh notion in principle but I think we've got to uh amend the language so that it's much more practical well if someone makes a motion to amend uh they can raise their hand and make a motion to amend Jim also said would vote against what I heard Shauna saying is we don't have the money to do it I I the inference from that I got was any amount but uh at any rate if someone wants to make a motion to amend uh write it down tell me what it is so I can get a specific motion Bob dlor I rise in opposition of this motion it is one thing to um recommend that the town um pile the debris which is Storm driven onto the traveled way to pile it within the right of way to be used later it's another thing There's no practical way to either figure out the volumes find the volumes do any of those things nor um should should any this stuff be done without having a a Redevelopment plan or you know you know that that is really a plan to restore and do Beach nourishment this idea that um the material that was removed from the road has to be found and brought back uh There's no practical way to do that I stand in opposition to this motion all right we've got some people who want to speak for the second or third time on this I don't want to talk about this forever uh like to get to a vote Mike Mike sullan well I don't know if you're ready for for a um change the motion or uh but I would just say if you want to take Michael Yan's suggestion uh I moved that the climate climate resiliency committee recommend to the degree to the degree practical that the equivalent quantity so forth so just that in the to the degree practical because you know I I just don't I think there's a lot more adjudication needs to go on here we haven't talked to the highway department directly you know we we don't know where all this material went they can tell us that it's it's I think you're I'm generally in favor of this but I think it's difficult to ask people to act as judges in this case at this time and May and we might consider putting this decision off or this motion off until we get so there is a motion to amend this to um I moov the climate resilience committee recommend uh to the degree practicable the equivalent quantity of Cobble removed from East Beach Road be returned and replaced on the beach from whence it came did I get you correctly on that Mike so motion all right is there a second to that amendment I second it all right uh we're going to have a roll call vote on that Amendment John Bard yeah uh no shna Shelt hi Jim whon Jim wh sorry muted no Jake McAn yes Jeff Canton no Tony venio yes Kevin Kurt yes Michael yogman yes because I think it gives us the option to see if the highway department just the vote just we just want the yes or no by no Dave spres yes Michael Sullivan yes Bill Weinberg no John leech no that carries by one vote all right so it carries now we're gonna have a vote on the amended motion on and so uh the first vote amended the motion now this vote votes on the amended motion so the first vote amended it now we're going to vote on the amended motion got it can you read the amended motion please yep I move that the climate resilience resilience committee recommend to the extent practicable the equivalent quantity of Cobble removed from East Beach Road be returned and replaced on the beach from when it came John Bard can we before before we vote can there be any discussion um okay we want more discussion we got uh a lot more to do here but including a report from the health committee uh Tony ven please don't make the same point you've made before Tony uh very briefly I uh I did look at potential funding sources and I have talked to C Zone management regarding grants related to this item so there are some options for funding sources this is anyway that's it je uh John I want at one point you to do some clarification about the time frame for this I.E from the most recent storms are you are we going to include that language ask that again I didn't get it Jeff um I'm suggesting we include some clarification on the time frame for uh when the material is removed I IE the most recent storms I kind of think that's understood that was in the record when Kevin said uh that the storms in December and January so that's in the discussion so that's in in the record so I don't think we have to put it in the motion Mike he John Mike only U suggestion for this amendment is it gives us the option to protect the town from uh fiscal stuff be going back to the highway department who violated the wetlands uh uh regulation by uh putting the Cobble elsewhere so that they ought to be paying for restoring it and being in compliance with the regulation okay Phil well I'm not at all I understand the argument about it not being uh making this argument about it being illegal under the wetlands protection act and um you know it is it it is required before you place material on the beach for Beach nourishment that you apply for an approval but I think it it is different uh issue of whether or not the town uh was legally required to put that material back on the beach uh they didn't take the material off the beach the question is were a legally obligated you know and they shouldn't have put it on another Beach without approval but I don't think that answers I don't think that gets the question it seems to me really I guess I'm not clear as to the urgency to decide this question now really what's being put on the table is is the climate resiliency committee taking a policy position that um the way to respond to the type of situations that occurred on East Beach is to renourish the beach and um and I don't think that we've really talked about that as a group and Sean made the point that you know the own that the property owners in East Beach in in Salsbury put $600,000 of uh and it was washed away in the next storm so why do we need to decide this tonight we hav talked about it as a group and so if I'm forced to I would vote no not in favor of it because we haven't talked about adopting this as a policy and I think it just preempts a portion of what we would end up doing in in our climate uh in the plan that we're making motion four has uh Beach nourishment in it that if we ever get the motion for all right is there yeah Tony was making the argument that that's really you know there's this moral issue because it's not our property but his environmental issue was around making uh of returning this for Beach nourishment and I'm just saying it's pre we don't it's premature for the committee to decide that based on us never having talked about it Tony so it it appears the state is already determined that that that was not a permitted maintenance activity you know implying ba based back to the wetlands protection act that the material should be remain on the beach because it's presumed under the ACT to be protective and the the other to make is you know uh this picture says it all in terms of why it's imperative right that roadway is now very exposed and the recent smallscale storms proved it right so this is an imperative that uh you know we have to deal with IM immediately unless we want the road to be constantly washed out by small scale storms right so we're we're remediating uh you know a situation that has occurred relatively recently um that uh we have the ability to remediate so Jim White I'd like to call the question okay uh roll call Michael uh John I already called you and you said no but no no uh this is on the amended oh no we had initially started it but do you want no I'm gonna vote Yes okay Shelt Shelt no Jim whiton no Jake mcgan yes Jeff Canton no Tony renor Tony was that a yes the it kind of yes okay thank you Kevin Kurt yes Michael y yes Bob dlor no David spres yes Michael Sullivan yes idot Bill Weinberg no and Sean leech no the motion carries by one vote all right we are now on um uh question or motion four I moved the climate resilience committee recommend a policy of preservation for East speech this involves preserving East Beach as a coastal resource for future Generations through means such as Beach nourishment and maintaining public infrast structures including East Beach Road Tony are you making this motion I so move and Kevin are you seconding it yes all right uh do we have any discussion on this motion can uh Dave sprogis uh yes I U I rise in support of it but I realize right away that um I mean there there has to be a termination on it and I don't know exactly what that should be but at some point we expect inundation of the entire neck and so I you know maybe it goes without saying I don't know but we should have multiple egresses off the neck uh until there's a vote of no confidence to support the entire neck okay thank you Jim Jim you're muted sorry about that um I would vote I rise in opposition it is in uh it's contrary to motion number one and two uh we may find that it it's impracticable to maintain the infrastructure uh and three uh I I think it is uh too far in the future to say this any other discussion Tony uh yes so th this was included because the planing board was was asked to come up with recommendations for E speech and had been discussing a policy of planned Retreat um and so as we spoke to a variety of people as we looked at the survey in the uh the East Beach vulnerability study as we talked to local business owners it was clear that there was strong support for a policy of preservation um and since the planning board needs to make a recommendation on this um that is why this item was included to to basically provide input from CRC to planning board uh to as to the sense of how we should be recommending on that topic thank you uh Mike Sullivan I guess I need a little help from the planning board um I I almost suggest I was going to suggest that this although I'm in favor of the motion in general I was going to suggest that the motion be tabled based on our actions on number one but maybe between Tony and Jim can we speak or and Bob can we speak to the importance for the immediacy of of this discussion now instead of waiting until later in the year when we have more information from the study through the chair I'm not sure I understand your question Mike all right so um Tony is suggesting that there's a reason he put this forward now and as as noted in seemingly in um a conflict with Motion One um Can can Tony and Jim speak to why we can't wait until the end of the year when we have a study to have this discussion well let let me uh just uh read the charge we have from the select board uh um the board is looking for possible solutions short and long term to the erosion that this area has been seeing could you review the uh MVP study that was completed in 2021 and the most recent damage and see if any of the recommended actions could help property owners in the town maintain their properties so that's what we're supposed to do um and so I think that um I continue to think there's no need to wait uh for the study to be done uh there's uh you know assuming that the study is going to provide the answer to erosion maybe it will but maybe it won't and uh and there are other things that that can cause disaster to uh East Beach than uh sediment transfer that is affected by the causeway um such as a sea level rise or you know the next big storm not un unlike what we had in Janu uary we could get a big storm and you know then you then you'll get big big damage not what we had in January so I think we should be making recommendations now not a year from now um so I I think this is a uh you know do we want to we had talked in in that study about elevating the road uh that's a maintenance of the road which this um calls for that you know that is this motion is totally consistent with that recommendation in the MVP study among other things uh so I you know I I'm going to vote for this because I think it it has it's consistent with what was in the VP study I think you've answered my question John I I rise in favor and I'll leave it at that John i' call a question uh well let me uh okay I I see Jake had his hand up before that that's fine you you can take the vote no problem I I think you clarified what I was looking for on so thank you okay uh Michael you ready yeah jumo yes sh shuel no Jim whiten no Jake McAn yes je Canton yes Tony venio yes Kevin Kurt yes you it Michael yogman no Bob daylor no Dave spres yes Michael Sullivan yes Phil Weinberg yes and Sean leech yes that motion carries all right uh now we get to motion five can you bring that up Michael I'll start reading it I move that the climates re climate oh my mouth isn't working climate resilience committee recommends that the select board identify and pursue Financial Resources to offer lot owners on East speach options to voluntarily sell their Lots outright or with retained life tency to the town of Westport such program shall be entirely voluntar voluntary and shall not involve taking of private property now I know Mark uh rasm was gonna uh draft that or drafted that John I'll move that uh so Jim whiten is moving that is there a second second Jake Jake is seconding that uh is there a discussion on that we're gonna go straight to a vote okay oh Tony hi John uh so the concern I have here is that uh in order to do so this takes resources um and we're already concerned about the town having resources to uh fund the restoring of the beach dun right that was removed by the the the road clearing practices this um option here is typically would be pursued in the course of a managed Retreat and so I am a little bit concerned that we're simultaneously funding a manag retreat uh uh process at the same time as we're attempting to uh you know preserve the beach and so we're basically dividing our funding with across two opposite approaches so uh I guess I would uh be concerned about that that uh confusion of Direction um I also think that you know the uh Property Owners you know have the ability to sell their property on the open market um which you know happens from time to time particularly following storms um so you know th those options are not uh those options are available to them thank you Tony if if I could uh figuratively step away from the chair for a second um and we had this discussion a little bit at the planning board as you know Tony uh on Tuesday uh I'm a member of the board of the Buzz's Bay Coalition uh and what I mentioned on Tuesday is that one of the things that the climate resilience committee wants to do is give people information so they can make decisions um because this is private property in most cases and if we give people information about insurance reinsurance uh projections about temperature or sea level rise then people can make decisions about what in many cases may be the biggest investment they have their home or their business you know the back Yeti or or trip boat yard things like that uh and every people make may make different decisions some people may say you know when I was mayor New Bedford you tell people hurricane Bobs coming some people stay and some people leave uh people are different and so I think the proper approach is to help people whatever the decision is that they want to make they want to stay then we want to help them stay if they want to leave then we want to help them leave whatever decision individuals want to make we want to help them and they may make different decisions at different times depending on what they see in the news what they read in a book or a scientific article what they see their neighbors doing so I don't see uh Beach nourishment and and Retreat as either or I see them as both and I and the Coalition for Buzzards Bay uh is really really good at raising money and you know they can raise money for Beach nourishment uh and and we've talked to Mark Rasmus about the ability to do that he's excited about doing that and they can raise money for uh retreat but I see all of this as gradu uh things that will happen over time if you try to do Retreat over a period of five years that's never going to work you know Retreat it's GNA happen over 50 years you know one person this year you know two people next year that kind of thing uh so I see it as a both and and and just as I supported Beach nourishment you know I think we should also support Retreat because I think it's a both end anyway that's enough for me so uh I don't see any hands up Michael you ready oh yeah I didn't I didn't put my hand up John but I just I I just I I rise in support of it I think you got the right words in there um I would like it does seem as though we we're considering this on short notice but I get the I get it uh you've got it voluntarily it's all voluntary uh and there's no coercion no n that's business so I I'm in favor of it let's call Michael H to a roll call John Bard yes Shan Shelt hi Jim whon yes Jake McAn yes be Canton uh yes Tony venzio no Kevin Kurt Kevin Kurt no no Michael yogman yes Bob daylor yes Dave spres no Michael Sullivan yes Phil Weinberg yes Sean leech Sean leech I don't I don't see him I think he may have left he's left okay well that carries N9 to3 all right so we getting through here um now um I uh motion six only two more to go uh I moved that the climate resilience committee recommends that the select board pursue coordination with eversource and the department of conservation and Recreation who is the owner of the overhead electrical on John Reed Road uh to relocate the overhead electrical on East Beach Road to a location that is less vulnerable to storm events this is an infrastructure item that was covered in the uh vulnerability report is this a bob dor is this your motion this is this is my motion and I so move it uh is there a second second Jim Jim whiten second second okay any uh discussion on this Kevin um my only concern is if you're going to relocate this electrical line and infrastructure um and I don't know if if this is the proper for to suggest that but where would it be relocated to and how would it be utilized to serve the property owners that it now serves if it's relocated well it's still going to serve you there's still going to be polls there it's just where does the main feed come from and it's uh I go back to what Mike Sullivan said you know at the beginning about getting uh a the kind of sense of what we're looking at here right now the whole Barrier island is dependent on the polls that come on East Beach Road which is an extreme vulnerability and so the question is uh what's the way to uh decrease vulnerability is it to armor those poles uh and make them uh Stronger is it to bring power down Route 88 under the harbor which would still feed you it just would feed you from a different direction uh I don't know eversource is the uh expert on that so we're not saying this this you know here's the engineering plans and here's the answer we're saying right now it's a very vulnerable situation because the wires are right in the most exposed place they could be so that's that's my take on what this motion tries to address get the main feed of the barrier islands away from the most vulnerable place they could be do that answer your question Kevin yes okay Mike me Bob I'm me John yeah um I I maybe you guys have had more schooling on this but you talked about hardening the polls in place I mean the fact of the matter is is that the road's a lot more vulnerable than the poles we we haven't lost power down here for reasons of you know pole problems on East Beach there's been stuff on John Reed Road uh but it's been a long time since I've lost power from East Beach and I'd like to hear more about the hardening possibilities I just think this one's beg gone into an area that maybe you folks have had more you know background to and feel like you can make a decision I don't feel like I can make a good recommendation here tonight on this one dony hi John so my my con my number one concern about this item um is that it it could potentially be um seen as a uh a kind of a stealth abandonment or stealth planned Retreat for East Beach and I guess I wanted to to to try to understand you know on the record whether or not uh you know if the uh electrical utilities were rerouted whether um that would be an enabler to eventually abandon East Beach or if there is a commitment to continue to maintain public infrastructure on East Beach Road um into the future Jak I I think as you know we've gone through these motions and and made these decisions I think this one excuse me I rise in opposition to this um my concern is that we have talked about funding we've talked about time and resource drain on the state I mean on the town uh dealing with eversource in the state if you want to see something that's going to take a lot of time and effort for anyone to be involved in that may be decades before you get answers on some of those issues dealing you know from what I deal with on the state level so I think there has to be some concern with you know the amount of time and effort with really a little return on investment on that especially with the Motions that we made prior to about uh trying to keep the infrastructure in place try to keep the road in place and and obviously hardening each speech so I do have some concerns with respect to um the time that the town would be wasting uh the select board and others trying to to work through eversource and the state to get answers for something that may not be feasible thank you Bob dor yeah I um you know this is really a question of time and beginning you know these conversations to have a new feed we're not talking about you know when when I move this motion I my intent was not to abandon the polls or abandon the feed right now everything that comes to um the Barrier Island comes down Horseneck Road and runs across East Beach and feeds into you know all all the way out to trips yard and and to have that be this long dead end in an area where where it's extremely vulnerable that that the East Beach was picked in the original MVP is the most vulnerable piece of real estate we have in the town and you know to to have all the electricity dependent on the stability of the beach is is is unwise and that we should begin a conversation to whether it crosses in main road or it crosses it can't hang on the bridge because the bridge opens but it could could could cross under the channel there um and and to provide a secondary feed so the electricity then would be not a big long dead end line all the way down Horseneck but would then be fed from both ends is what we're trying to achieve here Kevin um has anybody researched to find out if ever Source serves that end coming down uh main road if you will or 88 versus National Grid is there a conflict between the two utility companies M there there is no electricity in 88 and mass and Ur serves the point and serves lower drift Road I mean we had a storm I don't know a month ago where we lost power and I drove down John Reed Road and it was like between every pair of poles the lines were down now it wasn't on East Beach Road it was on John Reed Road and and my computer said it was tree liims but you know if you can drive down John Reed Road you know that the electric lines are above the tree Lim so I know it wasn't Tre liims but it was just the the the electric infrastructure is really shaky and I mean when you drove from uh cherry and web Lane down to the beach it was down in about 12 places and there were three three different trucks working on it there it was like a mess Jim White yeah I just wanted to uh second what Bob Taylor was saying and I wanted to quote Bob about uh if we've had a storm like the 38 hurricane or the 54 hurricane it's not a it's not a question of will we have those again it's when and we don't know when but we will get them and the that source of electricity for the rest of the neck there would not survive a hurricane it would be out for days or weeks and I it it would be just uh like belts and suspenders if we can get electricity from both ends Dave prog thank you John um I'm a little confused by by the discussion and I think it comes down to uh a misunderstanding of what the word pursue means right so when when I first heard this when I first read it I thought yeah it's a good idea to pursue the possibility or to pursue a possible outcome but it sounds like pursue means something more can you clarify yeah what I see is why isn't this on eversource's long-term capital plan you know that that they their first reaction when Michael burus talked to him was oh this is expensive well yeah it's expensive but have you got this on your 20-year Capital plan because what you've got uh for this part of Westport as identified in the municipal vulnerability report is one of the most exposed vulnerable uh pieces of uh Electric Supply anywhere and so maybe not this year but sometime in the next uh 20 years you ought to be doing something about that that's what pursue means to me Dave yeah and and I I I would agree with that but it it it sounds like it's a um I don't know the way the way I first the the way that the discussion led me to believe was that you know pursue was that we were we going to um arm wrestle them to get it done and I don't think that's what it's saying I my first interpretation of this is at such time that they're servicing a portfolio of areas and it makes sense to make upgrades in on the neck you know do it it doesn't sound urgent to me I I would say you never know when a pot of money opens up when I uh in the 70s fixed up the Waterfront historic district uh we went to the utilities and said hey the city's going to dig up every street for water and sewer you guys want to bury your electric and telephone lines this is an ideal time they put $2 million in there to bury electric and telephone lines because the city was going to dig up every street you never know when an opportunity might come that persuades them to do something good right when there might be some uh Aram money or some other things like that but what we need to do is get it on their radar well we should have a plan I mean as as Bob said we can't just run it over the bridge so we should have a plan yeah so that's what this motion is about is to raise it up and say you guys need to pay attention to this this is in a vulnerable place and it's it's not just trailers you know in the summer it's the whole Barrier Island you've got Trip's boat yard you've got a major restaurant you've got some full-time residents it's not just some trailers you know so why why does the select board need to get a motion from us to do this it seems to me they should just be doing it anyway unless there's a caveat that reading between the lines the select board would be uh giving permits that they wouldn't all all you know wouldn't otherwise give that we're willing to horse trade for this and we all agree on the horse tr they're asking for recommendations on the storms from December and January and that are in the report this was one of the things in the report date so I think you know talked about this enough it sounds like business as usual that they should be doing this anyway yeah they should so let's just a little push I I I do want to respond to I think it was Kevin uh I don't see this in any way as some kind of proxy for we're trying to abandon uh folks this is no we're trying to get a secure form of electricity to the whole barrier islands that certainly includes the people on East speach so uh Michael are you ready for uh oh Mike Solon oh just a quick one and it's not it's it's Bob's motion but if I mean I I I I'm I'm post this it feels a little self-serving for me down here on the beach but um if it were if it were an option for uh ever source to consider hardening what they have again because I mean the blackouts as you just said John the blackouts we have had is not been because East Beach it's been other reasons I I'd be in favor of it if it had other options like hard what we have but I I just feel it's a little self- serving for me to vote for it way it is all right let's go to a uh Michael uh the roll call John Bard yes sh Shelt sh I Jim whiten yes Jake mcgan no de Canton yes T venio no Kevin Kurt no Michael yogman yes Bob dlor yes David sprogis presid Michael Sullivan no bill Weinberg yes that carries okay last one here uh I move that the climate resilience committee recommends that the select board pursue options to protect East Beach Road from future OverWatch and flood damage starting uh with further evaluation of the conceptual plan to raise the road set out in the East Beach Municipal vulnerability report Bob this is your motion right this is my motion and I so move it okay okay Tim is that a second you're a second okay so again this uh like the uh eversource one comes out of the vulnerability report uh is there any discussion on this and it is something I think well we'll find out I think this is something that was recommended by Tony but here he is with his hand up Tony uh let's see so uh conceptually I I agree um I think that in the MVP report when they address this they talked about u in order for the road not to be undermined that uh in conjunction with raising it you need to add sufficient quantities of nourishment uh in you know uh in front of the road both sides really um so that it it's protected from uh over wash so I don't know if we need to amend this to state that or if that can just be assumed as part of this uh recommendation well I I think Tony that because it talks about um and references the vulnerability report that that's already in there plus the fact that we've already passed a motion on uh uh nourishment and also passed a motion on return of Cobble I think you got it covered like three ways belts and suspenders Kevin yeah I was going to raise the same question so I don't want to be the dead horse and uh go on and repeat what Tony said I just thoughts were if you're going to raise the road you're going to have to nourish the beach side at least in order protect to protect the infrastructure and if you look at the big picture where we were talking about funding and the lack of it in certain areas in order to achieve one of the other motions which didn't carry um this might be an opportunity to put our Collective efforts together not only to to achieve saving the infrastructure but also get the opportunity to nourish the southide at least and probably both because like Tony mentioned in the report you're going to have to raise both sides or you're going to wind up with a road that's uh you know a foot or two higher than everybody's property or three feet higher and then people are going to need to access that private property so I think think any effort to raise the road if you turn around and you secure millions of dollars in funding you might be able to utilize some of that to achieve both it's almost like a win-win for everyone the town wins with raising the road and protecting the and we win with the opportunity to not only help the people with the private property but help to protect the infrastructure of the Town by nourishing the beach lifting it up and protecting the road just my thoughts Bill Weinberg um well originally I actually is this did did Bob say this was his motion yes oh well that's interesting well great minds thinking alike okay because um so I'm maybe uh did you draft this too I I drafted it originally because I was that may be my fault the Motions came in Michael burus and and uh we may have gotten the similar motions from different people right so my friendly amendment to this is that um whereas it says now from future overwash and flood damage there are actually um uh there are a number of different um aspects of or damage that can happen and erosion is one of them which relates you know um and so my suggestion would be um you know to protect East Beach Road from future damage I would say so I was going to say from future damage associated with climate change because there are a whole number of things that could happen um starting with further evaluation of the plan but I'm happy either way I'd support it either way but I just thought it was worth expanding it a little bit because um the main aspects I think that were focused on in the vulnerability report had to do with storm surge and um and as well as flooding it's not mentioned in that so um I uh are you okay leaving it the way it is I'm find because I don't think it'll matter in the long run okay thank you Phil uh any other uh da Dave Dave frogus yeah sorry about that thank you John I was muted rookie mistake um I'll try to keep this short but um are we thinking through secondary uh impact of raising the road um I mean what is is is would there be a curb that cars the PE the property owners would have to like go over a curb to go down onto their property I mean how would that how would that work and then um secondly we we've seen the power of the storms and what it can do to the gigantic stones that are on the The Causeway itself I mean I I took pictures of what about six or seven of them that were lifted in the recent storms what do we think that we can possibly put there that could withstand that kind of force without armoring the thing like tremendously so is it a Fool's errand to go just like a little ways or are we can are we recommending the wholeway I I don't know so can I can I go ahead no go ahead Phil well I mean part of part of the reference to the East Beach Municipal vulnerability report because it was specifically referenced in the um request that the select board made and the reason that I'm recommended just further evaluation of the plan uh rather than implementing the plan was because there are a lot of it is just a conceptual level and there are a lot of um and there are a lot of issues associated with and I just think that um it made sense to take the next step and you know answer some of the questions that you're raising and also the the issue around um if you're nourishing um the abutting properties um you're reducing the necessity of dealing with the um issue that you raised and you're also um reducing the amount of potential erosion of the road but it also substantially increases the cost so that's one of the issues that I I think a further evaluation would have to look at okay so this wouldn't be a decision to just um decide and then do it this this is breaking it into parts and saying we're going to do the planning and then presumably it would come back to some committee for next steps right yeah I think we you know would need to retain you know somebody who would then take the next uh step in uh developing the analysis further okay so if if the uh residents of East Beach looked at it and said oh you know what this is unacceptable or if if all of if you know if lots of other people said oh you know what um nice idea but no um the town would be listening before a decision to actually Implement would go through yeah I mean but we all understand that we have an obligation to maintain the road and it's clear that the road would not be maintained unless we take some action I think we can imagine some monstrosities that you know would would be secure in a storm but we might not want to be looking at them yeah and I I can Envision you know that if we raise the road and then raise the lots to meet the road that as sea level continues to rise people will say well we need to raise the road again and then raise our Lots again and the solution becomes let's just keep building up the barrier Beach higher and higher and higher um and at some point someone's going to say no this is not the answer to the problem but that's a issue for another day Tony so I guess I'm I'm rising in favor of this uh there is an entire section of the vulnerability report section 242 where they a Woods Hole did a number of analyses regarding raising the road and looking at various nourishment profiles and how those would react for various storm events you know one year fiveyear type of storm events um but you know I do think that this needs to be addressed um because we don't want a road that's just constantly overwashed um so I think this is written that's open-ended enough that it would allow us to do that yeah I think again going back to uh I'm gonna have to pay Mike Sullivan royalties at some point uh his uh statement that what we're giving the planning board and the select board is a sense of direction here and the sense of direction is raise the road the there's quite a bit of detail in that vulnerability report that Woods whole group helped us with but that's not up to us to figure out the detail if when the select board wants to do that there's going to be an engineering firm hired a source of funds uh developed and that's when all those questions get answered not here tonight Bob dor yes John the motion is to pursue option s we are um five six 10 12 years away from having design and you need you need all kinds of permits to do this it's it's a it's building a road on top of a a coastal barer Dune you'll need all kinds there will be hours and hours and days and days of public hearings this idea that oh this vote will next you know the the contract is going to be out there tomorrow we we are years from that this is this is a recommendation the selectman to start getting on this road okay Tony are you gonna call the questions so we'll vote uh sure one quick note in that there are recent changes proposed to the wetlands protection act that do relate to Road building and it seems to make it more difficult to do so uh but in any I'll I'll call the question okay Michael you ready to go yeah John B yes Sean Shelt hi Jim whon yes Jake M M yes yes Jeff Canton yes Tony Venia yes Kevin KK yes Michael yogman yes Bob dlor yes David spres yes Michael Sullivan Michael is he here yeah he's here on mute yes yes Phil weberg yes that carries I I want to note for the record that Michael Sullivan and I on Cherry and web Lane voted yes for East Beach Road when the road we're on floods all the time so we will expect U uh support when it comes to raising cherry and web Lane Mr Bullard Jake mcgan has a problem getting to bakas beach but you just need a LED pickup truck and you'll be fine all right now um it's very nice to conclude with a unanimous vote uh on the Motions uh thank you very much for doing that I note that it is 7:30 and I hope uh Phil Weinberg might uh tolerate if we were to put off the health uh subcommittee draft report to the next meeting that is a better word to what my mood I say celebrate celebrate celebrate than just tolerate all right well I'm gonna suggest we defer this to the next meeting I and I I would suggest a meeting because I'm for some reason April on Thursdays I don't have any I would be May 16th if that is okay with people at five o'clock okay yes that's fine with me John all right I'm okay with it all right so we will get minutes out I really appreciate uh so this concludes our work of the of the charge that the select board gave us on E speech and this these recommendations will be forwarded to uh Jim whiten at the planning board and this will strain his other shoulder so the next time we see him he will have slings on both his it'll be like he got rolled over by another horse and uh and so the next time we can uh discuss this we'll probably be at at a planning board meeting at some point and then it'll go to the select board so really thank everyone for their energy for their thoughtfulness um uh on this and uh look forward to further discussions under uh chairman Whit's tutelage John I one quick thing on on the Motions I just wanted you to have consistency because in the first four we talk about resiliency committee and then six five and seven it says resilience so yeah I think I just didn't know if there's resiliency or resilience so that when you draft those motion yeah I think we're resilience okay so as long as they're consistent the first forward good point thank you good good point all right is there a motion to adjourn so motion so moves back so all right we're Jour everyone have a good nice job John thank you