I'd like to open the Tuesday July 16th regular planning board meeting and public hearing uh if you're going to speak please do so out in the hallway um it looks like we're over capacity in this room so if anybody would like to see it scream you could do so in our office which is across the hall it's air conditioned and is big screen so if anybody would like to do that raise your hands see none okay so uh I I surmise that you're all here to listen to all the regular stuff that we normally do and um please come back and listen again I think um we may B for the first bit but we're not going to hear uh the public hearing until 6:15 or later so first up and we and by the way we're being videotaped and we're going out live on the on the town Channel first up our ad demonstrative items read the lane extension file number 19-01 C release charity and consultant review fees plus interest and endorse milw y so this um this roadway was accepted at town meeting in May by the town as road so all we need to do is sign the myar which we can do towards the end of the meeting and then we need to release the charity for $887,000 plus interest okay do we need to uh have a motion to sign my no just releas the okay so I will entertain a motion Mr chair I move to approve release security and consultant review accounts and I move to Grant final approval of read L extension releas with security of 87,500 plus interest in the release of the balance of Construction in inspection funds after payment of the final uh invoice to S Co second all those in favor I next up is 431 Fisher Road LLC Stacy Lane request for shity release file number 20- o2c so Derek of W Cole did a site visit for the final inspection on this and he considered it 98% complete and recommends that we release $447,000 of the $50,000 um we have in charity and retain the $3,000 for the Landscaping within the right of way it's freshly loaned and seated but that's the only item that is not going to leave okay more motion please and I think we should consider how much foras I $3,000 doesn't sound like much you want more I think my own opinion is you always have more than that because you can just walk away from $3,000 if it if it's going to cost you more than $3,000 to fix let's hold back yeah okay 40 I Mr chair I move question should be directed to the chair so the chair opens the floor for comment I think there was a comment we able to speak with uh you going to talk about this yes sir okay so go to the podium and identify yourself please he sir uh members of the board my name is ronal Alo I own the property I'm the one who developed the road um what's going on there is the homeowners now that are taking over you know their property they're doing landscaping they're building walls this is the silt runoff that's running into the road um we've sent our people in behaven escavation been in there multiple times there aren't any issues with with the road or anything that we've done Road's 100% been completed this is just run off of people doing their own landscaping uh they've taken over the homeowners association it isn't really anything that's the fault of myself the developer other the people have doing the work I I think it's uh you know unfair to keep increasing you know my stake in it when it's the homeowners like I can't control them tell them what to do with their yards we can try to police it we've already been there three or four times and spent 6 or $7,000 recleaning everything going back sweeping all the roads uh you know for Haven excavation is a reputable company they've been there multiple times I think it's um a little unfair to keep us there at the mercy of the homeowners as they're doing landscaping doing pools and you know not abiding by you know certain rules and standards but we've been there multiple times and spent a ton of money you know to keep by the standard of the town so I would just say that I think uh we have if you have not much influence on them we have zero so if the town is going to accept this road it must comply with what our requirements are and if our Consulting engineer says that we need to withhold some for having Landscaping uh working before the town takes it over I think we should believe it I don't think it is reference for work I think it's just for clean up till everyone stabilizes their yard so once everyone's grass is grown in and you know for whatever season it is then the silt will stop running in into into the street that's all it is it isn't for any construction that needs to be done on iron so the roads not accepted yet you were develop Road You released Lots we've had you know I I understand the road is complete it's not been acceptable I understand what is damage on the road from the top cost I mean Dave an esav he's done a wonderful job he went out there and he cleaned out stuff that was dump into the C baces was Concrete in the C when clean them up so the town as the town hasn't been accepted yet so until it gets accepted i i w I wouldn't even really be in fav Rel I say whole thing you know they Consultants being very lenient and my colleague went to 10,000 I think I think I don't even think that's enough until by the time scho the next time get accepted the Town f a lot of cost and this job you develop those are your sales those are your customers and okay I I respect the town's position I just want to bring it to your attention so not so ready yes pleas uh Mr chair I moved to partially released charity for 431 Fisher Road LLC Stacy Lane for $40,000 maintaining 10 ,000 for landscaping and the release of the full consultant review funds after the final invoice from sw4 second all those in favor uh next is Westport Stone and sand file number 18-9 SP request for shity release waiting on SW Cole review uh yep so s SW Cole went out into the site inspe um it turns out we don't even have any charity on this one it was from 2018 so I think it was before we started collecting charity um but just as an update that project is complete it's all set y i a report from Cole this morning stating that it's 100% complete and up to satisfaction and the because the the whole place s m uh I assume they had to bring in Top Soil PL yes they did and their vegetation is okay thank you for the update uh next is 82 Highridge Road mosa file number 23-23 SP FF close out and release consultant review fees and interest yeah the wish is a flexible frage AMR for that one so was approved and want a motion please I move to close out and release the consultant review fees of $1,633 plus interest for 82 High High Ridge Road proposal second all those in favor I I next is approval not required or anr for Westport land conservation trust ink map 78 L 8-9 and 10 1017 and 1047 Sodom Road uh Westport Mass file number 24-20 a request by applicant for Endor M of a two lot plan of land located at 1017 and 1047 Sodom Road accessor map 78 Lot 8 9 and 10 yes sir good evening Mr chairman members of the board uh my name is Don maderas I'm a professional land surveyor professional civil engineer with able Engineering in Little Compton um Joyce Sylvia the land owner um engaged us through the Westport actually Westport Land Trust engaged us through their um agreement with the land owners to uh purchase 115 acres for to be put in permanent conservation um the the existing property is two lots with the existing lot line going from Sodom Road across Westerly to the southwesterly portion of the property um what we're proposing to do is abandon that lot line as as designated and the new lot line will run north south to basically um cut off 115 acres in the in the western quadrant for which the land trust will put under permanent easement and the uh remainder 87 Acres along Sodom Road uh will be retained by the family um and continue to be farmed there's there's uh currently um farming uh restrictions on that front 87 Acres none of that will change uh so we've done a field perimeter survey the necessary research and and field work uh to determine the boundaries of the of the parcel so the front parcel is in a that um I am I am not sure of because my charge was was to survey the rear 115 Acres um we surveyed enough of the front parcel to to know to spatially denote it correctly um however our our contract was to survey the rear to break out the 115 acres for conservation I've been told by the Westport land trust that the front parcel is under a farming restriction however I will tell you that's here say cuz I haven't seen anything um but it wasn't up to me or or of interest to me to even try to find out if that was if that was the case and the back part is not in prescription now that is that is correct that is my understanding and will the back parcel maintain an easement to get there somehow that that's correct there's an existing Gravel Road that which the farm uh operators use to get from saen Road and it's shown on the on the plan going back to the rear parcel um that will become a a right away for the land trust to get to the rear parcel for maintenance vehicles and and uh monitoring and other uh conservation related activities okay um so the land trust will own this back parcel that's correct not not the front parcel that is correct and um so so do you say on the plan that this is um that this doesn't mean it's a buildable lot I'm sorry ites it does lower right hand corner I believe it's right under the signature block for uh actually the upper left under the registry block under the end planning board endorsement block endorsement by the planning board does not constitute conformance to the West zoning bylaws nor assure that any lot created here in is buildable okay uh do we have any questions from the board I'll just I'll confirm that this uh this property is in chapter 61a according to the Assessor's Database the real both of them both of them okay uh so I would entertain a mo Mr chair I move to approve the endorsement of the plan entitled Westport land conservation trust Inc map 78 Lots 89 and 10 uh 1017 and 1047 Sodom Road Westport Mass because the plan complies with the provisions of Mass General Law chapter 41 section 81p and second all those in favor I thank you uh next is appointments to infrastructure and safety committees the to the following committees in structure and safety and economic development Casas Force planning board has um members who are supposed to be appointed to both of these committees um Manny and dlor have both been appointments in the past on so if that's something B I don't know if Bob does but here I don't know if you like to continue serving on those okay so I would a motion to app Point M Mr chair I I would uh move that Manny s be uh reappointed to economic uh development you want these as separate and uh Robert dor reappointed the infrastructure uh so they both on were on V all right both on both that's what I meant to say I'm not sure is if Bob wants to continue on V yeah we should wait until I think we should wait Bob isend to appoint to anything that you may not want to be appointed to um one does want us to continue on infastructure oversight committee and this was the chair of the S board that requested we review this and it's kind of holding up the appointments to it and can't MO I know he's also halfway through writing the chapter on infrastructure I think we should we should vote to put on I if he wishes to I don't think heign I would sayc development but most def so let's have a motion to appoint both Manny Sor and Bob Taylor to the infrastructure uh committee and uh Manny to the Ecom development Mo can I second all those in favor I you voted okay open meeting law certification there's a form in your packet um we've provided the open meeting law materials to um all of our boards and commit s the state just updated open meeting law 2023 if you recall now virtual hybrid meetings are now codified in the open meeting law so they've updated their guidelines accordingly and we have to have all the board and commission members recertify that they've received these materials and that they have read them so you don't have to uh sign your forms today but please do that soon so we can get that over to the town cler's office okay thank you and you also sent out the conflict training good point yes there is also a conflict of interest training that um board and committee members also have to take and they the clerk's office will automatically receive notification once you've completed that training it's an online training so once it's done they they get a notice um so you don't have to let us know you can just let the CL off office de with I did it today it's relatively painless but I wouldn't say it's painless it's an hour out of your day you won't get back it doesn't let you get out of it and it doesn't let you get out of it you've got to do it so okay all right so next up is the 615 public hearing plat 52 lot 28 marot Drive file number 23-31 c this is continued from October 17th and December 12th of 20123 and February 6th of 2024 and before I let to start I'm just going to recap how we got here because there's a lot of people here who probably don't know any of this uh and this is going to also tell you how to interact with us in this meeting uh this application was first considered in October 23 staff recommended that the hearing be continued the board concurred the board continued the hearing to December and was subsequently continued until February 2024 at the February 2024 hearing the planning office staff recommended that the proposal should either be continued or withdrawn redesigned and resubmitted due to the proposal's road being located directly adjacent to the Northerly lot lines that Road location would require a waiver staff found that the need for the waiver could be eliminated by Shifting the roads location Southward which would address some of the planning board's concerns about the subdivision impact upon the overall area particularly the Fallon Drive subis following this planning board meeting the applicant approached myself and staff about the possibility of granting the town a full easement to the town known property to the east to allow full public access to the town property through the applicant's proposed Private Road the planning board cannot accept an easement that is the purview of the select board to assess the utility of such an eastment to the town the staff asked various departments such as the Conservation Commission the affordable housing trust the highway department and so on about how the property could be used in the future this is the town own recer there are no plans to modify the town own parcel conceptually or otherwise the easement question is separate is a separate consideration from this hearing the planning board is tasked with determining whether the project conforms to the subdivision bylaws this proposal requests several waivers from the town zoning bylaws these waiver require that the planning board find they are in the public interest this will be essential part of our disccussion here tonight for tonight's public hearing public input will be limited to 5 minutes each to allow those who wish to speak or ask a question through the chair adequate time please if you're going to voice the same concerns already voiced you may not need to do and um so we're going to hear from the uh the applicant first and we going to hear from the planners and then from the explaining board and then we'll open it up to the public and then we'll hopefully close the public hearing and make a decision so please go ahead please identify yourself good evening Matt Pike registered excuse me registered professional engineer with South Coast engineering I'm here on behalf of the applicant um so I give a brief overview of the projects marot drive it's a proposed sub subdivision located at assesses plat 52 lot 28 uh plat 52 lot 28 is located on the east side of drift Road about a mile south of Old County Road the current lot is accessed by drift Road by an approximately 10t wide gravel path the existing Lots undeveloped primarily comprised of Woodland and Fallowfield it contains approximately 16 Acres about 2.5 acres is wetland within the existing lot we are proposing a 40ft wide roadway layout with a 22t wide paved way to access nine proposed residential lots each of the res residential lots that are proposed are fully compliant with current zoning they'll contain a single family dwelling that's accessed by H drive off the proposed way um this is not contrary to some you know uh information that's been circula in the town this is not a high density or low income or 40b um or apartment development each of the proposed residential lots exceeds 60,000 squ ft contains the required Frontage as required by the regulations the lot of similar shape and size in area neighboring subdivisions so the immediate North and South um as far as the storm water the storm water from the roadway will be directed to catch basins leading to a closed cond drainage system the closed system will discharge to a sediment forb which leads to infiltration Basin in addition to the roadway bmps the underground infil underground infiltration units will be installed at strategic points adjacent to the proposed dwellings and H drives so all the storm water treatment bmps will receive and treat and recharge storm water as required and as and they are designed in accordance with the Massachusetts storm water standards the Westport rules and regulations government subdivision of land and the Westport storm water quality and quantity control regulation and based on uh previous review uh comments so the Project's been reworked uh to the greatest extent practical as requested and the last time we stood before you there were eight waivers we've reduced that to two waivers currently the two waivers are a waiver from the 25t radius at the street line intersection with drift Road uh currently the layout of the existing undivided lot does not allow radius at the southeast corner of drift Road in mot um although the 25 ft radius at the street line uh cannot be complied with the required uh pavement radius will be provided and secondly the W there's a waiver for provision regarding the location of subdivision streets in relation to the permanent boundaries So currently the layout the proposed roadway that follows the existing car path and by following the existing travelway the storm water pass also maintained for the storm water RS um that's all I have uh to present let me before you continue uh we are over capacity for this road uh if it is uh your desire we can stream this live in our office across the hall so that you can hear and see what we're talking about otherwise we'll have to move this meeting somewhere so if the people in the back hallway or out that way could find their way to the office maybe one all right we'll just wait minutes so we have our problem with the over capacity in this room and we don't have an alternative site that's handy that we can accommodate everybody uh if we continue with the hearing and the people people would like us to uh this is being live streamed on YouTube and if you wanted to ask a question or make a comment you could uh naine could s send her out a sign-in sheet and get your comments which could be read into the record uh I don't think YouTube would not be interactive but you could see what's happening so it's either that or we continue this hearing to another date and time and place that would accommodate all these people so what is the consensus what would you like to do yes have the opportunity to interact if this is on YouTube correct correct yes one vote to qu the meeting to another date I just I think this is too important that's why we're all here second Mr chair you know I I don't know if um whatever I say is going to to make a difference but if if we're going to discuss matters of the application we should reopen re open the meeting but I don't think we can reopen the meeting without everybody here so I would I would like to continue this hearing not our meeting but this hearing to another date and time and place that would accommodate all these people I don't know where that place is yet so like libr SCH [Music] liary anyone that can't hear they can stand inside and comments we can't public hearing without the ability to interact so but if you want to interact they can be in the room correct then people the people who don't want to say something would have to leave and the people who do would have to come back and I think that would be conversome uh I think so how many people do you think we have here can't can't go live anything from the gym we don't need to go live okay record you just go to I don't have and the only way you can get in that's 8 okay so why don't we continue this to a week from today that would [Music] everybody have basketball [Music] there's another option and that is that there are a lot of people here who are in opposition but don't want to speak and if those people want to sign a piece of paper and then want to leave we'll receive that piece of paper and we can continue tonight right here but otherwise we are going to continue this until next week when everyone can be in the room and we'll be downstairs in the gym now either way is good with us we we can do it now and some people can say here and speak and others can be reported in opposition and your opposition will be on the record whatever you want to do doesn't matter they're in opposition of clearly they do not know they do not know clearly there's been Mis information put out they do not know when they're clearly in opposition on that's why these people are here okay well then we'll just continue it for for a week and we'll meet downstairs in the gym I think the gym is probably the the best it's big enough it's just going to take us a while can't vote by opposition if they don't know what they're oppos yep good point we don't what we don't know yeah we're going to have to figure it out the high school set up St [Music] so listen up okay so I would move that we uh continue this public now listen here continue this public hearing until uh one week from tonight okay uh at the gym but I urge everyone to check uh the town web website because if it turns out the gym isn't available then that will be on the town website all right but the motion is to set it for uh next Tuesday at uh 6:15 but please everyone check the town website we have to post it 48 hours in advance uh so the motion is for next tues but please everyone check check the town website if it has to be changed we'll we'll change it 48s we may have to change it to the the old high school right either location or time it'll be but if we can we'll have it downstairs here on the so so all in favor all in favor the the public hearing is continued it's no longer active right now so yeah we can't speak about that okay okay we're coming out of recess and we're continuing our regular planning board meeting uh the public here car for markart drive has been uh continued to next week uh next is the 6:30 public hearing for 435 old Harbor Road file number 23-37 Spa applicant is requesting a withdrawal for this [Music] project correct yep um emailed me a few weeks back stating that he wishes to draw his application for this so has he signed anything yep okay um we still we do need to close out and release the consultant review fees for that okay so I need a motion you want two motions right um Mr chair I moveed to Grant the applicant's request to permit the withdrawal without prejudice for a site plan approval of 435 old Harbor Road application nice second that all those in favor I I uh Mr chair I move to close out release the consultant review funds of uh $1,321 198 plus interest for 435 old har Road second all those in favor I I next is the 645 public hearing for Burks v twin file number 24 4-17 Spa 146 State Road applicant is requesting a continuance to August 13th 2024 y so a motion to continue the public hearing to August 13 2024 at 6:30 p.m. would be IDE could you remind me what this application for yes this is 146 State Road it is uh they came before the preapplication consultation they want to expand the garage and also add parking for a motorcycle repair okay uh Mr chair the request the app and I move to continue the public hearing of Burks uh the twin to August 13 2024 at 6:30 p.m. second all those in favor what else do we have on the agenda for that um date for 6:15 I we have Old County Road um to th Rad or the the common driveway modification he altered the driveway so has to come back before us okay okay uh Ved on that so next is the planners report all right so the first thing I got is going over the short-term rental which we issued about a month ago a little over a month ago and I just closed it out this morning we've received 428 responses and I'll circulate this what all of you I just pulled it the data from Google forms today so I haven't had the chance to send it out um I also be sending it out to respondents because there's a section for them to leave their email address to send it to um so I'll be doing that tomorrow but I just wanted to go over this with you all um very briefly um but before we do that there are a couple updates on the committee um Jerry Cino will be resigning from the committee [Music] and Roger Menard has suggested that Cynthia kakoz is who is also a member of the zba be the zba representative I don't know if I pronounced your last name correctly I apologize by m but um that that was his recommendation to replace Jerry from the CBA and this is a a subcommittee of the planning board so that's something for your consideration we need to move to if you would if you would like to motions I move that uh we appoint Cynthia Cynthia that's what I said second all those in favor okay so then Michael could you send a list then of who the committee members are yeah well I would that that was going to be one of my questions would you like to still serve on that committee while we're shaking things up you can feel fre it wouldn't be my it wouldn't be my first prence T Tanya is also backing down from it t ra Jim are you you're going to be on it I oh you Jim you are I was no Bob was Bob was yeah but you can be Mar yeah yeah I would say I I prefer prer not to but I'm happy if if you need someone serve well we have two planning board members so okay you want to entertain a motion to replace Mark Jim anyone make a motion to replace Mark of Jim repl Mark with Jim Jim sorry I thought we had Mark and bobk now we're going to have Bob oh good all right that that needs to be a motion I make it second all all those in favor thank you and I have a suggestion for another member I we do need another number because we could have a tie vote um there needs to be five people Steve fors Steve fors I saw that he took the survey he's the moderator right yeah do you know if he'd be interested [Music] he so and he he is good at pointing out the benefits I think we need somebody who wants to point out the benefits as opposed to the V I don't know if he would do it but he's going to be not continuing as moderator really yeah so good well how about we go over the survey results and then maybe the survey results can help inform who you might like to recommend because I think this will hopefully help give us some more okay so the first question we asked was who who the person is that's responded um so most respondents were residents 90% in fact were residents or we residents and also operate a shortterm r or they own and in assessing the impact on short-term rentals most folks who took the survey and there are 428 responses I guess I should have left with that um a majority of people thought that short-term rentals have a positive impact nearly a quarter thought neither one way or the other and then another quarter thought that short-term rentals had a negative impact in regards to the type of short-term rentals people might support there was more support for having um respondents were more comfortable with having the owner being on site than um somewhere else in town or somewhere else the country or wherever so there was a preference for renting a room from an owner occupied home or renting a home or accessory dwelling unit or a room where their owner is residing somewhere on the property but even still over a third supports renting a room home or accessory dwelling where the owner lives off site so there's still you know 38% so there's maybe you know some room to find some compromise there um but then when it came to not supporting them it was 20% and then having no restrictions so you could write you know subl or rental or something like that and that was um 15% so I think the area where there's room for compromising here and and reevaluating our short-term rental bylaw is looking at those top three categories regarding where short-term rentals should be allowed pretty clear majority supported allowing short-term rentals in the business and agriculture districts um you'll you'll notice that the I included in each response to have the option to disallow short-term RS that's pretty much STS conent around that 20% Mark throughout the survey but it's pretty clear that most folks are are on board with shortterm metals and and both the business and agriculture District so then when we asked how to regulate short-term rentals you know do we want this really extensive zoning by law do we want nothing at all um or somewhere in between 52% of people supported some degree of regulatory oversight um most people wanted you know a smaller set of regulations and so I I think maybe where we were headed with the last attempt was in the right direction um but it also you know could have made could have gone too far too because you see that the 30% that allow ruse with no additional regulations so I'd be curious to have a follow-up question um to this this particular question to really drill down and see what people are thinking um and you kind of get to that in some of the some of the next questions so we asked should there be a distinction between uh higher turnover short-term rental so less than S days or have a distinction with um between seven days and long term traditional rental and folks supported not having a classification um almost half supported not having a classification based upon length of stay um and so this leaves us this leaves me with the questions that maybe we went a little bit too far with what was proposed in the bylaw which was I think um greater than two days was a special permit and then seven days was not a special permit in the agricultural District so maybe that you know swing a little too far in the regulatory Direction because you'll see in this next one we asked what kind of length of stay people would support So asking the number of days people would like to see and so a majority is supporting less than a 3-day minimum stay see 40% has no problem with you know you can have any any sort of light of stay um this blue this light blue here is a two day stay and this purple is a 3-day stay so we're looking at a majority of people at least being comfortable with somewhere around a weekend and then we provided some options based on the bylaw that we submitted um to town had considered that town meeting um some general zoning Concepts and other regulatory Concepts because some of it didn't have to do with Zone but some regulatory Concepts that the town could propose at a future town meeting and the top four here the most popular one was to require a local party to be available to respond to issues that may arise um with the use and then number two was parking requirements so I will be ensuring that there's orderly parking on the site and then the next two after that um this was kind of interesting uh having um these were at 40 40% and 45% to have a board of health inspection and a building code or Andor fire safety inspection so those were numbers three and four everything else kind of Falls below that 40% Mark and then you can see that there's there was an option for people to um suggest other ideas in here as well so were these other ideas things that people put in themselves it was they were there it was a a a text box that people could enter into so you know one one thing that I want to do is take all these different categories and sort them into larger categories and we'll be able to see if there were any Trends and what was suggested but registration process was fifth yes 38% 38.6% so that was yeah we're looking at the top five that one that would make the cut and then we had people prioritize some Concepts some um issues that could arise from short-term rentals and I think um with some of the feedback we've received in different different public he or public meetings um noise is uh is almost the top concern out of uh I think it's one of the top three out of the whole series of these we did a series of them um so noise comes in at oh okay it says up here one is low as priority five is highest priority and so 57% of people have some sort of concern with noise and of that 57% there's 37.6% who um really strongly believe that that's an issue um it's a concern for shorts so when we move down to parking we kind of get some more mixed results in here and you get get the data a little bit um you know there's almost like a multimodal distribution here where there's some folks who really AR concerned about parking then there are people in the middle who or there people who don't think parking should be a concern then there are people who are more less ambivalent in the center um a couple percentage points higher and then when you look at the other end there's um about 20 and 30% who are concerned with parking and so you add them together and you get about 50% of respondents are concerned about parking um versus about 28% on the other [Music] end um then disposal of refuse a concern this is uh pretty pretty unanimous in the in the respones 58.2% I think that was actually our top no that was not our top concern here but it was our second highest top con fire safety again you have a pretty substantial amount of folks in the middle weren't too sure whether or not it's something that needs to be emphasized or not um but on the other end of the spectrum where it is a concern it's almost 50% that number that um fire safety and building code is a concern signage is an area where I don't think there was a lot of concern um almost 42% of respondents identified signage is not as a high priority concern and you see a similar sort of distribution with impact upon long-term rental availability that comes in at 43% so folks are for these two issues a little bit less concerned with signage and Rental availability and actively concerned and then when it comes to I'll zoom out on this because the distributions are are are really similar these two um when it comes to considering increased income for properties owners or the town um it's somewhat mixed but there's a slightly higher number of folks who think that these with these uh the ability to get income either for the town or tax revenue for the or excuse me me income for individuals or income for the town um there's a slight preference at 38.6% for individuals and for the town at 44.6% and then I think the biggest thing that people I think call West in this coester around and the survey was that there are economic benefits to the town to have short-term RS you add up the two end columns 61% identify that this is something that you know is is beneficial to the local economy and then a majority of folks also think that the increased lodging opportunities two M colums 51% you know that goes along with bringing the economic develop economic benefits you have more lodging opportunities have matur ISM and that brings benefits to local business so that's that's it did you design this surve I did yeah yeah gives us a lot more information than we ever I think that'll help the committee yeah I mean it wasn't a it wasn't a slam dunk in one way or the other and I think really the the name of the game here is going to be finding where we where's that compromise that'll make this work you know it's not like it was completely one way in the direction yes we absolutely do not want short fir metals or in the other direction um you know let's have a they say fair approach where there's no regular regulatory oversight at all um which makes our jobs a lot more difficult when trying to work out what is that gray area that people will support that to do you include in this uh um survey a uh because obviously I I didn't be asking this question but did you ask the uh the respondent to identify the precinct so we had an idea of where these responses are coming from I Didn't might be interest find out yeah no but I think you know based on what I thought beforehand versus what you read from the survey in 428 is pretty good number of responses that um uh I thought uh first of all if you go to town when we go to town meeting again you can say Hey you know 80% of people have a have a good view of short-term rentals that that's a powerful thing to say I and and think there should be some uh uh support of this and I thought that that the issue of uh length of stay was important but from this survey it's not uh and and yet other things are fire safety Health uh are and so it gives you a better sense of what to home in on I and so if uh if the Board of Health and the building inspector are saying well we don't want to get involved well the people are saying these are the issues that are important and uh you know as I said fifth most important was registration and so anyone who says well we don't want registration well that's not what the survey said uh so uh you know there's a lot of information in here about what people do want and what people don't care about that that I I think give that committee you know here are the things people care about here's what they don't care about and the you know people recognize the economic benefit not just to to the homeowners but to the town and that's a good argument again to show to town meeting when uh when we go there again so the problem that I see with this I think it's great I don't know the fourth or fifth or third board of health inspection and building code fire safy and registration we're all about the same um if we do that going to do these inspection that's the there was no option for can I can I object there was no option for no for nothing there was no opt there was they you had to answer in the way that was written so again it was a wonderful job Mike um I think it was a wonderful job by the by Michael were trying to carry to carry something forward I think um this board knows that I've sat in since day one I think I missed one short tental committee meeting and one planning board meeting on that short tental committee I think we missed it by the two day I don't think anyone had a problem with anybody doing the every had a problem with the 7-Day if you watch the meeting over and over again like I have it was the 7-Day thing for the North End like we had talked about many times Mark was on that Mee on that committee we went into session going to to bring it to town meeting with a two-day handle and then it was changed to 7day the last meeting I went to by this planning board it was voted it was a two-day meeting turnaround that it was a two-day minimum and that then all of a sudden it was 7day that's where you lost it because no one not everyone can afford a week stay anywhere not all the time not all of this on the south end of Westport yes but some people on a short-term rental take two three 4 day weekends they come in for family reunions weddings funerals they don't need seven days so a lot of these people who are in agriculture and all that that rent out properties on their homes that's who you affected and I think that's where you lost the vote I I think we're well aware of that and I think I don't think we need to go over that but I just I think you're your your reply that there was no option for nothing uh there is an option here it says there should be no additional regulation there there's an option 22% chose that there's an option for that there is an option for people to submit their own ideas and there's an also but not in those questions the questions but let me fin there was also an option um for people to select whether those things were important or not so when you look at the the opp you know the opposite percentage of for example the registration process 38.6% said that that's something that the town should regulate then on the flip side 62% is saying that's not important to me correct so there's data even if someone selected something or did it you know we were looking at preferences and so if you didn't select something that also communicates some information to us I'm just asking the board if there's a way to communicate to everyone out there that we're looking to like a positive agenda to go forward with short-term rentals it is affecting the economy of Westport and the sale of homes in Westport right now so they're they don't know which way the sale of rentals are going to go and how their personal property rights are being affected that's my problem with town meeting because when all the missig stopped he just called the question without saying without having there was no backup then right without the ability to say if you vote against this all short-term rentals will be disallowed to R and they did and I talked to Steve for about that's the nature of town meeting it's terrible because not only this one but another article that we had we had no ability to reput all the stuff that was put out there that was completely erroneous and then all of a sudden it's called v m it loses because you can't explain that this point was wrong this point was wrong and if you don't vote for something it's and I was surprised that the the 3-day or two Day Option failed in Time game the amendment right I was to and um and then they went right to okay let's get rid of it why why are they pushing this down their throat I could have explained why but I didn't have the opportunity so anyway it is what it is it's a terrible position for the town to be in and that's why we're continuing the short-term rental committee because a lot of people wanted to just forget it the to F I would like to volunteer as an independent consultant then we'll take that up at the next meeting when we what we need but you know so I think this this survey was absolutely great because it gives you an opportunity to to see what what bothers people and what is good what doesn't bother people um what surprises me is the signage nobody seems to care about signage you got to be kidding me so you could have a neon sign window ter I mean I think if if we ask that question should we have allow neon sign in the window they say no anyway thank you we'll we'll smoke it over when we have a reverse meeting and you know I was hoping that some um uh citizens of Westport would sign a petition to get a petition article in a quickly arranged town meeting to vote on this they didn't want their neighbors it came to my attention it was told that people did not want their neighbors to know if they were doing this if they did not people did not want to be put their person business out there like I had spoken before on the board I had a lot of phone calls um people did not want to know people to know they rented the house out for weekends here and there they did not want their neighbors to know it is a very personal thing some people that have Financial issues that use it for care for family members that do it when they go away here and there and a family member might clean the house there are some people who do not want to put their name out there but there's there's a lot more people than you know that I I'm not saying I'm not saying I am the all with all I'm saying that that was a conversation that there was a petition Started From what I do know really um I do know of a couple people that did go to the town hall and talk to the town clerk um but they asked me to carry it and I refused with my small business I was not going to put my name on that they asked me to hold a meeting at the grain there was a whole bunch of people who then I would not carry that torch that's why I had asked for certain people to talk at certain things and I I think at this point that's why I'm sitting here tonight there's a lot of people who are when you're talking about not a weekly rental or a name property that people have wealth but when you're talking there's a group that did this survey that filled it out that said they're okay with that but maybe they're not they don't want to be known I bet you there were some Anonymous ones that were in that there that just don't want to be known and and I think that's the part that didn't come out in all of this short-term rental I think I spoke for a minority a bunch of people at a lot of times that that we don't represent as a realtor Community but this talks were for the town community the other reason I think it failed at time meeting was uh because we had the sewer on the agenda and it was so late in the night well and so most of the people who came on that never before were against who were they're against the town doing anything so it looks just like everything else so anyway we have to keep going again we'll let you know thank you thank you next is subdivision bylaw amendments so I've been keeping track of some issues in our subdivision bylaws like terms that need to be defined and some language that may be needed to get tightened up so if there's anything that been Ming around in your head that you've noticed in the subdivision bylaws um let me know and we'll get a list together and um have a discussion about it at a future meeting I'll I'll give you one thing my head is Road requirements that's I mean yeah the the cross-section and the length and the material and all that stuff is so fragment in our body there's also inconsistencies in it and um because there's a the diagram and then there's a section of text and there's inconsistencies between the two and that's that's the number one thing that um came and we have a description of what what name I forget what they call it but it's like a thorough Road versus Road collector colle collector collector yeah and I mean do we really deal with those kind of things don't and the all the roadway definitions need to be need to be revised because some of some of the definitions are are things like if in the opinion of the planning board this is a collector Road and there are actually specific criteria for classifying roads and so it doesn't need there it shouldn't be up to the planning board's discretion there are specific things that we can look at to say no this is a residential street this is a collector Road this is you know so we can then those are some of the def I think we should take them Michael a couple of months ago I sent an email to you with some suggestions about not subdivision uh byw amendments but there's some to consider some amendments to our zoning byla one on solar large scale solar rays and one on I think minimum lengths of rural residential a something I don't know so you is that also a uh a topic for discussion we can always have it um it would be a separate you know zoning versus subdivision but we canly it's good to to have this sort of discussion early on as opposed to you know January when we're trying to get things together for a town meeting which I know it's it always surprises everybody that we have to be done before January right to get it into a springtime which is great so if you could resend those suggestions to me U I can't recall when I may have received them so if you can just resend it and I'll keep a running tally of things um so on the same note if any of you have any zoning revisions that come to mind let me know we can schedu that for so like even the situation we had tonight when we want to release the shy for the the project so and he said there's an association already but was is that road do those people what those V expected to be accepted right the town doesn't have to accept it well there in that Association is woring they know that they're required to plow it and if it's not accepted the school bus won't go down it the mail man won't go down it so now they're going to come back you know when the school bus next year isn't going down and we stole the money and it's up to standard to be accepted by town they probably don't know that they sold it to yeah yeah I mean it's if it's not a town own Road it's it's their responsibility is the language and their homeowners association reflect that I couldn't say no I mean approvals was because we have to vot this way that was never to be accepted town you seen what happen to us over there so that's the thing that this I believe was designed to be an accepted world so and he's all show is going to be releas hasn't been accepted all these homeowners sitting there thinking they living on that has been a problem since I've been on the board um because the Builder goes away or the Builder dies or the Builder bankrupt um and the home owner before we inquired Home Owners Association and want to know how to get get together you got to hire somebody you got to come a plan you have to have an ass bu all these things and so we have requirements to approve the Home Owners Association documents don't we yes so that's typically a condition of approval that they submit in fact I I don't know I don't know when that's started to become like a boiler plate language and I don't know if it always has been but all the subdivisions that we' that we need the subdivision decisions you prepared it's always it's always the same stff yeah somebody made it somewhere yeah just a boiler plate but do we ever check to see if they're complying with it after that they're holding annual meetings and they have money in the bank I think that's out of our of our hands I mean we can't force them to do that but we we do require a copy of the HOA nowadays to be put in the file was actually on the subdivision Walter they they were complaining about the subdivision designed to be accepted this was designed to be private always okay all right so you may have seen this in the paper already but for the um Town's extension of the cricken River Rail Trail we received a $65,900 grant from Mass trails to develop preliminary engineered plans uh for an extension of that shared use path which we're referring to as Thea connector um be the town's first shared use path and the town's first contribution to the South Coast LifeWay uh which away we've only been working on this for 20 years there's a lot more energy I think to for each Town um there's been movement in Dart which I'll tell you about but so it's this segment right here this dark brown though um which is a it's a really high priority segment so you can see on this map there's the pink brown and blue and orange those are other routes that have been conceptualized over the years but you see that they all end up at that same point so that's that's the critical Link in this segment for the greater South Coast Bikeway which would go from Tall River all the way up think goal is to get really up towards Province Town cap so um I need to pull together an RFP for that and we'll be putting that out to RFP here pretty soon we'll be using the plans from that project to get the project Advanced through the transportation Improvement program um we also received an additional $5,000 from the south coast Bikeway Alliance For This since we received the grant they contributed match and planning off or planning board also contributed five granted match too but so would this connect to a a network of bike paths through Fall River MH it's built to that point is it yeah it is it is we can um fromer so it terminates you can see this green line right here it's kind of hard to see but if I P I'll just pin this McDonald's here the tra goes from that point to about the Westport line and it's it's new it's new too they just pined last piece of last yeah and the goal on this end is to continue going up through PA River and eventually get to rad Island I see not just to go to McDonald's but right fur although if you feel so inclined you could bike from provinc town to the river McDonald's yeah so is the blank Lanes connected from Fall River to um not yet so the think the goal is to get somewhere up around Warren because I know Warren is expanding the bike trail from 103 over to the mass line and then that would connect to um right up here around here is the East Bay Bike Path East Bay Bike Path goes from Providence to Bristol that's pretty it's nice I live on um yeah so there's there's this initiative that's going on and then with the greater South Coast bikeways Trail we're trying to coordinate the work with um Dart meth obviously and so at a recent Dart me select board meeting they voted to recommend of their Community preservation funds to fund the conceptual plans for the northern route of the South Coast Bikeway and where the South Coast Bikeway Alliance the direction they're headed is this Northern route right here so from Old Bedford Road to it's old Paul River Road and then forget what it is once it gets to Bedford but they're working on going to be using those funds to apply for Mass Trails Grant and start to conceptualize building out that Norther Le route and so myself and the bike and walking path committee are going to go to the select board to ask for them to recommend to the town's CPC to do the same thing um and then we would just look at the Westport segment um we we are definitely going to need more match for that application just because it's probably going to be cost will probably be double or triple what we're doing here and that was kind of a stretch for the finding match um just because like we we don't have that much match to work with on a on a yearly basis and the mass TRS Grant has a little bit more of a higher match contribution um so we'll we'll see what the uh select board says but it'll give us that that concept we're also still you know we're advocating for the route 6 bike path as well but that's mass. jurisdiction so I think we're really waiting to where they're headed with their Route Six redesign yeah um so with these bicycle paths are the ones that are going uh north of 195 that would seem to be Recreation oriented and the one going down rout 6 if we ever get there would be more Transportation oriented absolutely yeah that's that's the rationale behind um both the paths is that the the route 61 would support more of a multimodal network so you know you have a high capacity thorough there for not just car traffic but also the bus rout is there so if you needed to you could bike up to around six catch the bus go to the Bedford or you know wherever you need to go whereas yes the the northern route would be more of a recreational route because you're going to have fewer interruptions in the bike network with rout six you're going to have lots of driveways and higher speeds and higher Road capacity and it makes for a more stressful biking environment even if you're off to the side whereas you know it's just it's it's different when you're when you're on path surrounded by trees or making past a farm versus buses and cars and trucks just start curiosity report any more than necessary but electric bikes they welcome on these bik in Massachusetts they are I I believe I don't know if there's been any legislations to them I know in Rhode Island there has been recently my nephew lives in Newport and almost all the restaurant workers Comm through theet getting like New York watch you're do okay next is our Hazard mitigation plan just a quick update on that we kicked that off last week with par Engineers so that we just had a general discussion about risk Assessments in the town where there might be pinch points and transportation networks if there to be an evacuation um focused a lot on what the needs of the fire highway police departments are um they like the the police and fire and Highway they all need more resources I was doing a lot of other Town departments and so um you know that that was some some of the things that we had discussed is that in light of you know how how can we plan around those issues um and so we are ten going to have a another meeting on August 7th so Jim marked that down you're the one of our the committee members and we're for the planning board um I yeah tentatively I will probably we may have to reschedule that CU I don't know if I'll be we probably hold without anyway next is our application to coastal zone management so the coastal resilience Grant I'll be submitting this this week this will develop a beach management plan for East Beach Atlantic Avenue and Beach Avenue we've been talking about a plan for this for since the winter um since the last storm H East Beach really hard so we've been developing this I think if you remember at the end of the year we dedicated some funds to contract with GZA environmental so they'll be getting that application over to me tomorrow anticipating about a $165,000 grant request through that I've already approached the select board for a support letter and provided that Paul Schmid talked to me or texted me today that he's been in touch with CC and they know that they have nowhere near enough money to deal with water facing communities like West y Amy and I both talked to him today s conversations regarding our online permitting we just contracted with full circle Technologies um we had awarded it to them now you signed the contract so now we'll be doing a kickoff meeting with them hopefully sometime soon to get online permitting off the ground and I believe our building department they're going to make the first shot at making that transition um so we'll stay tuned on that and lastly is an update on our Municipal separate storm system permitting this is something we have to do every year and we have to do catchment investigation to try to identify potential sources of alicent discharges so typically an alic discharge would be something like um someone hooking up a a washer to discharge Into the Storm sewer and then they'll you know test the water and detect the kinds of um kind of pollutants in the water and indicate you know there there may be some areas for investigation so of the 51 that they did only two were flagged um so we have have some funds that uh we can put forward towards that this fiscal fiscal year the work work will be done next year probably June is when they do it because it's rain year and it's Rainer you get more the system flushing and you can get better test samples um but this is something like I said we do do every year and this year we were fortunate enough have a grant from Bay National program um so we were able to do a little bit of extra work and then we're also able to um use that those Grant funds instead of the planning board's budget to put up match for other things so um we're thankful that that those funds are available to have that alternative because otherwise with these different grants I've been applying to I don't think we'd be able to put up that so so are we able keep up with the uh the reporting requirements for the yes that's something Amy handled last year and and we contracted with the kle Felder and cl Felder did a lot of the work the reporting I talked to CL Felder uh last week actually Peter VAR reached out so um M as for deadline to submit all documentation is September 30th so um it's already on my radar to get all that stuff um over to Peter bar did they move up the deadline this year did they move it up yeah no I think it's always end of September right that's have that okay uh minutes uh Mr chair looked at the minutes for June 18th uh and I find them uh complete and accurate uh so I would move that we approve the minutes of June 18 [Music] 2024 second any discussion comments it does say that the next meeting of the planning board is August 8th 2023 and I think it meant uh August 13 2024 or August yeah other than that I think all those in favor I can I ask one question relative to those minutes um the last item on the on the last page I I mentioned that um we have a climate resilience committee coming up this Thursday and I and I mentioned uh information that I'd heard from Mark rasmon at the buzzes Bay Coalition about fairly alarming uh information from the Noah um tide gauge and Woods Hole uh about 15 cm of sea level rise in the last two years and whether we might investigate whether someone from nowh USGS might address the climate resilience committee have you reached out to them uh might we get someone for Thursday or is that something should think about for a meeting after that or the other option would be as I had asked Mark to see the same request for a coalition board meeting in August we could have if he is talked to someone there we could have him if he's coming to the meeting I don't know if he's coming to the meeting uh summarize what he's found out I just don't know whether you've had time to talk to anyone at USBS or no no um I honestly wouldn't know where to start with trying to contact people would you yeah why don't I'll uh I'll talk to Mark and see first of all who's the person sure and then secondly if he's talked to someone and he's available in coming to the CRC he might be able to just summarize what he's found out yeah well I'd rather get directly more from USGS and no but I'll uh I'll talk to uh Mark first okay just L aside uh I'm a bay Watcher I test water like five every five or six days throughout the summer in the same place all the time I've been doing it 18 years they s around and noce two days ago that they've been noticing much warmer water um intestine and to watch out for his kills and brown colored water and stuff like I don't know yeah the river my where I go in where I see it is uh e East Branch in I guess part reaction to the all the rain we had but it is I've never seen water as dirty just opaque almost you can't look can't see through it and things floating in it along the shore only when you get out to someplace like uh Ship Rock where there's a good flow coming in and out from the tile flow clear up you know where I test it's in the harbor so it's fairly clear so much ocean coming but where I live it is much more yeah it's been well a lot of rain this year which contributes to the runoff the the runoff but it's been the turbidity cuz I test up at hi Bridge has been you know not even a meter you can't see a meter it goes down one or 2 ft and boom the second disc is uh invisible okay uh anything that we didn't have 48 hours reasonably anticipated within 48 Hours um anybody okay I yes please so move hold